said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, if the Government intend to introduce a Bill into Parliament during the present Session, or to take any steps to carry into effect the Recommendations of the Commissioners relative to the abolition of the payment of Fees in the offices of the Court of Chancery, Ireland?

said, the Government did not intend to introduce any Bill during the present Session for the purpose of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners relative to the abolition of fees in the offices of the Irish Court of Chancery; and without a legislative measure it would be impossible to carry those recommendations into effect.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's and other Governments with reference to the abolition of the Stade Toll, and whether he will state I to the House the exact position of that question?

said, he was not prepared at present to lay on the Table the correspondence which had taken place on this subject. Some time ago be bad stated that, in consequence of the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown of the present and of the late Government, they thought it advisable to enter into negotiation with Hanover on the subject of compensation for the abolition of the Stade Dues. A proposal was subsequently received from Hanover as to the basis upon which that compensation should be granted; but on referring the proposal to the Board of Trade, it was decided that that basis could not be accepted by this country. There the matter for the present remained.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any further intelligence of the outrage said to have been committed in Egypt by young Cadets? He understood that it was really not committed by Cadets, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any information to that effect it might be satisfactory to the friends of the young gentlemen who went out by the mail in question.

said, he had received no information on the subject further than that which he had already laid before the House. It was not stated in the Consul's letter that those concerned in the disturbance were cadets, but he talked of young gentlemen lately released from school.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, Whether the Commission of Inquiry at the Post Office has terminated its labours, or has been dissolved; and, if so, for what reasons?

said, be believed that the Commission to which the hon. Baronet referred was only a Committee of some of the officers of the Post Office, who were appointed to inquire into the circulation department. That inquiry had been suspended for a few days in consequence of; some alteration in the extent of the inquiries; but he believed it had been renewed, and was now going on.

said, be would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Mr. Ogilvie, of the London Customs, who has been selected to assist in the revision of the French Tariff, as stipulated under the Treaty, is the officer of that name who, a few years ago, was engaged, under the direction of the present Chairman and Board of Customs, in getting up the prosecutions for alleged frauds against the various Dock Companies of the Port of London; whether Mr. Ogilvie was employed in revising the British Tariff which has just been abolished, and which was based upon the principle of levying Duties by specific rates; and, further, whether there is any objection to the Reports or Statements made on a former occasion by Mr. Ogilvie to the Board of Customs, or any member of it, or to any person connected with the Government, in opposition to the abolition or reduction of the Wine Duties, being presented to this House?

said, he must beg the hon. Gentleman to postpone his question until the Chancellor of the Exchequer was present. His right hon. Friend, he believed, would wish to make some statement respecting Mr. Ogilvie.

said, he wished to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take the Adjourned Debate on this Bill as the first Order on Thursday?

replied, that that must depend on the progress which the House might make with the Reform Bill. It was intended to take the Wine Licences and Refreshment Houses Bill on the first Government night after the termination of the debate on the Reform Bill.

Sir, I observe that in "another place" the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs is reported to have said that the Conference respecting the Savoy question is postponed. That does not quite agree with the answer given by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) last Friday, and perhaps he will state whether the Conference has been postponed, and whether the bases on which it will meet are Arranged.

Sir, I do not think my noble Friend can have said that the Conference is postponed. What he may have said, and what I believe he did say, was that the time of meeting had not been fixed. The French Government have always said that they did not think the Conference ought to meet until after the vote of the Sardinian Parliament had been taken upon the Treaty, because if that vote were for the rejection of the Treaty, the whole negotiation must fall to the ground. The time of meeting is, therefore, not fixed, and will not be fixed until the result of the vote is ascertained.

The noble Lord has not answered the latter part of my question, as to whether the bases of the Conference are arranged.

I cannot say that they are arranged, because there has been no agreement among the Powers of Europe with regard to those bases.

, in rising to move for an Address upon this subject, said that in 1852 the Commission appointed to inquire into the manning of the navy recommended the adoption of the continuous-service system, which was partially carried out. Another recommendation was that a ship similar to the Britannia and four frigates should be maintained for the purpose of exercising the boys of the fleet. He had not heard, however, that that recommendation had been complied with. The Commission of 1852 recommended that 10,000 men should be stationed at the different ports as a Reserve, and the Commission of 1856 had made a similar recommendation with regard to a force of 4,000 men, in addition to the crews on board the ships forming the Channel fleet, and if that recommendation had been carried out he could have understood the declaration of the Admiralty that they had as many men as they wanted. But that plan had not been adopted, although the bounty had been reduced. Then, again, the country was paying for upwards of 8,000 Coastguards men, but of these only 6,362 were sailors, including officers. The district ships' companies were not men who could be taken to complete the manning of a fleet, or to man a new vessel, and the 1,400 Revenue men were nothing more nor less than civilians. The whole Reserve, therefore, which, in the event of any emergency, they had to fall back upon was 6,362 Coastguard men, instead of a reserve of 70,000 men, as contemplated by the Manning Commission. It was absurd to tell the House of Commons that they had a Reserve to fall back upon, when all in the world knew the contrary. He was glad to find that men were entering the Naval Reserve in larger numbers than formerly, as he was informed that there were 400 at Sunderland all good sailors. It was satisfactory also to find that the able seamen in the port of London were joining, and that a vessel of war had been stationed in one of the docks for the instruction of those men. Still, 1,000 men were but a very small proportion of the 30,000 who were wanted, and every means should be taken to supply the deficiency. He could not see why the men who had served ten years in the navy should not be induced to join the Coastguard, and their time of service to count—say three years as two—towards the long-service pension. He found that some of the recommendations of the Committee of 1852 bad been acted upon. A larger quantity of provision was allowed to the men, but this cause of satisfaction was counterbalanced by the allowance for saving being reduced or discontinued, and he believed the men would prefer going back to the old system. Then, as to the payment of wages, he could not see why there should not be weekly payments as long as the ship was in port. He thought much of the leave-breaking and discontent that prevailed would be prevented if the men were allowed to draw any portion of their wages they liked, and then to have leave on shore. In the East India Company's service the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir J. Elphinstone) had found that making the paymaster of the ship a sort of banker to the men, and allowing them to draw what they wanted, acted very satisfactorily to all parties. Some improvements, he admitted, had taken place in dispensing the allotment money to seamen's wives; but be still had to complain that those allotments were not made so soon as they ought to be. He held that from the moment a man entered on board a ship his wife ought to be entitled to the allotment, and that it ought to be paid to her once a week. He contended also that on returning home from a cruise, the moment the anchor dropped, a certain number of the men—say one of the watches—ought to be allowed to go on shore to see their families and friends, and to take with them, not the whole of the money due to them, for that led to extravagance, but a portion of it. The men did not like to be kept on board with their money in their pockets. They were often called reckless, but it was the Government system that made them so. When the army was paid once a month there was much more debauchery among the troops than there was now that they received their pay daily. In former days he had seen seamen receive thirty or forty or even fifty pounds the day before, or on the very day they sailed. He had even known them to throw their money overboard, because they did not know what to do with it. During the two years he commanded the Channel fleet there had been no discontent, because whenever he came to port he did not let his men go on leave by driblets of 20 or 30 per cent, but he let a whole watch go at once, and for forty-eight hours. No wonder when one captain let a whole watch out on leave, and another only gave a similar privilege to 30 per cent of his crew, that there was discontent. He had been accused of causing dissatisfaction and discontent in the fleet. Not only, however, did he deny the truth of that imputation, but contended that hardly a single improvement had taken place in the navy for many years past that bad not originated with himself, though the Admiralty had in some cases allowed a quarter of a century to elapse in carrying them out. His great aim had been to improve the condition of the seamen. He did not doubt that the Admiralty were desirous of improving their condition also, but they were so excessively slow in all their motions that he had long since lost all patience with them; however, the noble Lord had done what no Secretary of the Admiralty, whether in the service or a civilian, had ever done before him—he had said that corporal punishment should be abolished. He (Sir C. Napier) had always contended that it was impossible at once to put an end to it; and he had stated as much to his constituents, though they hooted him for it. The contrary declaration of the noble Lord had tended to produce more discontent than anything which he (Sir C. Napier) had done. What he had always laboured to effect was to improve the condition of the seamen; satisfied as he was that that was the true policy. The noble Lord's speech had been hawked and placarded about the seaports, but it had only been laughed at. Seamen were told that they were noble, fine, jolly fellows, only they were so suspicious, and above all, of the Admiralty. If that was so, what was the use of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty stating to the House not long ago that the number of seamen was complete, and that the Admiralty could not avail themselves of the services of any more. It was well known that neither the Channel fleet, the Coastguard, nor the 4,000 men required for service in the home-ports were complete. What, therefore, was the use of the noble Lord "bamboozling" the House and the seamen in that way? It would have been much better for him to say what number of men was wanted, for to state that the navy was abundantly supplied with men, at a time when complaints were made of the hesitation of seamen to enter the service, was the very way to produce the cause of complaint itself. He believed the position of petty officers in the navy was much improved, but he thought the Admiralty had behaved very shabbily in the case of pensions to the widows of warrant officers. They had restored the pensions which at one time they took away, but the manner in which they had been restored was wholly unworthy of the Admiralty. If a warrant officer died on the 25th of December, 1859, the pension to his widow was refused; but, if he died on the 1st of January, 1860, the widow got the pension—a distinction which was shabby in the extreme. With regard to the Naval Coast Volunteers, upon whom the Report said no reliance could be placed, there was a means of making them useful, which he would recommend to the attention of the noble Lord. He would take out of the block-ships at the various ports their masts and spars, making them what they really were—block-ships, and would put into them the Coast Volunteers. Those ships were of no use, lying as they now were; but they might be made serviceable should any disaster arise, by putting the Coastguard on board of them. It would be found a useful step, too, to call each block-ship by the name of the port to which it was attached, as men had a certain pride in belonging to a ship which bore the name of their own port. The Commission recom- mended a re-adjustment of the Merchant Seamen's Fund; but no stop whatever had been taken towards that object. This was a very important matter, and if properly carried out, would be of great use to the men. Another matter to which he wished to refer was, that of admission to Greenwich Hospital. That might be made a strong inducement to enter the navy, but before seamen could be brought to care about Greenwich Hospital, that establishment must be reformed. A Commission had been appointed to consider the subject; but the Report of that Commission had not yet been laid on the table. He did not know why, unless it was that the Admiralty was ashamed of the exposures that would be made; but it was certainly high time that the House should have it, and that the hospital should undergo a thorough reform. Besides the Coastguard service, the opening of which would constitute a powerful inducement to seamen to serve in the navy, there were many places in the Custom House to which civilians and landsmen were at present appointed, and which might be conferred upon the sailor. There were also the dockyard and victualling lighters, employment in which might be restricted to seamen after they had left the navy. Then, as to the propriety of not allowing men to go on shore after returning from a three or four years' cruise, he thought it was very hard upon them; especially as it was notorious that the officers were permitted to land to see their friends. This might be easily remedied by at once discharging the men into a ship that was ready to receive them upon their coming home, and placing the ship, from which they had been discharged with all her stores on board, into the hands of the dockyard authorities. On the subject of stores, he would tell the House what he himself witnessed on Saturday last. He was walking past a union-house in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, when he saw a lot of what he supposed to be junk brought to the union door. Curious to see what sort of junk it was, he laid his hand upon a bundle of it, and it turned out to be a piece of six or seven-inch rope, that appeared to belong to the shears of a three-decker, and was bran new. Searching further he found another piece of rope that was also without a rub upon it, and that, too, was quite new. Let the House fancy that system going on at every union-house in the vicinity of the dockyards at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and other ports, and imagine what the cost must be. Well, be asked the man who was in charge to give him a piece of the rope, which he did; and he (Sir Charles Napier) sent it to Admiral Grey, at Portsmouth, in order that some inquiry might be made as to bow the rope had been thus cut up. And he thought that the best thing the Admiralty could do would be to have the whole of the rope sent back to Portsmouth, institute a survey, and whoever the offender might be dismiss him instanter. His hon. Friend (Sir J. Elphinstone) had referred, on a former occasion, to the question of men breaking their leave, and the offence was one which ought to be punished; for it was totally inconsistent with the maintenance of order and discipline in the service. Some captains, if the men of the starboard watch broke their leave, kept the port-watch in the ship until the others returned, which was punishing the innocent for the guilty. Usually stopping his leave was the only punishment, if a man broke his leave; and the result was that when the man did get leave he broke it again. He contended that men ought to be more severely punished for this offence. He would not have them flogged, but would give them a week's imprisonment, with hard labour. He would not send these men to Exeter or Winchester gaol, for they came out worse than they went in. There ought to be naval prisons in the seaport towns. The crews in port would know that these men were in prison for breaking leave, and so forth; and it would do more than anything to prevent a repetition of the offence. It was said that the Admiralty had made a new code of laws for the navy, and he hoped it would soon be published. For desertion, and other serious offences, he would send men to the penal settlements; and if it were publicly known that this punishment would follow, there would he very little desertion. He implored the Admiralty to take this into consideration. He would give the sailors the same right to a court-martial that was given to the army. Let the sailor be tried by his own officers. He used to establish a certain sort of court-martial. He told the ship's company they might be present if they liked, and he took evidence; but he was obliged to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Unless, however, the Admiralty paid their men better, they would never make the service popular. He used to be opposed to giving better pay to the men, and was for giving it instead to the petty officers. But it was now found that men would not serve in the navy, if they could get employment elsewhere. The Admiralty, like every other employer of labour, must pay the market price. He would encourage every A. B. to look forward to becoming a petty officer; and he Would approach the pay of the petty officer nearer to that of the warrant officer. If the Admiralty raised the petty officer's position, the men would respect him more. If the petty officer committed a crime, let him be tried by court-martial; and if he were dismissed the service and lost his pension, he would be very severely punished. The petty officers, however, should not be tried by the officers of the ship's company. They ought to be tried by the captains and officers of the fleet, with all the solemnity that could be given to the inquiry. The difficulty in procuring men, was shown in the case of the Ganges, Renown, Diadem, and Mersey. The Ganges was 10 weeks in getting 428 men. The Renown obtained 650 men in 17 weeks. The Diadem and Mersey were about as long in raising the same proportion. All that time the pay of the officers was going on; and he should like to know how much was thus lost in officers' pay, while the men were coming in by driblets. When, as frequently happened, a ship abroad was kept waiting to be relieved, the Admiralty were paying half the men in one ship and the whole of the men in the other during the interval. The House might like to know the opinion of the sailors. He had received many letters from them, and they agreed that there were many seamen unemployed who might be got to serve Her Majesty. The watermen and lightermen of the Thames, in consideration of certain privileges which they enjoyed, were obliged when called upon to serve in the navy, but the Admiralty now-a-days rarely, if ever, enforced the claims they had upon them. In his opinion, however, the services of these men might be turned to good account. He recommended the Admiralty to establish a large and efficient vessel somewhere in the river, on board of which the watermen could be drilled. The existence of their privileges depended upon their responding to any call that was made upon them, and the Admiralty would have no difficulty in collecting as many as would form a complete ship's company. There were block-ships at Liverpool and Harwich, but none at all in the Thames, where a ship's crow might be had for nothing. It was his earnest desire to see the navy put in an efficient condition, and he saw no reason, if the proper steps were taken, why it should not become so popular that, instead of the Admiralty having to beg men to join, they would beg to be employed. It ought not to be said that this great maritime country found a difficulty in obtaining choice seamen for her fleet, which was not experienced by the great steam companies and private traders. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty indeed had stated that choice seamen had been procured for the navy; but from the information he (Admiral Napier) had received he was disposed to believe, though they might be choice seamen some years hence they could not be called so now. He wished particulary to press upon the Admiralty the necessity of establishing better discipline in the navy. A sailor must be ruled with a hand of iron in a glove of velvet; he should be treated with consideration and indulgence when well-behaved, but any breach of discipline should be severely punished.

