said, that the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London, in opposing this Bill in former stages, had been actuated solely by what they believed to be a public duty, but he was authorized by them to say, although they were not satisfied with the result, that they did not feel called upon to offer any further opposition.

observed, that he thought the decision of the House on the previous occasion, not to send the Bill to another Committee, would increase the discontent that prevailed in respect of the contradictory decisions arrived at by Committees of that House.

said, that as the subject of this measure was a very wide one, he would suggest to the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill that it should be withdrawn for the present, and re-introduced in the next Session, when the subject could be considered by a Select Committee. The Bill contained some excellent provisions, but there were an immense number of Acts of Parliament to be considered, and therefore it would not be expedient to proceed further at present.

remarked that he approved the suggestion for withdrawal.

said, he believed that opposition was to be expected, and therefore, although he thought the Bill was in many respects an excellent one, he would also recommend its withdrawal for the present. At the same time he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Clithero for having turned his attention to a subject which was of greater importance than was generally supposed.

said, he felt bound to yield to the suggestions of his hon. Friends, and therefore would not press the Bill this Session, but hoped to re-introduce it early next Session.

said, as there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the nature and objects of this Bill, he wished briefly to state what its intentions really were. It was supposed by some that his object was to abolish altogether the power of imprisonment for small debts by County Court Judges; but all he proposed to do was simply to put an end to the power of imprisonment without a hearing. According to the opinion of some lawyers, his Bill would not alter the law at all. One of the clauses of the County Courts Act gave to Judges in those courts power to commit persons to prison in the following cases, viz.: —If a party appeared before them, and gave unsatisfactory answers; if a party did not appear, and the Judge was satisfied from the evidence that the debt was contracted fraudulently, or that the party had the means of paying it, while refusing to do so. That was the interpretation, he ventured to say, most hon. Members would give to the clause on reading it. Some of the County Court Judges, however, had interpreted that clause as giving them power to commit a person without any inquiry whatever; and it often happened that illness or other circumstances which could be satisfactorily explained, prevented the attendance of the party, who was punished with imprisonment. The real question therefore was whether a County Court Judge should commit with or without inquiry? Upon a previous occasion he had shown that no less than 8,000 persons had been so committed during the past year, and the committal, it must be borne in mind, was simply a punishment, not operating as an extinguishment of the debt. With regard to the treatment of prisoners so committed, he found it stated in a newspaper that they were stripped upon entering the gaol, their clothes searched, their diet limited, and only two hours a day allowed for exercise. He had received a communication from the governor of Carlisle gaol, pointing out the hardships involved in the operation of the enactment in question. From this paper it appeared that persons were imprisoned for very small sums, and that in one ease a man had been imprisoned nine times for one debt of £9. The whole term of his imprisonment amounted to a year, although if he bad stolen the money lie would only have been committed for half that period. The present state of things on this subject was unjust, cruel, and intolerant, and demanded the immediate interposition of Parliament, and he believed that the Bill, instead of impairing the efficiency of the County Courts, would improve them, by removing the only cause of scandal and dissatisfaction to which they gave rise.

said, he entirely concurred with his hon. and learned Friend in the propriety of passing the first clause of the Bill, for he was of opinion that a minority of the County Court Judges, some thirteen or fourteen out of sixty—put a wrong construction on the 98th section of the County Court Act. It was important that doubts on the point should be removed, for all the hardships and scandal with respect to these commitments had arisen from that erroneous though conscientious construction of the law. The late Lord Chancellor directed the standing committee of the County Court Judges, which regulated the practice and framed the rules for those Courts, to ascertain what the practice of the County Court Judges had been in respect to the matter to which the attention of the House had been called. Their report had unfortunately been laid on the table only the night previous, but from that it appeared that it was only thirteen or fourteen of those Judges, as he had just stated, who put that peremptory construction of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained on the 98th section of the Act. He therefore thought that the public was indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth for introducing the present measure to set the matter at rest. In the report he had just mentioned it was stated that the County Court Judges approved the present Bill in reference to the 98th section of the Act; but they were of a different opinion in regard to the second clause, limiting the amount of imprisonment. All the abuses had arisen from the erroneous construction of the 98th section, but the County Court Judges considered the second clause of the present Bill most impolitic, and thought that instead of operating as a relief to the lower classes it would produe the opposite ef- fect. Considering the precaviousness of employment and the liability of the labouring classes to attacks of illness, they conceived that it would be hard on them if any step should be taken having the effect of depriving creditors of their rights and thus preventing them occasionally obtaining credit.

