said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in any measure this Session to repeal the Acts relating to the appointment and payment of Parochial Constables, namely, 5 & 6 Vict., c. 109; 13 Vict., c. 20; and part of 7 & 8 Vict., c. 52?

said, the Acts to which the hon. Gentleman referred were passed at a time anterior to the passing of the County Police Act, and therefore under a different state of things from that now existing. The changes made in the Law seemed certainly to render it desirable that those formal enactments should be reconsidered. He had taken steps to procure information as to their practical operation, and should be prepared to bring in a Bill on the subject.

said, he rose to ask the hon. Member for Plymouth, Whether he will proceed with Conveyance of Voters Bill To-morrow?

stated that it was not his intention to bring forward the second reading of the Bill until after the Committee which was inquiring into the subject should have made its Report.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the wholesale Wine Licence at £10 10s. confers upon the holder the power of selling by retail, without the necessity of taking an additional retail Licence?

said, he would also ask, Whether the wholesale Wine Merchants, who are under their present Licences allowed to sell Wine by the single bottle, will have the same privilege under the new Law.

said, there was no intention to deprive the holders of the ten guinea licence of any privilege they were entitled to under the existing law. The Excise Department had no doubt that the ten guinea licence did convey the privilege of selling wine by the single bottle, and as there was no intention to make any alteration in that respect, if there was anything in the Bill which might be supposed to do so it would be altered.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can say when the repairs of the Drawbridges on the Quays in Dublin will be completed, and if he has any objection to lay a Copy of Contract entered into by the Board of Works for such repairs upon the Table of the House?

replied that he could not state the exact time when the repairs would be completed. He had no objection to lay a Copy of the Contract on the Table.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any intelligence whatever to the effect that Russia has concentrated a considerable Army on the Pruth, and that the Ottoman Government has assembled a corps d'armée at Widdin; and whether Her Majesty's Government have been advised or in any way informed that Prince Gortschakoff had assembled the Representatives of all the Powers except Turkey, and had stated that the condition of the Christians in the Turkish dominions was every day becoming less supportable, and that his Government hoped to obtain the concurrence of the other Powers, and would make a strong remonstrance to Turkey upon the subject?

Sir, in answer to the first question put by the hon. Gentleman I have to state that Her Majesty's Government are not in possession of any intelligence to the effect that Russia has concentrated a considerable army on the Pruth, or that the Ottoman Government has assembled a corps d'armée at Widdin. But, with respect to the second question, I have to state that I received yesterday a despatch from Sir John Crampton, Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburg, which is very much to the effect stated by the hon. Gentleman. I may add that I have also received a despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, stating that he had had a conversation with M. Thouvenel, who spoke to him on the subject, and said that if any action was to take place he was of opinion that it should not be an action by Russia alone, or by Russia and France united, but a combined action of the five great Powers.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill to authorize Inland Bonding Warehouses?

said, it was his intention to introduce a Bill upon that subject at the earliest possible period. In that measure he thought it would not be advisable to confine the bonding system to four great towns, but to provide that it might be extended to any place in which such an arrangement might be found convenient. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of either withdrawing or postponing his own measure until he should be able to ascertain whether or not he should feel satisfied with the Government Bill.

