said, he rose to call the attention of the House to a question of Privilege, and he meant to conclude with a Motion. The petition relative to the Pontefract election, which was presented a few days ago, had attracted considerable attention, not only in that House, but throughout the country. The Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations of that petition had only just been circulated, and he had not succeeded in obtaining a copy of that Report until within a very short time of the meeting of the House.

rose to order. He had himself a Notice on the paper for a Motion for the issue of a new writ, which was, he imagined, a matter of privilege, and was entitled to precedence.

said, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Westhead) had stated that he intended to conclude with a Motion on a question of privilege. That hon. Gentleman was in the possession of the House, and if the question to which he was calling attention was one of privilege he was entitled to proceed.

proceeded. When interrupted, he was saying that he had only obtained a copy of the Report of the Committee shortly before the meeting of the House, and had not been enabled to do more than glance over it very hastily. It appeared to him that by far the larger portion of that Report might be regarded as little more than a narrative of the allegations of the petition of which it might be said to be an analysis; but he would draw the attention of the House, and especially of the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract (Mr. Overend) to the three concluding paragraphs of the Report, which seemed to contain the sum and substance—the very kernel, as it were—of the Committee's decision. The 17th paragraph ran thus:—

"Such are the facts with reference to the withdrawal of the Pontefract election petition. Many of these facts are still under dispute; but one thing is clear, and that is, that a great misconception has prevailed throughout, as well with regard to the intention of the parties, as also with regard to the meaning and effect of the memorandum itself. The consequence is that the election peti- tion has never been tried, the agreement intended to be substituted for it has failed of taking effect, and the rights of the parties with regard to the seat have not been determined."

The 18th paragraph was of especial importance at the present moment:—

"Under these circumstances, your Committee are of opinion that the petitioner should, if possible, be restored to the same position in which he stood before the agreement of the 19th of July, 1S59, was signed, and before the election petition was withdrawn; but your Committee must leave it to the House to determine whether it possesses the power of restoring the petitioner to that position."

The 19th paragraph said:—

"Your Committee have refrained from giving any opinion on the personal matters which have been brought under their notice. As the character or conduct of several parties have been more or less impugned, they have allowed a fuller latitude of statement than they would otherwise have thought right; but having done that, in order that everything which can be urged on either side may fairly be brought under the consideration of the House, they conceive that they will beat discharge their duty by confining their observations to the only matter which has been specifically referred to them—namely, the allegations contained in the petition of Mr. Childers, relative to the withdrawal of the Pontefract election petition."

Now, he wished particularly to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr, Overend) and of the House to that portion of the 18th paragraph which referred to the circumstances in which Mr. Childers had been placed in connection with this petition. He would not attempt to go through all the allegations of the petition, nor would he refer to the observations occurring in the course of the Report, which seemed to indicate a strong feeling in favour of Mr. Childers on the part of the Committee. He thought, however, that when the following words of the 18th paragraph were fairly considered there was but one course open to the hon. Member for Pontefract:—

"Under these circumstances your Committee are of opinion that the petitioner should, if possible, be restored to the same position in which he stood before the agreement of the 19th of July, 1859, was signed, and before the election petition was withdrawn."

He was sure the experience of hon. Gentlemen who had for any long time occupied seats in that assembly would lead them to the conclusion that it was quite impossible by any act of the House to restore the petitioner to the position in which he stood before the 19th of July; but the Committee had, as it appeared to him, offered in this paragraph a suggestion which was clear and patent to any man who regarded the subject with the eye of honour. If it were possible by any act of that House to replace Mr. Childers as a petitioner before a Committee in the same position in which he stood previous to the 19th of July, he thought it would be only justice to do so, because it must be remembered that for two or three months past Mr. Childers had been prepared with a large array of witnesses, who were to be produced before the Committee to establish his claim to the seat. He put it to the hon. Member for Pontefract and to any hon. Gentleman who had read the petition, and especially the Report, to say whether it was not perfectly evident that throughout the whole proceeding there was a clear understanding on the part of Mr. Childers and his agent that the seat was in issue.

again rose to order, and appealed to the Speaker whether from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech this could be regarded as a question of privilege. The hon. Member was appealing to another hon. Gentleman, who had as good a legal right as himself to sit in that House, to ascertain whether he intended to resign his seat. It might be very convenient to the hon. Member and those who shared his views to put such a question, but he (Mr. Malins) could not see in what respect it had anything to do with the privileges of that House. The hon. Gentleman, referring to the substance of the Report, had said that there were no means by which the parties could be put into a position similar to that in which they stood before the 19th of July. He (Mr. Malins) had not had time to read the Report. ["Order."]