said, that there was no wish to prevent credit being given to the poorer classes, or to deprive creditors of the means of obtaining their money; but the House had to consider whether the poorer class of persons who came within the purview of the County Court system had not a harder measure of justice dealt out to them than persons obtaining credit in a different situation. He strongly objected to the imprisonment which the Bill proposed to abolish. The commitment was, in fact, not for debt, but in poenam; and it was altogether objectionable that a Judge should commit a debtor, without investigation, and merely at the instigation of a vindictive creditor. When there was fraud in respect to a debt there ought to be some determinate punishment, and he could not understand why there should he a power of committing and re-committing time after time the same person for the same debt. It should be borne in mind, too, that in many prisons the persons so committed were treated nearly as possible like criminal prisoners. He should, therefore, be glad to see, as proposed by the second clause of the Bill, some limit put on the amount of imprisonment.

remarked, that if the House wished to allow a system of credit for the benefit of the lower classes and of trade, then a power of summary punishment must be given against the debtor in certain cases. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had said that, if there were fraud in respect to a debt, let that fraud be once for all punished. But it should he borne in mind that these imprisonments under the County Courts were for nonpayment of debt, accompanied by continual ability to pay it. Consequently, the Judge went on ordering the imprisonment of the debtor so long as the latter had money in his pocket, in order to obtain that money for the creditor, a working man in many cases who had charitably made a loan to his fellow workman, who ungratefully avoided repayment. As to the injury so much spoken of, generally the only person who could give any information was either the plaintiff or the defendant. If the defendant did not appear, the only course loft open to the Judge was to question the plaintiff. He regarded the first clause of the present Bill as declaratory of the existing law, and deemed it unobjectionable.

observed, that the effect of the measure would be to destroy credit; in his opinion a very cruel proceeding to the labouring classes themselves. He would therefore move that the Chairman report progress, in order to allow time for the Report of the Committee of the County Court Judges to be printed, and to give an opportunity to hon. Members connected with manufacturing districts to communicate with their constituents on the subject.

said, it was altogether a fallacy to say that a power of inflicting perpetual imprisonment was necessary to sustain credit. He would therefore express his hope that some limit would be placed upon the terms of imprisonment imposed by County Courts. The present system of imprisoning debtors for successive terms was most oppressive, and he thought this Bill would be beneficial, inasmuch as its most important feature was to propose that there should be something like a limit to the period of imprisonment.

