said, he did not know whether he had the power to object to the petition being withdrawn; but it was the earnest desire of both his hon. Colleague in the representation (Lord C. Paget) and himself that the imputations made against them by the petitioners in the face of the whole country for some time past should not drop without being submitted to a searching inquiry. If his hon. Colleague and himself had any power to compel the petitioners to proceed with the petition they were determined to exercise it. The withdrawal of the petition had certainly taken him by surprise; and he now gave notice that he would take an early opportunity of bringing the subject of its withdrawal under the notice of the House, and of making a statement with the view to show the House and the country how the business of election petitions was conducted. He was bound to say that the system of election petitions, both as to their presentation, their whole management, and their withdrawal—hen withdrawn—was perfectly disgraceful. If the House thought fit, he was prepared at that moment to oppose the withdrawal of the petition, but if it was not competent for him to do that he should avail himself of another opportunity to bring the matter under consideration.

said, he joined with his hon. Colleague in the earnest desire that this matter should he inquired into, and he appealed to the Speaker whether it was not in the power of his hon. Colleague and himself to object to the petition being withdrawn.

replied in the negative.

said, he had by desire of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, postponed the question which he now proposed to ask him. Rumours had been circulated for several days that orders had been received at Cherbourg and Brest that a large fleet should be collected. Peace had supervened, but that had only made those preparations still more extraordinary if they were still going on; and therefore he wished to ask the question of which he had given notice, whether Government has received any information respecting the formation of a large Channel Fleet at Brest and Cherbourg, with gunboats, and means for embarking and disembarking troops; and if so, whether they have demanded any explanations from the French Government on the subject.

said, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, that the person to whom Government had applied for information on this subject was the gen- tleman who filled the office of Her Majesty's Consul at Brest, he being at present in Paris. That gentleman asserted his confidence that there were no extraordinary preparations going on cither at Cherbourg or at Brest. Such being the case, and there being no further information of any such preparations the Government had not thought it necessary to demand explanations from the French Government.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what means are being adopted to enforce that clause in the recent treaty with Japan which prohibits the importation of opium.

said, in the treaty with Japan he could not find that there was any clause which required the interference of the British Government. In that treaty the importation of opium was prohibited; it was deemed contraband, but there was no clause that the British Government should interfere to execute the laws of Japan.

said, he rose to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is his intention, on the part of the Government, to introduce a Bill, this or early next Session, on the subject of Education in Scotland, and especially with reference to the abolition of Tests in the parish schools; also whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill to abolish Infeoftments in Burghs in Scotland?

replied, that as to the first part of the question, the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the difficulties which had ever attended any attempt to deal with a settlement of the question. He would, however, say that he had entertained the hope that after the passing of the Scotch Universities Bill, last year, some attention might have been given to the question in the recess; but he regretted to say nothing could be done this Session. As to the second part of the question, he thought that the passing of such a measure as that alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, was the necessary sequence of measures that had already been adopted by Parlia- ment, and at one time he had intended to introduce a measure for the purpose in the present Session, but now the question must stand over for consideration.

said, that with reference to the plan for facilitating the free transfer of land submitted by him to the House in May, 1853, which plan was in substance recommended for adoption in 1857, by the Report of the Registration Titles Commission, and was still more closely embodied in the two Land Bills of the late Solicitor General, he wished now to ask the Attorney General whether the present Government intend to introduce any measure to facilitate the transfer of land by means of a proper system for the Registration of Title; when would such measure be laid before Parliament, and what would be the general nature of its provisions?

said, the Report of the Commission was now under the consideration of Government, together with the valuable Bill that was brought in by the Solicitor General of the late Administration. Measures would be shortly prepared, and he trusted would be brought into Parliament in the ensuing Session for carrying the recommendations of that Report into effect. It was impossible to state what the details and provisions of those; measures would be further than that the object of them would be to give effect to the proposition for a Registration of Title, and to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect.

said, he would also beg to ask the Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the violent conduct of some soldiers of the Antrim Artillery Militia on Monday last at Kinsale, and whether he has received any official Report or confirmation respecting the causes or the results of that conduct?

said, he had only the same information at present as the hon. Gentleman himself, there not having been time for him to receive any Official Report.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is his intention to propose to Parliament during the present Session the Bankruptcy Bill, which was read a second time, and intended to be referred to a Select Committee, in the last Session of the late Parliament.

said, that his time would be too much occupied with the duties of his present office to enable him to devote any time to the Bankruptcy Bill; but the measure was in the hands of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the new colony of "Queensland," in the northern part of Australia.

in reply said, that the colony of "Queensland" was not actually in existence until the Queen's Order in Council had been proclaimed, by the Governor, who was about to go out. The only difficulty was as to the adjustment of the debt between the old colony of new South Wales and the new colony. The noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department intended to leave the two colonies to settle that point between themselves, and only to have recourse to legislative interference in this country in the event of the colonies failing to come to an agreement. With respect to the question of boundary, the noble Duke proposed to abide in general terms by the boundary recommended by Sir William Denison, but if the two Colonial Governments chose to agree upon any modification of that boundary, they would be at liberty to do so.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has any objection to place the Drawings for the New Foreign Office, together with the Designs to which the first two Premiums were formerly awarded, in the Library of the House with as little delay as possible, and without waiting for the Tenders from the Builders for the actual construction of the Gothic design.

said, that as it would probably be the wish of the House again to inspect the first three premiated Drawings, he had made arrangements for their being exhibited, but be thought the Library of the House would be a very inconvenient place for the purpose, as the books would be covered by the plans, and the latter might be exposed to some risk of injury. He therefore considered that the Reading Room on the right hand side of the entrance to the House would be more suitable, and he had given directions that the plans should be placed there in the course of the following day. When the estimated tenders were received they would also be exhibited in the same room.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will recommend that the Clause No. 12 of the Commissariat Warrant be extended to the Medical Officers' Army Warrant, whereby a Medical Officer, after twenty years' meritorious service, if pronounced by a Medical Board as permanently unfit for service, either mentally or physically, might be allowed to be placed on the permanent retired list; also when the medals will be issued, which it is understood will be granted for the achievements of the Army in India?

said, that the Indian medal would be issued when Her Majesty had decided for what operations the medal should be granted. The medals themselves had not yet been received, but when they were they would be sent to the office of the Secretary of State for India, in whose department the distribution of the medals lay. With regard to the question whether the Commissariat Warrant would be extended to the Medical Officers' Army Warrant, it was true that the Commissariat had got their warrant, and they had been treated with great liberality, but to extend that warrant to other branches of the service would lead to great expense and inconvenience.

said, he would beg to inquire whether the Corps that marched through India under Sir Hugh Rose will have the India medal?

said, the hon. Gentleman had not given notice of his question, and therefore he (Mr. Sidney Herbert) could not give a decisive answer; but he believed the distinction would be extended to that force.

said, he would beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is his intention to introduce, during the present or the next Session of Parliament, a measure for the improvement of the general system of Education in Scotland, and at the same time providing for an increase in the Salaries of the Parish Schoolmasters, or for either purpose?

said, that if he were enabled to propose to the House such a measure as that alluded to by the hon. Member he should unquestionably combine with it an increase of the Salaries of the Scotch Parish Schoolmasters.

said, he wished to ask the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any communication had been made to the British Government by the Governments of Austria and France with respect to the terms of the convention of peace entered into between them, or with respect i to the mode in which it was proposed to give effect to that convention, and whether any communication had been made in regard to it to the other Powers of Europe who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna?

was understood to say that no communication of the exact terms of the convention of peace, concluded between the contending parties, had been made to Her Majesty's Government. Count Walewski informed Lord Cowley, at Paris, and the French Ambassador in London told him (Lord J. Russell) that the convention had been signed, and stated the purport of the document in the terms already known to the House; but no communication of its exact terms had been made either to the English Ambassador at Paris or to Her Majesty's Government. He had directed Lord Cowley to ask for an explanation as to the exact terms of the treaty, and the mode in which it was pro- posed to carry it into effect, and the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in France was that no further statement could be made until the Emperor arrived at Paris. He believed the Emperor was expected there on Monday next, and after that period he should expect the particulars of the convention from Her Majesty's Minister at Paris. He believed that a communication similar to that made to the English Government had been made to the Government of Prussia at Berlin; but he did not know whether any such communication had been made to Russia or other States, who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna.

said, he wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary upon a subject; Which had been already touched upon by the noble Lord the Foreign Minister—he meant the Motion for the second reading of the Bill for the Reform of the Corporation of the City of London. He wished to ask whether it was the serious intention of the right hon. Baronet to bring on a measure of that importance at this Session of the year. The Bill contained seventy-three clauses, and if the right hon. Gentleman supposed that the measure was going to swim through the House without opposition he was much mistaken, as he (Sir John Shelley) had given notice of several Amendments to the Bill. he believed it was the intention of the Government to bring in another Bill with regard to the finance of the City, and he thought it would be better to bring in both Bills early in the next Session.

said, that if the time of the year were to be an absolute bar to any discussion whatever, then of course it would be necessary that the Bill should be postponed; but, considering that there had been very little legislation before Easter, it would follow that nothing would be done this year. The subject had been frequently under the consideration of the House, and he was not aware that it was likely the House would obtain any more light to aid them in legislating in this matter next Session than at present; and, considering that the question had been divested of its most serious difficulty, namely, the financial portion, which was to be the subject of a separate Bill, he wished the House to pronounce an opinion on the measure at once on the present Bill. If the opinion of the House were favourable to the measure, then he would attempt to carry it through this Session; or, if the House were favourable to delay, he must, of course, bow to their decision. He would endeavour to state on Monday next the day on which he would be prepared to bring the subject forward.

said, he would beg to inquire of the Chief Commissioner of Public Works whether there will be any objection to increase the number of seats for the accommodation of the public, as well as to restore those requiring restoration, under the trees in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens; and also, for what special reason a large portion of the Park beyond the Humane Society's Receiving House has been enclosed with rails, and thus withdrawn from the free access of the public?

said, he wished to put another question to the right hon. Gentleman. In the course of a walk that morning near the Kensington-gravelpits, he observed a very fine elm, fifteen feet in circumference, which would, he feared, be destroyed if the present works were continued. The excavations had been carried to within the length of his umbrella from the tree, and the roots on one side had been already cut away. He hoped this fine ornamental tree, which stood in a position where it could be ill-spared, would not be destroyed, and he would suggest that the gentleman who had the direction of the works and whoso duty it was to have prevented this wanton act, should be called upon to repair, at his own cost, the damage which had already been done.

said, that in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart), he had to state that a considerable Vote was taken every year to provide seats for the accommodation of the public in St. James's Park, the Green Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens. Last year a Vote of £250 was taken for this purpose, and in the present Estimates a Vote of £70 was proposed. There were at this time 102 public seats in St. James's Park, 67 in the Green Park, and 351 in Hyde Park, the total number of seats being 520; but he must admit that 49 of them were out of repair. With regard to the enclosure of a portion of Hyde Park by rails, it would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that two or three years ago strong complaints were made of the inconvenience which resulted from allowing cows to graze in the Park, and in order to obviate this inconvenience the cows had been restricted to a small portion of the Park. In reply to the question of his noble Friend he might say that he believed on the first day after his accession to office, he spoke to the superintendent of the Parks as to the damage which might be occasioned to the fine tree to which the noble Lord had referred in the progress of the excavation. He had not visited the spot recently, and ascertained by the measurement of his umbrella, as his noble Friend had done, the distance within which the excavation had approached the tree; but he could assure the noble Lord that every care should be taken to protect that very beautiful tree from destruction.

said, he wished to know to whom the cows allowed to graze in the Park belonged?

replied, that he could only say they did not belong to him.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the system of Letter Insurance which exists in Prussia, and to ask whether a similar system might not with advantage be introduced into this country? When persons wished to send notes, coins, jewels, or other valuable articles through the Prussian post, they attended at the office, exhibited the articles in question, declared their value, and paid a small fee. If after that they happened to be lost the owner was reimbursed, except, indeed, the loss had been occasioned by what, in the legal language of this country, was termed "the act of God." The extreme cheapness of this insurance in Prussia might be judged of from the fact that when the value was under £7 10s., and the distance under fifty miles, the fee was only a halfpenny; and a letter enclosing £150 in bank notes might be insured for sixpence.

said, the attention of the Post Office authorities had never yet been called to the subject—a fact which showed that with the facilities afforded the public by our system of money orders and registered letters, no urgent need was felt to exist for anything like what the hon. Gentleman had described. If the hon. Gentleman, however, would call on Mr. Rowland Hill and convince him of the desirability of introducing it, the subject should receive the best attention of the Government.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend to the House, either during this or the next Session of Parliament, any measure for relieving persons ordained by Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Churches in Scotland and the United States of America from their present disabilities to officiate and hold cures of souls in England and Ireland?

said, that when the subject was recently discussed, the opinion of the House seemed to be that before any change was made in the law, it was desirable that inquiry should be instituted by a Select Committee. It was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government now to propose such an inquiry, but it might be done next Session.