said, he rose to second the Motion, as well as to express a hope that the important suggestions of his hon. and gallant Friend would receive due attention from the Admiralty. He seconded the Motion principally in the hope that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to give some good account of the Naval Volunteer force. He was very happy indeed to have heard since he came into the House that the reports which the noble Lord would be able to make were of a very fa- vourable nature. He always felt that there would be considerable difficulty in starting that force, but that when it was once put in motion the seafaring population of this country would cheerfully enter it; and that, inasmuch as it combined many advantages, it would go on constantly increasing in numbers and efficiency. The arrangements with respect to the reserve force had been completed only a short time, and it was not to be expected that the number of men enrolled before the completion of the arrangements would be very considerable. He thought the machinery for increasing the reserve force might be modified with great advantage. It was not politic to burden an overworked department like the Board of Trade with the formation and management of a Reserve force of 60,000 men, which must be greatly augmented in time of war. He thought that the many officers of high standing who were unemployed ought to be constituted a department for superintending that force. By means of a department of that sort the naval force and the mercantile service might be brought more into unison than they were at present. He would also press most strongly upon the Secretary of the Admiralty the propriety of devoting his most strenuous exertions to carrying into effect the recommendations of the manning Commission with respect to the establishment of school ships, for it was on school ships that the whole matter depended. If we could only obtain 15,000 or 20,000 men for the Naval Reserve, the school ships would soon supply enough of men to make that body as numerous as the Manning Commission recommended it to be. The boys trained in these ships would rapidly become men, and they would be men of education and good character. The school ships would form a connecting link with the merchant service, and that was very much wanted. He would also urge upon the notice of the Secretary to the Admiralty the extreme injustice of carrying out only partially the recommendations of the Naval Commission in regard to warrant officers. Many cases of hardship had arisen from the restrictions which accompanied the restoration of pensions to the widows of warrant officers, and he trusted that they would be removed. A petition from no less than forty widows of warrant officers for compensation had lately been laid on the table of the House, but the informal manner in which it was drawn prevented its reception. He had on that occasion also pre- sented a petition from a warrant officer's widow, which was to the effect that the petitioner, a person of very high character, was the widow of the gunner of the Sanspareil, Mr. John Alexander White, who died of cholera at the siege of Canton, and that, in consequence of her husband having died before the date of the warrant for restoring pensions to warrant officers widows, she was declared to be not entitled to a pension; and as she had no other means of support, she was now, notwithstanding the respectable position in life she occupied before her marriage, earning a livelihood for herself and infant daughter, by making shirts at 4s. a dozen. With regard to the question of breaking leave, it was impossible for him to coincide in the opinion that harsh measures should be taken against the men who broke their leave. When a ship's company could go on shore, and the officer could bring his liberty men back again on board ship, then they would be in a position to punish the men severely. But as long as a system was tolerated which was a disgrace to the country, of seamen being seized in seaport towns by the lowest and vilest of the community, drugged, robbed, and turned out stupefied and half-naked, without any organized police to keep this system in check or assist officers in recovering their men, they were not in a position to punish the men for breaking leave very severely.

said, he could not but think that the practice, in which the hon. and gallant Member indulged almost weekly, of bringing before the House a recapitulation of details as to the discipline and management of the fleet in one stereotyped speech, was not conducive to the interest of the service for which the gallant Member professed great anxiety. He would not enter into all those details, but would endeavour to inform the House in a short statement taken from official sources, of the actual position of the Reserve and the fleet. With regard to the Motion, he believed it was founded on many misconceptions, and he should, therefore, ask the House not to agree to it. The first part expressed "the regret of this House that, instead of a Reserve of 70,000 men contemplated by the Manning Commission, there only exist 6,362 Coastguard men, including officers, 1,900 district ships' companies, 1,400 revenue men and 600 cruisers' men, and 5,000 or 6,000 Coast Volunteers, not to be depended upon." He thought that paragraph was offensive to the seamen of the country [Sir C. NAPIER: it is in the Report of the Commission.] He maintained there was no reason to suppose that the Coast Volunteers were to be depended on for the service for which they were intended. The Coast Volunteers were enrolled for service on the coasts, and not for foreign service, which was a very different thing. He maintained that they were to be depended upon, and that the contrary assertion was offensive to the seamen and to the public. The Commission on Manning the Navy, after going into various details, recommended various improvements in the position of the men with regard to pensions, pay, provisions, and clothing, many of which had already been effected. The Commissioners then recapitulated their propositions for the service of the country, and to those points he wished to limit his observations. They proposed that there should be reliefs in the home ports to the number of 4,000 men. Every gentleman connected with the Admiralty was equally as desirous as the Commissioners to see that carried out, and he believed that this year, supposing they got all the men for whom Parliament had voted the money, they would not be far from the desired end as there would be a considerable number of reliefs in the home ports. As to the Coastguard, to which the hon. and gallant Member next referred, he stated the other day their number, and he would repeat it on that occasion as he thought it desirable that the amount of that invaluable force should be generally known. In the Coastguard there were 6,862 sailors, officers, and boys. It might be said that the number did not represent the true strength, because the officers were included; but men without officers were a mere rabble, and in a reserve force there must be a number of officers corresponding with the number of men. There were besides 476 Marines who were attached to the Coastguard. There were besides 1,381 civilians, about whom he would only say he believed that they would, if necessary, do good service, The gallant Admiral said it was desirable that the Coastguard should be increased to 12,000 men. He agreed with the gallant Admiral, and knowing the extreme value of that body, the Admiralty were daily increasing the numbers. It was not the work of this particular Board of Admiralty; but for years it had been a rule that whenever a man-of-war was paid off every seaman who had served ten years, with a good character, was allowed to go at once into the Coastguard. The result was to increase the Coastguard, but, at the same time, to lessen the number of men fit for petty officers. They could not, to use a homely phrase, eat their cake and have it too. If they would have a numerous and efficient reserve of Coastguard they must take the best men from the fleet. With regard to block-ships he fully admitted that it was more desirable to have 80-gun ships in our ports. The gallant Admiral no doubt supposed that he was forwarding his object by continually coming down to the House and making the same stereotyped speech. The Admiralty were most desirous of replacing those block-ships in the way proposed. The Hastings, lately at Liverpool, a very old ship, and failing in speed, had been replaced by the Majestic. Again, at Portland, where there was a good harbour, the Colossus, or a sister ship,—an 80-gun ship—would be placed there. But there was expense attending these changes, and he wished the gallant Admiral would always mention the cost when he alluded to these notices. There was, besides, great difference of opinion as to the policy of placing seagoing ships as Coastguard ships. The gallant Officer desired that the Admiralty should be able to put men on board their ships, make them ready for sea in cases of emergency, and that the ships should be in good order and prepared to fight the enemy next day. Well, the Admiralty had just had a proof that, without making this change, ships might be made available in a few hours. Not many weeks ago it was decided by the Admiralty to place the Majestic 80-gun ship at Liverpool, instead of the Hastings block-ship, and orders were accordingly sent to Liverpool that the crew of the Hastings should proceed by railroad to Sheerness, and that the men should take possession of the Majestic and proceed to sea. The men left Liverpool at 8 o'clock one night and having reached Sheerness went on board the Majestic, and were ready for sea the next afternoon. The next point to which the gallant officer's Motion alluded was the number of the Naval Volunteers, and he stated that the number, now under 1,000, should be completed as soon as possible. He must first of all say that the gallant officer was incorrect in his figures. The Naval Volunteers did really amount to 1,000; and, considering that the force had been scarcely more than two months in existence, he thought the pro- gress made satisfactory. He did not believe that a great volunteer force could be raised suddenly. Seamen's wages were now £3 10s., and there was a great scarcity of real good seamen; and, as a great force could not be got suddenly, the Government must be satisfied with a gradual progress, unless they entered an inferior class of men, a proceeding, in his opinion, highly undesirable. The suggestions which had been made by the right hon. Members for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), and others, had not been neglected, and shipping-masters had been consulted with respect to them. In proof of this, he might mention that one emanating from the gallant Admiral himself had been especially considered—namely, whether it would be advisable to pay men in advance upon their enrolment instead of at the end of the quarter. But upon this point he had received a letter from a very hard-working officer in the north, whose opinion was well worthy of respect, saying "Pray don't do anything of the kind; it will disgust the good men; men who wish really to become efficient men know that there are those who come merely to get the £1 10s. enrolment fee to get drunk upon it, and they feel that if this were carried out as a rule, such men would very soon not only disgrace themselves but the force too," and it really seemed that if the suggestion of the gallant Admiral were adopted it would probably prevent a great many men from joining the force. With respect to the short-service pensioners, the gallant Admiral asked why they were not allowed after a short service of ten years to go into the Reserve, joining the Naval Volunteers, instead of being kept in the ship. Such a proceeding could not be adopted without damaging the fleet. If all the men of ten years' service in the fleet were invited to join the volunteers, what was to become of the fleet? There would be no seamen in it. The country had got a young fleet, and he was about to show to the House what the Government had done within the last year in creation of a fleet; and, so far from the state of things being matter for censure, it was a subject for congratulation that in so short a time so many men had been raised for Her Majesty's service. The Commissioners recommended that there should be a body of Marines on shore amounting to 6,000. The gallant Admiral's view was to show the poverty of the nation's forces, and the gallant Officer had entirely overlooked the fact that the body of Marines on shore amounted to 6,178, being greater than the Commission recommended. With respect to the short-service pension Marines the same argument held good as with respect to sailors, for, if all the Marines who had served ten years were to leave for the purpose of joining the Reserve, the best men would be lost to the active service. No doubt, in some years hence, when the navy was well manned and the men could be spared, it might be desirable to have recourse to the short-service pensioners, both seamen and marines, as a reserve. The number of men enrolled in the Royal Naval Volunteers from the 1st of January, 1860, to the 30th of April, 1860, was 894; and the number of applications awaiting verification of service before the grant of certificates was eighty-three, making a total of 977 men; and he had since seen a return, according to which the number was stated to amount to 1,000. With regard now to the Coast Volunteers, there were on the registers, available for immediate service, 7,015 Royal Naval Coast Volunteers. It was essential that hon. Members should bear these figures in mind; because in the assertions made by the gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) all official figures were entirely set aside, and his own fanciful estimate alone adhered to. These were all important points connected with this Manning Commission, but the most important point of all related to the boys; for, let what would be done with the Reserve, the means of enabling the country to have a really efficient navy must depend materially upon educating boys. A statement for the years 1857, 1858, and 1859 would show the increase which had been gradually taking place in the establishment of the boys. In 1857 the number of boys was 1,898, in 1858 the number was about the same, but in 1859 the number had increased to 5,147. At the present time we had no less than 8,535 boys. The hon. and gallant Admiral was therefore sadly incorrect in his estimate of the naval force. He wished to be candid, to have no reserve, because he believed the more the public knew of these matters the better for the service. Opinions might vary as to the percentage of boys which it was desirable to have in the fleet, and he did not think that point was yet satisfactorily ascertained. The percentage at present of boys was about one-sixth, but some authorities thought it ought to be as high as one-fifth. However that might be, the fact remained that we had at present 8,500 boys, who would become in a short time first-rate seamen. The hon. and gallant Admiral had talked of the impossibility of getting men for the navy—that our ships were undermanned, that the men were discontented and were unhandsomely treated. The answer to that was, that in the whole Channel fleet, consisting of twelve sail of the line and three large frigates, there was only a deficiency in warrant and petty officers and able seamen of 377. In the Mediterranean fleet, of about the same strength, the position was almost precisely similar, and a draught of about 150 men were now on their way out to fill up those vacancies. He maintained therefore that these facts did not justify the gallant Admiral coming down to the House and asking for a censure upon the Government, past as well as present, for not creating a Reserve as fast as his quick and ardent imagination led him to believe it could be created. The next point he would mention was as to training ships both for exercicing volunteers in gunnery and for the education of boys. Training ships were a most important portion of the scheme, and he would state what had been done in that matter. For the Naval Coast Volunteers there was the Hastings at Liverpool, which had been transferred from the Coastguard, and the Castor at Greenhithe. Those ships were fitted up as complete men-of-war with bedding, utensils, boats, &c., because the men lived on board during their month's drill. There was also the Brilliant in the City Canal, which was not so fitted up, because the men only went on board during the day, and there was the Trincomalee fitting to be sent to the north of England. A small steamer, the Weser, was also being got ready to take men to the mouth of the Thames in order to practise firing at targets. Those training vessels were only in addition to the innumerable guns and batteries all over England. For the training of boys one line of battle ship was fitting at Devonport, and she, no doubt, would be the forerunner of others. There were also the four brigs—one at Cork, two at Portsmouth, and one at Devonport. He thought he had shown by the facts he had adduced that the Admiralty had endeavoured to increase our Naval Reserve, and by promoting the introduction of boys to create a nursery for seamen. There was only one other point to which he felt it necessary to refer, and that was in relation to the latter portion of the hon. and gallant Admiral's Motion, that "the House is also of opinion that the bounty for able seamen ought not to have been lowered till the number wanted was complete." He (Lord C. Paget) thought he had already answered that opinion, as he had shown that our fleets were only a few men short of their proper complements, and the deficiencies were only such as the ordinary casualties would create; that we had a vast number of boys who were growing into good sailors; that they were daily entering seamen sufficient to fill up any vacancies that might exist; and that therefore it would have been unwise and unnecessary to continue the payment of a large bounty. But this was not his only reason, for he demurred to the proposition of the gallant Admiral that bounties were good things, and, indeed, he regarded the system of bounties as an unwholesome one. He admitted that last year there were strong reasons for the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) took in offering a large bounty, which certainly did enable the country to obtain a good many men. The present Government had lowered the bounty because they thought the offer of a large bounty was, in ordinary circumstances, an objectionable system. He believed it had been one of the causes of that craving for leave which had become apparent among the men, because they had their pockets full of money, and were always wanting opportunities for spending it, and, therefore, he held the opinion that the offer of a large bounty, except under peculiar circumstances, was unwise and detrimental to the public service. He thought he had proved to the House that the Admiralty had not been unmindful of their duty, and that it was their continual study to improve the condition of the navy, and therefore he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Admiral.