said, he hoped that as the Bill would restrict the power of imprisonment it would receive the assent of the Committee and the sanction of the House. He found that a large proportion of the debts for which persons were subject to imprisonment by County Court Judges were contracted with travelling hawkers, frequently by wives without the knowledge of their husbands, who, however, suffered for their imprudence. In his own district (Bedfordshire) he found that the number of debtors committed by the County Court Judges was, in 1855, 40; in 1856, 60; in 1857, 93; and in 1858, 122—a large proportion of these persons having been consigned to prison at the suit of travelling hawkers. The increase in the number of commitments was, he believed, attributable in a great measure to a recent change in the law, by which the cost of conveying debtors to prison under County Court commitments was transferred from the plaintiffs to the Treasury. Some of the persons committed were young women under the age of 21, and in one case a girl of 19 was sent to prison because she had not paid for a shawl sold to her by a travelling hawker some five years before, when she was only 14 or 15 years of age. He be- lieved that these harsh proceedings were not generally attributable to the hawkers themselves, but to agents to whom, when they quitted a district, they sold the debts due to them. Persons were constantly imprisoned, under successive commitments, for a long period, and at the last Spring Assizes the Lord Chief Baron, in referring to this subject, mentioned the case of a wan who had been imprisoned eight time?, and for a period of 270 days for the same debt. The individuals imprisoned under these commitments were, in his opinion, treated with unnecessary rigour. In the gaol of the county with which he was connected the accommodation for this class of prisoners was very insufficient; the area for exercise was extremely limited; they were only allowed to receive visits under certain restrictions; they were not allowed to maintain themselves if they were able to do so, nor were their friends allowed to furnish them with any supplies; and, although they were treated with all the indulgence consistent with the prison regulations, their dietary was by no means satisfactory. He hoped, therefore, that measures would be taken to put a stop to the system of renewed commitments. If, then, the Committee would only pass the first section of the Bill, one step, at all events, would be gained. There would no longer be a term of imprisonment which was in excess of the intent and meaning of the law; but if it were considered that eighty days' imprisonment was too low a minimum, he hoped that in any case some limit or other would be agreed upon. Let it be remembered that when a labourer was taken from his wife and children and imprisoned, the only resort of the family was the workhouse. Many cases of that sort had occurred in his county, and in the course of the present year a memorial had been presented to the Home Secretary from the Board of Guardians of the Bedford Union, complaining of the hardships to families and the injustice to ratepayers which had resulted therefrom.

said, he trusted the Motion for reporting progress would not be persisted in, for he felt that if there were but one hour left remaining of the Session it could not be more profitably spent than in the endeavour to pass this Bill. He wished to call the attention of the hon. and learned Solicitor General to one point with respect to which the existing law operated very oppressively. He had been told that it was competent to a creditor to go to any Court within the jurisdiction of a Judge and obtain a summons there. The result was that the creditor went to the Court which was most convenient to himself and summoned the debtor to that Court, and it had been stated to him that men had been suddenly summoned to answer for a debt of 3s. 6d. at a distance of twenty-five miles, and if they did not travel that distance forthwith the omission to do so was followed by committal to gaol. There was a clause in the Act, however, which empowered the Judge to reconsider his own order of committal, and to make such further orders as he might deem necessary; and it would seem to have been contemplated that, when he made out a commitment in consequence of a person not appearing to give an account of his property, the debtor could then be called up before the Judge, and the matter further investigated, when he might reverse the commitment, or deal with the case as he might think proper. But that clause did not seem to have been carried into effect for the purpose of mitigating the severity of the law. The present state of things was such as to affect the working classes most seriously. There must be some limit fixed to the power of commitment; and now that this measure was before the Committee, he hoped it would be thoroughly discussed and considered.

said, there seemed to be a disposition to treat this Bill as if it related only to debts of very small amount, but it must be remembered that the County Courts exercised jurisdiction in cases of debts up to the amount of £50, and he thought if this Bill were passed it would operate prejudicially to the interests of creditors whoso debts were of any considerable amount. If the Bill passed in its present form no debtor would ever appear on a judgment summons, but creditors would have to search the country round for evidence as to the debtor's means of payment, and in many cases it would be the creditor's interest to lose his debt rather than incur such labour and expense. He thought that after a creditor had proved his debt the onus probandi with regard to future proceedings ought to rest upon the debtor, and not upon the creditor. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Nottingham would persist in his Amendment.

said, he bad had some experience of the working of the power of imprisonment now exercised by the County Court Judges, and he believed that the efficiency of those Courts would be very much impaired if that power were interfered with. In cases, for example, where there were no goods upon which to recover, it was only by the existence of the power of imprisonment that the payment of instalments could be enforced.