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman must confine himself to the question of Order.

would submit, then, whether the hon. Member for York was entitled to make an appeal to another hon. Member with the view of ascertaining whether he intended to resign his seat under pretence of raising a question of privilege.

said, the hon. Member for York had risen to address the House on a question of privilege, relating to the compromise of the Pontefract election petition. The House had entertained that question as one of privilege, and the matter had been referred to the consideration of a Committee. The hon. Member for York was now calling the attention of the House to the circumstances that the Report of the Committee left it to the House to deter- mine whether they possessed the power of restoring the petitioner to the position in which he stood before the 19th of July. He understood that the hon. Gentleman intended to conclude with a Motion, with the terms of which he (Mr. Speaker) was not at present acquainted; but so long as the hon. Member addressed himself to the subject of his Motion—it being for the House to decide subsequently whether that Motion could be entertained—he was not out of order.

resumed. It was not his intention to trespass upon the time of the House, but he thought—in the absence of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who had in the first instance brought the question under their notice, and had moved for the appointment of the Committee — that he could not move any Resolution on the subject without drawing special attention to the circumstances of the case. When he was unduly interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, he was going on to say that it was quite clear, from the Report of the Committee, that from the outset neither Mr. Childers nor his agent had been actuated by any corrupt motive, but that their intention from first to last was to claim the seat. He was fully convinced that that was the single object they had in view. Since then the Committee had recommended in terms so clear and decided that Mr. Childers should, if possible, be restored to the same position in which he stood before the agreement of the 19th of July, he thought, it evident that there was only one way in which the House could hope to escape from the difficulty in which they were placed; for the Committee were not able to suggest any complete and satisfactory remedy, and it appeared to him that at the present moment the House of Commons was not in a position to enter into the case. If time had permitted, the House, in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee—four Members of which out of the seven he would remind hon. Gentlemen were chosen from the other (Opposition) side—might have attempted to remedy the evil in the best way they could by passing an Act which would have placed the hon. Member for Pontefract and Mr. Childers as nearly as possible in the position in which they stood before the election petition was withdrawn. The period of the Session, however, precluded the adoption of such a course, and he therefore appealed to the only person who could relieve them from the difficulty, and who could if he pleased restore to his rival his sword, and go down and fight the battle again fairly before the electors of Pontefract He begged to move that the Report of the Committee be now read.

seconded the Motion.