said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that the Motion of the gallant Admiral was too extensive in its terms and peculiar in its phraseology, and his speech too general to make it an easy task to follow him. With respect to the last portion of the Motion, indeed, he doubted whether it was framed in accordance with the rules of the House, and whether the Speaker could put a Motion which commenced by an Address to the Crown, and concluded with a Resolution. He was glad, however, to hear that the Admiralty had decided to lower the bounty, as he did not consider it was desirable to retain the bounty system as a permanent system. His sincere belief, however, was, that under the peculiar circumstances that existed last year, the late Government were justified in taking the step they did take, and the noble Lord had very frankly admitted that he took a similar view. But the adoption of that exceptional course last year did not at all imply an approval of a permanent system of bounties, and he had felt some apprehension lest the present Government might intend to continue that system. He had heard with great pleasure what had been said by his noble Friend on this subject, and thought the Government had acted with great propriety in reference to it. At the same time, while he could not concur in censuring them for what they had done, he was glad that the gallant Admiral had brought this Motion forward, because the practical question which he had submitted was one of great interest to the House and the country. What were the exertions which the Admiralty were now making to attain the all-important object of a permanent and reliable naval reserve? That was the point for consideration, and the gallant Admiral's Motion had elicited from the noble Lord a statement which would, he thought, give much satisfaction. With regard to the maintenance of reliefs at the various ports, there was no subject on which the late Board entertained greater anxiety. The Committee on Manning the Navy and the Royal Commission had made a wise recommendation on this point, and he was very glad to hear from the noble Lord that if the numbers voted by Parliament were completed, there would be in the ports somewhere about 4,000 men available for immediate service afloat. He did hope the successive Boards of Admiralty would never lose sight of this point, and that the House of Commons would never hesitate to grant every year the necessary funds to prevent the disgraceful spectacle of men-of-war lying in harbour for weeks and months before they could complete their complement of men. With regard to the Coastguard, he was glad to hear what fell from the noble Lord. He understood the noble Lord to say that, the Royal Commissioners having recommended the raising of this force to 12,000 men, the Admiralty were now aiming to procure that number. He feared that the Estimates on the table were for a number far less than 12,000, but if he understood his noble Friend rightly, the Estimates of the present year did not ask 12,000 Coastguard men, as they could not hope to obtain them this year, but that it was the intention of the Board of Admiralty to raise that amount. He thought that was a very important statement, and to no one would it be more satisfactory than to the gallant Admiral. With regard to the Royal Naval Volunteers, the statement of the noble Lord was not so satisfactory as he could have wished. Now, it might appear a trifling matter, but he would ask whether the Board were doing well to retain that name. We had already the Naval Coast Volunteers, and would it not be better to have a distinct title for each, and to call the new force by the very intelligible name of the Royal Naval Reserve? The main point was how soon this would become an effective and available force. He did not despair of seeing the number of men who came forward considerably increased, and he trusted that the Admiralty would spare no exertions to complete the number. The noble Lord had spoken of the scarcity of seamen as one reason for the slow increase of this Reserve force. It was most undesirable, both in the interests of the Royal Navy and of the merchant service, that such a scarcity should exist, and, with a view to supply the want, he quite agreed with the noble Lord as to the great importance of increasing the number of boys in the service. Whether the proportion of boys to seamen should be one-fifth or one-sixth, he would not venture to say; but it should be remembered that whatever abstractedly might be the desirable proportion, it must be difficult, if not impossible to fix that proportion with precision so long as the House of Commons were in the habit of voting at the request of the Government a fluctuating number of seamen each year. However this might be, the surest way of maintaining the navy was to train up men for ourselves, and always to take care to have a large number of boys in training. From the latter part of the speech of his noble Friend he hoped it might be inferred that the Government intended to carry out the whole recommendation of the Royal Commission on this subject. [Lord C. PAGET: Hear.] He was glad to hear that cheer, and wished also to know whether the recommendation respecting school ships would be followed. This recommendation most wisely went far beyond the mere requirements of the Royal Navy. The Commission contemplated the training of boys, so as to supply the merchant marine also, and no part of their Report was sounder and more judicious. It was to be hoped that, as the result of the measures suggested by the Commission, cordial relations would be established between the two services, so that merchant seamen might be led to enter the navy freely in times of emergency. Altogether he gladly accepted the noble Lord's statement that the Admiralty were doing all they could to insure the efficient manning of the navy, and the formation of a Reserve which should be instantly available in case of need.

observed, there could be no question, either in that House or elsewhere, of the great importance of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, as there could be no more important question for the country than that there should be always ready a sufficient number of seamen in reserve to man our ships to meet any emergency that might arise. He looked upon the statement of the noble Lord as highly satisfactory, and he had no reason to doubt that the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners would be carried out in a manner which would prove satisfactory to the House and the country. The subject of manning the navy, however, could not be too constantly dwelt upon. He must say that, with our voluntary system, we had hitherto laboured under great disadvantages as compared with the nations in which compulsory service was the rule. We stood alone in our arrangements in that respect, as we were in effect living under a free trade in seamen. One by one the proclamations and orders in council and Acts of Parliament—by which our seamen were to be made available for manning our fleet—had been withdrawn or fallen into desuetude. Our navigation laws had been swept away under which a numerous and hardy race of able-bodied seamen had been bred as apprentices in our coasting trade, and the whole tendency and character of modern legislation had been such as to diminish our command of able-bodied seamen for the navy. At the same time our commerce had not declined, but had steadily increased; nor had our colonial interests diminished. At the present moment we had a great number of our seamen in the United States Navy, tempted there, of course, by the larger pay, and the system which enabled them to remit their pay to their families if in this country. He trusted that the day was far distant when any hostile emergency would arise; but as things stood at present he was at a loss to understand how we were to furnish the requisite number of men to meet a sudden and urgent increase of armament. In 1812 we had troops and volunteers to the extent of 800,000, and we had in the navy 600 ships in commission, of which ninety were line-of-battle ships. It is difficult to understand how our power then displayed could be now equalled in the event of any interruption to our friendly relations with other countries. If peace were maintained, it must be by the maintenance of a force which should be able to continue the supremacy we had always possessed; and he would only express his most earnest hope that the Government, by carrying out without delay the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, would best secure the interests and maintain the honour of the country.

said, that he had been taken to task last year for talking upon such a vulgar subject as expense, in relation to the question of substituting more efficient vessels for the block-ships. He did not think they should incur useless expenditure, and he believed that great expense would be occasioned by such a measure without any corresponding advantage, as, on the block-ship being put out of commission, the stores and materials, on which a large sum had been expended, and which were sufficient to last out the commission, could not be made available for the ships which replaced them, and after the new ship had been in commission for some time, before she could go to sea all kinds of repairs would be necessary, such as relaying the decks and recaulking, which would occupy as much time as to bring forward a new ship. In illustration of the loss which would thus be occasioned, he would state that the first cost for masts, yards, sails, and other stores for a block-ship was £16,000, which would make a total of £128,000 for the whole, a great part of which would be lost, and, as he thought, for no adequate object by the proposed arrangement. The best way to deal with the block-ships was to let them die a natural death and wear themselves out. He was very glad to hear the noble Lord's statement, that the Reserve force was going on satisfactorily. He had always, however, he confessed, placed more reliance on the Reserve that was kept by the Admiralty in permanent pay than on that portion which was obtained by a re- taining fee, and he trusted that every effort would be made to complete the Reserve of 4,000 seamen in the ports recommended by the Commission. He hoped his noble Friend would see to the organization of the Marine Reserve Force to the full number of 20,000, as recommended by the Manning Commission. They were men well trained in gunnery, and would be most useful in case of emergency. With regard to the Royal Marines he understood the noble Lord to say that the Commission recommended a Reserve on shore of 6,000. He thought that was a misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord. What the Commissioners did say was, that the usual number of Royal Marines in reserve on shore was 6,000; but they recommended that an addition of 5,000 should be made to that number, so as to raise the whole number to 11,000. He believed that since the Report was issued there had been 3,000 added to the Reserve, so that it only required the addition of 2,000 more Marines to give effect to that recommendation. He hoped the Government would make that addition during the present year; and that a large portion of that increase would be composed of Marine Artillery. No better reserve for handling guns on board ship could be had, in conjunction with a sufficient number of blue jackets. With regard to the question of leave, he thought that that was a matter that should be left entirely to the officers, and that it would be most injurious to discipline to establish any regulation by which the men could, at any time, claim leave as a matter of right, but he also thought that caprice in granting leave was a great misfortune, and that in large fleets a uniform system should be established by the Admiral for each ship, leaving to the captain a discretionary power to be exercised under special circumstances only. With regard to the Coast Volunteers he certainly could not support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, if only from the mode in which he spoke of that body. The hon. and gallant Admiral said that force was not to be depended upon. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: It is in the Report of the Committee.] He believed they were a most valuable corps. They were effective, well conducted, and very willing to perform their duty. He hoped after the satisfactory statement of his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty, his hon. and gallant Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House. If he did he (Mr. Corry) must vote against him.

said, he believed his noble Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty had a sincere desire to carry out all that the Commission required. He was glad to hear many of the statements made by his noble Friend, but he heard none with greater pleasure than that which he had made about the great increase in the number of boys in the navy. He believed there had not been a naval discussion in that House for twenty-five years in which he had not endeavoured to impress on the Government the necessity of training boys for the navy. By the present system of training the Volunteers they went on board a block-ship, in which they had not to take care of their own clothes or to wash their own linen, but the seamen had to do all the work; and that was one of the points in which seamen on board the block-ships thought they were ill-used; and another result was that the Volunteers were not taught their business. The Commission had recommended the abolition of the system of allowing freight for specie. The existence of that system had been the source of great favouritism and jobbing. He thought that the freight should no longer be received by the captains, but that it should be applied towards the pensions for the widows of warrant officers, who were now told by the Admiralty that pensions to them did not come within the scope of the regulations.