said, he would suggest to the hon. Member(Mr. Paget) that it was most desirable that he should not press his Amendment, and that the better course would be to allow the Committee to proceed with the discussion of the clauses. One point to which he would direct attention was, that the County Court Judge had a double capacity. He was a Judge of the County Court for small debts, and also a Judge in insolvency. As a Judge in insolvency he possessed the power of bringing up the insolvent before him for examination, and of putting any questions to him with regard to his debts; but it so happened that he had not that power in his capacity of County Court Judge. The consequence was that he could not bring up a debtor to be examined, or put questions to him on the subject of his debts; and it was in that inability that the necessity for the power of imprisonment resided. If the County Court Judge could have the debtor before him there would be no necessity for falling back upon that which was an imperfect resource, the examination of the plaintiff. A Judge had no originative power; he could only examine the witnesses that were brought before him by the plaintiff or the defendant, or examine the parties themselves if they appeared. If he had not the power of compelling the attendance of the defendant all he could do was to examine the witnesses produced, and if he were deprived of the power of imprisonment, or if that power were materially curtailed, he would be deprived of the power of operating upon the defendant altogether, and in a corresponding degree the disposition to give credit would be diminished. If a person could not recover the debt, of course he would not give credit; and in the exact proportion in which the remedy of the creditor was diminished, was necessarily diminished the inducement to give credit. Now in his opinion there had been a disposition to form too harsh an estimate of the conduct of the County Court Judges as a body in respect to the exercise of this power of imprisonment. The system of small debts courts, it should he recollected, had not been created by the County Courts Act. For a long period before the passing of that Act a number of Small Debts Courts and Courts of Requests had been scattered over the country, which had a power of imprisonment exactly similar to that with which the Committee was then dealing; and several of the Judges of those Courts had been appointed County Court Judges. The practice of those Courts of Requests had, as a rule, been somewhat arbitrary. For example, they had been in the habit of admitting an agent to appear instead of the creditor or plaintiff, and of imprisoning debtors upon very loose evidence; and these Judges, acting as County Court Judges, would naturally continue the ancient practice. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not form an erroneous opinion of the County Court Act, by supposing that it had introduced a more lax system; the truth being that it had introduced a stricter one, and secured the appointment of a more learned class of Judges than had presided in the Courts of Requests of old.

said, that after the discussion which had taken place he would so suggest that the hon. Member (Mr. Paget) should withdraw his Motion for reporting progress, and that after the first clause, which was generally approved of by the County Count Judges themselves', had been agreed to, the hon. Member should move the omission of the second and only other clause.

consented to the suggestion. Clause 1 agreed to.

said, he wished to express his opinion that power ought to be given to the County Court Judge to call the defendant before him and examine him in ordinary cases, the same as in cases of insolvency.

said, he objected to proceeding with the measure at that late period of the Session. The change which it proposed was exceedingly trivial, and the saving it would effect was hardly worth the paper on winch the Bill was printed. The expenses it sought to diminish were not one-sixth of the entire amount to which high-sheriffs were subject, its provisions dealing with the javelin-men alone. The whole question might fairly be reviewed during the next Session by a Select Committee; but the Bill before the House did not meet the difficulty. It3 very preamble was erroneous, for it recited that an Act had been passed in 1833 for lessening the expenses of the office of high sheriff, whereas the Bill having that object had been thrown out by a great majority, There were throe points on which he objected to the measure—first, that it transferred the charge of maintaining order in court during the assizes and sessions from the High Sheriff to the ratepayers. The second was that it centralized the power of the county in the hands of the chief constable, and the third was that it tended to promote what he would call a species of "unpatriotic egotism." Since the first institution of the office in the time of Edward I. the Sheriffs had been required to be men of sufficient means, and an Act of the 13th and 14th Charles II. provided that they should in England have each twenty retainers, and in Wales twelve. These were the javelin-men who were paid by the Sheriff. Some other charges to which the sheriff was put in receiving the Judges with proper state were met by a Parliamentary Vote to the extent of £10,500, which was paid out of the Consolidated Fund under the title of "Cravings," and now the promoters of the present measure wished to throw another 10,000 on the country rates for the same purpose. The squires of England did not repudiate the duties incident to their position; and though they generally did not covet the office of Sheriff, yet when they were chosen to fill it they were willing to receive her Majesty's Judges when they visited the assize towns in a manner becoming their high station and dignity. The Bill proposed to abolish the javelin-men, or retainers of the Sheriff, who usually consisted of his cottagers or small tenants, by whom a suit of clothing or a small amount of money was regarded as an adequate remuneration for their attendance when required. Half-a-dozen policemen would not form a proper retinue with which the High-Sheriff should meet and escort the Judges of the laud on their arrival; but such would be the arrangement under that Bill. However useful the police might be in their own vocation, it was well known that they were not a popular body, and it would therefore be a pity to associate the ancient and honourable office of Sheriff with that force. An objection more to the purpose, however, was that if they were called upon to perform this extra duty, the strength of the police would either have to be increased, or we must expect to see an increase of crime. What might suit a few rural districts would not answer for the Midland and other populous counties. In Staffordshire, the javelin-men were employed fifty two days in the year at the assizes and sessions; and it was obvious that if the police had this amount of additional duty thrown upon them they could not properly watch those parts of the country where strikes and disturbances of the peace from time to time occurred. The measure would, moreover, centralize everything in the hands of the chief constable, and by and by we might expect to have stipendiary magistrates appointed in every county. The utmost that the Bill would save would be from £30 to £50 a year in some cases; or in the larger counties it might be £150. The measure evinced a spirit inimical to the discharge of the public duties hitherto connected with the possession of property and position, and he would for these reasons move as an Amendment that the Speaker leave the Chair that day three months.