said, that as a Member of the Committee, he might be pardoned for troubling the House with a few observations on this subject. He had himself proposed the 18th paragraph of the Report, and he thought the hon. Member for York had not correctly apprehended or stated the impression of the Committee with respect to that paragraph. The intention of the Committee in adopting that clause was, he believed, simply to act upon that rule which prevailed among honourable men, and which was acted upon every day in the courts of equity—namely, that when it was clear that a piece of paper which was supposed to contain the evidence of an agreement between two parties did not really represent the minds of both it should be considered a nullity, and the parties should be replaced as nearly as possible in their original position. He was sure that as soon as the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract was satisfied that there was a mistake on one side or the other—and it was the opinion of the Committee that there was a mistake on both sides—it was his desire that the parties should be replaced in their original position. With the view of effecting that object, he (Mr. Selwyn) proposed the 18th paragraph of the Report, which was adopted by the Committee. The difficulty with the Committee was, as to the manner in which this object could be accomplished. They searched for precedents, and one was found in which there had been an intention to withdraw a petition against the return for the borough of Cork, but by mistake a petition against the return for the city of Limerick was withdrawn instead. In that case the two things required by the Act in order to suspend all proceedings had been done— the petition had been de facto withdrawn, and the order referring the petition to a Select Committee had been discharged; but when the error was discovered, the House of Commons decided that the order for discharging the reference to the Committee was null and void, and the petition was remitted to its original position. At the same time that was not a case exactly similar to the present, because here there was a withdrawal by the agent of the petitioner. It was found that in the Norwich case an agent had withdrawn a petition without receiving proper authority from his principal, and in that instance the Committee reported almost in the very words adopted by the Committee in this case, leaving it to the House to determine what course should be pursued. After careful search, the Committee of which he was a Member were unable to find that that matter went any further, or that there had been any discussion on the subject in the House. The House was, no doubt, aware that the Act of 1848 provided, that if proceedings under an election petition had been suspended, without saying for any particular cause, but de facto, it should be in the power of the General Committee of Elections to place such petition at the bottom of the list, leaving it to come on in its turn. Whether there might be any difficulty in pursuing such a course in the present case it was not for him to say; but it seemed to him that if the House could get out of the difficulty arising from the wording of the Act, the petition might he remitted to the end of the list, and would then come on in its regular turn for trial, and that by this course complete justice would be done to the parties. He thought there was not the least ground for suggesting that, because misconceptions had arisen on both sides, and because this particular remedy had failed, the person in possession should give up his seat, which was the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He believed that his right hon. Colleague on the Committee (Mr. Walpole) entertained a very strong opinion that it was not competent for the House to adopt the course he had suggested. If so, it was an unfortunate thing, and the rules of that House were more strict than those of any court of law or equity. He hoped that means would be found of doing substantial justice in this instance, and for the purpose of raising the question, he would propose that the House should take the same course which had been pursued in the case of the first precedent to which he had referred—the Cork and Limerick election petition—and should declare null and void the order by which the reference of this petition had been discharged. The result would be, that one of the two things which it was necessary should coexist for suspending proceedings under the Act would no longer be in existence and there would be nothing to prevent the continuance of proceedings on the petition. The general power of the Committee of Elections would then be exercised. They would place the Pontefract petition at the bottom of the list, and instead of being tried by panels two or three, it would be tried by panels four or five. He, therefore, begged to move, that the Order discharging the reference of the Pontefract Election Petition to the General Committee of Elections be rescinded.

differed with the Mover of the Amendment as to the power of the House to take the course which had been suggested. The precedents referred to were not applicable to the present case. The statute gave a distinct power to petitioners to withdraw their petitions, and it also prescribed the course which, when a petition had been so withdrawn, the House should adopt by directing that the order of reference to the General Committee of Elections should be discharged. When that had been done the petition was completely put an end to. The cases which the hon. and learned Member had cited were cases in which a mistake had been made by the House itself by the accidental substitution of the name of one place for another in the order discharging the reference; and undoubtedly where an error of that kind had crept in, the House might rescind the discharge of the order, with a view to reinstate the petitioners in their former position. Here, however, the circumstances were totally different, the parties having been perfectly well aware of what they were about, and the agent of the petitioner having exercised the right of withdrawing the petition with a full knowledge of the effect of that proceeding, and for the House to take the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Selwyn) would be to resume the authority which they had parted with under the Act. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee agreed with him in that view of the case. [Mr. WALPOLE assented.] The right hon. Gentleman thought that this House had no power by statute to take the course indicated by his hon. and learned Colleague; and he (Sir George Grey) confessed that his own opinion was, that the House was powerless to effect the object which the Committee had in view, and restore the parties to the position in which they were previous to the withdrawal of the petition. Under these circumstances there was but one person who could effect that object, and that was the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract himself. The hon. and learned Member could consent either to refer the matter to some gentleman to be agreed upon between him and Mr. Childers, including the scrutiny, and the seat if the scrutiny determined that he had not been duly elected; or apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, vacate his seat, and refer the question between Mr. Childers and himself to the decision of the electors of Pontefract. It was, in short, a case in which a man's own feeling of honour should determine the course to be adopted. This House was powerless to interfere, and the remedy was to be found only in the action of the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract himself.

said, that the mistake in this case was not similar to that which was made in the case of the Cork petition, and the House had no power to remit the petition. He was one of the members of the Committee, but was not of opinion that there was any misconception in the matter on both sides, and there was a strong opinion on the part of some of his colleagues that the misconception was only on one side. It was not by any means the unanimous opinion of the Committee, and the 12th paragraph of the Report distinctly stated, "There cannot be a doubt that Mr. Leeman acted under the strongest conviction that in the references he would be entitled to claim the seat for his client."