I think there are many subjects bearing upon the navy and those engaged in its service, which would be more properly left in the hands of the Admiralty than brought under the notice of the House of Commons; for the consequence is that the men, instead of looking to their officers are taught to look to this House, to the great injury of naval discipline. I regret to hear that there are many seamen seen in the streets of Portsmouth and Devonport in a state of drunkenness; the remedy would be a regulation of the number allowed to go ashore by the Admiralty, but at the same time the endeavour should be made to induce better habits among the men by means of libraries, so that they may be able to instruct and amuse themselves on board in a rational manner. I see no advantage derivable from the increase of the Coastguard to 12,000 men, with a large reduction of Customs' duties; there should be rather a corresponding diminution in their numbers, while at present the best men are being transferred by the Admiralty from the navy to the Coastguard. Petty officers should not thus be removed, but men who had passed a long period of unbroken time should receive a larger pension. I regret to see so many instances of insubordination in the navy; every such display should be crushed, as we would trample on the hot cinders that threaten to set fire to our houses; for, unless this be done, when England wants her navy, she will find it a discredit and of no use. The block-ships are perfectly suitable to the nature of their employment, and had better remain until their stores are worn out, instead of being replaced by fine ships that ought not to lie idle. Eight years since, in 1852 when I first entered Parliament, I denounced the custom of ordering ships home and dismantling them while they were in a state of the highest efficiency, and their stores, not half worn out were, instead of being made available, worked up as junk. Another ship should be provided by the Admiralty for the reception of the officers and crews, the riggers should dismantle them and return their stores for future use, and hundreds and thousands of pounds would be saved. Within the last thirty years I have no hesitation in estimating the amount that would have been saved at £1,000,000 had this course been followed. In 1853, and on every subsequent discussion on the Naval Estimates, I have impressed upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the necessity for securing boys in the seaports for the future manning of the navy. The merchant service employs 180,000 seamen, of whom we cannot expect any great number to enter the Royal Navy in time of peace. On the occurrence of war, however, they would, being out of employment, naturally turn to the Queen's service. Every year 3,000 to 4,000 boys should be draughted into the navy, and a training ship should be stationed in every mercantile port; we should now have had, if my recommendation had been followed, a large reserve of 10,000 to 15,000 able seamen for the fleet. The great matter of importance is to place in such training ships, officers of skill, temper, and kindly habits and disposition, such men as Captain Harris of the Britannia and late of the Illustrious, who had trained up several valuable lads for the navy; at eighteen years of age they would be fit for the mizen-top and other duties of the ship. I have heard with considerable pleasure the noble Lord announce that independently of frigates, we have twenty-four sail of the line ready for any emergency. With dependencies and colonies widely dissevered, and an extensive commerce to protect, and bearing in mind the great uncertainty as to the maintenance of peace, it is the first duty of precaution and fidelity to our country to maintain and make provision for a navy in the highest possible state of efficiency and strength.

said, he believed that the admission of boys into training ships was a step of great value to the service. He had received a letter from a young officer on a foreign station, which, as it bore upon the question, the House would, perhaps, allow him to read. The writer begged of him to bear his testimony to the value of training ships for boys. There were half a dozen lads on board his ship who had come from a training brig. Every one was the picture of a sailor, and they had astonished the old hands by their aptitude in the duties of a ship. As an instance, he added that one of his men who entered as an able seaman and got a bounty of £10, being ordered by the boatswain to make a mat, half an hour afterwards he found him fiddling with the rope. The boatswain abused him for his ignorance, and called one of the boys, from the training ship, who set to work, and did it in a workmanlike manner. As a civilian he could not help feeling astonished that when a ship was paid off the country should lose the valuable services of men who had perhaps been for years in training. It was not so in the army, but soldiers acquired an esprit de corps which made them proud to belong to the regiments of which they had been members. Could not some such feeling be introduced into the navy?

said, the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) deserved the gratitude of the country for the energetic and determined manner in which he had called the attention of the House and the country to their national defences, or rather to their want of defences at a time when it was less directed to the subject than its importance demanded. On that occasion he had elicited very important information from the noble Lord, but having done that, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would rest satisfied, and not press his Motion to a division. He (Mr. Bentinck) for one was highly gratified that he had brought it forward. The first topic which the gallant Admiral had touched upon was that of a bounty to sailors, and he was glad to hear from the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Clarence Paget) that, in his opinion, the system of bounty was a very unwholesome system. He (Mr. Bentinck) had always been of that opinion, but it appeared to him to be a matter of regret that a system once established had not been continued by the Admiralty until the number required for the naval service had been completed. He, therefore, considered that the discontinuance of that bounty was premature until the requisite number of men was obtained. His (Mr. Bentinck's) principal object in rising was to say a word or two about the Coastguard, and although his gallant Friend near him (Admiral Walcott) anticipated that as they had adopted the principle of free trade there was no necessity for a Coastguard, he would admit that if they really had free trade in operation there ought to be no Coastguard, but if his gallant Friend wished to see that he feared that he would have to wait for some time. As to the services of the Coastguard, a return had that day been sent to him by an officer commanding that body, and from that he found that they had performed services to an extent that few were aware of. The amount of property saved by the Coastguard of Great Britain in the year 1859 was £791,000, while by the energies of the same body of men in the same period they had saved 1,243 lives. Surely, then, the utility of that force ought not to be estimated only by the services which it rendered to the revenue, or by the addition which it made to the defences of our coast, and such being the case he hoped it would be brought up to the proper standard as early as possible. His noble Friend had stated that it now numbered 6,862 efficient men—a statement which he (Mr. Bentinck) had heard with pleasure and surprise; for a noble Lord in "another place" had said a short time ago that it was composed of only 3,200 really efficient seamen. The gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) in speaking of the improvidence of seamen, had said that when going to sea they had thrown their money overboard; and he (Mr. Bentinck) could not help thinking that if they had seats in this House those gentlemen would be found steady supporters of the financial policy of Her Majesty's Government. He could not understand what advantage there was in making use of ricketty old ships that were not fit to go from one port to another in bad weather, instead of good, seaworthy vessels. The question of manning the navy lay in a nutshell. The merchant service showed no difficulty in obtaining good men, because they paid the market price for them, and the Admrialty could get them, too, if they only pursued the same course. It was a simple question of pounds, shillings, and pence, and it was to him a matter of regret that while millions were wasted in various ways, the Government should pursue an unwise parsimony with regard to manning the navy.

said, they had held out every inducement to obtain men from the merchant-service; but it had proved a total failure, and for that there must be some important cause. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, seemed to think it was because the Government did not offer the seamen the market price for their services; but, taking all things into consideration, there could be no doubt that the Royal Navy offered the sailor more advantages than the mercantile marine. Men, however, would not enter the navy, notwithstanding the high wages which were offered to them, and he had communications from all parts of the country stating that the cause of this was that men would not enter the navy on account of the flogging. As it was, with every inducement offered not one thousand men could be found to enter the navy; and he (Mr. Williams) believed the cause of all that was because they disliked the flogging. He saw within the last two days, in an American paper, that a motion had been made in the House of Representatives for a return of the different modes of punishment adopted in the navy of the United States, instead of flogging, where it had been found impossible to obtain seamen, so long as a system of flogging prevailed; but as soon as it was abolished, some years since, men enlisted willingly. Of the 10,000 seamen obtained by us during the last year, by means of the £10 bounty, only 1,400 belonged to the mercantile service. He repeated there must be some cause for this reluctance on the part of the merchant seamen to enter the Royal Navy. They were most probably disgusted at that system of flogging which still continued in the Royal Navy, and was a disgrace to the country. There was no such thing in the American navy; and that was the only country in the world whose navy we did not look in the face with a hostile feeling. Flogging had ceased in the American service; and if it were put an end to in our own service, the effect would be as beneficial as in the American service. If they were not satisfied that he was right, they ought to inquire and ascertain what was the real cause.

said, he was rather astonished at the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth, that the Admiralty had never attempted to discover the real cause of the difficulty experienced in getting men for the navy. Within his recollection there had been three separate Commissions for that very purpose. The £10 bounty had not failed, as it had enabled them to man a larger fleet than we had had for the last thirty years. He had never heard of a single protest from seamen against flogging on board ship. It was very rarely, indeed, that men were flogged in the navy. The hon. Gentleman forgot what was due to an honourable service, when he talked of brutal punishments being administered in the navy under the eyes of naval officers. On the part of a class who were distinguished for their humanity and kindness, he protested against the implied censure cast upon them. The hon. Gentleman wondered how it happened that the Naval Reserve was not rapidly filled up with able seamen; but the truth was that able seamen did not exist. He found, from the evidence given before a Committee sitting up-stairs, that in the great mercantile City of London it was becoming more difficult every year to obtain able seamen. The introduction of steam into the mercantile navy, had to a great extent dispensed with the services of able seamen; and that was the reason why the Royal Navy found it so difficult in these days to obtain able seamen from the mercantile service. The men on board steamships could not be called able seamen. They might be made so; but they were not able seamen when they went on board Her Majesty's ships. He believed that the only plan which offered the slightest chance of success was to retain a proper reserve, and to train boys from childhood for the service in school ships. With respect to the suggestion as to the pay given to seamen in the Royal Navy, it should not be forgotten that, to whatever amount the Admiralty raised their pay, the owners of merchant ships were sure to raise the pay of their men to the same amount. Many men, no doubt, had been deterred from entering, by having read in their youth unfounded statements as to the cruel treatment of men on board ship; but he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Lambeth repeat such boys' tales.

said, it was not the fact that men were not entering the navy, because they were entering in great numbers. The entry of ordinary seamen was stopped about a month ago. They were only entering able seamen, except in the case of a few ordinary seamen in whom the officers had confidence. There was considerable difference of opinion among the Commissioners on Manning the Navy, whether the abolition of the lash would be popular among the able and well-conducted men, and there was a great deal of reason to believe that the discipline of the service was not at all too severe for ill-behaved and skulking fellows, who would throw additional work if they could on their better-conducted shipmates. As to the Coastguard, the capacity of the men to man the fleet in time of emergency was not to be measured by their numbers. They were the pick of the men, and by a mere proportion being put on board a man-of-war, the rest of the crew could be easily organized and brought into order. The wisdom and forethought of the Commissioners in recommending a reserve had been proved by the difficulty experienced in providing it suddenly. It required time to bring together a proper reserve. The public had seen the difficulty, but were determined that it should be overcome. He hoped that the gallant Admiral would not trouble the House to divide, as the figures in his Motion were inaccurate. When he said that the Naval Coast Volunteers were "not to be depended upon," he was not borne out by the language of the Commissioners' Report. What they said was that the country could not place reliance on men who could not be taken more than 100 leagues from the coast, which was very different from the offensive phrase of the gallant Admiral.

replied. He thought that the Report of the Manning Commission did justify the terms of his Motion as to the Coastguard. With reference to the observation of the Secretary to the Admiralty, that his constant complaints about the management of the navy had produced great discontent amongst seamen, he might retort that he had never made an unfounded charge like that made by the noble Lard against the management of the navy—namely, that within a few years there was an apparent defalcation of £5,000,000. The Surveyor of the Navy had satisfactorily explained what was done with that money. There had been five mutinies in the fleet since the noble Lord became Secretary to the Admiralty. Having shown to the House how very far the Admiralty were from having carried into effect the recommendations of the Manning Commission with respect to the Naval Reserve, he thought he had discharged his duty, and would not press his Motion.