observed, that the only reasonable argument against their going into Committee on the Bill was the lateness of the Session, but even that did not apply, as the Bill was a remarkably short one. It only affected one portion of the Sheriff's retinue, the javelin-men, always a very useless, and often not a very sober body of men, and whose assistance in keeping order could advantageously be spared. It was absurd to say that the respect shown to the Judges was to be measured by the number of men in red coats, accompanied by trumpeters discoursing very ineloquent music, who escorted them into an assize town. All that idle paraphernalia was as much out of date as the Lord Mayor's Show, and the sooner it was swept away the better, I he Bill, therefore, was not only defensible on the ground of the saving of expense it would effect, but because it would introduce a more efficient system. The county police were the proper body to keep order in court; and he would meet the objection that they would be taken away from their local duties, by reminding his hon. Friend that at every assizes a number of policemen were summoned as witnesses, and the chief constable could easily arrange that they should, when not giving evidence, maintain order in court. Much had been said of the honour due to the Judges, but for his part he could not see what honour was given to the Judges by putting into a gilt coach at the station the man with whom they travelled cheek-by-jowl in the railway carriage, and who, perhaps, made his appearance on the platform in a wideawake and a shooting-jacket. The shortness of the remaining portion of the Session was no excuse for murdering this innocent.

said, the hon. Baronet had by his pleasantries drawn off the attention of the Committee from the real point before them. He (Mr. Deedes) did not stand up for the sobriety or the general appearance of the javelin-men, but if the Sheriff was to be attended, the question was by whom should it be, and who was to pay the Bill? In Hampshire, the Sheriff paid the magistrates a fixed sum each year for providing persons to keep order in court.[Sir JOHN SHELLEY: Hear, hear!] It seemed, then, that the hon. Baronet had no objection to that arrangement, and yet it was not in the spirit of the Bill, which was to reduce the Sheriffs' expenses, and it seemed that it was to the javelin-men that he objected. He (Mr. Deedes) had no objection to sec the Sheriffs' expenses reduced, but as the truth was that in almost every county a different custom prevailed in regard to the state kept up and the hospitality shown by the High Sheriff. The fact was that because some gentlemen took the duties of Sheriff con amore, and liked to display their hospitality and distribute their claret, other gentlemen, who disliked to follow the example, complained of the expense, and hence this Bill was introduced. He thought nothing could be more unjust than to throw upon the ratepayers the expense which the country gentlemen had no objection to bear. Under all circumstances he should oppose their proceeding further with the Bill.