said, that in that case he wished to give notice that if such inquiry was not proposed by the Government, he would take an early opportunity next Session of moving for the appointment of a Committee with a view to legislation on this subject.

said, pursuant to notice, he rose to call the attention of the Government to the relations subsisting between Landlords and Tenants in Ireland, He was actuated by a desire to impress upon the Government the necessity of dealing promptly and fairly with this question. He hoped that their course would at least be plain and intelligible, and that if they did not think it wise to go as far as the country wished and expected, they would not seek to take refuge in a policy of disingenuous evasion. If the Government meant well they would be outspoken and candid. He would recommend them not to take fifteen months to prepare a Bill on this subject, but keeping in view the conduct of their predecessors upon this subject, to take a course exactly the contrary. What Ireland wanted was a plain and simple Bill, which would give the occupier a legal claim for compensation for improvements. He saw no necessity for a leasing powers Bill, as ninety-nine out of every hundred landlords already had such powers. A few days ago a case came before the Master of the Rolls, in Ireland, in which a tenant who had been evicted claimed compensation for a considerable outlay of money in the shape of improvements which greatly enhanced the value of the land. The learned Judge was obliged to be guided by the rules of law and to decide against the claim of the tenant; but in giving his decision he emphatically expressed his regret at the state of the law, which compelled him to declare in favour of an injustice in a place which was supposed to be the throne of justice itself, He (the O'Donoghoe) thought that the principle of compensation should be also retrospective, though limited to a certain number of years. On the success of such a measure he believed depended the happiness and prosperity of Ireland.

said, that this interesting subject was one which had been brought under the consideration of the House every year during the whole time since he had the honour of being a Member. It had been undertaken by every Government without success. He had the honour to live in friendship with the distinguished Judge to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. Amongst the services rendered by that eminent individual was the framing of a Bill on this subject. What the present Government intended to do was to give their best attention to a subject of so much difficulty. If its difficulty had been in any degree removed by their predecessors having endeavoured to deal with it, the task which the present Government had undertaken might, perhaps, be facilitated. At all events, they had undertaken it conscious of its difficulty, desiring to overcome that difficulty if they could by reasonable precautions, and by framing a measure which might accomplish its object and do justice to both parties. At the present stage of their proceedings he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not require him to say more on the subject.

said, that, when appealed to on Tuesday by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to withdraw the Motion which stood in his name, in giving way he reserved to himself the right of saying a few words in explanation of the motives which induced him to place his notice on the paper. He was now anxious, as shortly as he could, to make that explanation, because his motives had been much misunderstood. The House need not he alarmed; he had not brought the blue-book with him, and did not intend to enter into any argument to persuade hon. Members to adopt the opinions embodied in his Resolution. It had been stated that he had turned a Derbyite, and that it was from factious motives and hostility to the present Administration that he had given notice of his Motion. He entirely disclaimed everything of that kind. He entertained for the present Government no feelings of hostility. Far from it, he was prepared to do by them as he had done towards preceding Governments—namely, to give them his humble support where he thought they were light, and to oppose them where he thought they were wrong. It was not, therefore, from a feeling of hostility to the present Ministry, but simply from a desire to do what he believed to be an act of simple justice towards the late Government, that as an independent Member he had put his notice on the paper. It could not be denied that an impression had gone abroad that the policy of the late Government had been a policy not of strict neutrality, but one favourable to Austria and antagonistic to France and Sardinia. That was stated in the public prints and by their opponents in that assembly, and there could be no doubt that this had had a material effect upon the adverse division which took place in that House, and produced the fall of the late Government. Indeed, he had heard it said that had the blue-book been published previous to that division it would have made a difference in it of something like twenty votes. He did not wish to enter into any discussion on that point, but when the blue-book came out the impression it unquestionably produced was that the late Government had been greatly maligned in regard to the policy they had pursued, because it was then shown that on the Italian question they had all along adopted a strict and impartial neutrality. It, therefore, appeared to him, as an independent Member, having supposed that the late Government had acted in a certain way, and finding that they had really not done so, that it was but right that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion; and the opinion which he had himself formed he embodied in his Resolution. That, then, was the sole object of the first part of that Resolution, and he was at loss to see how it could be viewed as a hostile act to the present Administration. In private life, when one had wronged a man by unwittingly saying that he had done a thing which subsequent events convinced one that he had not done, the first impulse of an English gentleman, even if that man was his enemy, was to do him justice, admit that he had injured him, and express one's regret. All, therefore, that he had intended asking the House of Commons was, to do that which each individual Member would have felt himself, as an individual bound to do, and if, in its aggregate capacity, it believed it had wronged the late Government, he had wished to put it to the House whether it should not take the opportunity he had afforded to it of doing them justice. Such then was the motive which mainly induced him to put his notice on the paper. He did not deny, however, that in framing the latter part of his Motion he was under the impression that the present Government were not prepared to follow a policy of strict neutrality. His belief was that the feeling of the country was, as long as our honour and our interests were not affected, in favour of maintaining between the contending parties in Italy a strict and impartial neutrality. But he doubted from the antecedents of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and from the antecedents of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, whether their neutrality would be really strict and impartial. He was afraid that their neutrality, as was said of that of Russia, would be a neutralité inquietante towards Austria, and that their attitude towards Austria would in fact resemble the attitude towards France which was erroneously ascribed to their predecessors. He believed that if he had brought on his Motion he could have proved from the speeches and antecedents of those noble Lords that he was not wrong in that impression; and, therefore, he was anxious that there should be an affirmation on the part of the House of Commons that the conduct of our Government ought to be strictly and rigidly neutral. Five minutes after he gave that notice, his noble Friend at the head of the Government, however, said that he intended to walk in the paths chalked out for him by his predecessors. He (Lord Elcho) for himself, was perfectly willing to accept that declaration, to believe that it was made without any arrière pensée, and that it was the bonâ fide purpose of the new Ministry to carry into effect the strictly neutral policy followed by those whom they had succeeded. Nevertheless, he should have been disposed to ask the House to adopt the latter part of his Resolution, because in the nicely-balanced position of parties there, with much doubt still prevailing whether hon. Gentleman who sat behind him (the party below the gangway on the Ministerial side) really meant to give a cordial support to the present Ministry, he thought it desirable to strengthen the hands of the Government by the expression, if possible, of a unanimous opinion in favour of neutrality. He had hoped that this question would have been taken up by some more influential independent Member, and he had asked the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond) whether it was their intention to bring it forward. Both of those hon. Gentlemen said, that although they thought such a step should be taken, they did not mean to take it themselves, and the hon. Member for Surrey strongly urged him to do so. On these grounds, then, and on these grounds only, he had ventured to place his Motion on the paper. He would now state the reasons which had led him to withdraw his Motion. It was not in consequence of the state of affairs existing at the time when his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary asked him whether he intended to proceed, that he was induced to withdraw his Motion, for before that question was put to him on Tuesday last, he had determined in his own mind not to press his Resolution. He was not prepared to admit that the House of Commons should necessarily at all times, when public affairs on the Continent were in an important or momentous position, be debarred from the expression of its opinion; on the contrary, he ventured to think, that in any important crisis of European affairs, the opinion of perhaps the only free assembly of free men in Europe—for no one knew what had become of the Sardinian constitution—so far from being detrimental, might be highly beneficial, when expressed in a becoming manner. What would happen if the view which he had just stated was not to hold good? Why, the expression of public opinion in England, if it did not find vent in the House of Commons, at periods of great interest, would be left entirely to the public press. Now, he wished to speak with all respect of the English public press. He believed it to be the most independent and, upon the whole, the most honest public press in the world; but they all knew that the daily press wrote for daily circulation, that it was apt to take its colouring from passing events, and they had occasionally seen that what was denounced as wrong in January became right in June, when sanctioned by the magic of success. It was desirable, then, that the House of Commons should upon important occasions express its opinion upon matters of foreign policy; but even before the appeal made to him he had determined not to press his Motion because he was aware that if he had determined to persevere, there were many men in that House who, though unable to deny the truth of the statements which it contained, would have taken advantage of the existing state of things, and of the withdrawal of a somewhat similar Motion in "another place," to vote against it, if he had pressed it to a division. His object would thus have been defeated, that object being to obtain, if possible, an unanimous, but certainly a distinct expression of opinion on the part of the House. He regretted that he had been obliged to withdraw his notice, because he was anxious to do an act of justice to the late Government. He could not, however, but in common with every Member of that House, rejoice at the cause of his having to withdraw his Motion—the cessation of war and the conclusion of peace. Although the announcement of peace was received by the House with acclamation, he could not but think that there were many hon. Members who did not view it with entire satisfaction. He doubted whether those hon. Gentlemen who, regardless of right and of treaties, forgetful of Ireland and of Canada, had been favavourable to the armed intervention of a foreign Potentate in the affairs of a neighbouring country, and to the propaganda of nationalities were profoundly satisfied with this peace. He doubted whether the peace had been received with much delight by those who dwelt in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square. He doubted whether any song of thanksgiving would issue from the platform of Exeter Hall in favour of a peace, the main feature of which was the exaltation of the Pope, It might be sceptical on his part, but he was also inclined to doubt whether the circumstances, and the terms of this peace had met with cordial approval from the authorites in Downing Street, whose counsels and whose advice had, as far as the House was aware, not been sought. He was inclined to condole sincerely with his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary upon the position he now occupied, for he had been suddenly and unexpectedly deprived of an opportunity which he, no doubt, anxiously desired to redeem his character as a negotiator, and to succeed in establishing in Italy that model constitution which he had doubtless already prepared. But if they were inclined to condole with the Foreign Secretary, he was sure there was no Member of that House, no man who had in him any feeling of compassion, who would not condole still more with the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Of that noble Lord it might be said that the dream of his life had been the expulsion of the Austrians from Italy, and he now had the satisfaction of seeing them more permanently established in the Quadrilateral than ever, with the recognized right, as a part of a great Italian Confederation, of interfering in the affairs of every State in Italy. He did not envy the feelings of his noble Friend when he found that peace had been concluded without the Emperor of the French having asked his counsel or waited for his advice, and the noble Lord had the farther mortification of reflecting that eleven years ago a nod of his head, a stroke of his pen, would have given to Italy, an amount of liberty greater than she now enjoyed after years of agitation, suffering, and misery, and after the immolation of hecatombs of slaughtered soldiers. He could not but think that his two noble Friends in their present position were worthy of the deepest commiseration; for, to use a graphic though somewhat slang expression, they had been most horribly "sold." But peace had been made. A war wantonly commenced had been capriciously concluded, and although there were many things upon which he could wish for further information, although he should like to know what preparation had been made for the better government of the Roman States and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, although he should like to know what would happen in the event of the subjects of the Pope and the Dukes of Tuscany and Modena, and of the Duchies of Parma, declining to receive back their Sovereigns—although he should like to know whether the Austrian, Sardinian, and French armies, were to force those personages upon their reluctant people; although he should like to know what had become of the Sardinian constitution and its free press—whether it was to be restored, modified, or extended to Lombardy or not—yet they ought in the meantime to rejoice that peace had been made, and that the sickening slaughter which had daily filled the columns of the morning press would not in future meet their eyes as they glanced over the pages of their favourite journal. Let them earnestly pray that this peace might contribute to the permanent tranquillity, happiness, and security of Europe, although he, for one, was inclined to doubt it much.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of War to the oath taken by recruits on attestation. It would be sufficient for him to refer to what had occurred lately in India to show of how little effect the oath was in maintaining the allegiance of the soldiers; and also to the important fact, disclosed by a Return lately moved for by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, that, while in a single year 3,500 recruits had deserted before they had taken the oath, 17,000 had deserted within the same period after they had taken the oath. He objected to that part of the oath which made the men swear to obey the orders of i their officers, for after taking it the man who committed the slightest breach of discipline committed perjury. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would direct his attention to the subject.