said, he rose to propose the Address of which he had given notice for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the manner in which the last election for Berwick had been conducted. A Committee of that House had unanimously reported their opinion that bribery extensively prevailed at that election for Berwick, and there existed an Act of Parliament authorizing an Address to the Throne upon such a Report. He was informed that his Motion, contrary to his anticipation, would be opposed, and he wished therefore to state that he had no party object of any sort to serve, but that he simply took the course he was pursuing for the purpose of discharging the duty which devolved upon him in consequence of having been the Chairman of the Berwick Election Committee, and on account of the nature of the evidence which was given before that Committee. The election which they had inquired into took place in the month of August last, a vacancy having been caused by the retirement of one of the two hon. Members who had been chosen at the previous general election. Two gentlemen appeared as competitors for the vacant seat; one, Mr. Hodgson, the petitioner before the Committee; and the other, the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Marjoribanks), who was defending his seat. The inquiry before the Committee took the form of a scrutiny, and he would state to the House without exaggeration the effect of that scrutiny. Evidence from both sides was before them. And, first, with regard to the seat of the hon. Member, Mr. Hodgson did not succeed in showing that any of the votes which had been given for the hon. Member had been given upon any corrupt consideration; but he did succeed in showing that two of these votes were the votes of persons who had offered bribes, and those votes were therefore struck off by the Com- mittee. He (Mr. Peel) did not mean to say that these were the only acts of bribery committed on the side of the hon. Member at that election; but he felt bound, in justice to the hon. Member, to state that the cases which were proved before the Committee appeared to stand very much by themselves, and did not seem to form part of any systematic or organized plan of bribery in the town; and if the petition had been of the usual character—a petition simply to obtain the avoidance of the election and unseat the sitting Member—he did not think that the evidence given for that purpose would have warranted the Committee in coming to the conclusion that bribery had extensively prevailed at that election. But the inquiry before the Committee was a scrutiny, and the charges which were made against the hon. Member for Berwick were met by him with counter-charges against the petitioner, and the effect of those countercharges upon the poll of Mr. Hodgson was this. The votes objected to by the hon. Member were distributed into two classes. One class comprised the cases of persons who had received money; the other the cases in which money had been offered; and it was not permitted to the hon. Member to go from one class to the other. He was required, when he entered into one class, to exhaust that class before proceeding to the other; and, at the time when Mr. Hodgson desisted from the inquiry and resolved to abandon the further prosecution of his petition, the class of cases in which money was said to have been received was still under consideration, and had not been exhausted; while the other and more important class of cases in which money had been offered was not open, or under the consideration of the Committee at all. The inquiry, therefore, was altogether of an incomplete character. The hon. Member for Berwick nevertheless succeeded in proving to the satisfaction of the Committee that four of the votes polled for Mr. Hodgson had been given for money bribes, and he (Mr. Peel) believed it was the nature of the circumstances of three of these cases which caused the Committee to be of opinion that bribery had prevailed in the borough. For, in what manner had the persons been bribed whose votes had been struck off? They appeared to have gone into a house at Berwick, where they found an individual alone, whom they all recognized as Wm. M'Gall, and he appeared to have given to each of them different sums of money, with directions to go and poll. Other evidence was given which showed that a number of other voters had been directed to the same quarter, and introduced in the same way. There was reason, therefore, for the Committee to conclude that they also must have been bribed. The question, then, for the House to consider was—whether or not they would carry the inquiry further. He had already observed that the inquiry was incomplete; and that it had not entered at all into the cases on the side of Mr. Hodgson in which persons were charged with having offered bribes. It was an inquiry which was carried so far as, and no further than, it would serve the ends of the petitioner or the hon. Member in establishing the right of the latter to the seat. The question of bribery as affecting the character of the borough itself was hardly under consideration; and it was upon the character of the borough that, in his opinion, it was necessary some additional light should be thrown. The House was very well aware, in a general way, that the borough of Berwick had acquired some notoriety for corruption, and, as Chairman of the Committee, he felt bound to bear testimony to the fact that many of the voters who came before the Committee— not merely freemen, but some of the £10 householders—did appear to have an impression that a vote was something out of which they themselves were entitled to make something; that it was something which they had to give away; and that when they gave a favour they were entitled to receive a favour in return. He felt assured, therefore, that the House would not object to the adoption of any course which might tend to the uprooting of habits of corruption which were apparently so firmly established. A Committee of that House, however, would never accomplish that object. It was not the first time on which a Committee of the House of Commons had sat upon the subject of bribery and corruption at Berwick. He believed that Mr. Hodgson himself was a petitioner some years ago, and succeeded in unseating two Members for the borough for bribery and treating. He trusted, therefore, that the House would consent to an Address for the issue of a Commission. He was aware that the seats for Berwick were filled at that moment, and consequently it might not be open to the House to follow up any results from the Commission by depriving the town of its representation in the House of Com- mons; but it would be of great service if, through the medium of a Commission, the extent to which corruption had prevailed at the last election amongst the voters, and especially the freemen at Berwick, were brought to light. It would also be of great service, if it could be ascertained who were the persons who supplied the money by which they were bribed, and if it were proved that they were persons resident in the town, and the House should afterwards think proper to prosecute them, more would have been done in that way to prevent the repetition of corrupt practices than could be effected by any other means. The only objection to the Motion that occurred to his mind was the expense which attended the issue of a Commission. But the constituency of Berwick was not large. The case did not appear to be at all intricate or involved, and he did not anticipate that the inquiry would occupy many days, or that the expense would be very considerable. He should have been glad had he been able to give timely notice to the House of the gentlemen whose names he proposed to insert in the Address as Commissioners. But he had thought it best to consult the Attorney General upon the subject, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had it not in his power to acquaint him with the names he had selected until this evening. The names which the hon. and learned Gentleman had selected, and which he (Mr. Peel) now proposed on his authority, were James Vaughan, Esq., Thomas Irwin Barstow, Esq., and Franklin Lushington, Esq. The hon. Gentleman then concluded by moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,—We your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to your Majesty that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to try a Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, have reported to the House that there is reason to believe that bribery extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. We, therefore, humbly pray your Majesty that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, passed in the 16th year of the reign of your Majesty, intituled 'An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' by the appointment of James Vaughan, Esq., Thomas Irwin Barstow, Esq., and Franklin Lushington, Esq., as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such bribery."

seconded the Motion.

said, that being unused to address the House, he did not rise for the purpose of making a speech, but simply with the view of vindicating his own honour and that of his supporters in the borough of Berwick, to which he felt that justice had not been done by the Report of the Committee. What had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken fortunately rendered it unnecessary for him to make more than a few observations, and he should preface his remarks by Stating that he should have deemed it his duty to call attention to the subject under the notice of the House himself had he not been assured that it was contemplated, on the part of the Committee, that some further steps in the matter should be taken. When he had first gone to Berwick, in the spring of 1853, he found that a great number of the respectable inhabitants of that borough were disgusted with the practices which had prevailed at former elections, and had determined to give their support to no candidate who would not pledge himself to seek the suffrage of the electors by fair means, and by fair means only. That determination on the part of the gentlemen to whom he alluded was so completely in accordance with his own feelings that he had unhesitatingly given the required pledges. Not only privately, but publicly on the hustings, he declared that be never would spend a single sixpence upon a vote—not even if it were to save his election. He might add that since 1853 he had stood no less than four contested elections, the first of which had taken place previous to the passing of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, when the employment of colours and bands was legal, as well as the custom of chairing. That first contest had, therefore, cost him £714; but the last three, which were among the most severe on record, had cost him only the sums of £475, £448, and £432 respectively. He could say with the greatest truth that he had faithfully kept the pledge which he gave on his first appearance as a candidate at Berwick, and he might add that he had never been asked to infringe it. What was as much, perhaps, to the purpose, he could state that although he might at any of those elections have secured fifty or sixty additional votes by an illegitimate expenditure of money, he felt sure that if he had done so, in the succeeding election he should have lost more than a corresponding proportion of his respectable supporters. For the last year Berwick, politically speaking, had been sorely tried; and be doubted whether, under similar circumstances, any borough in England would come better out of the ordeal, He thought Berwick had been harshly used—though not by the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; that was the natural consequence of the Report of the Committee, and if the Motion went to a division he should feel bound to give the right hon. Gentleman his support. He felt that neither himself nor his constituents had the slightest reason to shrink from the most searching inquiry

said, though nothing could be more fair or candid than the manner in which the Motion was brought forward, he thought there were hardly grounds sufficient to justify the House in voting an Address to the Crown for a Commission of inquiry. There were six other occasions on which Addresses of that description had been presented to the Crown since the passing of the Act, but they had all been presented for reasons which did not exist in the present instance. In 1853 Addresses were carried and Commissions were issued in the cases of Cambridge, Canterbury, Hull, and Barnstaple, but in all those cases election petitions had been presented for the purpose of unseating the sitting Members, on the ground that their returns had been vitiated by corrupt practices, and all that it was necessary to prove was that such practices had taken place through the agency of those Members. The consequence was that the inquiry before the Committee was limited to proving the existence of the minimum of bribery necessary to affect the seat, while at the same time incidental evidence was produced, which fairly gave rise to suspicions that corruption upon a much larger scale had been actually practised, and the House had very properly decided that Committees should be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining how far those suspicions were well founded. The result in each case justified the petition. Bribery, in the words of the Act of Parliament, had been extensively practised. But this was a wholly different case. The election took place upon a casual vacancy, during the sitting of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman was returned by a small majority, his opponent petitioned against him, and was unsuccessful. It was true that the Committee found that bribery had been practised on the side of the petitioner, but they also found that it had been practised without his cognizance; and there was the strongest reason to suppose that he must have thought when he demanded a scrutiny that no practices had taken place which could affect him or his agents. The right hon. Gentleman said that the inquiry into the evidence offered to the Committee was incomplete. The incompleteness was this,—a certain list of charges, as speculative, probably, as such documents usually were, was not investigated. On that the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to put the public to the expense of inquiring into the culpability of the persons on that list. It might be a very natural curiosity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to know whether the charges of the list were true or not; but that was not sufficient reason for issuing a Royal Commission. A certain number of voters were proved to have received money through Mr. M'Gall; but the Committee found no evidence showing that M'Gall was an agent of either party. It might be very satisfactory to learn who supplied the money. But the only witness who could say that was the man accused of the malpractice, thus the mouth of the chief witness was effectually stopped. It appeared to him, on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that there was no sufficient foundation for voting an Address to the Crown. To justify such an Address there should be a distinct judicial finding by the Committee that bribery had been "extensively practised." This must mean something different from the bribery of two or three persons. The Act of Parliament did not intend that a Commission should be issued on any degree of surmise by any Member of the Committee, but only on a distinct finding that there had been extensive corruption.

said, he believed his hon. and learned Friend had fallen into some mistakes with respect to the supposed corruption in the case. His hon. and learned Friend stated that the Committee were satisfied that there was no agency which could connect the peti- tioner with the corruption which had been practised upon his side. But the fact was, that no evidence one way or the other had been offered to the Committee upon that point, and they could not, of course, undertake to pronounce any absolute decision with respect to it. The Committee left, in short, the matter in the uncertainty in which it found it. The ground for believing that extensive corruption was practised in Berwick was, not only the fact that some three or four voters had been bribed, but the existence of the machinery for corruption. M'Gall was traced to different public-houses, well-known agents were traced to him during the election; large crowds gathered at the stairs of the room in which he sat; and there was what was popularly called a "man in the moon." These were the grounds for believing that there had been bribery on the side of the petitioner, though, like the Committee, he forbore from expressing any opinion on the matter. But bribery had also been established on the side of the sitting Member; two cases had been distinctly proved to the satisfaction of the Committee, and anybody who read the evidence must be satisfied that there was a third case, of the gravest doubt. A person who had been very active on the part of the sitting Member, and who was the owner of a public-house in which these proceedings had been carried on, was convicted of bribery by the Committee. It was true that these were individual cases, but, according to all experience, it was exceedingly unlikely that these men had not bribed to a greater extent. He therefore was disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that bribery had extensively prevailed at Berwick-upon-Tweed, and that inquiry would be perfectly justifiable; but the experience which he had of the Gloucester Committee, upon which he had acted last year—he was fortunate in such matters—was precisely what rendered him very much disinclined to the passing of the Motion. He was not merely influenced by the consideration of expense, which, though by no means large, was such as he ventured to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were now in his place, would feel it his duty to call attention to; but he felt that these Commissions of Inquiry were an absolute delusion and a sham. A great paraphernalia was employed, Commissioners was sent out, an act of indemnity was passed, witnesses were examined, and the evidence of corruption was published at considerable expense—corruption of the grossest kind was brought home to a borough, and then the House stayed its hand. This had been done at least ten times, and the utmost punishment inflicted was the withholding of the writ for a few months. The same course would, doubtless, be followed in the case of Wakefield and Gloucester. The House was bound to act on one of two principles. Of late a good deal had been said about the influence of wealth counteracting the effects of a reduced suffrage. If wealth were to be adopted as a constitutional safeguard, they had nothing to do but to smooth over the sore which they were content to endure; but if they were determined on eradicating bribery from the electoral system, more active measures must be adopted. He had already expressed his opinion that by lowering the suffrage so as to admit persons whose means rendered the sale of their vote a matter of serious importance to them, it was in vain—constituted as human nature was—to expect that such men would not receive a bribe. In order—he would not say wholly to eradicate, but to lessen bribery—the offending boroughs must be punished; if bribery once became confirmed in a place, it was like gangrene, and could only be cured by cutting off the whole limb. The evil effected by the purchase of twenty freemen's votes in a borough was not confined to a single election, but the neighbours of these men, seeing that the others had their rent so easily paid, became desirous of disposing of their own votes to equal advantage; and, finally, they came to regard as a right what at first was a matter of barter. When corruption had thus settled in a borough, it was like the malaria and became endemic; and a cure was not to be effected without suspending the writ until a generation had passed away. The equivocal course pursued with respect to these Commissions of Inquiry reflected no credit on the country. We prided ourselves much on the purity of our institutions and of our public men, and we were apt to declare that no such things could take place in our country as happened abroad. But what view did foreigners take? If we were to say that our Chancellors of the Exchequer were better than the Austrian Ministers, and that they had never been discovered in peculations of the public money, an Austrian would laugh at us, and reply that, although they might occasionally buy an official, they never bought a whole population. The House, by merely inquiring into these transac- tions and bringing them to light, was but disgracing the country in the eyes of foreigners. It must either resolve that these Commissions should be followed by some energetic and active measure for the suppression of bribery in the places where it was proved to have taken place, or it must entirely abandon this expensive and useless sham.