said, that under the present law the Sheriff was responsible to the Judge for the maintenance of peace and order at assizes or sessions; and the relative positions of High Sheriff and chief constable were very anomalous. The Bill provided that the chief constable should have a number of policemen to preserve order in the assize court; but in the event of a row happening, would these policemen, or would they not, be under the authority of the High Sheriff? It was to be doubted whether they would be under the Sheriff at all, and yet, though he had no control by law over that force, the Sheriff might be fined by the Judge if he did not maintain order. The prisoners of a county also were under the custody of the Sheriff and the gaoler was his servant. Surely, then, the House must go a step further than that Bill, and place the chief constable under the direction of the Sheriff. That, however, would raise a question demanding more careful consideration than could be bestowed upon it that Session. The task they had to perform was to bring the ancient jurisdiction of the Sheriff into harmony with the modern jurisdiction of the chief constable. The duties connected with the peace of the county were now nearly all thrown on the chief constable, the great Executive officer of the magistracy, and the Sheriff was almost shelved. He should support the Amendment.

said, he differed altogether from the promoters of this Bill as the result of its being passed into law would be to compel the police to neglect their ordinary duty or occasion a large increase in the force. He had received a letter from the head constable of Suffolk, objecting to the police under his employment being employed as guards for the Sheriff and Judges. It had been tried in that county, and the result was that the rural districts had been unscrupulously pillaged while the police were engaged at the assize town.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Member (Mr. Henley) that the ancient office of Sheriff had undergone great changes in consequence of recent legislation. Originally the Sheriff was at the head of the criminal courts in the county, and unquestionably it was his constitutional duty to keep order at the assizes, and, perhaps, also at sessions. In our quiet times a forcible attempt to rescue a prisoner was not, perhaps, to be apprehended, though a celebrated instance of the kind occurred in a State trial at the end of the last century. But while it was most important that the legal liability of the Sheriff, or some public officer, to hold prisoners in custody, both in gaol and in court, should be clearly defined, the House ought not pass any Bill throwing any obscurity upon that liability. Some objections had, however, been taken to that measure, to which it was not fairly open. As he understood it, its object was not to diminish the effective force, but to do away with mere pageant and parade. When a Judge used to drive into an assize town in a coach and four, it was natural that he should be received with some display. But when he now travelled by railway there was not the same reason as formerly for a ceremonial exhibition on his arrival. The javelin-men did not materially contribute to the maintenance of order in court. There was in every large county a considerable reserve of police permanently kept in the county town, which, together with the policemen attending the assizes as witnesses, would be quite sufficient to guard the court and preserve decorum. Therefore, all the fears expressed as to an increase of the police force, and consequently of the county rate, as well as the danger of enlarging the power of the central authority, might be dismissed as purely chimerical. The chief difficulty would arise in the smaller counties, where there was not the same reserve of police. The Bill was, perhaps, crude and inartificial in its form; but its object was a practicable one. Whether that object could be best carried out by a previous inquiry before a Select Committee or otherwise he would not venture to say; but subject to the qualification he had indicated he was generally favourable to the measure.

said, he should not oppose the passing of the Bill, though he thought it was in a very imperfect condition and did not touch the main greivances to which High Sheriffs were subjected. In his opinion the subject of the duties and expenses of High Sheriffs ought to be carefully investigated by a Select Committee, and a measure introduced by the Government in a future Session.

said, he had lately seen ail account in the newspapers that at the Hampshire assizes the Judges, of whom Baron Watson was one, wore preceded into town by policemen, and if there were any objection to the employment of policemen, Baron Watson, being a Judge of great authority on the subject, would have taken it. As the Bill was so short he trusted it would be proceeded with and its merits tested in Committee. He thought the slur which had been thrown upon the body of policemen generally was not justified. Policemen were, in his opinion, the best maintainers of order in courts of justice as well as everywhere else. The Queen's drawing room was protected by policemen, and in the Miscellaneous Estimates, Votes were taken for police to keep the peace at Shorncliffe and Aldershot. He had also himself seen the greatest hero of the age, the late Duke of Wellington, surrounded by policemen.

said, that in the county which he represented they had now in force the very system which his hon. Friend by this Bill proposed to make general throughout the country. The javelin men had proved so inefficient that a committee of gentlemen who had served the office of High Sheriff, had been appointed to consider some better means of preserving order. The head constable being appealed to, said he could furnish sufficient policemen to keep order without throwing additional expense on the county. The Judges themselves had since admitted that order was now much better kept than before. They had considered the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and they got over it in this way. They authorized the head constable to place a certain number of men under the orders of the High Sheriff during the time of the assizes, so that for that time at least there was no conflicting jurisdiction. Seeing, then, that the system worked so well in his county, he thought there could be no reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with, and made the law of the land.