should have risen, Sir, to offer some observations to the House immediately after my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) sat down, but that I expected his remarks would have mot with some response from one or other of the noble Lords, or from some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench. As my noble Friend has thought it right not to enter at any length into a consideration of the Resolution which he had proposed to submit to the House, neither will I intrude on the House by any lengthened observations. I quite agree with the noble Lord that there are no considerations which on public grounds should have induced him to withdraw from the notice of the House the Resolution which he intended to propose. The consideration of that Resolution, Sir, certainly could not have interfered with any negotiation which Her Majesty's Government have in hand, as far as we know—for the best of all possible reasons, namely, that Her Majesty's Government have undertaken no negotiations at all. And further, Sir, if rumour speaks truly, any proposition or negotiation would have met with very little encouragement at the hands of the noble Lords opposite. Neither would the consideration of the Resolution of my noble Friend have interfered at all with those friendly and cordial communications which may be supposed ordinarily to pass between Her Majesty's Government and a friendly Power; because, Sir, we are informed that when the armistice was signed that Her Majesty's Government had received no official information of the circumstance; and now we are informed that peace has been concluded, and that Her Majesty's Government are still without any information on the matter, so that consequently they have never been consulted at all in reference to it. Therefore, as far as the public interests are concerned, I do not think my noble Friend was called on to withdraw his Resolution; but although it might not have been inconvenient to the public service, I think it is pretty clear to the House that a discussion with reference to my noble Friend's Resolution would have been necessarily and singularly inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government. After debates, which certainly have seldom been exceeded in interest and importance, Her Majesty's late Government retired from office, and we now see their successors on the opposite benches. In the course of those debates the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton addressed a speech to the House in which he severely arraigned the conduct of the then Government in reference to their conduct of foreign affairs. He made suggestions on that occasion as to the course which Her Majesty's Government ought to have followed, and he also made statements as to the course which they had adopted. I took leave at the time to give an emphatic contradiction to the statements of the noble Lord, although I refrained from asking him from what quarter he had obtained his information as to our communications on foreign affairs. Certainly, Sir, it did not come from Her Majesty's Government, and it could scarcely have come from that quarter to which the noble Lord supposed those communications were addressed. I can imagine, therefore, that a discussion on my noble Friend's Resolution would have been most unpalatable to the noble Lord at the head of the Government when from every side of the House it would be pointed out to him that all suggestions which he made as to the course which Her Majesty's late Government ought to have taken were precisely those which throughout had influenced the councils of that Administration, and that the language which he said we ought to have held was not only the same in spirit, but almost identical in words with that which my noble Friend the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs made use of in his communications on the Italian question. Why, Sir, if a discussion had been taken on the Resolution of my noble Friend it would have been shown that the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston) obtained power which he now holds by misrepresentation of the policy of Her Majesty's late Government, and by statements which, as one of those engaged in office at the time, I felt it my duty to meet with an emphatic contradiction. Nor do I think, Sir, that the discussion would have been satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government on general grounds. Certainly, after the debates to which I have referred, and the accession of the noble Lord to office, great expectations were entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the results of that change. There were many who called themselves friends of Italy, but still said that the policy of this country ought to be a policy of non-interference. There were many who hoped that the ingenuity of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and that of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, would enable them to combine those two policies, and thus attain the results which in both interests they wish to see attained. They wish Italy free, but at the same time they desire a policy of non-intervention on the part of this country. And expecting that a policy of this kind would be originated by the noble Lords opposite, I can fancy the disappointment of those hon. Gentlemen at hearing from the lips of the noble Lord that he had no policy whatever, that the policy which he should pursue was that chalked out by the Government who had been in office before him. Above all, Sir, what must have been the effect of that announcement abroad. There were populations who were on the verge of revolt, and looked to the name of the noble Lord at the head of the Government as that charmed name which was to bring them all the advantages which they sought for? There were vacillating Cabinets and hostile powers all waiting to hear the policy of the new Government; and at last when listening with attentive ears, Europe read the announcement of the noble Lord's policy, it heard no more than that he had no policy of his own at all—that his policy was chalked out for him by his predecessors. My noble Friend abstained from going into the details of the question to which his Resolution referred, and I shall follow him in this course. I will not enter at length into a discussion of those matters, which necessarily would be somewhat disagreeable to Her Majesty's Government; I will only say that I think it is a caution to those who sit in this House, and depreciate a policy in total ignorance of what that policy is, to take heed by this example, and take care that when they accede to office, they may not be called on to accept in all humility the policy which they were the first to revile. I wish to make one observation to Her Majesty's Government in reference to existing affairs, and with reference to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of them. Before I do so, however, I desire to offer one remark to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), in reference to an observation which fell from him a few nights ago, when I asked a question in reference to a despatch which he had addressed to our Minister at Berlin, and which, according to the confession of some of his colleagues, contained advice as to the policy which Germany ought to pursue in reference to the present war. After I left the House on that occasion, the noble Lord referred to a despatch of my noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury, commenting on which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said that the course of policy pursued in that matter by the present Government was exactly the same as that which had been adopted by the preceding administration. Now, it is to correct that great misapprehension I wish to say a few words. If the noble Lord read carefully the context of the despatch he quoted, he would see that the circumstances were totally different, and that there was not the slightest analogy between the advice said to be tendered by the noble Lord and that contained in the despatch from which he quoted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham-shire (Mr. Disraeli) said, that the policy of the late Government had been to abstain from offering any advice to Germany in respect to what her interests required, as we felt that by so doing we should put ourselves in the position of being called on to give a moral guarantee for the consequences which that advice, if followed, might entail on the Power to which it was given. I confess that seemed to me to be the policy which the statesmen of this country were evidently required to pursue. But the noble Lord opposite quoted a despatch which had been addressed to Germany under totally different circumstances, and which was not applicable to the case put by my right hon. Friend. I cannot but think that both the noble Lords received that despatch ready opened from some precipitate colleague, who had not made himself master of the contents. Now, I wish to point out to the noble Lord, that by the articles of the general pact the Germanic Confederation is not obliged to join in hostilities on behalf of any member of the Confederation, merely because a portion of his territory not within the limits of the Confederation is attacked; but if any portion of his territory not included within those limits is menaced, it is for the Confederation to say, whether the case is one of federal interest and one in which the Confederation should interfere. Then, the position taken by my noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury, in that despatch quoted by the noble Lord, is in effect this, "As long as there is no matter involved for which it is your interest to interfere, slumber—do not interfere; but as soon as German interests are involved, then I will not take the responsibility of giving advice to Germany in respect of the course which she ought to pursue, as I am not prepared to accompany it with a moral guarantee." From this, it is evident that my noble Friend declined to do exactly what the noble Lord opposite did; and in doing so, adopted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire observed, a very dangerous policy. I would now call the earnest attention of the House to the present condition of affairs. It is impossible, I apprehend, to say whether the details of the peace which has been lately signed, will have to be carried out by a European Congress or not. Now, I am not going to discuss the terms of the peace. The details are so imperfectly known, that I think a discussion of them would not be conducive to the public interest. But I say this, that it is possible at any rate that the details of the treaty of peace may have to be carried out by foreign Powers. It may be that this country, if invited by other Powers—it may be her duty to take part in the deliberations to which the rest of Europe may agree. I do not desire to offer any decided opinion upon the point, because we have had nothing to do with the war, we have nothing to do with the peace, and I think it maybe a question whether this country ought to have anything to do with the arrangements for carrying the peace into effect. But, Sir, what have been the views of the existing Government in reference to that which is somewhat analogous to entering into a Congress with a view to the establishment of peace? We have had the declaration of a member of the Government as to the possibility of their being called on to mediate between the contending parties. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, when speaking of the increase in our armaments, expressed an opinion that they were not only necessary, perhaps, for self-defence, but that they were also of great importance in giving weight to us with regard to our interference abroad. And similar language has been held by others of the noble Lord's colleagues. The right hon. Secretary for War used similar language when, in ad dressing his constituents, he said that "if called on to use our moral weight he assured them there was one thing of great importance, and that was what he termed our position as an armed power." And the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for India, used language of considerable importance in reference to this matter. I was unfortunate enough, in quoting a speech of the right hon. Baronet on a former occasion, to meet at his hands with a direct denial of the accuracy of my quotation, and therefore I have on this occasion provided myself with the recorded words which the right hon. Baronet used, I find, then, that the right hon. Baronet used these words—

"If we are to exert, as I trust we may have an opportunity of doing, the functions of a mediator between contending Powers, depend upon it that the effect of mediation will not be diminished when it is offered by a country strong in its own resources, which does not approach merely in the shape of a beggar, but which can say to both sides, 'The lire of conduct which it is our duty to pursue we are not merely seeking in formâ, pauperis, but we are a powerful State and have a right to ask you to comply.'"

I find that there is a similar report in the other papers. What, then, I want to call the attention of the House to is this—that this is not language of conciliation. That is not the language of mediation; that is not the temperate language befitting a Power professing neutrality; that is the language of menace; that is language which, sooner or later, will compromise the position of this country; and it is language to which I feel I cannot forbear calling the attention of the House of Commons. What I want to convey to the House is, that if that is the spirit of Her Majesty's Government it is very possibly the spirit in which they will enter into the council chamber of Europe, if they should be called upon to take part in the deliberation on the treaty of peace; and I can conceive nothing more likely to bring us into hostility than using language such as that language which, as I have said before, is the language of menace and intervention; and I trust that the House of Commons, if that language is to be used, will take the earliest opportunity of expressing its disapprobation of it. I will not proceed further with this question. All I hope is, that in the events that are to come, Her Majesty's Government will avoid that system of interference and intervention which has so perilously distinguished our diplomacy in past times. It was only the other day that I was reading one of the latest speeches addressed to the constituency of Liverpool by Mr. Canning; and I think it is language that ought to be emphatically remembered by every one who has the charge of the foreign affairs of this country. He said, "It had been too much the fashion of late to mix up philanthropy and sentiment with questions of foreign policy, and that at the risk of being considered selfish and narrow-minded he was content to take his ground with reference to foreign questions on the mere consideration of what was English interest." That I hold should be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. That policy should not be a policy of mere philanthropy and sentiment; but it should be a policy of British interests—one becoming this country, one not menacing to others, but only firmly asking that which they believe to be to the interest and honour of our own country.

(who was imperfectly heard): Sir, I certainly thought it quite unnecessary to take any notice of the speech that has been made by my noble Friend, who, having given notice of a Motion on this subject, seems to have reflected upon it, and to have come to the conclusion that he had much better not make it. I quite agree with him in that opinion, and certainly it is very harmless to indulge in a sort of triumph and jubilee when, in fact, he was at the same time retreating from the position which he had taken up. The noble Lord seems to have triumphed in considering that any wishes that my noble Friend and I might have had for freedom in Italy will be disappointed. That may be the case, but I sure I am not ashamed, and I do not think my noble Friend will ever be ashamed, of saying that our wishes were in favour of freedom in any country in which free institutions can be introduced. It is one thing to say that you will use the power of the country—that you will interfere with the means of a country, in order to introduce or to foster free institutions into another country, but it is another thing to rejoice whenever these free institutions prosper, and lament whenever they are blighted. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last has referred to Mr. Canning. I remember perfectly well the speech of Mr. Canning in this House upon the subject of the French invasion of Spain. The Spaniards had established free institutions in Spain. The French, at the bidding, or in concert with the despotic Powers of Europe, went into Spain to put down those free institutions. Mr. Canning declared that the policy of this country was neutrality; but at the same time he did not hesitate to say his wishes were that the Spaniards might be successful in resisting that invasion. The hon. Gentleman no doubt quoted Mr. Canning correctly; but, at the same time, Mr. Canning did not go beyond the line properly chalked out for the Minister of a free country in thus expressing his wishes, at the same time that he declared what the policy of the Government ought to be. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the conduct of the late Government. I am glad the noble Lord has not made it necessary for the House to discuss that conduct. I am ready to believe at all times that they were endeavouring, to the utmost of their power, with impartiality and care to preserve a neutral position and prevent the evils of war. I remember saying, when there was a question of the Earl of Malmesbury going to a Congress, that there was neither ability nor inclination wanting on his part to bring that Congress to a satisfactory termination. I said likewise, during the discussion upon the late vote of confidence, when the papers were not produced, that it was fair to presume that everything in those papers would be favourable to the late Government, and that, with the papers unseen it would not be justice to presume that those papers would make out a case of any want of impartiality and ability. If we had to go into all the particulars, there might have been certain points on which I might have said they had not taken the view which, in my opinion, was most likely to lead to a satisfactory result. I think that, especially in the beginning of this discussion with France, much might have been done that was left undone. I am glad not to enter into that discussion, or to have a debate on those circumstances. But then the hon. Gentleman, passing by the conduct of the late Government, thinks it fit with the very little knowledge he possesses, and with the little modicum of information that I thought it consistent with my duty to give, to find great fault with the present Government for the course which they have pursued. He refers to an instance for which I was blamed when advice was given to Prussia not to interfere, as we thought, prematurely in the war, and not to place herself in the ranks of the belligerents. In answer to that I quoted a despatch of the Earl of Malmesbury's, written in the strongest terms, in which the same advice was given. She was told that her coasts would be ravaged, and that England would give her no assistance. The more I inquired at the Foreign Office, the more strongly does that recommendation appear to have been given. It was sent to our Ministers at the German Courts, and it was even communicated to the German Ministers resident in this country, that their Courts might have full information of the views of the noble Earl, so strongly did he think it his duty to warn the German Powers against entering into this war. I do not regret the advice which Her Majesty's present Government gave to Prussia, to consider well and pause before she made herself a belligerent, if it had any effect in producing that moderate and, I think, wise course which Prussia has pursued. I believe that her refraining from entering at once into the arena of war did tend very greatly to circumscribe hostilities; and I believe that if she had entered at once into the war on the ground that the war was approaching the Mincio, it would have been difficult to say to what extent that war would have been carried on, or at what period peace would have been proclaimed. In a letter received this day from Naples I find it stated that the Government of that country was not disposed to enter into the war, but that if Prussia and Germany had entered into it public feeling was so strong that it would have been impossible to stem the torrent, and that Power would have joined in hostilities. I believe that then all Italy and all Germany would have been involved. I rejoice very much that peace is restored. The hon. Gentleman says it is a question whether we ought in any way to enter into a Congress upon it. That is a question of the utmost importance, but it is one upon which I think a premature opinion should not be pronounced. I understand that the Emperors of France and Austria are not completely agreed upon that subject, and at all events the question is not before us at present in a shape to justify us in attempting to decide upon it. It appears to me that the influence of England ought to be used, if it be used at all upon this subject, to confirm peace, to improve any treaty if it be possible to improve it; but it is no part of our duty to abandon that neutral and impartial position for which the hon. Gentleman takes so much credit to the late Government for assuming. For my own part, although I attribute great credit to the late Government, I must do justice to the present, and also to what I believe was and is the universal opinion of the people of this country. There were reasons, abundant reasons for that opinion. I ventured myself in addressing my constituents to state the case of both belligerents, and why I thought neither of them was entitled to the assistance of this country. I said likewise—and I am sorry to say that events seem likely to prove the truth of it—that I did not think the Emperor of the French in going to Italy was likely to consolidate the liberties of that country, at the same time it is impossible to lay down any particular rule beforehand for our guidance. The hon. Gentleman took credit to the late Government, which I am not going to dispute, but I deny that the credit of neutrality is entirely due to them. I can only say at present that we are bound to watch events narrowly, and, if we should be called upon by all Europe to consider any new treaty of peace that may be made, we are bound not to participate in any treaty which is not conformable to our notions of the honour, dignity, and freedom of this country. It is with a view to the maintenance of that honour and dignity that we are alone disposed to act. I can say nothing more at present, except that I am glad the noble Lord has abandoned his Motion, and that whenever it be desired to canvass the acts of the present Government I shall be quite ready to enter upon the discussion.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that a considerable portion of the buildings of the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea have been diverted from the humane objects for the attainment of which they were originally erected; and to ask whether it is his intention that such portion or portions shall be restored to the purposes for which they were designed? The percentage of marriages in the army was about 7 per cent, so that there were about 15,000 married soldiers. The number of children admitted to the Military Asylum was only 60 per annum, so that a large number of children when their fathers died had no resource but the woful one of the workhouse. At present there was a great desire expressed to improve the condition of the soldier and to hold out inducements for men to remain in the service, and he thought nothing could so much enlist the affections of the men as the knowledge that their children would be received into a school of this nature. He did not press the right hon. Gentleman to do anything at present, but wished to draw his attention to the subject.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Secretary for War to outrages committed by soldiers off duty, with their belts, which they used as a substitute for the side-arms of which they were deprived some years ago. He might refer for an instance to the case of a sol- dier who, aided by a comrade, had seriously injured a policeman with his belt when taken into custody on suspicion of having some stolen property. Mr. Arnold, the police magistrate, in commenting upon the matter, observed that he had frequently called the attention of the authorities to similar cases, but that nothing had been done. He wished to know whether the subject had been brought under the notice of the War Department?