, having been a member of the Committee, begged to remind the House that the 17th paragraph of the Report stated that "a great misconception had prevailed throughout, as well with regard to the intention of the parties as with regard to the meaning and effect of the memorandum itself;" and that that paragraph had been carried unanimously in Committee. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for York, he might add, that the idea of the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract resigning his seat never once entered the minds of the Committee. He could not refrain from observing, also, that the appointment of a Committee to investigate a matter of this sort, without having the power to come to any conclusion, struck him as singularly absurd.

quite agreed that the Committee had come to no conclusion on which the House could act. But the matter required grave consideration, and the House ought not now to be asked by the hon. Member for York to agree to his Motion.

You are only asked to hear the Report read.

That was true, but the reading of it would occupy all the short remainder of the Session. The right hon. Member for Morpeth and the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn) took different views of the question; and yet the House was asked to decide without having an opportunity of reading either the Report or the Act of Parliament. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion.

There was one point upon which, at all events, the House would be unanimous, and that was that they could not enter upon a protracted discussion at that moment. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member for York had not kept his engagement to the House. He did not understand how the hon. Gentleman's speech bore upon the question of privilege, and the Motion with which he concluded had only tended to consume time which the House could but ill spare. Not having been present when the subject was discussed the other day, he had read the proceedings upon this subject as they were reported in the public journals; and he came at once to the conclusion that the fair and right course between the parties was to replace them where they were before the withdrawal of the petition—if that could be done. But the question was, if it were possible to do so. He was aware of the high authority of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey), and he was sorry to hear the decided opinion he had expressed that this course would be inconsistent with the Act of Parliament, But he would submit to the House, and he was sure that in doing so the right hon. Gentleman would not deem him wanting in proper respect towards him, whether it was competent for him or for any one Member to determine that point. He would, therefore, suggest that the sense of the House should be taken; that the hon. Member for York should withdraw what appeared to him his very useless Motion for reading the Report; and that the House should now decide whether that might or might not be done, which was the clear and equitable course—namely, to rescind the order discharging the petition, and thereby place the parties in their former position.

said, he could assure the House that nothing could be further from his wishes than that any misunderstanding with him should have prevented Mr. Childers from having all the right to which he was entitled; and if after this discussion it appeared that anything had been done to prejudice that gentleman, and he could be remitted to the position in which he was before the memorandum was signed, he (Mr. Overend) should be glad to assist in restoring him to that position by any means in his power. If Mr. Childers thought that the memorandum should be considered a nullity, and it were possible to restore him as a petitioner against the election he would heartily assist him in such a proceeding. In fact, he (Mr. Over-end) was anxious not to avoid an inquiry, inasmuch as that inquiry involved charges of personal misconduct against himself; he was desirous, therefore, that Mr. Childers should be put exactly in the same position as if no memorandum had been made. If there were an insuperable difficulty to that object being attained, all he could say was that he should deeply regret it; and he felt that in justice to Mr. Childers and himself, that gentleman ought not to be prejudiced by any misconception which had taken place on either side; and he was sure that Mr. Childers would not accuse him of wilful misconception, as he was sure he did not accuse Mr. Childers. He believed that they had both acted bonâ fide; and if the House was of opinion that Mr. Childers had been prejudiced by what had occurred he would, with the permission of the House, be happy to refer the matter to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir G. Grey) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) to name a gentleman who should decide what was best to be done between the parties, whether as regarded the seat or any other question that might come before him. He felt that by the unfortunate misconception which had arisen he was placed in a worse position than before the agreement; but he would not complain of that now, for whether he was in a good or bad position he felt bound as a gentleman to do what was right. He was in a bad position, however, because if the question of the seat were gone into there was this difficulty, that the referee could not compel the attendance of witnesses, or administer an oath; that consequently there could be no indictment for perjury, and that he would be altogether in the hands of parties who might come forward and make any misstatement they pleased with impunity. But, let that be as it might, if the House were of opinion, that although the agreement should be rescinded, Mr. Childers could not be remitted to the position in which he would have stood had the agreement not been signed, or the petition withdrawn, he was willing to leave the two right hon. Gentlemen he had mentioned to appoint any one they chose to suggest what ought to be done by him, and he would faithfully abide by the decision.