said, he thought the remarks of the hon. Gentleman showed that this Bill was not necessary, as the gentry of the county had the power to effect all that was necessary without having recourse to legislation at all.

said, his hon. Friend could not have read the Bill. It was well known that the Judges had the power to impose a heavy fine on Sheriffs for the non-attendance of javelin-men—a power which more than once they had exercised; and it was proposed by this Bill to take away the power. This was not a question of keeping order, but of state and pageantry; and there was no pageantry in having twenty-four decrepit old men moving before the Judge, and preceded by an asthmatic trumpeter. The time had arrived when javelin-men ought to be done away with. The Judges did not want them; they were continually in the way, and were not of the slightest use in maintaining order. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire asked, in his own emphatic language, if there was a row where would be the javelin-men? He would answer, everywhere but where the row was. He hoped this Bill would be allowed to go into Committee.

said, he would move that the second reading of this Bill be postponed until Monday next.

said, for the convenience of all parties interested, he must call upon the Government to state whether it was their intention to proceed with this measure or not. Considering the late period of the Session it would be quite impossible to pass the Bill.

said, he was of the same opinion. The excitement in the City was very great against the Bill, and the Government ought at once to give an answer whether they would go on with it or not.

observed that nothing could be more lamentable than to see a feeble Government abandoning a good measure in order to please a section of its supporters. If the present Bill had been in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would have been passed long ago. He hoped, notwithstanding the late period of the Session at which we had arrived, that the Bill would be proceeded with, though he was determined to oppose the clause which disfranchised the liverymen in regard to the election of Lord Mayor.

said, the reason why the hon. Baronet felt satisfied with the measure was clear—it was not one of reform at all. The Government ought not to proceed with it at this late period.

said, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Office had been obliged to leave the House, in order to attend a Cabinet Council, but he would doubtless return before the hour of adjournment, and state whether he intended to go on with the Bill or not.

said, he would not repeat the statement which he had made to the House the other night on the subject of Greenwich Hospital. He had brought forward this question for the last three or four years, and successive Boards of Admiralty had promised amendment, but he had always been deceived. The fact was that at present the officers in the hospital were treated in one way and the men in another, and he did not think the House should delay to do what was an act of simple justice. It had been proved that the Navy was an unpopular service, and no means ought to be left untried to remove such an impression. That being so, he should persist in the Motion of which he had given notice.

said, his noble Friend (Lord C. Paget) had been called away on professional duty, and in his absence he should be obliged to oppose the Motion, as he hardly thought the House was prepared to enter upon a course which must entail a serious expenditure. The gallant Admiral had stated on a previous occasion that the salaries of the officers of Greenwich Hospital amounted to £25,000, while the sum spent on the maintenance of the pensioners was only £33,000 a year. He had, however, omitted a great many items which ought to be included in the cost of maintaining the men, such as £5,000 for the wages of the servants, who were most of them pensioners, £6,000 for clothing, £4,000 for household stores, together with the cost of maintaining the sick in the infirmary, and two or three other items, which really raised the pensioners' account to something like £60,000 a year. He complained, too, that some of the Commissioners were nonresident, the fact being that only one of them was, and that because there was no residence for him. There might be some points in the management of the hospital which admitted of improvement, but the present Admiralty had been so short a time in office it was impossible for them to have examined the subject. During the recess, however, they would look into the funds and the expenditure, and would endeavour to carry out any improvements, which appeared desirable. Meanwhile, he put it to the House whether it was worth while to incur the expense of a Commission.

said, he did not think that in such a case the expense of a Commission ought to stand in the way of inquiry. The question had come before the Commissioners for Manning the Navy, who came to the conclusion that the question was so large a one, and the abuses were so many, that it was impossible for them to deal with them without travelling out of the proper limits of their authority. The Commissioners certainly expected that an inquiry would be made, and he thought that four or five naval officers could be assembled at small expense to give their opinion on the points at issue. The circumstance that the Government had recently come into office was no reason why a Commission should not issue.