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will place the Report of the Militia Commission in the hands of Members before he states the extent to which the Government will adopt the recommendations of that Commission.

said, that in reply to the last question he would take care that the Report of the Commissioners should be in the hands of Members some time before the Militia Estimates were proposed. With respect to the subject which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) had referred to, he (Mr. S. Herbert) had not had his attention called to it before, but no doubt accidents would sometimes happen in publichouse rows, in which almost anything could be used as a weapon, even if the soldiers were deprived of their belts. In answer to the question of the noble Lord (Lord W. Graham) he had to say that he found the soldier had formerly taken the oath of allegiance and also swore to the questions put to him by the magistrate. It appeared that the soldier was not liable to be tried for perjury by court-martial in respect of the oath. At present the soldier took the oath of allegiance and answered the questions of the magistrate by a declaration. He thought the more the practice of taking oaths could be modified the better, as their repetition made them regarded as mere matters of form. Before the next Mutiny Bill was brought in he would see how far the present system might be modified. With regard to the Military Asylum at Chelsea, it was natural that the gallant General should wish to extend the benefits conferred on the army by that institution. It was an error, however, to suppose that the establishment of the normal school had led to a diminution in the number of the children educated in the Asylum. At one time there was at Southampton a large school for girls in connection with it. That was given up, not from motives of economy, but because the objects for which it had been established were not attained. The boys' school, however, had been frequently reduced, and stood at its minimum in 1854 or 1855. In 1856 the normal school was founded, and a portion of the asylum was devoted to that purpose. Subsequently a very large addition of buildings was made for the normal school alone, and it was now one of the most valuable institutions they possessed; teachers received there the requisite training, and great benefit had thereby resulted to the army. Since the establishment of this school the number of boys at Chelsea had been increased. The gallant General asked why the number was not increased still further. He (Mr. S. Herbert) should be glad to do so, but at the present moment he was so anxious to devote all the money that could be spared in strengthening our national defences, that he did not like to look at these questions. The pressure of this and other matters was so great that he could not undertake now to give any pledge to increase the number of children in the asylum, though he should be glad to do so if it were in his power.

said, he had given notice of a Motion to submit the present Army Estimates to a Committee, but in consequence of the late period of the Session he did not expect that the House would entertain the question, although he was still strongly of opinion that they would never have any reduction of the Army and Navy Estimates until they were brought under the consideration of a Select Committee. The present Army Estimates amounted to the largest sum which had ever been asked of the House in a time of peace during the last forty years. When there was this large expenditure it would naturally be expected that the defences of the country were in a perfect state, but on that subject they had various opinions. Some people of a nervous character were never satisfied whatever amount of money was expended on the army and navy, and hon. Members connected with the army and navy were always very anxious to increase the amount expended. Now, he found that though the Army Estimates this year showed a decrease of 7,480 men compared with last year, there had been a considerable increase in the staff of the army. The Estimates for Army and Navy this year amounted to £13,800,000 more than in 1811, and £10,500,000 more than in 1852–3, the year before the Russian war. It was stated, however, the other night by an hon. and gallant Member that if the £12,859,000 voted for the army, independently of the militia, only £3,500,000 were expended on the real strength of the army, the fighting men. The home staff was £112,967 last year, and this year £131,900, being an increase of £19,000, although the number of men had been reduced by 7,480. A very large item in these Estimates was for the expense of inspectors-general to inspect the infantry. He thought with the number of able and gallant generals we bad commanding districts there was a sufficient number of officers capable of performing this service, and that this item of expenditure ought not to be allowed. Again, a very serious item in those Estimates was for the expense of staffs in the Colonies. He found the staff expenses alone in Australia were set down at £17,300, as against £6,200 charged for the same service in the year 1853. That was a very large increase, and one that he really could not understand. Surely the Colonies were able to pay this outlay themselves if it were requisite, which indeed he greatly doubted. In Canada, the expenditure for the staff was £18,178, and in Hong Kong £7,041. These were items that were going on increasing year after year, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his serious attention to them, with a view of bringing them within reasonable limits. He would also call attention to the enormous expenditure on bar-racks. In these Estimates there was upwards of a million of money required for the repair and erection of barracks. If those barracks were in a state to protect the health and comfort of the men there would be some reason in this; but it was in evidence, on good and high authority, that the barracks in this country were in a most inefficient state. he would not press the Motion of which he had given notice, but he hoped he had said sufficient to cause the right hon. Gentleman to give his serious attention to these subjects.

said, it appeared to him that all the preparations which we were making with regard to fortifications and ships were comparatively immaterial when viewed in relation to the vast improvements which were being effected in artillery. Other Powers had furnished themselves to a great extent with artillery of a character that we had not. They were going on with their preparations upon a much larger scale than we were, and whilst we were building ships, constructing new fortifications, and accumulating enormous stores at Gibraltar and Malta, we had an inferior description of artillery to oppose to theirs. Now, the Armstrong gun had created a great deal of interest in the course of the past year; but he owned it was rather disappointing to learn that we should only possess 100 of them by Christmas next, and but 300 at the end of the present financial year. Considering how large a supply circumstances might render necessary, he must say that it did not appear to him that the manufacture was proceeding altogether satisfactorily. The reason of that was, he believed, that we had only a single factory at work; but he could not help feeling that if there were danger of any kind impending over us against which we were making preparations, we were making those preparations so slowly that we were neither prepared for war, nor had we all the advantages of peace. It was very evident, however, that if any danger at all was to be apprehended, it was a danger that was not very distant, and one which would also be somewhat sudden. We talked of making preparations, and being in a state of forwardness at the end of the financial year. Austria had talked in the same manner, but she found before the financial quarter was ended that she had a superior artillery opposed to her. He was anxious, therefore, that our preparations, so far as the present machinery went, should be accelerated. And he could not help impressing upon the Government that, whilst we were incurring great expense in every other branch of the military department, that which was the most important of all—namely, an improvement in our artillery—was the one in which we were not making a corresponding progress. He understood that the French had rifled all their old cannon; we, too, had a large quantity of old guns, and he should like to know if it were contemplated by the Government, pending the manufacture of the Armstrong gun, to rifle the guns of which we were already in possession? The artillery was that branch of the military service to which everybody attached the greatest importance; and he regretted to say, after looking through the Estimates, and listening to the explanation of the Secretary for War last night, that he did not think we were making the progress that we ought.

wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that what he had said on a former occasion was that at the end of the present financial year we should be in possession of 300 Armstrong guns. After that time the manufactory would go on turning out two or three guns per day, so that at the end of the next financial year we should have a very large number indeed of those guns. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government were most anxious to push forward the manufacture of those guns, and very lately he had himself asked Sir W. Armstrong whether any sum of money which would enable him to procure additional labour or more rapid machinery, would assist him in the quicker production of those guns. To that question Sir W. Armstrong replied that he had every means, and as much machinery as he could possibly use, and that he could not make the guns any faster than he was doing. Sir W. Armstrong had two factories, one at Woolwich and the other at Newcastle, in constant work, and he believed that every exertion was being made to produce the guns as rapidly as possible. As to the question of rifling guns, his right hon. Friend was in error in supposing that the French had got all their guns rifled. Sir W. Armstrong was making experiments on the subject at that moment, and he hoped he would be successful. It was comparatively easy to rifle the brass guns, but more difficulty was experienced with the iron guns. Every effort would be made to overcome that difficulty.

said, that as a practical artillery officer, he wished to say a word on this subject. During the last three or four years there had been very great attention paid to what were called rifled field guns, and within the last year there had been introduced in France a sort of adaptation of the principle of the Lancaster rifled musket to field guns, but it had not been applied to anything beyond guns of a very small calibre. A great deal had also been said of the French rifled large arms; but he thought it was quite clear they had no such thing as rifled siege guns. No better proof could exist that the French rifled guns were not of the importance attributed to them than the fact that when the French were before the great fortresses in Italy, they felt that the taking of those fortresses was more than they could accomplish. Sir William Armstrong had done more for this branch of the service than any man who had ever existed. It was true he was a civilian, but it should be remembered that rifling guns had nothing to do either with the civil or military service. It was purely a question of mechanical contrivance; and, having some knowledge of the subject, he could assure the House that England was at this moment ahead of every other country in the world in the art. There had been a good deal said of employing these Armstrong guns in ships and adapting them for siege purposes. No doubt this might be accomplished, and would be in time; but the difficulties in the way were of a very serious character. Such an improvement would be the result of many years' experience, but even at the end of that time he had no hesitation in saying England would still be ahead of all the nations in the world in the art and manufacture of her artillery.

said, that the barracks at Aldershot seemed to have involved the most extraordinary accumulation of expense that had ever come before the House. Last night he asked the Secretary for War what would be the sum required to complete these barracks, and was told when the money was spent there was an end of it. Originally the total estimated cost of completing the barracks at Aldershot was £260,000. It had, however, gradually increased, and last year it was expected to be £400,000. Even then it was described as the total estimate "towards" the erection of barracks. In the Votes for the year 1859–60, which the Committee were now considering, the estimated cost for these permanent barracks, instead of being£400,000, amounted to £574,265, besides £40,000 for other items. He wanted to know what was the meaning of this continual increase in the estimated cost. It appeared to him that there was something radically wrong in getting up these Estimates, and there was the appearance of treating the House of Commons like children, who could not bear to hear the truth at once. The total sum proposed to be voted this year was £65,000, whilst last year it was said that the sum wanted to complete the whole work was only £20,000. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House some satisfactory explanation.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that last year a correspondence had been laid upon the table, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) respecting the deaths of a great number of officers and men belonging to a detachment of the 41st Regiment at Trinidad.

said, he rose to order. He wished to submit to the hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether this correspondence was relevant to the Vote before the Committee.

said he had not yet gathered the spirit of the hon. and gallant Member's observations, but he had no doubt that they would be found applicable to the subject under discussion.

said, that he was proceeding to show that it appeared that 4 officers, 3 sergeants, 17 privates, and 10 women had died from yellow fever in that island, and the mortality was attributed to the state of the barracks. A letter from Dr. Macdonell, the Deputy Inspector General of Hospitals, dated Barbadoes, September 27, 1858, contained the following:—

"I will this day recommend to the Commander of the Forces that the troops be kept for some time under canvass, purely that the St. James's Barracks is in the worst position possible. I may safely assert that if a premium had been offered to any person to select the worst spot he could in the neighbourhood of Port of Spain to erect a military barrack, the person who chose the ground for the present barrack would have been the successful candidate."