said, that his first impression, upon rather curiously reading the evidence before the Berwick Committee was, that there had been substantially no case made out for the issuing of a Commission; but the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) must have satisfied every Member of the House that the case before it was pre-eminently one in which a Commission ought to be issued. Only four cases of bribery appeared to have been proved before the Committee, and it could hardly be said, à priori, that that was a sufficient ground; but the noble Lord appeared to have fully satisfied himself that the borough was highly corrupt, and certainly made out a much stronger argument for the Motion than the right hon. Gentleman who proposed it. He had felt much disinclined to support the issuing of a Commission, because, as the hon. Member for Cambridge observed, nothing seemed to result from that course. In every case in which a Commission had been issued, the Government had abstained from pledging itself to take any further action after the expenditure had been made. In moving for the appointment of the Gloucester Commission, he had stated that the Government, in his opinion, were bound to say that in the event of that Commission reporting that corrupt practices prevailed at Gloucester, they would take some action upon it; and the hon. Member for Nottingham had expressed the same opinion. It was true that the writ was suspended in that and other cases; but in the case before the House the seats were full, and he considered it to be the duty of the Government to tell the House and the country, that, in the event of the Commission issuing a Report that corrupt practices had prevailed, ulterior steps should be taken, and that they would propose the disfranchisement of the borough. Before voting for the Commission he should expect to have an answer to that effect from the Government. No doubt bribery had prevailed at Berwick, although, as he had said, the case in the Report was but slight, and not so conclu- sive as the statement of the noble Member for Stamford, which must satisfy the House that there had been extensive bribery of various kinds—gifts of money, which he would call pecuniary bribery; and gifts of drink, which he might call gastric bribery. But as he had said, unless the House took some security, that the Government would take active steps against the borough in case the Commission found that bribery prevailed there, it would leave the country to infer that its efforts to put down bribery were a mere mockery, and that those Commissions were so many proofs of the impotency of Parliament to contend with this wide-spread evil.

said, he hoped the House would not be induced to sanction the issuing of this Commission. There could be no doubt that bribery extensively prevailed at Berwick. That was satisfactorily proved enough already by the statement of the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) without a Commission. Enough money had been uselessly spent on these Commissions already, without going to further expense merely to produce another voluminous blue-book, and to add another to the list of boroughs convicted of corruption. No good whatever had hitherto been done by these Commissions. They merely proved what everybody knew perfectly well before; and he should, therefore, oppose following the same fruitless course in this instance.

said, it was very inconvenient for the House to review the opinions of Election Committees. The Berwick Committee had reported that systematic and extensive bribery prevailed, and the evidence supported that charge. The chairman of the Committee (Mr. Peel), recommended the issuing of a Commission. On the other hand he thought the premisses and the conclusion of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford totally irreconcilable. Because Parliament had not gone as far as he wished in the way of putting down bribery he would have them retrace their steps altogether. There was much wisdom in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that in regard to any place reported upon by Commissions as guilty of bribery, the writ should be suspended for eight or ten years. That proposal was worth consideration. But, because this had not been done, must the House shut its eyes to the corruption that was going on? He apprehended that the mere exposure of these crimes was in it- self an advantage. There was a Committee then sitting for the purpose of considering the most efficient manner for putting an end to corrupt practices, and the most important information which it had received had been derived from the Reports of these very Commissions which were set at nought, and from the Commissioners themselves, and without which they would have had much difficulty in arriving at the conclusion to which they had come. He thought it would be a strange thing for the House to refuse to issue the Commission asked for. If it should be refused in this case he did not see how there could ever be another Commission issued.

said, the case before the House was a very exceptional one. The Committee had not reported the existence of systematic and notorious bribery at Berwick. It should be remembered also that in this case the hon. Member for that borough had been seated by the decision of the Election Committee, but if this Commission were issued, their decision might be found at variance with the Report of the Commissioners, who might find that he was not entitled to his seat. This was an inconvenience which the House ought not to lose sight of. But what advantage was derived from the appointment of these Commissions? What had been done in connection with their Reports which would prevent bribery? Why, the offenders were always indemnified, and thus escaped punishment. The Committee on Corrupt Practices, who were just going to make their Report, could not expect any information from a Commission which would not conclude its inquiry for some months to come. The House had now before it the evidence on which the Committee decided, and it appeared that the evidence was very slight. The case, therefore, did not seem to warrant the appointment of a Commission, and seeing that the Committee on Corrupt Practices might possibly recommend the discontinuance of these Commissions, he thought it a very inopportune time to bring forward the present Motion. He was quite sure that the country looked upon the appointment of these Commissions as a farce, and did not believe the House of Commons to be sincere in its wish to crush bribery at elections. The country thought that hon. Members satisfied their own consciences by the appointment of Commissions whose Reports were placed upon the table and nothing was done upon them. Believing that this would merely add another to the abortive inquiries which had before been made, and that no real cure would be thereby provided for an admitted evil, he should oppose the Motion.

said, he thought, if the House were to follow the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge (Mr. K. Macaulay) and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken last, the Member for Truro, it would be in a much worse position than if the Corrupt Practices Act had never passed, because, before that Act passed, the House had its ordinary power of addressing the Crown, and of obtaining the appointment of a Commission. But since that Act passed, this power, he presumed, was no longer at their disposal, unless in such a case as that now before them, when an Election Committee had reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. He had a particular interest in this matter, because he presented a petition last year from almost the whole of the Corporation of Norwich, asking the House to agree to an inquiry into the corruption alleged to have prevailed in that borough. Owing to the lapse of time, however, and owing to the fact that the Committee did not make such a Report because the moment the case was proved the parties withdrew, he was unable to obtain his Motion. After the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1854 the usual plan was to send a case to a Committee who obtained not only a knowledge of the evidence, but the character of the witnesses and the manner and tone of their evidence, which was a material point for consideration. In the case before the House the Committee had examined fairly into the matter, and the House not only had the Report of the Committee, but the Members of it, not three of them as against two, or four against one, but the whole five members, agreeing to this Report. Well, then, he did not think the House was at liberty, consistently with its usual course, to say the evidence on which the Report was founded was slight—that there were only four, six, or ten cases of bribery proved. He had much rather act upon the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who composed the Committee, than of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge, who confessed to not having read the evidence at all. Two or three hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who were not great economists upon ordinary occasions, had protested against the issue of a Commission upon the ground of expense. He was in favour of economy, and would consent to a limitation in the number of Commissions, or anything that would promote that object. But the main objection to those Commissions was that their results were nil. The noble Lord had made an attack upon the corruption of the poorer voters, but perhaps he was not aware that a schedule attached to the Report of the Gloucester Commissioners showed that a great number of voters who were bribed lived in houses rented at from £20 to £30 a year. Every one knew that corruption in one shape or other attacked people who were not in the poorest circumstances. The bribe might not be in the shape of a direct gift of money, but in the form of something equally potent. But reverting to the argument that the result of those Commissions were nil he was of opinion, with regard to Gloucester and Wakefield, great good had been done by them. He knew this more particularly with regard to Wakefield, because he often went there to spend a day or two, and he was acquainted with many persons in that town. At that moment, there was, on the part of a great portion of what might be called the respectable and influential members of the constituency, great sorrow and great shame at the vicious mode in which their elections had been conducted, and at the exposures they had undergone. That he conceived to be a certain advantage, and he was satisfied with regard to both these boroughs there would, for a long time to come, be a very great improvement in the manner in which they conducted elections. When the questions of Gloucester and Wakefield were before the House, he suggested that it would be advantageous to suspend the issue of the writs until either the leprosy of corruption died out or the pure part of the constituency had become so much more powerful that corruption was not likely again to be practised. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) rather agreed with that suggestion; but he thought as a Bill was then before the House for greatly extending the constituencies it was not a time for giving effect to it. But with regard to Berwick it was said that both the Members were now sitting. That, however, was no reason why the inquiry should not refer to the electors. The Member for St. Albans sat and voted when there was no constituency because the Act had passed cutting off the representation of that borough. As to Berwick if the Commission issued, if the gross cases were brought out which the hon. and learned Member for Truro said would be brought out. [Mr. M. SMITH: No, no!] He (Mr. Bright) heard the hon. and learned Member say, that if it brought out all the evidence of gross corruption, the result would be the same.

explained that he had said, that although whatever bribery did take place would be brought out, yet the persons who had been guilty of bribery would be indemnified and thus escape punishment.

No doubt indemnities would be given, but what was wanted was information; and when that had been obtained it would be competent for any Member to introduce a Bill for the purpose of taking from the borough one Member if it was not wished wholly to disfranchise it. There were many towns, such as Dundee, Aberdeen, and Salford, asking for an additional Member; and one Member might be transferred from Berwick to one of those towns. He knew something of Berwick himself. Many years ago he was there, attending a meeting in favour of free trade, and he took the opportunity of giving a serious lecture to the electors upon the question of bribery, because it was then notoriously one of the most corrupt boroughs in the kingdom. He had also been told that upon one occasion all the ministers of religion—Churchmen and Dissenters alike —took an opportunity of preaching sermons in condemnation of the bribery that always prevailed. He never heard that either his speech or their sermons had been effectual in curing the evil or even produced any great result. He was, therefore, of opinion that when they had found a borough notoriously so corrupt, condemned unanimously by a Parliamentary Committee, when his hon. Friend the Member for the borough himself actually wished the Commission should issue, and when what he might call the least corrupt portion of the constituency were also anxious for it, the House of Commons would commit an act more perverse, he was going to say, than any he had ever known it to commit, if it were to refuse to agree to the Motion now before it. The more the evil was probed, the more the foul cancer was exposed to the public eye, the more chance there was that some day the remedy would be applied—if remedy there was to that deep stain upon the character of our representative system.

observed, that in the present state of the public finances, the House ought to be sure that some practical result would be gained before it agreed to the expense of another Commission. The expense of the Gloucester Commission was £1,924, and of Wakefield £1,423; and those sums did not include the cost of printing the Reports. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) had said that he would only consent to the issuing of a Commission for Berwick upon the Government pledging itself to take some decided steps afterwards. But why was Berwick, if found guilty, to be more severely dealt with than Gloucester or Wakefield? At the latter place it was shown that an hon. Gentleman now in the House, and well known to the hon. Member for Birmingham, had communicated to a relative his intention to sell £4,000 of railway stock, the produce of which was placed in that relative's hands, and the whole was spent in bribing the electors of Wakefield; but no measure had been suggested to be taken against that hon. Gentleman. In the case of Berwick, the only ground for a Commission was, that a Mr. M'Gall had been seen to go into a dark room, whither he was followed by certain electors, who were supposed to come out of it with something in their pockets; but was there not a M'Gall in every borough in the kingdom? ["No."] Did not every hon. Member know that in every borough containing 500 electors there were forty or fifty who always held back until the last? ["No."] He would like to know the happy place represented by the hon. Member who cried "No." Was it Birmingham? [Mr. BRIGHT: Yes.] He was surprised to hear the hon. Member make such a declaration. One of the hon. Gentleman's reasons for the issuing of a Commission was, that he had made a speech to the electors of Berwick against bribery, and it had produced no effect. That was not an unusual consequence of the hon. Gentleman's speeches. The best friend the Conservatives ever had was to be found in the hon. Member for Birmingham, for his extreme views always alarmed, instead of convincing, his hearers. But he wanted to know what was to be the practical result of the proposed Commission. Would it be only another blue-book? Assuming it would be proved that a certain number of voters had received bribes, what would the House do with them? But if they had received bribes there must have been persons who bribed them, and what did the House propose to do with them? Practically, the House had had some satisfaction in the cases of Gloucester and Wakefield, because the writs had been suspended; but in the case of Berwick the seats were full. He did not question the right of Parliament to disfranchise Berwick if guilty; but why was Berwick, if guilty, to be treated with greater severity than Hull, Gloucester, and Wakefield had been? Wakefield had 1,100 voters, and 184, or one-sixth, were proved to have been bribed. Disfranchisement would therefore punish the five-sixths for the misconduct of the one-sixth. He thought that if the one-sixth were punished by having their franchise taken from them, some justice and a great deal of good would result. If it were provided that any one who bribed, or received a bribe, should be for ever after prevented from voting at an election or sitting in that House, a practical result would be arrived at. But supposing the Commission to be appointed, and supposing it to come to a different conclusion to that arrived at by the Committee, they would have two competent authorities clashing with each other. In what position, then, would the matter be? He had come to the conclusion on all these grounds that the House should refuse the Motion, and he hoped they would agree in that opinion.