said, he was desirous to say a few words on this subject, because it was very important that the House should clearly understand what it was called upon to do, especially after the suggestion made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pontefract for reinstating the parties in their previous position. If this proposition were acted upon it would give rise to this difficulty—how the parties could be reinstated in the position they were before; and this still more important question— was the House to take the matter into its own hands, and to decide, for the first time, that an Act passed expressly for the trial of controverted elections should be set aside at its own pleasure? That was not a technical but a most substantial question. By the Act of 1848 the House, to prevent party discussions in such cases, had, in concurrence with the House of Lords, enacted that a certain course should be taken upon election petitions, and had reserved to itself no power of taking any other course than that prescribed by the statute. Such being the object for which the Act was passed, it behoved them to be very careful how they broke through the legitimate form of proceeding. Certain parts of the draught Report, referring to particular clauses in that Act, had been struck out by the Committee of which he was chairman, because the Members very properly did not like to bind themselves to a specific legal opinion; and he was glad that they had adopted the paragraph suggested by his hon. and learned Friend, because it left the legal question open. But by the Act the House had delegated the whole of its authority to the General Committee of Elections when once the petition had been referred to them, and that Committee had their duty distinctly marked out for them. They had no power to alter or even suspend the course of proceeding, except in three given cases. First, they might postpone the hearing of the petition for a day or two, if, upon reason shown, they thought such a step expedient. Next, they could also suspend it on a vacancy caused by the death or resignation of the Member, in order that parties connected with the place affected by the petition might have an opportunity of considering their altered position. And, lastly, they could suspend the petition in one more instance, and in one only—namely, where another petition having been presented, it might be desirable that the two petitions should be both tried together. Further than these the General Committee of Elections had no power, neither was any further power reserved to the House, itself. Independently of that, his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) was perfectly right in stating that where a party had the power by statute to withdraw his petition, and it was withdrawn bonâ fide accordingly, then by the 46th section of the Act of 1848, not only was the order discharged for referring that petition to the General Committee of Elections, but the statute went on to say that "no further proceedings should be taken thereon." That being so, and more than a fortnight—several weeks indeed—having elapsed since the withdrawal of the present petition, his opinion was they could no more restore that petition to the state in which it was before, than that they could restore any other petition that had been withdrawn. He put it to the House, then, whether they were prepared to have all these matters again brought under their notice, with all the attendant difficulties that might arise—reasons for withdrawing or not withdrawing, and other questions unpleasant to discuss and determine, and which was almost impossible for them to sit in judgment upon. On these grounds, he hoped the House would not concur in the Motion of his hon. and learned Colleague, although he entirely approved of the course adopted by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pontefract. That was the course which, as a man of honour and a gentleman, he ought to pursue; but it was obviously one to which the House could be no party.

said, there could be no doubt that the right hon. Member for Cambridge University had laid down the law of that case with perfect accuracy. There was no other way of restoring Mr. Childers to the position which he ought to occupy, except by the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract accepting the Chiltern Hundreds and going to a new election. ["Oh, oh!'] That was not a party question, and he adhered to his statement.

hoped the House would not adopt the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn). It was the intention of the statute to withdraw from the House the discussion of subjects of this nature, from a well-founded distrust of the House in these matters. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract had made a very fair proposal, and if it were entertained, and this Motion was negatived, as he thought it ought to be, the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) and his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) might very easily agree upon the appointment of a person to inquire into the question, and he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Overend) to say that he would abide by their decision. It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) that this was the only mode in which they could arrive at a satisfactory result.

would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn), that as the opinion of the House, and especially that of one of its highest authorities, was so decidedly against the Motion, he should consent to withdraw it He believed at the same time that it was the unanimous feeling of the House that nothing could be more strictly honourable than the course pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract.

said, he had only been anxious to elicit the opinion of the House upon the subject, and he had no objection whatever to withdraw his Motion.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. and learned Member for Pontefract had pursued a most fair and honourable course. He understood that the Gentleman who might be appointed referee was to have full power to go into the whole case, and to determine what should be done.

wished in every way to accede to Mr. Childers' views; and that that Gentleman should not have reason to complain that he had been prejudiced by any act on his (Mr. Overend's) part. Mr. Childers might put his own interpretation upon the contract, and go into a scrutiny if he pleased.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects the Treaty with China will be ratified? whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to require the Chinese fully to carry out the conditions of the Treaty? and whether the Emperor of China will be invited to accredit a permanent Ambassador to this Court?