Another letter from Dr. Macdonell, dated the 27th of October, 1858, stated that—

"Lieutenant Byham, of the 41st Regiment, who died of yellow fever, was attacked with that disease in barracks; he was acting as fort-adjutant, and having his office in barracks he preferred to remain there; it therefore shows that the disease, as yet, has confined itself to the barracks."

A letter from Dr. Macdonell of the 10th of January, 1859, stated that "a case of yellow fever proved fatal in barracks on the 5th of December." On the 25th January, 1859, Dr. Macdonell, writing to the Inspector-General, said:—

"In a letter that I addressed to your office of dated the 9th of May, 1857, you will find that I alluded to the foul air occasionally strongly perceptible in the immediate neighbourhood of the hospital, which was evidently caused by a closed sewer running across the front of the hospital. On my return to Barbadoes from my tour of inspection, the matter was brought to the notice of the Commander of the Forces, and some alterations were made in the sewer. The effect of my last letter, of date the 13th of January, 1859, to the Commander of the Forces is, that he has called upon Colonel Ford, commanding the Royal Engineers, to attend to my letter in its fullest extent. Colonel Ford informed me yesterday that he had estimated for the alteration he proposes, and if approved by the authorities at home, I think they will be effectual."

It appeared that as long ago as the 9th of May, 1857, Dr. Macdonell drew the attention of the authorities to the condition of a drain which ran in front of the barracks and in rear of the hospital. On the 25th of January, 1859, nearly two years afterwards, the attention of Colonel Ford, commanding the Royal Engineers, was called to the subject, but although estimates were made for the alterations requisite, neither that officer nor the Commander-in-Chief in the West Indies had the power, to make such alterations without authority from home. It was altogether the most painful correspondence he had ever read, and he hoped the attention of his right hon. Friend, who had evinced such interest in sanitary measures, would be directed to this subject, and that immediate steps would be taken for the improvement of the barracks at Trinidad.

said, he could not but express his thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing forward this matter, with the object of preventing the lives of our gallant soldiers being sacrificed. It was owing to want of liberality in that House and to the want of courage on the part of Ministers, to make the necessary demands, that military hospitals had been so badly constructed, and not to any remissness on the part of the military authorities. It was owing to the want of a feeling in former times, which now happily existed, of interest in our soldiers, and a determination that those who fight our battles should be well cared for. He trusted that the Government would take advantage of the feeling which at present existed for the purpose of adopting measures which would not only prove of advantage to the service, but would in the end prove to be those of true economy.

said, the custom of the Indian Government was to authorize the officer commanding a station to expend a limited sum of 200 rupees for the benefit of the troops, according to his discretion; and the major general commanding a division was, in the same way, authorized to expend a sum of £500. Might not some such regulation be adopted with advantage to the service in other countries?

suggested that the officers' barracks should be furnished with iron bedsteads. It could be done at a trifling cost, and would save the officers much trouble in moving from place to place.

said, he thought the accounts might be stated in a clearer manner and in a way more easily understood by the uninitiated than at present. In some instances they appeared to be contradictory, as for example, when the cost of an establishment was set down at more than the sum estimated. Thus, on referring to the Vote for the new barracks at Gosport, he found the total estimate was put down at £95,000, but in the column headed "account already voted," he found £177,000.

said, he had some knowledge of the barracks at St. James's, Trinidad, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would consider whether it was not desirable to get rid of these barracks altogether. They were exceedingly handsome barracks, capacious, and well constructed, but they were situated at the end of a ravine, which was death. Even as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, the health of the British soldier was worth attending to. Every soldier who carried a firelock in the Colonies cost the country £100, and how easily 100 men were knocked down by disease he need not inform the House. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would seriously take into consideration the state of these barracks in the West Indies.

said, as a civilian, he could confirm the statement of the hon. and gallant Member in reference to the unhealthiness of St. James's Barracks at Trinidad. They were placed at the end of a swampy ravine, and as the wind always blew there in one direction, it carried to the barracks all the malaria collected in the ravine. When Sir W. Don was at Jamaica he moved the troops to Newcastle and the station on the heights; and as the yellow fever never ascended to a greater altitude than 1,000 feet above the level of the sea, the troops in those barracks were free from it. The same thing ought, he thought, to be clone in Trinidad and Barbadoes.

said, that reports were made yearly by medical officers as to the healthiness or unhealthiness of the different places inhabited by troops in our Colonies, and he thought that it was very desirable that a summary of those reports should be presented to the House. In the United States he was very much struck with the benefit derived from the report of the senior medical officer annually presented to Congress. He did not want lengthy books, but a short, clear, exact summary in reference to healthy and unhealthy barracks, so as to give assistance in applying a remedy to the great evils which existed.

said, he would go through the question which had been raised in reference to the barracks, and he might premise that he was not then asking for any vote for Aldershot with the exception of a small contribution to the railway station. In reply to the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) he was unable, from any information before him, to say what would be the future cost of Aldershot; but this he knew, that they were good and comfortable, and he believed the cheapest barracks that had ever been raised. With regard to the new barracks at Gosport, he admitted that the Estimate as it stood was likely to create confusion; that arose from the fact, that if a sum voted was not all expended in the financial year, it was repaid into the Exchequer and a re-vote taken. This explained the fact that £177,000 had been already voted for these barracks; but if hon. Members examined the Estimate they would find the original Estimate was £95,000, the amount expended was £87,000. The amount to be voted this year was £4,804, and in the column amount hereafter to be voted was a blank. The sum now to be voted would complete the barracks, so they would be finished for £3,000 under the original Estimate. With regard to the case of Trinidad it was by no means new to him, and since his accession to office inquiries had been directed to be made whether it would not be wise at once to give up the old barracks, sell the materials and the site, and remove to a better situation. The barrack itself was magnificent and spacious, but when the sickness broke out a certain number of the men were encamped elsewhere. As a proof of the value of space and air, it might be mentioned that when the barrack was thinned of its occupants, the health of the remaining inmates instantly improved. No doubt the building of barracks at great altitude was beneficial for Europeans, but even in the better climates the worse consequences ensued from the neglect of ordinary precautions. A few years ago at Newcastle, when the altitude was very great, a natural hole or large pit close to the barracks was used for depositing filth, and yellow fever broke out in the neighbourhood. He heartily concurred in the suggestion that we ought every year to have an accurate summary of the health of the troops in their different stations; and when he was on the Royal Commission he urged strongly on the medical department of the army the propriety of establishing a statistical branch. Unless intelligible reports on this subject were regularly furnished, neither the military authorities, nor the public would have any proper security as to the health of the troops. The objection had been raised that this would suppy information relative to the strength of our force, which it would be more prudent to withhold. But anybody who opened the army list could see what was the amount of our force, and how it was distributed, and the information could be given without publishing the a mount of the force. But as regards the health of the army, publicity was the true policy. It would stimulate the commanding officers, who were responsible for the health of their men, to do their duty; while it would also act as a spur upon the Secretary of State if he were liable to have questions put to him as to why it was that in certain barracks the morality was 10 or 11 per cent, when it ought to be only two or three. Since he came into office he was happy to say he had been successful in obtaining the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief to his proposal to establish a statistical branch to the medical department, and to the employment of Dr. Balfour, who had devoted his attention to medical statistics, as the head of that branch. From that eminent physician he hoped they would get useful and intelligible reports, which would enable the Government to act and the public to judge correctly in this important matter.

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position in which officers of high rank found themselves from not being able to order such alterations as were absolutely necessary when emergencies arose. When such officers, for the good of the service had ordered such works to be executed, they were told that they had acted without authority and must pay the expense thus incurred from their own pocket. In the case of any other profession, when its members were wronged, they had recourse to the public press for redress; but the army never had adopted, and he trusted never would adopt, that mode of seeking a remedy for grievances. He wished to know whether there was any truth in the reports as to the proposed new barracks in London being given up. He had heard that there was some difficulty about the site. The Portman Street barracks were wretchedly inadequate. There could be no better sanitary measures than to provide suitable means of recreation for the troops. Fives courts, cricket-grounds, gymnasia and other facilities for bodily exercise should be generally provided in barracks. By making the men comfortable, healthy, and happy after they had entered the service we should be doing our best to attract fresh recruits to the army and prevent desertion. He was there fore glad to find that a Vote was to be taken this year for those purposes, though he could not see why it should be spread over two years.

said, he wished to warn the Secretary for War that it would not do to offer facilities to general officers on foreign stations for incurring expense on works without making a reference home.

said, nothing could be more unjust than to charge the House with want of liberality in regard to barracks and hospitals. Money enough was voted, but it was badly spent. He would wish to have some explanation of the manner in which Government Estimates were usually prepared. The Gosport barracks, for instance, were estimated at £95,000, but a Vote was taken in respect of them for something like £177,000. The estimated cost of the barracks at Aldershot had been placed at £400,000 last year; it was now stated at £574,000. These were very loose Estimates, and he should therefore like to know who was responsible for them.

said, he could not then account for the discrepancies, but he would make inquiries on the subject. With regard to the barracks for the Guards, the delay was owing to the difficulty in obtaining a site; he had directed the Quartermaster-General to make a report as to those proposed. One site, which the Commander-in-Chief approved of, was saddled with three Chancery suits, and therefore could not be taken. Two or three others were now under consideration. A gymnasium at Aldershot would soon be completed, and he hoped they would be established at other stations. The Commander-in-Chief, at his request, had directed an officer to proceed to Paris to inspect the system adopted at the Gymnasium there, and also to report on the new bayonet and sword exercise.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the evils arising from the internal and nocturnal arrangement of the barracks.

stated that at the Wellington Barracks two or three methods of avoiding the evils arising from urine tubs were at present being tried, and he hoped that this nuisance would before long be got rid off.

said, he could not but attribute a great portion of the expenditure under this Vote to the fact that persons were employed to select sites for barracks who were entirely unfit for that duty.

said, it was difficult to deal with the subject.

said, he wished to know what was now thought of the situation of Nettley and its adaptation for the purposes of a hospital, and what was to be done with it for the future? He wished also to know what had been done for the improvement of barracks throughout the country, the condition of which appeared before a Committee of which he was a member some years ago, to be such as to be attended with serious consequences to the soldier.

said, his opinion of Nettley had always been that the situation was unfavourable to the purpose of a hospital, and that the erection to be raised on it would be expensive. He raised the question of the salubrity of the site a second time, and scientific men were called in, but they were unanimously against him, and he felt himself bound thereby. The hospital was now in an advanced state, and he hoped he should find by experience that his opinion was wrong. With regard to the barracks generally, he might state that a thorough inspection had taken place, and all requests with regard to ventilation had been complied with as soon as made. There was much want still, however, of further accommodation.

said, he would give the War Department the credit of having very faithfully discharged the duty which they undertook some years ago of spending £40,000 a year in the improvement of barracks. That sum appeared this year in the Votes, and, according to a note appended, it appeared that it was to be expended in improvements for the accommodation of married soldiers—a very necessary and desirable object.

said, he wished to know how it was that the Estimates, as issued in March this year, showed a decrease on the whole amount £4,700,000 in comparison with those of last year of about £100,000, and the Estimates issued in June showed an increase of £16,000? He also wished to know whether, notwithstanding the change made in the theory of these departments, according to which the whole produce of the revenue departments was to go into the Exchequer, the salaries and expenses were not in fact paid by the departments themselves before the money came into the Exchequer? It was taking a great responsibility upon themselves to pay so large a sum of money without the vote of the House of Commons.

stated that the object of the change referred to was to bring this money more within the control of the House. No doubt the salaries were paid as the year proceeded, but then the House could check the repetition of anything it disapproved of in a future year. As to; difference of amount exhibited in the Estimates, he could only say that the Estimates of March and June were both produced by the late Government. It would be seen that the increase was accounted for under each head. Under (he head of Customs there was an increase of £7,800 upon an expenditure of £849,000. The principal increase had been in the Post Office Department, amounting to £25,000, which was chiefly owing to the increase of business and a slight addition to the wages of the letter-carriers. There was £9,000 for official postages, arising from an accidental increase of business.

said, he considered that the giving of these amounts in the Estimates was one of the most important reforms of modern times. Formerly these charges were deducted from the amount raised, and thus they were kept entirely out of the sight of the House. He thought that the civil service estimates ought not to be proceeded with, because they were only just in the hands of Members. He had had no time at all to consider them.

said, that he found two Estimates both professing to give the amount of the salaries and expenses of the Post-office department for the financial year ending March, 1859. The one was dated in March, and the other in June. The former gave a relative decrease in the amount of the salaries in the Post Office of £103,000 as compared with the amount of the previous year; while the latter gave an increase of £25,000.

said, he could only repeat that the estimates now before the House were the final estimates furnished by the Post Office, and adopted by his predecessor. All the items were given in great detail, so as to afford every information which any hon. Gentleman could require.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that certain officers belonging to the Customs in the Clyde ports were paid at a lower rate than the same class in Dublin, Bristol, and other places.

assured his hon. and learned Friend that he would cause the matter to which he had referred to be properly inquired into.

said, he must protest against these enormous Votes being hurried through Committee in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make his financial statement on Monday. He ventured to say that no Member of the House had had time to examine any one of these Votes, which were not delivered till Wednesday last. His time had been wholly occupied in examining the thousands of items in the Army and Navy Estimates. He would move that the Chairman report progress.