said, although he was unwilling to take any great part in the discussion, because it might ultimately be part of his duty to determine on other proceedings, he could not refrain from expressing his hope—nay, his conviction—that the sense of duty which animated the House of Commons did not quite rest on ground so low as that on which the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had placed it. The hon. and learned Gentleman told the House, whatever might be its feeling of obligation, to abstain from inquiry because inquiry was costly, and to lie under the reproach of doing nothing, because previous inquiries of the kind now proposed had led, as he thought, to no adequate result. He (the Attorney General) was not of that opinion; and he now felt it right that a pledge should be given to the House that, so far as the criminal jurisdiction of the country was concerned, those inquiries should not be without their result whenever a just and proper opportunity arose for putting the law in operation. There were two things to be done; one belonging to the House of Commons, the other to the humble individual who was addressing them, so long as he held his present office. It was for the House to determine, on the Reports of the Commissioners, whether they would issue the writs or not, or adopt any other legislative measure, like that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, of disfranchising the culpable individuals. It was for him (the Attorney General) to determine, on the evidence contained in those Reports, whether there was sufficient cause for prosecuting persons implicated in the transactions in question, and who were not protected by the statute. He had already given directions with respect to one of the cases that had been mentioned— nay, he should have done it some time before but that the state of assize business rendered it impossible to bring on the cases at the last assizes. Gentlemen were now busily employed, under his directions, in dissecting the evidence in the Wakefield case; and he gave a pledge to the House that every man, not protected by statute, with regard to whom there was reasonable ground for believing that a conviction might be obtained, should be brought to answer for his crime. It depended on the House and himself that everything likely to operate by way of warning and example should be done in these cases. Let not hon. Members, therefore, have recourse to the mockery of abusing an Act of Parliament; but let them address themselves, with a determined spirit, to do the duty which fell on them collectively, and see that the duty which devolved on individuals was performed, and then the statute would no longer be open to the taunt of being unproductive of results. One hon. and learned Member had said the evidence was very slight, and therefore he threw a degree of discredit on the Report of the Committee. By the Act of Parliament, where a Committee had reported in certain terms, there was an obligation—he did not mean to say a legal obligation, but an obligation, if that were possible, of a far higher character—imposed on the House collectively to act on the finding of that Report. The House had no right to question the materials on which the Committee had come to a Report. When the Report was in the language of the statute, as the one before the House was, the statute contemplated that the House would feel it to be its duty to act on that Report, and pointed out the course of proceeding to be adopted. Would the House tell the world that they would disregard the law? It would be the fault of the House alone if they did not do their duty. The Act of Parliament was sufficient for its object, if the House was not wanting to that Act. He repeated the pledge he had given to the House, that so far as he was concerned his best efforts would be directed to carry the law into effect. He had no doubt that the House would find means to involve the guilty parties in an adequate punishment for their political offences, and he would take care to involve them in an adequate criminal punishment. It had been said that the Committee had not reported in the terms of the Act. That was not correct. The Committee had reported in the very words of the statute, which did not require the Committee to find as a fact that there had been extensive bribery, but allowed them to tell the House that there was reason to believe that there had been extensive bribery. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, however, had an arrow in his quiver, and that was the acknowledgment of the prevalence of bribery in the boroughs. His hon. and learned Friend made a confession to the House. He told them that he did not know a single borough in which there did not exist a little knot of voters who waited till the last hour, and then made their bargain. [Mr. MALINS: I did not say that anything of the kind occurred at Wallingford.] Nay, nay, it was the exception that proved the universality of the rule. But these things were unworthy of the great importance of the subject. If they wished to show their sincerity, if they wished to maintain their position, they ought not to cover themselves with reproach, not to tell the public that the Reports of their Election Committees were to remain dead-letters, but to enforce the law against every person who should be proved guilty of electoral impurity.

said, he was delighted to hear that the hon. and learned Attorney General intended to use the sword of justice against guilty parties, and he hoped he would not raise it in vain, but he was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman would find a great practical difficulty in his way. He had himself intended to move that the Attorney General should be directed to prosecute the persons who had conspired to corrupt the electors of Gloucester, but on turning to the Report of the Commissioners he found that every one of these persons had received a certificate of indemnity. Now, if a Commission should be issued in the case of Berwick, the first persons who would apply to be examined would be those whom the Attorney General would single out for prosecution, and when they had obtained certificates of indemnity from the Commissioners they might snap their fingers at the hon. and learned Gentleman and his indictment. He hoped, therefore, the House would pause before deciding that a Commission should be issued. Another question which ought to be considered was whether a certificate of indemnity protected the person holding it, not only against a legal prosecution by the Attorney General, but also against disfranchisement. If that were so the Act under which the Commissions issue ought to be amended. He thought that the expense of Commissions should be borne by the offending boroughs themselves, and not by the country at large.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a great improvement of the law if the expenses of the Commissions were borne by the places to which they were issued, and he trusted that Government would insert in the Act a provision to that effect. He trusted that the Commission would be issued in the present case, because the Commissioners would inquire into the circumstances, not only of the last election in Berwick, but also of the previous one. There were facts connected with that election, and with the compromise by which the seat was vacated, that were full of the gravest suspicion. As a Member of the Corrupt Practices Committee he could state that the Commissions of Gloucester and Wakefield were not without value from the publicity which the facts obtained, and though the indemnity was given to great extent in Gloucester the Wakefield Commissioners were much more chary in granting indemnities, notwithstanding which no prosecution had been instituted. Still he thought that the suspension of the writs would have a great effect. In places where there was proof that bribery prevailed one Member should be taken from the town, and the expense of the Commission should be charged upon it. The indemnity merely protected the voter from legal consequences, but did not give a pledge against his disfranchisement.

said, that the fact was that some difficulty existed respecting the borough of Berwick. The first Reform Bill placed the borough in the county of Northumberland—he did not know why; but the effect of its disfranchisement would be to make many of the delinquents county voters. This was not a question in which he felt greatly interested, and therefore he should leave the House of Commons to deal with it as they thought fit.

said, that as one of the Members of the Committee, he wished to say it was impossible for them not to have been unanimously of opinion that bribery had been committed at Berwick for a series of years. But what he would ask was the good of issuing Commissions if no results were to follow? He thought the best way was, to disfranchise boroughs which were corrupt. He could not see what possible good could result from a Commission. Commissions ended in nothing; they were a mere screen put up to hide the real culprits from the public; and they entailed considerable expense on the country. It had been proved before a Committee of the House that Norwich was rotten and corrupt, and yet the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who professed to have a great horror of bribery, had included Norwich in his Bill for the enlargement of the borough and county constituencies. It was the Members of that House who were responsible for bribery at elections, and the punishment of bribery ought to fall upon the real culprits. It was all very well to punish poor voters who took a few pounds for their votes, but the remedy for the evil of bribery was to make it penal for educated and wealthy men to hold out the temptation. What a farce it would be to send down three grand inquisitors to try a few poor fishermen of Berwick, and let those who had bribed them escape. That indeed would be breaking a butterfly on a wheel. Why not break the hand that held the butterfly? He was sick of this hypocrisy, and so where the people of England. Unless Commissions were made much more drastic than they had yet been, they had better never be resorted to. He could not vote for this Commission. One of the witnesses examined before the Committee admitted that he had for years bribed for the Liberal party. That showed how real was the horror expressed on the Liberal side of the House against bribery. What would the House do when they got the Commission? Where they going to unseat the present Member? That would be an absurdity. Again they would have to exonerate those who gave evidence before the Commission. With a view of put- ting an end to bribery, he moved in the Berwick Election Committee a Resolution to the effect that the tribunal which was at present constituted for the trial of Corrupt Practices at elections was an inefficient and improperly constituted tribunal, and was not calculated to further the ends of justice.

said, the hon. Gentleman had adverted to the case of Norwich, but the Norwich Committee did did not report, in the terms of the Act of Parliament, that in their belief bribery had extensively prevailed, and consequently there was no legal power to issue a Commission. That, no doubt, was the sole reason why a Commission was not issued in the case of Norwich. But after the speech the House had heard from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long), who thought that bribery was so extensive and notorious at Berwick that they ought to pass by the ordinary form of trial, and disfranchise the borough, he must say that, if the House refused to take steps for a further inquiry, they would do that which they had never yet done—namely, refuse to take the steps pointed out to check bribery in a case in which a Committee had unanimously declared that in its opinion there had been extensive bribery. He hoped the House would not afford the public out of doors an opportunity of saying that where a Committee had done its duty, as was evident from the speech just delivered by the hon. Gentleman, the House failed to take such steps as might ultimately lead to the disfranchisement of the borough in question, if that should appear to be its proper punishment.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had objected to the disfranchisement of a whole borough because some of the voters in it had been guilty of bribery; but when the case of Canterbury election was discussed by the House, that hon. and learned Gentleman objected to particular voters being stigmatized for bribery, and preferred the disfranchisement of Canterbury to such individual stigmata. He was sorry to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in changing his opinion, had changed for the worse. He (Mr. Collins) thought, however, that if Commissions for the purpose of inquiring into bribery were issued at all, the expenses should fall on the boroughs in which the inquiry took place.

said, that although he was Chairman of the Gloucester Election Committee, he had abstained from moving for the issuing of a Commission in that case, because he believed, as had, indeed, proved to be the case, that it would be perfectly valueless. Every person who had been guilty of the worst acts of bribery had been indemnified if he gave his evidence boldly before the Commission. The Attorney General had told the House that he was determined to carry out with vigour the duties of his office, but he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether there was a single individual in Gloucester whom he could prosecute for bribery? Again, in the case of the Galway freemen, the House refused to disfranchise persons who had obtained certificates from the Commissioners. There was an hon. Member in that House who stated that he had been a party to the bribing of 250 of the electors of Galway; but his statement, instead of exciting indignation, was received with a shout of laughter, and he had not heard that it had at all affected the estimation in which that hon. Gentleman was held in the House. He was not singular in his opinion as to the valuelessness of these Commissions, for the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), in an address to his constituents, stated that their only result was the production of immense blue-books, which not three persons would read, and that, as regarded the suppression of bribery, all such proceedings ended, and were intended to end, in nothing. What, then, would follow the issuing of a Commission in the case of Berwick? They had done nothing in the case of other Commissions, except St. Albans, which was a Commission under a special Act. It was admitted that they could not deprive the sitting Members for Berwick of their seats. They could not disfranchise the borough, because they had refused to do so in other cases of the very worst description. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Not refused.] The refusal consisted in not having done it. They had not dealt with Wakefield or Gloucester at all. In the Gloucester case the hon. Member who was returned tendered his evidence to the Committee which sat. When he was asked whether he knew where the money came from, he said he had no knowledge of it; but when the Commission sat again, he said he had been misreported, and that he said he had no knowledge of it at the time of the election. In the Wakefield case means for a prosecution might have been adopted long ago; but if prosecutions took place after a Commission, for the future Commissions would not obtain the facts. For if the Commission was issued, those persons who would give evidence before it having had warning from the Attorney General that they would be prosecuted if they gave their evidence truly, they would not give evidence truly, and thus the object of the Commission would be defeated. In short, if he thought that the issuing of this Commission would tend to put down bribery, he would freely vote for it; but as he believed that they could not deal with this borough differently from others, and that, therefore, the Commission would be attended with no result at all, he should vote against the Motion.