said, he had no doubt that many improvements might be introduced into the management, of the hospital, but he did not believe any jobbing or peculation existed there, and from his knowledge of the officers he could say that a more zealous and honourable set of men never existed. Abuses did not prevail at Greenwich so much as at Whitehall.

said, he hoped that the gallant Admiral would not persevere in his Motion, seeing that the present Board of Admiralty could have had no opportunity of examining into the subject. The career of the late Board, too, had been cut short before they were enabled to inquire. Much dissatisfaction certainly prevailed respecting the management of Greenwich Hospital, and next year, failing any action on the part of the Government, he should be very happy to support the Motion for a Commission.

said, the Motion was not brought on in opposition to the Government. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lygon) admitted that great improvements were necessary, and the best way to bring them about would be to have an inquiry by a Commission. He felt disposed to hope that the hon. and gallant Member's Motion would have been passed unanimously. Upon what ground was it opposed? Why, solely on the ground of expense. But he thought that the expense must depend upon management, and he could not admit the validity of the excuse. The hon. and gallant Admiral was in earnest in his Motion, and his exertions on behalf of the navy were fully appreciated by the public. Year after year he had pointed out the abuses without obtaining a remedy; and it was high time for the House to interfere. He hoped, therefore, the hon. and gallant Admiral would divide the House on the question.

said, he wished the House to understand that the question was not whether there should or should not be an inquiry, but whether that inquiry should be conducted in the first instance by the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty and other officers of that department, or by a Commission. The question of expense certainly ought not to be overlooked, and he wished to put it to the House by which of the two ways the inquiry was likely to be more satisfactorily and economically carried out.

said, the same pro raises of reforming abuses had been made, and had invariably been broken, by successive Boards of Admiralty. It was the duty of the House, therefore, to step forward and intrust the inquiry to men who would form a strictly impartial opinion on the subject.

said, he thought the House was not then in a position to decide the question. He for one was not prepared to submit this question to four or five old Admirals. He thought the inquiry ought not to be made without more definite materials than the House had before them at present.

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken could hardly have been in the House when the hon, and gallant Admiral made his statement the other night. On that occasion so many abuses and grievances were brought forward as to convince him (Mr. Spooner) that an inquiry ought no longer to be delayed. Promises to that effect had been frequently made, but, as it appeared, those promises were never kept. He should therefore support the Motion.

said, the necessity of an inquiry was undisputed, and the only question was how it should be conducted. In his opinion it would be better to leave the question in the hands of the Admiralty, for if his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset undertook an inquiry, no man would carry it out more efficiently. He had some considerable suspicions as to inquiries by Commissions, and he was satisfied that if the House wanted the thing done well it was better to commit such inquiries to the Government. Let the Government be held responsible for the correction of these abuses, instead of transferring that responsibility to a Commission.

said, that there seemed to be some confusion as to the functions of a Commission. You did not take away the responsibility of a Government by setting a Commission to inquire. "Depend upon the Government," said the right hon. Baronet. He would do no such thing. Tell him what the evil was, and then he could hold the Government responsible for curing it, but he would not depend on the Government for telling him, and a Commission, therefore, was absolutely necessary. He recollected an inquiry into the Municipal Corporations and an inquiry into the Poor Law. Did anybody suppose that the Government could have carried out those inquiries without assistance? The fact was that Greenwich Hospital was known as a very nest of corruption, and he would not trust any but persons independent of the Ministry with the duty of inquiring into it.

said, he would request the hon. and gallant Admiral to wait and see what the Government would do. If he found that their pledges were not fulfilled, it would be time to move for a Commission. At present he (Mr. Angerstcin) was willing to support the Government.

said, it would be for the convenience of the public if this Bill were now read a second time, and the discussion taken on the Committee to-morrow.

observed, that he should not object to the second reading being taken now, if it was for the public service.

said, the Committee on the Bill would be taken the next evening, immediately after the statement of his noble Friend the Secretary of State on Foreign Affairs.