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in that Motion. These Estimates were ready for delivery on Saturday last. No new sums were asked for any considerable works. These were merely commonplace Estimates, and, as the Session was so far advanced, and hon. Members had had sufficient opportunity of ascertaining the character of the Estimates, he thought they ought to be passed without delay.

said, these Estimates, during the administration of the late Duke of Wellington, amounted to no more than £2,000,000. They had since gone on increasing year after year till they were now between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. He required time to examine them, and should persist in his Motion.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appealed to them not to make long speeches on the Army and Navy Estimates, and he had thereby led many hon. Members to believe that the Civil Service Estimates would not be taken.

said, that several hon. Members he knew had left the House believing that these Estimates would not be taken, in consequence of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the Naval and Military Estimates were passed, he would make his financial statement on Monday. he intended to call attention to some of the Civil Service Estimates, but he was not prepared to do so, as he had only learnt within the last quarter of an hour that they were to be proposed.

said, he thought that the period of the Session precluded anything like a careful examination of these Estimates this year. Perhaps the better way would be to let them pass, and defer examination until similar Estimates were proposed next year.

said, there was no disposition on the part of the Government to press anything contrary to agreement. The Miscellaneous Estimates contained a great number of items, some of which no doubt the hon. Member for Lambeth would wish to examine in detail, but there were many without variation from former Votes, and surely they might make some progress, postponing those which his hon. Friend wished to examine with minuteness and care, and taking those only upon which no difference of opinion was likely to arise. Monday would be occupied by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if they could make some progress it would be very desirable.

said, it was not voting money, it was throwing it away, if the House were to be forced to go on; and what he could do he should do to prevent it. The first Vote, that for the royal palaces, was most important and contained some very extravagant items, which he intended to oppose.

said, he should be very sorry if the Government insisted on proceeding.

suggested that they should read over the Votes, and withdraw those to which there was objection, or upon which hon. Members might wish to make detailed observations.

said, these Estimates were usually commenced on the first meeting of the House after Easter. It was now the 16th of July. If they did not go on they would find three weeks hence that, instead of having got through the seven books, they would only have got through three, and the other four would have to be hurried over at morning sittings, and when many hon. Members had left town.

observed that he was satisfied with the suggestion of the noble Lord, and he would appeal to the hon. Member for Lambeth to withdraw his Motion.

said, he did not quite understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), that they were to hurry on now, lest they should have to hurry on three weeks hence, because he thought the objection was to the Estimates being hurried through the House at all. He was, however, content to accept the noble Lord's first proposition, to pass over Votes to which there were objections, taking only those of an ordinary nature which did not show an increase.

said, he did not know what the Votes were, nor did the noble Lord himself. The Votes were the Votes prepared by the late Government, and it was a farce to pass them in this way. He was in the habit of comparing each Vote with the same of several preceding years, and it was only by these means that he could arrive at a conclusion whether they were reasonable or extravagant.

said, that he did not pretend to say that he had looked over the Estimates, but his right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on the Treasury bench were quite prepared to give every explanation. His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth presented to the Government a rather awful prospect. If he were to be allowed the time necessary for him to get through seven or eight volumes of these Votes, and compare the items with the corresponding items for six or seven years past, they would not be finished until the middle of September. His hon. Friend had better have some confidence in the Votes proposed. Since they were the Votes of two Governments he might think there was some probability, at all events, of their being correct.

said, that he had just glanced over the items. He thought some of them very objectionable, and that there was ample ground for requiring time. For instance in the Vote for Royal Palaces there was an increase this year of £3,000, one of £15,700 for Marlborough House, and in Royal Parks of £24,000. The fifth item was the vexata questio of the Houses of Parliament. Now that the Naval and Military Estimates had been taken the Chancellor of the Exchequer might proceed with the financial statement.

said, the increase of £15,000 in the Vote for Royal Palaces was necessary to prepare Marlborough House as a fitting residence for the Prince of Wales.

I beg leave to move that this House do now adjourn.

said, he wished his hon. Friend would not persevere in his Motion. He had no objection to postpone this Vote if desired, but the only increase in it was accounted for by the necessity of placing Marlborough House in a suitable condition to receive his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to the expenditure for which purpose he felt assured his hon. Friend would not be disposed to object.

said, he also would express a hope that the hon. Gentleman would not test the feeling of the Committee further. He had followed his hon. Friend into the lobby because he was left in the lurch, and because the Committee had certainly not had time to examine the Estimates; but he trusted, after having tested the feeling of the Committee, that the hon. Gentleman would now allow them to proceed.

said, he did not know what his hon. Friend meant by observing that he had been left in the lurch. He had taken the course which he adopted simply with the view to discharge his duty to his constituents, whose pockets he had been sent to that House to protect.

said, he had a full appreciation of the exertions of the hon. Gentleman, but then it was quite true that he had been left in the lurch, inasmuch as he had been supported by only nineteen Members in the division which had just taken place.

said, he trusted the House, taking into consideration the present period of the Session, would not fritter any further time away, but would proceed with the Estimates.

said, he wished to ask for some explanation in regard to this Vote, inasmuch as the Committee were told on the last occasion of a Vote being taken for the new Houses of Parliament that that would be the last occasion on which it would be applied for. Was there still to be an annual demand under this head?

said, it would be seen on looking through the accounts that no new works whatever had been undertaken, or were contemplated, in connection with the Houses of Parliament. The two items of £4,000 for the completion of the western front of the clock tower, and £2,500 for expenses in connection with hanging the bells and fixing the clock, had been omitted from the accounts of last year, in which they ought to have been set down, as was stated by the Member for North Leicestershire at that time. He pledged himself that so far as he was concerned no new works were authorized without the sanction of Parliament; but there were certain necessary expenses for maintaining the edifice, which, though insignificant in themselves, presented a considerable amount in the aggregate. He had gone through these very carefully that morning, and he found that they disclosed no charge whatever of an improper or extravagant character.

asked if £6,500 was required for the clock?

said, that £4,000 of the Vote was for the tower.

said, that they had been watching the clock anxiously for months. Sometimes it went, and sometimes it was still; sometimes it struck, and sometimes it refused. He wished to know if this Vote would complete the works?

said, the item of £4,000 to which he had alluded had nothing to do with the reception of the clock, but was to coyer the expense of completing the western front of the clock-tower, which had been left unfinished on the supposition that a wing corresponding to that at the other end would be erected, but the plan had now been abandoned. Hon. Gentlemen would see an item of £1,000 which was asked for on account of the clock, and, so far as he could ascertain, no further Vote would be requisite. Two hands were about to be substituted for those which were too heavy to go, but the cost of this alteration would be covered by the proceeds of the gunmetal of the discarded hands.

said, he wished to call attention to the outrageous manner in which the ventilation of the building was conducted. Frequently when the House was very warm cold air was pumped in at the feet of the hon. Members, the effect of which was to drive the blood to their heads, and to produce those injurious effects which were so constantly complained of and which had often compelled him and others to leave the House. Then, recently, the most abominable odours had been pumped in through the holes and slits at their feet. The smell of the chloride of lime which was used was pleasant enough; but at other times the uncorrected atmosphere of the Thames was wafted through the floor, and then the effect was dreadful indeed. When they were paying £4,000 or £5,000 annually for what was called ventilation, they had, he considered, a right to expect that matters would be conducted in a more satisfactory manner. The fact was that the whole of the arrangements connected with the House were of the most incompetent and extravagant character. For instance, an enormous sum was wasted above their heads in forcing light through plate glass, whereas one-third of that light would be sufficient for the House if it were not placed outside the glass. This extravagant arrangement tended merely to gratify some one's caprice. But from beginning to end the whole building was nothing but a piece of mediæval folly. It carried them back 400 or 500 years with no other end than to deprive them of all the advantages which science had since placed at their disposal. Instead of ample light there was obscure glass, in order to imitate a period when the manufacture of glass was in its infancy; and although our manufacturers now produced the most beautiful crystal, the House was full of little trumpery pieces of glass a few inches square, inserted in lead casing, and dignified by the name of windows. What could have possessed the mind of any man, or any set of men, to insist that everything about the Houses of Parliament should accord with the ignorance of some hundreds of years ago, rather than with the advanced intelligence of to-day! And this was called the perfection of art! Why, ornaments of the most trumpery kind stared you in the face at every turn. Look at the absurd paintings within the House, which led many Members to attend very little to what was being done, while some could hardly rise to speak without having their thoughts distracted by the lions and the dragons, and the rest of it. This trumpery was repeated from one end of the building to the other. If some man at Birmingham had contracted to erect the Palace, one could have understood his reasons for casting the portcullis and the Tudor rose by the dozen, and for sticking them together afterwards, in all parts of the buildings; but that men should carve stone after stone with a repetition of the same design, that they should scribble the history of England in writing which nobody could read, so that the very policemen on duty had to say, "You must turn the other way, Sir, to look at that," passed all comprehension. Yet this was called decoration! It was a disgrace to the country to have erected such a building at all, and the ornamentation exhibited such an utter poverty of sentiment that if the matter had been left to a parcel of schoolboys they could not have devised anything more contemptible. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not sanction any further outlay on the absurdities that were called mediaeval decorations, but that if they were to have decorations these would be characterized by true art, and that the walls would be properly painted, not in an equivocal manner between oil and scene painting, but in a style that would be creditable to the taste of this country, and he might add of Europe. He hoped likewise that if there was to be artificial ventilation it would be properly carried out, and that the air supplied would be, at least at a proper temperature.

said, he was a member of the Committee originally appointed to consider the question of a site for the Houses of Parliament, and that Carleton Terrace was the locality to which their attention was first directed. He added that, after the present site had been decided on, he had heard it said on high authority that one reason assigned for fixing it there was that of the facilities for escape which the river Thames would afford to Members in case such a necessity should ever arise. With regard to the mode of ventilation, he himself kept a pair of worsted stockings and gaiters for wear in the House, in order to protect his feet from the cold air.

said, that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) complained of the ventilation of the house. That gentleman was not a Member of the House before it was altered. He (Mr. Cayley) remembered when gentlemen complained of cold to their heads instead of their feet, and when the gas was under the House and not out of it. He thought one of the greatest improvements in the House was the putting the lights outside. The hon. Gentleman complained of the foul air of the House, but he would say with the venerable Mrs. Glasse, "first catch your hare"—you must first catch good air before you could use it for the House, and you might get good air if the atmosphere was not polluted by the Thames. Unless the hon. Gentleman would provide them with fresh air, he defied Mr. Gurney or any one else to procure for the House pure air out of an impure atmosphere. The ventilation of the House was as good as it could be with the materials Mr. Gurney had at his disposal. The hon. Gentleman and his constituents were great economists, and he supposed next they would propose to pull down the Houses of Parliament and build them up again.

said, he remembered the different systems of lighting tried in the old Houses of Parliament. At one period it was lighted with gas, at another with lamps. He agreed in thinking that the present was a greatly improved method. The ventilation also, though it was still far from perfection, he believed to be much better than at a period when it was much more talked about. His object in rising, however, was to ask that some explanation might be given of an item of £7,500 for "indurating the stone of the Houses of Parliament," which he noticed in the accounts. He remembered that many years ago great trouble had been taken in choosing the stone for the House; Sir C. Barry, and a Committee under his directions, had examined every kind of stone in the kingdom, and had selected that of which the building was composed as the most durable. It now, however, turned out that they had built the edifice of rotten stone, and they had to pay for patching it up. He wanted to know what means were to be taken for indurating the stone. Would this sum of £7,000 be required every year? If so, one way, and the best in his opinion, to prevent the stone from decay would be to use the cement which had been applied to some parts of the building.