I am willing to accept the footing upon which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has placed this question. He says that you ought not to deal with this borough in a manner different from that in which you have dealt with others that have been similarly reported upon. That is exactly what we wish to avoid. We wish the House to deal with this borough in the same manner in which it has dealt with others that have been similarly reported against. I believe that I am correct in saying that there has been no case in which a Committee has made such a Report upon a borough as has been made in this instance in which a Commission of Inquiry has not been issued. I really should hope that the House will not listen to the arguments of those who are opposing the Motion of my right hon. Friend. The only grounds upon which I have heard that Motion objected to are— first, that the House has not settled beforehand what it will do when it gets the Report of the Commission; and next, that we ought to be deterred from making the inquiry by the expense with which it will be attended. I must say that more flimsy arguments against that which I hold it to be the duty of the House to do I never heard advanced. Is it possible that the country will believe that the Members of this House are really averse to bribery at elections, that we are in earnest in wishing to put down corruption, if we refuse to do now, in regard to Berwick, that which has been done with respect to the boroughs concerning which similar reports have been made to Parliament? It is said that the witnesses will be indemnified. In the case of Wakefield all the witnesses were not indemnified. It rests with the Commissioners to determine with regard to each witness whether he has so completely answer ed the questions put to him, and so entirely deposed to the whole truth of that which he knows, as to entitle him to the indemnity which they are legally empowered to give. In cases in which the witness has not made a clean breast of it, that indemnity has been refused, and in those cases, undoubtedly, my hon. and learned Friend would be able to institute a prosecution. I cannot bring myself to believe that the House of Commons, which is now engaged with a Bill to improve the representation of the people — which has, moreover, a Committee sitting up-stairs for the purpose of preparing measures to prevent bribery and corruption—will, in a case of manifest bribery and corruption, refuse to issue that Commission which, according to the law and practice, it is, I think, bound to issue. It has been said that you cannot disfranchise the individual. But my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has shown that there may be individuals who may be the subject of prosecution. But, even supposing that by any circumstance all the guilty persons may individually be protected, still Parliament may disfranchise the borough, and may deal with it as it dealt with St. Albans. It is, therefore, futile to say that the issuing of a Commission can lead to no result. I think, on the contrary, that if this House should refuse to issue a Commission to inquire in what degree bribery has prevailed, it will shrink from its duty. And let it not be said that the exposure of gross delinquency of this kind has no effect. It has been justly said in the course of the debate that the very exposure of the delinquency of individuals acts as a preventive against other individuals following that example. If no other result followed from this inquiry but to expose to public censure and contempt a large portion of the electors of this borough—I say that if Parliament should take no other steps, a great public good will be accomplished. I trust that, in consideration to its own character, the House will not listen to the flimsy arguments by which this Motion has been opposed.

said, that something more substantial was wanted to put down these practices than anything either the noble Viscount or the Attorney General had promised. He remembered the Galway case, and he wondered why the Attorney General was not then animated by the virtuous indignation that now possessed him, and why he did not admonish the Attorney General of that day of his duty. He agreed that the Attorney General ought to prosecute every person who was guilty of corruption. But the Report on the Wakefield election had been lying on the table for a great many months. He should like to ask what had been done in that case.

said, he had stated distinctly that the evidence in the Wakefield case was in process of being dissected, in order to see whether the evidence affected persons who had not claimed the certificate, and to take legal proceedings against those who were not so protected.

said, he was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman was pursuing the science of legal anatomy with so much zeal, and he trusted that the House would see some obvious and satisfactory result from the anatomical operation. For himself, he should be very glad that all these corrupt boroughs should be disfranchised, He gladly voted for the disfranchisement of St. Albans, and thought the House had been too chary of many of these corrupt boroughs. He wished to ask the noble Viscount whether anybody in the commission of the peace had been refused a certificate in the Wakefield case. If so, it was a perfect farce for a Minister to affect great political prudery and a great anxiety for Parliamentary Reform, and to be very zealous for exposure, and yet when that exposure was made to refrain from doing that which he had the power to do, and not venture to strike a person reported as having committed such practices from the commission of the peace. He admitted that if they merely acted on precedent the Commission ought to issue; but what would the Government do when they got the blue-book? They did nothing in the cases of Wakefield, Gloucester, and Galway, and he believed that their present zeal would end in the same way.

said, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to assert that one of the persons reported by the Wakefield Commission as guilty of bribery, and who had not received a certificate, was a borough justice. [Mr. WHITESIDE: I heard so.] The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded upon something he bad heard—upon mere surmise, in fact. The hon. and learned Gentleman had heard it alleged, and would have the Government proceed on rumour. He could only say that the rumour had not reached his ears. If, however, it turned out to be true, when the Attorney General instituted his prosecutions against the persons reported upon by the Commission, if that individual were convicted by a jury, he would be removed from the commission of the peace. But it would be impossible for the Executive Government, upon a provisional finding on the part of the Commission, to assume his guilt and remove him from the commission of the peace.

said, the object they had in view on that side of the House was to extract from hon. Gentlemen opposite something like a practical result from the Commissions which had already been issued. That object having been obtained as far as possible, he thought it was not desirable to oppose the Motion, and he would advise the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press for a division. But he hoped every hon. Gentleman would feel that the Commission should not be allowed to issue unless there was to be some practical result. If the present Commission failed to achieve some practical result, the issuing of any future Commission would only degrade the character of the House, and he would say in all similar cases for the future, that the House ought to resolutely set its face against it, for he was sure every Commission that was issued without any result was rather an injury than a good. He trusted, however, that the Committee then sitting on corrupt practices at elections would shadow forth some practical mode of action in these cases, and if not, that they at least would suggest the basis of future legislation.

said, he did not wish to press his Amendment to a division.

, in moving that Mr. Attorney General be directed to prosecute William M'Gall for wilful and corrupt perjury in giving his evidence before the Berwick-upon-Tweed Election Committee, said he believed there was no offence more common than that of giving false evidence before an Election Committee. When, therefore, an opportunity presented itself for showing that that offence could not be committed with impunity, that opportunity ought not to be thrown away. There could not be a worse offender than the individual named in his Motion; and as he was a person who appeared to have great influence with the lower class of voters at Berwick, and was employed as an agent for the purpose of bribing, he ought to be made an example of. When examined before the Select Committee, M'Gall distinctly denied having paid any man money for his vote, either at the election or after it; but in the course of the inquiry various witnesses came forward and swore that they had received bribes from him. There could be no doubt then that this man had committed perjury.

said, he would move the omission of the word "managing" in line 31. The word managing clerk conveyed no legal meaning; and in a similar Bill which had been brought forward, there had been no such phrase. The clause was sufficiently stringent without the word "managing," which might prove an obstacle to the scrupulous, while to the unscrupulous it would prove none. He also would suggest that the term for serving under articles should be reduced from five to three years.

said, that the object of the clause was to extend to managing clerks the same privilege as persons who had taken a degree in one of the Universities, and he hoped the House would assent to it in its present form.

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that the word "managing" should be expunged from the clause. If retained it would exclude a number of meritorious persons from enjoying the privileges the Bill was intended to confer. The latter portion of the clause guarded against the admission of mere engrossing or copying clerks. It contained a provision that its operations should be confined to those persons who should be engaged in such businesses as were ordinarily performed by attorneys.

said, "managing" was not a satisfactory word. A managing clerk of ten years' standing, he had been informed, was a rare animal in country offices. By the retention of the word the privileges of the Bill would be limited instead of enlarged, as they would only apply to the London firms and some few large firms in the country.

said, he thought the word ought to be retained, but he would suggest as a compromise that the term ten years should be reduced to seven, and then with three years as articled clerks the full term of ten years would be made up.

expressed a hope that the proposed Amendment would be accepted by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill).

said, he was willing to accede to the proposal, but he would suggest whether it was not desirable that the last three years of the service should be with the same employer.

said, he objected to the proposition. It would give employers the means of preventing clerks from being admitted, by putting an end to the service before the expiration of the three years' continuous service.

suggested, that some restriction should be introduced as to age, so as to prevent young men obtaining the privilege at too early a period. He thought the period of service should date from 21.

said, he thought that this was unnecessary, as boys could not be said to be persons engaged in the transaction and performance of business usually performed by attorney.

said, he thought an Amendment should be introduced, extending the provisions of the Bill to proctors' clerks.

suggested, that the Bill should allow attorneys to become proctors.

said, attorneys already, under a recent Act, had obtained nearly all the business of proctors, who had become virtually an extinct race.

said, he would propose, by way of Amendment, words to the effect, that the last three years should be with one master.

said, it would be better for the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the clause and substitute another of a more ample character.

said, that making the last three years a continuity of service with one master, gave the masters power to defeat the objects of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford appeared to look upon attorneys' clerks as a predatory class who wished to destroy their employer's practice. He appeared to forget that some Lord Chancellors had been attorneys' clerks, and that they had not been ashamed to acknowledge it. He contended there was no need for these restrictions, and suggested a clear stage and no favour.

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone that much injustice might be done under the clause, and he hoped the House would not assent to it.

remarked, that the restriction was unnecessary. Whether a man had served in one or several offices surely was of no consequence. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

considered the restriction uncalled for, and urged that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

said, he wished to move an addition to the clause, making Clause 12 applicable to attorneys of the Court of Common Pleas of the County Palatine of Lancaster and the Court of Pleas of the County Palatine of Durham, and to the Judges of those courts respectively.

observed, it would be a very invidious distinction to say that no attorney should be capable of being placed in the Commission of the Peace; and there were plenty of safeguards against the appointment of any improper person. Barristers were enabled to act as magistrates; and all that this clause did was to give the Lord Chancellor power to appoint attorneys to the Commission at a distance of forty miles from the place where they practised. The clause had been approved by all the law Lords.

said, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that barristers so appointed were not practising at their profession.

said, it was clear that the clause was meant to meet some individual case in which attorney influence was strong. Was it not well known that attorneys had a great deal too much power over the election of Members to sit in that House? Nothing could be easier than for an attorney to turn his political influence to account with the Lord Lieutenant.

said, he agreed that it was not desirable for attorneys, as a rule, to sit on the bench; but there ought to be power in the Lord Chancellor to meet specific cases. The Bill merely removed the positive exclusion under which attorneys suffered as a class.

said, that an attorney's status was not a local but a personal one. He carried his profession with him, where-ever he went, and he would be ready to see a client anywhere. He should therefore oppose the clause.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had had experience of both branches of the profession; but he could not altogether agree in the tone of his remarks. No doubt it was desirable that the administration of justice should not even in appearance be exposed to suspicion, and that if it were in any considerable number of instances to happen that gentleman occupied seats on the judicial bench within the area to which their practice in their profession extended, such a result would not be unlikely to be brought about. No one, of course, supposed that the exclusion of those to whom the Bill related from the bench of justice would be advocated on the ground of any personal unworthiness on their part as a body to hold such a position. And he would therefore say, let the existing rule remain so far as the area of a solicitor's own practice extended. But he certainly thought that the inadmissibility of an attorney within 40 miles of his office would satisfy everybody except the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. ["No, no!"] He could not agree with hon. Gentlemen that an attorney who had an office in London, and who happened to be in Wales, would be angling for clients.

said, the distance of forty miles did not exclude the probability of an attorney having many clients in the place where he might, under the provisions of the Bill, be appointed as magistrate. He thought that 100 miles at least ought to be required in order to render the principle effective.

said, it was admitted that attorneys who had retired from practice had made some of the best magistrates that had ever presided in a court. Well, then, he asked whether they thought that professional gentlemen who had only partially retired from practice, were likely from that fact to become less competent to act as magistrates than if they retired altogether? He was of opinion that the supporters of the Amendment were imposing most unfair restrictions upon the members of an honourable and respectable profession. He granted that as a rule it was not desirable that attorneys or solicitors should be on the bench; but there were many districts in which the number of educated and properly qualified men to fill the office was so small, that it would be most advisable that the respectable attorney should be allowed to act as a magistrate. He should, therefore, support the clause.

complained that the learned Solicitor General and the hon and learned Member for Wallingford had greatly misrepresented what had been said by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. All that had been said was, that there was an ubiquity about a solicitor's business which rendered it unadvisable that they should sit on the bench. Nothing was said about their voracious habits in the dining-room, or their piscatorial habits in North Wales. He was fully convinced of the respectable character of the solicitors as a body, but he was opposed to the existing rule being altered.

said, he did not much care about English solicitors; but he thought the present proposal was just what it should be. He had beard it said, that if there were no solicitors in the country, there would not be two honest men in it. In Ireland the prohibition which existed in England against solicitors becoming magistrates did not exist. He had known practising barristers in Ireland, men of large fortune, of good family, and of the highest education, refused the magistracy, when they only wanted to be on the Commission in order to be ex officio guardians of the Poor Law Unions. At the same time, by the law as it stood in Ireland, a Queen's counsel might be a magistrate for any county.

said, that to alter the law of the land merely to suit the convenience of a few wealthy solicitors in North Wales was rather too much to ask; and he should oppose the clause alike in its original and amended shape. He con- curred with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) in thinking that attorneys always carried about their attorneyship with them.

observed that there was a class of attorneys in London who did agency business for the attorneys and solicitors in the country, and thus one might do business for almost all the attorneys in a particular county or borough, by which he would possess very great influence there, although practising in London. It would give rise to discontents and suspicions in the administration of justice.

said, be would like to hear the opinion of the Solicitor General as to the meaning of the words "practising in the county" in the clause, for he thought that would determine, to some extent, the course they ought to take, in reference to this matter, if the restriction were removed altogether, it might safely be left to the Lord Lieutenant of the county not to exercise his privilege except in unexceptionable cases. But to specify forty miles distance would only create confusion. A solicitor might come down where his client resided to arrange family settlements or look at a lease, and questions would then arise whether he was practising in the county or not.

said, he had no hesitation in saying that the expression "county in England or Wales in which he shall carry on the profession of an attorney" meant the county in which his place of business was, and in which in the ordinary sense he carried on his profession.

said, in that case there was nothing to prevent the Lord Lieutenant of a county from appointing to a seat on the bench his London solicitor, who conducted all his business.

said, the subject was a very important one, and the hour was advanced. He accordingly moved that the Chairman do report progress.

suggested that his hon. and learned Friend should withdraw the clause.

said, the present Act of Parliament was felt by the profession to throw a slur upon their body. He did not feel at liberty to withdraw the clause, which had been introduced under the highest authority connected with the law, and sanctioned by Her Majesty's Attorney General.

said, he must protest against the House of Commons being told that they must pass a clause, because it had been introduced by a high legal authority in "another place."