was under-stood to say that Mr. Bruce had gone to Pekin with the view of having the Treaty ratified; that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to require the Emperor of China to carry out the Treaty; and that, although the Emperor may not immediately accredit an Envoy to this country, it is intended to invite the Chinese Government to send an Ambassador to the British Court.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the interest of the public service permits, whether the latest information he has received gives him reason to continue to think that there still exists no intention, on the part either of France or of Austria, to attempt to restore the late Dynasties of Parma, Modena, and Tuscany, by the employment of military force? And, whether he is in possession of any authentic information as to the statement in an official journal at Vienna, that the Red Republic had been proclaimed at Parma, the Piedmontese driven from the city, and that property-holders and friends of order were taking flight?

said, he had stated to the House some time since the whole of the official information he possessed with respect to the intentions of the Governments of France and Austria as to the Duchies, and he had not received any official information since that time which altered the character of the statement he then made. There had been no advance, and the question remained, as far as he knew, in the same position as when he had made a communication on the subject to the House. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second question, he had no official information as to the rumour that had appeared in the Vienna journal, and which seemed to have been derived from some private source.

, in moving for copies of any Reports relative to the instruction of Volunteers in the Government Musketry-School at Hythe, said he believed those reports would show that the volunteers who had placed themselves under instruction had applied themselves with a diligence and ability beyond all praise, and that they had distinguished themselves more than the officers of the regular army who had received instruction in the same school. He was desirous also to obtain, before the House separated for the recess, a clear statement from the Secretary for War of what were the views and intentions of the Government with respect to volunteers. He regretted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had spoken of these corps with ridicule, and had talked about "the rifle corps fever" as an epidemic. He would ask if it really were the earnest wish of the Government to have volunteer rifle corps formed, otherwise those who had joined them were wasting their time. Did the Government look to the formation of rifle corps as an important and permanent element of national defence? If they did, and made a patriotic appeal to the country in their favour, he was certain it would be most heartily responded to. On the other hand, if they did not, and had acted not in earnest, but only to gratify the wishes of persons, and allow them like children to play at soldiers, let them say so to the volunteers, and the corps would be at once abandoned.

said, he was somewhat at a loss to understand on what ground his noble Friend entertained doubts as to the intentions of the Government on the subject. The noble Lord had said that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had, in the course of debate casually used some such expression as "the rifle corps fever;" but, although such an expression might have fallen from his noble Friend, he could only say that he (Viscount Palmerston) was the first to sanction the formation of these volunteer corps, at a time when there was no very decided popular feeling in their favour. He thought that fact was a much stronger indication of his noble Friend's opinions than any casual expression which he might have used in debate. So far as the Government generally were concerned, he must say that if they wished to discourage the formation of volunteer corps they had been singularly unfortunate, for at this moment there were upwards of ninety corps in process of formation, and proposals had been made to Lords-lieutenant for the establishment of a considerable number of additional corps, with regard to which no official communications had been made to the Government. These corps would, no doubt, soon constitute a very numerous force; but if they were regarded as substitutes for any portion of the regular army he thought a great mistake would be made. He had himself given them every encouragement and facility in his power, because he was satisfied the gentlemen who formed those corps did not themselves wish to be put on the footing of substitutes for the army; but great advantages might undoubtedly result from the existence of auxiliary corps of this description, consisting of persons who went through a regular drill, and made themselves masters of the weapons with which they were to be armed. He would readily produce the Report of General Hay, and as it was extremely honourable to the volunteers, he would beg to read it to the House. General Hay said:—