said, he hoped that the charge of £7,000 for indurating the stone would not prove a permanent one. This unfortunately was no new subject. From some cause or other—either from the effects of the London atmosphere or from some inherent reason—the stone of which the Houses were built indicated a tendency to decay. That was particularly the case with parts of the building more exposed to the frost and wet than others. In more sheltered situations it did not show the same signs of decay. Various means had been tried to arrest that unfortunate tendency—one process, in particular, which had been invented by a Hungarian, who did not choose to inform the public of what the substance used by him was composed. A gentleman named Ransome had also been permitted to apply a process, well-known, to several parts of the building, and his (Mr. Ransome's) idea was that if that process were properly carried out it would answer the end in view. The stone of which the Houses of Parliament was built had been affected either by the London atmosphere or some other cause, and was rapidly crumbling, especially where it was exposed first to the action of wet and then of frost. Different methods had been tried to stop it, and the process which promised best was one invented by a Hungarian named Sczeroni. It might be satisfactory to the house to know that it was not intended to expend the sum voted. Experiments had been made, and the process invented by Mr. Ransome had been applied to several parts of the building. The opinion of those who had examined the stone after some time had elapsed, however, was not so favourable to his plan. It was thought likely to destroy all the chiselling of the stone work, and give the House the appearance of a painted building. Hon. Members might judge for themselves by looking over the Speaker's Court, which had been subjected to the Hungarian's process. It might be satisfactory to hon. Members, however, to know that it was not intended to expend the sum voted for the purpose without experiments. The matter remained in doubt when he (Mr. FitzRoy) acceded to the office he now held, and the question was put to the Treasury whether they would sanction a reference to some high scientific authority, with the view to ascertain, if possible, the cause of the decay, and some effectual remedy against the evil. The result had been a reference to Mr. Faraday, who with that high sense of generosity and honour which always distinguished him, said he could not think of acting professionally in the matter, or of accepting any remuneration, but that he would give the best opinion he could upon the subject. That gentleman spent some hours in examining the stone in different parts of the building, and as a result of his advice a portion of the building had been set apart under circumstances precisely similar for a trial of the processes of the two gentlemen whose names he (Mr. FitzRoy) had mentioned. Time alone, however, could decide the question; and it was under those circumstances that the Government had asked for the Vote to which the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) had taken exception, on the assumption that the Hungarian process could be applied to the whole building. It was the most expensive. With reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), he had to say that he (Mr. FitzRoy) had nothing to do with the building of the Houses of Parliament or their decoration. With regard to ventilation, that was a difficult subject, and he believed that the plan of Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney was the best. It was difficult to obtain an equal temperature in the House towards morning, which was, he believed, the time that hon. Members suffered most from the ventilation; for, perhaps, after a debate in a full house of 400 Members, most of them streamed out, and that necessarily created a great change in the temperature. It was impossible that the most scientific ventilation could be complete, and he believed that Mr. G. Gurney did the best he could.

said, much had been said about fresh air. Would they allow him to suggest that the ventilation in the lobbies would be greatly improved if one or two of the windows were made to open.

begged to ask whether Sir G. Hayter's picture of the Meeting of the House after the first Reform Bill had been purchased, and if there was an estimate for it.

said, he could not inform the hon. Gentleman. He had nothing to do with the pictures in the building.

said, that the art decoration of the building was not in the hands of the architect, but of the Art Committee. He did not consider that the character given of the pictures by the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was a just one. The artists had, he thought, succeeded very well in the frescoes; and frescoes were more permanent and durable than oil paintings when exposed to the atmosphere of London. So far as he had observed, all artificial systems of ventilation were a failure. Whether you had to ventilate a large room or a House of Parliament, the best way was to open a window. There was, however, a difficulty in opening the windows in the neighbourhood of the Thames. To that a remedy was being applied. He might state incidentally that 100 tons of lime were now poured every day into the Thames, and he was assured that the influence of this supply would be found very beneficial upon the river. When Mr. Gurney was able to open the windows on the side next to the Thames, a great improvement in the ventilation would be experienced. With the exception of Portland stone, almost all the stone used for building in the metropolis was subject to decay. It would be a most lamentable thing, in his opinion, if cement were had recourse to for the purpose of re- pairing the damage done to the surface of the stone by the atmosphere. The subject could not be in better hands than Dr. Faraday's, and no doubt under his care the best chemical protection would be adopted to prevent decay. He believed that Mr. Ransome's process was very moderate in point of expense, and that it would answer the purpose. The stone used was magnesian limestone, while the atmosphere of London was impregnated with sulphur and sulphuric acid, which was produced by the use of coal, but he believed a remedy might be found, and the decay of the stone arrested.

said, that there was quite sufficient space in the middle of the floor for the purposes of ventilation with- out bringing the cold air into the House under hon. Members' feet. The present state of the Thames had been brought about by the Government and the House of Commons, and the inhabitants of the 'metropolis had had nothing to do with it. He did not object to the House being illuminated from the ceiling, but it was absurd to use glass so opaque that the light could; scarcely penetrate through it.

observed, that seeing a Vote of £4,000 for frescoes in the Estimates, he wished to remark that many of those in the upper lobby showed signs of injury from the dampness of the walls. Some means ought to be adopted to pre- vent the recurrence of similar injuries.

said, he had paid some attention to the subject of ventilation, and the ventilation of that House especially, and he found that great inconvenience arose from the want of a sufficient supply of air. In the House of Lords there were sixteen different doors upon the basement storey, while in the House of Commons there was but one door on the same storey. The result was that when it was heated a strong supply of artificial cold air was forced in, which caused a great alternation of heat and cold in the temperature. The lobby was not ventilated in the same manner as the House, and the air there was easily heated and became oppressive. In order to render the ventilation of the House perfect, a considerable further outlay was necessary. With regard to the material of the building, there seemed some fatality about our modern public buildings—St. Paul's, the towers of Westminster Abbey, and Somerset House, were built of the bright and cheerful Portland stone, and they had remained for years untouched by decay; and yet with that before their eyes, they had taken an inferior stone for that building. He believed all palliatives for arresting the course of the decay would fail, and he hoped it would be laid down as a rule that no public building in the metropolis should be built of anything but Portland stone.

said, he believed that the most efficient way of ventilating the House was that which they all adopted in ventilating a bed-room—namely, opening a window.

said, that with regard to preventing the decay of the stone, it was of course a mere matter of experiment, He suggested that there was no necessity to vote the whole of the £7,000 until the experiments had been made.

said, that the sum which he asked for was only sufficient to cover that portion of the stone which immediately required covering in case the experiment succeeded. Besides, every experiment must be made upon a sufficiently extended scale to afford any test.

said, he wished to refer to the difficulty of hearing that hon. Members experienced in the House. In some positions hon. Members were completely debarred from knowing what was going on. Some of them came hundreds of miles to attend the House. They could not all sit near the officials and those who did not could hear nothing that they said. It was strange that those who designed that House should have ignored the excellent buildings in America, and upon the Continent for Legislative Assemblies. He wished to know whether the account with Sir Charles Barry was closed?

said, that as they were talking about the Houses of Parliament, he would beg leave to ask, to whom they were indebted for the funeral notes which every hour struck upon the ear of the House? He hoped that the First Commissioner of Works, or Mr. Denison, or Sir Charles Barry, or whoever it was that was responsible, would try to make some alteration in the tone of the bell. It was too bad that the Members of that House and the people should be condemned from hour to hour to hear that dreadful noise, a noise which they could only expect to hear when the great bell of St. Paul's was tolled on the death of a member of the Royal Family.

said, the account with Sir Charles Barry could not be closed as long as the repairs and alterations were going on as he received a commission on them.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had not given an answer with regard to the clock bell.

said, he believed the bell was constructed with the greatest possible care by a gentleman who was supposed to understand the manufacture of bells better than any man in England. The combination of the metal was such as was calculated to produce the most harmonious tones. He was not a judge as to whether it had had that effect, but if the sound were an infliction, he was afraid they were likely to remain under it for a considerable time.

asked, whether there was any chance of the bell sounding more like ordinary bells. At present it inflicted great annoyance upon the public and the House. He wished to know who was responsible?

said, he thought there was no hope that the bell would ever give forth any other sound, but he would suggest that a compromise should be made. It was said the other day that two faces of the clock would not go. Why should not an arrangement be made, that all the faces of the clock should tell the hour, and the horrible tolling should cease.

suggested that the Vote should be postponed, as many hon. Gentlemen who had paid great attention to the subject of harbours of refuge were not in their places.

remarked, that an additional reason for the postponement of the Vote was, that certain returns relative to the subject were not yet before the House. It certainly was an odd way of proceeding, to vote money and then to get an explanation of the purposes to which it was to be applied.

said, he also should support the adjournment, as he had been informed by an eminent engineer, that the expenditure on Alderney Harbour was not justifiable.

said, he should support the Vote. It was important that the works at Dovor should not be interrupted, he-cause, if they were stopped, all the money hitherto spent would be wasted.

said, he must express a strong opinion that these harbours of refuge were among those objects of permanent utility and necessity which demanded the attention of every Government. He hoped they would soon be extended to the eastern coast.

said, that by the construction of the pier at Dovor, troops taken down by railway might be embarked on board ship without the intervention of any boats. So far as the works had gone, they had completely fulfilled the object in view, and he thought it of the utmost importance that they should be carried on rapidly and to completion.

said, the request of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) seemed to him to be a reasonable one; it was that the Vote should be postponed till they had further information. The original estimate for the harbour of Alderney was £600,000, but last year they were told that an alteration was proposed in the plan, which would make it cost £1,300,000. The Committee did not know which plan had been decided on; and it was therefore only reasonable that there should be some delay until they had had information laid before them on this important subject. At the same time he would observe, that there was the greatest difference of opinion among naval officers of the highest authority as to the value of these works, and he should, therefore, have great pleasure in supporting the proposition of his hon. Friend.

said, he should be able to show the Committee that the Vote did not involve any of those large questions which would necessitate the notice required by his hon. Friend. The Votes which stood on the Estimates were not for new contracts, but were simply for the continuation of works that had already been largely carried out, and were in some instances nearly completed. The first was for the formation of a large jetty, stretching in the sea at Dovor, at an estimated cost of £650,000, and on which already a sum of £400,000 had been spent. That jetty, he should re- mark, formed no part of the large scheme for the great harbour of refuge that was estimated at £2,500,000. The great object of the present scheme was to have a station alongside of which large men-of-war could take in their stores and coals, and embark troops. The Admiralty considered that to be a work of the greatest importance. The works themselves were being rapidly completed, and the Vote now asked was only £34,000. The works at Alderney had been under the consideration of two successive Boards of Admiralty. The plan approved by the present Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood), when he was at the Admiralty, involved an expenditure of £1,300,000, and the modifications of that system sanctioned by the late Board of Admiralty would have increased that expenditure by some £30,000 or £40,000. The expenditure would substantially be about £1,300,000. Upwards of £700,000 had been already expended upon these works, which could not be suspended without great inconvenience. The total Estimate for the habour at Portland was £932,000, of which £813,000 had been expended, so that the Vote now asked for was merely a Vote for the completion of the works. That being the case, he hoped the explanation would be satisfactory to the Committee, and that there would be no further opposition to the Vote.

observed, that the suggestion that the Government should postpone this Vote until the papers referred to in the Estimate were laid upon the table was so reasonable that he could not imagine on what ground they refused to accede to the request.

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had merely repeated an old story, which they had often heard before. he had a most distinct recollection of hearing the late Secretary to the Treasury state to the House last year that the Government had not bound themselves to this enormous expenditure of £1,300,000, and that they would not make the contracts for Alderney without a statement to the House. The original Estimate for the works at Alderney was £600,000; £800,000 had already been expended, and they were now informed that they were committed to the expenditure of £1,300,000. They had been told on a former occasion by a gallant Officer, after £700,000 had been spent upon Alderney, that there was only room in the harbour for seven or eight ships. He believed that the works at Alderney had proved a complete failure, and in order to bring the matter to an issue, he would move the redaction of the Vote by £75,000, the amount required for the harbour in that island.

said, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had complained that the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury in defence of this Vote was merely a repetition of statements which had been previously made on the same subject; but that was an evil which could not be remedied. The hon. Gentleman might as reasonably complain that the same demonstration was given to a mathematical problem. The Government could only urge the best reasons for the construction of these harbours, which were not harbours of refuge, but military harbours, and it was impossible to invent new reasons without going beyond the verge of truth. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) had taken the right course to bring this question to an issue. The hon. Gentleman did not want explanation, for it had been given already, but he objected to the expenditure altogether, and the proper course was therefore to take the sense of the Committee upon the question. He (Viscount Palmerston) could only say that the construction of these harbours had been undertaken after most deliberate consideration, with the approval of the highest military and naval authorities, and after repeated discussions in that House. Large sums of money had already been spent upon the works, which were still incomplete, and if they were now suspended all the expenditure hitherto incurred would be entirely thrown away, and the country would be deprived of those military and naval advantages, most essential to the national defences, which these harbours were calculated to afford. With regard to Alderney, there could not be a more important position for the defence of this country. It might be invidious to go into that question now, but it was enough to remind hon. Gentlemen were Cherbourg was, and where Portland was. Alderney was one of the watch-towers of the country, and he thought it would be most prejudicial to the national security if these harbours were not completed as speedily as possible. It had been complained that the harbour at Alderney was not large enough, and with the view of correcting that defect his hon. Friend proposed to refuse any further grant for the works. If, however, the harbour at Alderney was not sufficiently large, it appeared to him that the better course would be to increase the Vote. He thought the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) would admit the importance of the harbour at Alderney, but it was, of course, for the Committee to determine whether these important works should proceed, or whether, after so much expense had been incurred for a number of years, upon the advice of men whose opinions deserved consideration, they would by stopping the works render useless everything that had been done, and deprive the country of the means of defence which these harbours were calculated to afford.