"I have the honour to forward, for the information of his Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-Chief, the enclosed return of the results of the performance in shooting of the noblemen and gentlemen of the rifle volunteer corps, who have just completed a course of instruction at this establishment, and to report, in reference to the method pursued, that the morning was devoted to carrying out a detail of daily work, as per annexed statement, so modified as to meet the requirements of a volunteer company, the members of which it is presumed will not be able to devote more than two hours and a-half daily to the musketry drill and practice. The desire, however, on the part of these volunteers to become fully acquainted with every detail connected with the system and the method of working it was so great that the whole day was spent in acquiring this information. Proficiency in the several prac- tices being always measured by a figure, I am enabled to draw a comparison of the shooting of these volunteers with that of parties of officers (averaging from 40 to 45) in the last three courses. The result is in favour of the volunteers, the highest figure of the former being 4694, of the latter 47'07 points. I have confined the comparison to the shooting of the officers, as from their superior intelligence they always (when subjected to the same amount of preliminary drill) beat the men. When it is considered that these volunteers were composed of noblemen and gentlemen most of whom had never fired with a rifle before, and not any at a longer distance than about 200 or 300 yards, and when the short period of six days allotted to the performance of the preliminary drills is taken into account, it not only affords the most convincing proof of the energy and intelligence brought to bear on the work in which these volunteers were engaged, but at the same time it points clearly to the great benefit the country will derive from enlisting the services of the educated classes of the population in the movement which is now in progress for the enrolment of volunteers for rifle companies and corps. I do not hesitate to say that if the training of these volunteers is regulated by a well detailed system which will insure a preliminary preparation before practice is allowed to take place, that in a few years a most important reserve (comprising as it will a class of persons who never enter the regular army or militia, but who from their education and intelligence are eminently qualified to make the very best 'marksmen') will be at all times available, and afford a most valuable and permanent addition to our national defences. The interest taken by the noblemen and gentlemen herein referred to in the practice convinces me that rifle shooting, if properly conducted, cannot fail to prove henceforth one of the most interesting of our national amusements. I feel it right to observe, however, that unless rifle training is conducted on a proper (and I would venture to recommend a uniform) system, utter failure will ensue. We shall have rifle corps in name, but not in reality."

He thought the warning of the gallant officer was not without its value; but he could only say that the Government were glad to have an opportunity of expressing their gratitude for the exertions which were being made on this subject, and he was satisfied, from communications he had had from many gentlemen who were engaged in the formation of these corps, that there was no intention on their part of merely playing at soldiering, but that they were willing, by drill and practice, to render themselves efficient for the defence of the country in case of need.

expressed the satisfaction with which he had heard the reply of his right hon. Friend. He had in his hand a letter from General Hay, in which the writer gave the opinion that very little ordinary drill was requisite for volunteers.

thanked the noble Lord for bringing that question forward, and also declared himself satisfied with the reply of the Secretary of State for War. It would be extremely agreeable to his constituents, who had taken a leading part in that movement to read the account of that debate. For himself lie had no doubt that if, in addition to the regular army, we had 100,000 men, well instructed in the use of the rifle, that was the sort of thing that would prevent panics in the country. The country was indebted to the press for its advocacy of such a force, in urging the establishment of which the press was not amenable to the charge of doing that which was offensive to Foreign Governments. What was it to us what any other Government might say or think? It was for us to adopt the measures required for our protection, and which tended to check the sinking of the funds and the rising of the panics.

I am sure that nothing could have been further from my mind than to have made use of any expression which could be construed into any disparagement of the Volunteer Rifle and Artillery Corps. No such intention existed in my mind, and I am profoundly sensible of the great importance of a serious movement of the sort such as had been referred to. In some cases, probably, the movement is not a very serious one, and there are some instances where there are persons who would think it very convenient to meet together to have a little rifle shooting, with power to withdraw from the corps at anytime with fourteen days' notice. So far from being indisposed to, or undervaluing the movement, I can only say that when I was in office before, I took steps—I am afraid not very successful ones—to induce the formation of artillery corps in different seaport towns, I gave the sanction of the Government to the formation of the Victoria Rifles in London, and of a rifle corps in the south of Devon. I think if the country is really impressed, as it ought to be, with a feeling of the great importance of having some organization of this sort as a permanent system of national defence—not in substitution of other forces, but in addition to them—and if those who enter into these corps will enter with a full intention to remain, and be available when any occasion may unfortunately occur, I am sure that the Government will feel it their duty to give them every possible encouragement. I can only repeat the opinion I have formerly expressed of the great advantage of the Artillery Corps on the Coast of England, and especially at those seaport towns where much valuable property may be exposed to attack by the small forces of an enemy's cruisers.

ex-pressed his opinion that there was no country in the world so well adapted for the action of rifle corps as England, owing to it being so much enclosed and divided into different farms. Those who joined our volunteer corps, however, could not turn these advantages to account unless they had arms, and it appeared that the Government were to supply no more than 25 per cent of the weapons required. He was therefore anxious to know from the Secretary of State for War what market was likely to supply the requisite quantity of arms?

said, the Government were obtaining arms not only from their own factory at Enfield, but from Liege, Birmingham, and every place capable of furnishing them.

said, there was a belief abroad that the Liege and Birmingham markets would not afford a sufficient supply, and it was most desirable that, when the riflemen had been raised they should have arms put into their hands.