said, that upon investigation the late Board of Admiralty thought it advisable to propose a slight addition to the works at Alderney, and he must remind the Committee that a harbour which was not efficient was really of no value. This country must exhibit a striking spectacle to foreign nations. For ten years sums have been regularly voted for these harbours, and it had been established that they were works of necessity; yet every year Gentlemen were found doing all in their power to prevent them being made efficient. It seemed as if they delighted in undoing in one year what they had done in another.

said, the objection was not to the Vote but that the Committee were called upon to vote the money without sufficient explanation.

said, they had every year the reports of the engineers on these works, so that they were able to form an opinion as to what was going on. These reports had not been presented this year, and he did not understand why they should be asked to agree to this Vote till they had an opportunity of perusing them. The Secretary to the Treasury said there had been a modification of the Alderney Vote, but he should like to see the engineer's report on that modification. Why should the Vote not be postponed till the engineer's reports were in the hands of the Members?

hoped the Vote would be postponed. He was anxious, for one, to see the report of Alderney, as he had been informed that a report had been sent to the Government to the effect that if the original plan were carried out the works would be so large that we should be unable to find troops to occupy them. If the Government would not assent to postpone the Vote, he would be under the necessity of voting against it.

said, he held in his hand the paper containing the explanatory statements that ought to have accompanied the Estimate. It was printed, but had not been delivered. If the House should wish to see that paper before agreeing to the Vote, there could be no objection to postponing the latter.

said, he wished to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the sum of £445,000, which was put down as the cost of a breakwater and piers for the accommodation of the packets. He would find that it was contemplated to expend a sum of £20,000 for a temporary pier for the accommodation of the Irish packets between Holyhead and Dublin; but the principal sum, namely, £430,000, was for a breakwater and a permanent pier, running into deep water, and capable of receiving vessels of large size. If, however, the point of departure for the Transatlantic steamers, as seemed to be now contemplated, was to be from a port on the western coast of Ireland it would be unnecessary to construct the large permanent pier at Holyhead, and in that case the sum of £20,000, with, perhaps, some extension, would be all that it was necessary to expend for packet accommodation at that port. He was anxious to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to this matter, as it involved a very large expenditure which it was important, if possible, to diminish.

said, he had seen the Report relative to this expenditure, and his most serious attention would be directed to it. He warned the House not to sanction the commencement of any work unless they were convinced it ought to he undertaken.

said, that although there had been an increased estimate for the harbour at Holyhead, the increased accommodation for the public was more than commensurate with the increased expenditure. He only wished that all the public works had been executed so well as those at Holyhead.

observed that this sum would not make the harbour a fit harbour of refuge, and the money would be flung away. He thought the Vote should at least be postponed to enable hon. Members to read the papers on the subject, which showed that a better harbour would be found at Lock Ryan at a distance of only two miles.

said, he must remind the Committee that the money for a railway had been subscribed in the district, on the faith that Government would put this harbour into working order.

said, he would move that the Chairman report progress, as he was anxious that the Government should not begin new works, of which they could not see the end. If these expenses were once begun, they might depend that additional sums would be asked for next year. Besides it was well known that Portpatrick would never make a safe harbour.

said, he must admit that the faith of the Government was pledged to this Vote, as there was a bargain between the Government and the railway; that if the railway were made Government would expend £20,000 for the improvement of the harbour.

said, he could confirm the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing). The bargain was made by the Government preceding the last. He thought the public faith was pledged to the Vote, as the railway company had already gone to considerable expense.

said, under those circumstances he would not press his Motion to report progress.

said, he wished to call attention to the item of £10,000 for Dublin Castle and the Phoenix Park buildings, and to express a hope that the Government would seriously consider whether Ireland could not be better and more economically governed by being treated as a part of the Imperial dominions, and by the withdrawal of the viceregal establishments.

observed, that he did not agree with the hon. Member, as he thought it was desirable that the office of Lord Lieutenant ought to be kept up on the principle that he was opposed to the principle of centralisation.

said, that a reduction had been effected under this head in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee that sat on this subject. He wished to know whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to the fact that the patent of the Queen's Printer expired at the end of this year, and to ask whether the Government would be prepared to state the course they proposed to take with reference to that state of things before the prorogation?

said, his attention had been called to it in connection with the other question relating to the printing of the Bible and Prayer-book, together with Acts of Parliament and Proclamations. It was probable that as regarded the printing of Acts of Parliament and the like, it would serve the ends of economy to make another arrangement than now existed with the Queen's Printer. Inasmuch as an authorized publication of the statutes was made legal evidence it was necessary that a certain copy of them should be printed in an authentic shape, and provided security were taken for that purpose the privilege of the Queen's Printer in printing the statutes need not be continued in the present form. Before the close of the Session he would endeavour to state to the House the course which the Government proposed to adopt.

said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether the same argument did not hold good as to the Bible. Why should it be thought that monopoly in it contributed to cheapness?

explained that he had stated on a former night that the cheapness at which the Bible was printed was owing not to any monopoly that was enjoyed by the Queen's Printer, but to the active competition which was carried on between the Queen's Printer and the two Universities, the effect of which was that a Bible was sold for 8d. and a copy of the New Testament for 4d.

said, he believed that the two objects of accuracy and cheapness, both of which were of equal importance in printing the Bible, had been attained by the active competition which existed between the Queen's Printer and the Universities; but the printing of Acts of Parliament and other public matters done by the Queen's Printer rested upon a different foundation, and there was reason to believe that they could hare Acts of Parliament if not better at least more cheaply printed under new regulations than at present.

said, the fact was that cheapness was never attained until the monopoly was thrown open in Scotland.

said, he wished to ask if there was any hope of getting the accounts of counties paid up closer than they were at present, for they had now fallen three half-years in arrear.

said, he understood that in some cases payment had been delayed in consequence of a Commission now sitting on the subject. It would make its report, however, in a few days, and he would then take care that the matter should be looked into.

said, that some years ago abuses did exist on the subject, but inquiry had taken place, and although it had not been found necessary to introduce a new system, the accounts were now subjected to examination, and the charges were regulated under the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, that the system had been the cause of considerable incovenience, but it had been modified, and he hoped that when the arrears were wiped out things would go on in a regular way.

suggested that the number of men should be stated.

said, it would appear in the report.

inquired whether credit was given to the public as the lives of those who had compensation fell in.

explained that this Vote did not include any amount for compensation, but was for the current expenses only.

said, he hoped the Government would give some assurance that steps would be taken to clear off the great increase of causes in this Court.

said, that the subject had occupied the attention of the Government, and that a measure would in all probability be introduced on the subject this Session for the purpose of increasing the judicial strength of the Court.

said, he should move that the Vote be diminished by £85,000, the amount alloted for building and providing court-houses, offices, stationery, and printing. The ground upon which he did this was, that there was no provision for finding court-houses for the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland, and this he thought was unfair, when such advantages were afforded in England.

said, the Vote in question was necessary under an Act of Parliament; and, as to the courts in Scotland, the Lord Advocate would take the matter into consideration.

said, that the subject had been under consideration for years, and that the Government should be prepared to act in the matter.

said, the business in the Sheriffs' Courts was formerly conducted by pleadings, but, as the evidence was now given orally, larger accommodation was required. The question as to the funds out of which that accommodation should be provided was under the consideration of the Government.

said, he thought the Government ought to give a distinct pledge that early next Session they would bring in a Bill to put Scotland exactly on the same footing as England in this respect.

said, he objected to the entire Vote. The expenses of the Civil Bills Courts in Ireland were paid either by the suitors or the counties. The construction of the buildings was paid for out of the county-rates.

said, the question raised by the noble Lord (Viscount Duncan) would be considered by Government, and an attempt made to bring about an equitable adjustment between the two countries.

, said he was willing to withdraw his Motion if the Government would give an assurance that a Bill on the subject should be brought in.

said, he hoped that when the question of building the Sheriffs' Courts came before the House, some endeavour would be made to decrease the judicial expenses in Scotland, which comparatively were greater than in England.

advised the noble Lord, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to withdraw his Motion.

asked whether the fees payable in the County Courts were paid in money or in stamps, and suggested that the latter was the preferable mode.

replied that he would obtain information, and give an answer to the question on a future day.

said, that if there was likely to be a discussion he would postpone it.

said, that in reply to some observations of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. John Locke) on a previous night, he must deny that the creditors of the City of London Union had been parties to the postponement of the payment of their debts. Altogether there was due from the City of London Union to the creditors a sum of £13,366. The difference between that sum and £23,000 or £24,000 arose from other circumstances, but did not consist of debt. Of this £13,366, £4,207 was due to the Treasurers, who had advanced that amount on its having been represented to them that the people would be turned out of doors if the money was not forthcoming. The whole of the debts due by the City of London was due for necessaries supplied to the Union at a time immediately antecedent to the litigation—which had been supplied by public tender in the usual manner and on the full assurance that they would be immediately paid for. There was no idea whatever of delay in the minds of the parties who supplied the articles, and yet they had not been paid. The opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench had been overruled unanimously by the Court of Exchequer in Error, and one of the Judges in his judgment had intimated that it was for that House to afford a remedy. The parties were now before the House in search of that remedy, and he trusted that from what he had stated, the case stood before the House in a different light from that in which it had been put by the hon. Member for Southwark.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone the Bill.

said, he rose to reply to some observations made by the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Crawford).

said, the hon. Member was entitled to explain anything which deserved explanation in what he had said, but having already spoken he could not reply.

Then I move the adjournment of the House.

The hon. Member having spoken already in the debate has not the power of speaking again or making that Motion.

said, the effect of this Bill was twofold. In the first place, it substituted a declaration for the declaration which on the abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts was substituted for a sacramental test. It was intended for the protection of the Established Church, but how far it would accomplish the object might be seen by the declaration itself. By the existing declaration all municipal officers testified on the true faith of a Christian that they would never exercise any power or authority with which they were invested to injure or weaken the Protestant Church as by law established, or to disturb the said Church, or any Bishop of the said Church, in the possession of any right or privilege to which they were or might become entitled. The second clause of the Bill repealed the statute of George I., by which municipal officers were prohibited from attending any place of worship other than one of the Established Church in their official dress or the badges of office. He was not prepared to say that either of these two clauses afforded any substantial security to the Established Church, but there was no complaint that any inconvenience was experienced by their existence. It was for the House to say whether they would agree to the Bill.

said, he was of opinion that the House should not agree to this Bill without very full consideration. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would agree to the adjournment of the discussion to give the House an opportunity of reading the Bill.

said, he would remind the House that in some cases corporations enjoyed church patronage.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the House now, because the question, as put, would not decide the issue which he wished to raise. The right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that he had not an opportunity of understanding the Bill, and his hon. Friend ought to give him that opportunity.

(who had on the paper a Motion that this Committee do consist of twenty-one Members, and that Sir E. Grogan and Lord John Browne be added thereto,) said, he shared in the feelings of many Irish Members that generally, in the nomination of Committees in this House, Irishmen were not fairly represented. The Galway contract excited strong interest in Ireland and it was hardly fair that two Irish Members only, and they ex-officials, should be appointed to serve upon it. He begged, therefore, to move the increase of the Committee from nineteen to twenty-one Members.

seconded the Motion.

said, he regretted that he could not accede to this proposition. He had on a former occasion stated that no jealousy existed on the part of the House as to the representation of Irish Members upon Committees. In this instance his hon. Friend could not get rid of the idea of the Galway contract, but, although that might of itself have rendered inquiry necessary, an investigation must equally have taken place into the whole subject of such contracts even if the Galway case had never arisen, and six years ago the necessity of instituting such an inquiry was recognized. The effect of the Motion would be to place on the Committee two Gentlemen pledged beforehand to support the Galway contract. Now, there were already four Gentlemen on the Committee who, as Members of the late Government, would avowedly sit there as defenders of that contract, and the public jealousy would be justly aroused if they tampered any further with the constitution of the Committee. There was a direct objection moreover to one of the names proposed—Lord John Browne—as he was connected with the locality, and the Government had studiously avoided any selection of Gentlemen who might be supposed to have a local bias. All the Members of the late Government were Irish Members for the purposes of the Galway contract, and if they were disposed to make two seats over to his hon. Friend the Government would have no objection.

said, he was not aware it was intended to propose his name. He admitted he was as much prejudiced one way as the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) the other, and if they were both on the Committee the fairest thing they could do would be to pair off. He begged to say he had no local connection with Galway.

said, it might be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that the Irish Members were interested in favour of the Galway contract, but he would ask if it was not the fact that there were Members on the Committee quite as strongly interested the other way? What he, in common with other Irish Members, wanted was that they as a body should be fairly represented in the constitution of the Committee. He for one did not exactly like to be governed after the manner of the Ionian Islands.

said, be would remind the House that the petition of Sir William Russell, against the return at the last election for Dover, contained certain allegations in reference to the Dover contract, and he would therefore suggest that that Gentleman's case might be prejudiced if that contract were made the subject of inquiry before the Election Committee had tried the allegations in his petition.

said, that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting quite justly in placing some of the accused on the Committee, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were other interests involved in this matter than those of the late Government; namely, the interests of the commercial world in Ireland, and it was not a little remarkable that not a single representative of any commercial place in that part of the kingdom had been placed upon the Committee.