said, he rose to move a Resolution in favour of Public Walks and Places of Recreation. It was of the utmost importance to the health of towns that proper means should be provided for the recreation of the people away from the close factories where they were obliged to work. He ventured to say that the change of circumstances was such as to call attention to this subject. At the beginning of this century the rural population was as to the civic population two to one, but now the proportions were reversed, and the civic populations were upwards of two to one to the other portions of the population. The condition of the lower classes in the great centres of population had been inquired into by several Committees and Commissions—by the Factories Commission, the Handloom Weavers Commission, the Childrens' Employment Commission, the Health of Towns Commission, and the Railway Labourers Commission. It was shown that the cost of crime had increased by £10,000,000 a year. The spirituous liquors of various kinds consumed by the dwellers in close and narrow courts and places, after every allowance had been made for necessary refreshments, were calculated at £15,000,000. The two totals gave an aggregate of £25,000,000, a great portion of which might be saved by an improvement in the physical condition of the great mass of the population. The late lamented writer, Mr. Porter, stated that the number of criminals was now five times more than it was at the beginning of the century. It was also undeniable that the industrial classes had not improved in physical comfort in the same proportion as the middle and higher classes. In 1840 he moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the Health of Towns. Their Report described a lamentable state of things on the part of those who live in closely-pent, narrow courts, and who work in ill-ventilated workshops and factories. In 1842, Sir R. Peel issued a Commission for inquiry into the Health of Towns. The result of their inquiry was to establish that, in regard to three main points necessary for the comfort and health of towns—the supply of water, the drainage, and cleansing—out of fifty towns only seven or eight were tolerably well off. The Commission established incontestably that a large class of crimes were much fostered by the low state of physical comfort in which the town population often lived. The consequence of the crowded state of the large towns and the absence of open spaces was that the health of the inhabitants suffered, and that the appetite for intoxicating liquors, the prevalence of which among the lower classes they so much deplored, was developed to a frightful extent. The Health of Towns Act had, no doubt, tended considerably to remedy the evil, and the Local Improvements Act was also of use, but neither went far enough. The rapid growth of population and increase of buildings far outran all attempts at improvement. A General Building Act was imperatively called for, not merely to regulate the width of party-walls as a preventive against fire, which was all that was done at present, but to check the erection of those narrow, miserable streets and alleys which fostered uncleanliness and disease. Periodical reports of the condition of the large towns in these respects ought also to be published. Above all, it was necessary that large open spaces in towns should be preserved, and anybody who witnessed the manner in which the people of London flocked to the Parks on Sundays and holidays must be convinced of the very great moral influence they exercised, as well as the physical benefit they conferred on the poorer classes. In 1833 he moved for a Select Committee on Public Parks, which was the first movement in this direction which was ever made. The Report of that Committee stated that during the last half century a great increase had taken place in the population of towns, while little or no provision had been made for public walks and open spaces for the recreation of the public. Now population had increased fourfold, while much of the space which then existed in towns had been built over. He appealed to the House whether the opening of public parks and places of resort in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, and other places through private liberality had not been productive of great good, and whether they had not materially increased the comfort and content, as well as the health of the working classes, besides giving a stimulus for innocent enjoyment, of which they were not slow to avail themselves, and which had exercised great influence in the amelioration of their moral and physical condition. Reverting to London and the Report of the Committee on Public Parks, he rejoiced that Primrose Hill had not been covered with buildings, and that thousands of working people were able to go there on Sundays to breathe the fresh air which could not elsewhere be obtained. He regretted that Copenhagen Fields had been partly occupied with the New Cattle Market, but he suggested that there was still space enough to lay out a public walk, and that by the addition of a few benches and buildings for shelter, people might be induced to resort there, especially on those days when the market was not held. The Victoria Park was an inestimable boon to the inhabitants of the east end of London, and he was glad to see, in the course of frequent visits which he had made to it, that it was extremely well managed. The embankment of the river from Limehouse to Black wall, which had been recommended as a not very expensive work, had not been done; but he hoped that public attention would be called to it, and that the improvement would be made. Kennington Common had been enclosed and improved, and Battersea Park was becoming the resort of great multitudes. Partly in consequence of the Report of a Committee, and partly in consequence of the Health of Towns Commission and the Health of Towns Acts, improvements had been made at Manchester and other large provincial towns. A great deal had not been done for London, but he felt sure that opulent persons would be most willing to contribute if it were officially pointed out how such means could be best directed to the object in view. There were various sources from which assistance might be derived. Moderate grants from the Crown for a great public benefit like this were justifiable, and especially if they called forth large private donations. An exchange might also be made of Crown lands near large towns for other lands at a greater distance, and funds might be raised by a voluntary rate, to faciliate which a Bill was now before Parliament that be hoped would receive the Royal Assent. The splendid palaces of Genoa and Turin had been described in eloquent language by Mr. Roscoe, as the work of great merchants and great landowners; but in a single street in this town — Pall Mall—might be seen a whole row of palaces equally splendid, which were the result of a combination of a number of small contributions. The Crystal Palace, too, was formed by a number of small shares under limited liability, and though it had not been so profitable as it might have been in a pecuniary point of view, there was no question that it had conferred the greatest benefits on the working classes in the way of amusement and recreation. If the Government and the Legislature would but lead the way, this law of limited liability, he had no doubt, would be very generally taken advantage of by benevolent persons to establish institutions for the benefit and recreation of the great mass of the community. Such places as those which he was anxious to see set on foot ought, for instance, to be exempted from taxes; for two or three days in the week they might be allowed to make a small charge for admission, but the rest of the time they ought to be open entirely free. He had no doubt that many benevolent persons would be willing to take shares in such undertakings. There was no time, however, to be lost, for open spaces were daily being more and more built upon, and in a short time few would be left. He thought, also, that much might be done in the way of improving the existing Parks. It was not merely exercise, but regulated recreation, that was necessary for the humble and lower middle classes. If places for athletic exercise and small low buildings in which accommodation might be given to school parties taking a holiday were erected in some of the public parks great benefits would accrue to a large class of the population. There was one society, of which he had the honour to be a member—the Zoological Society—which was extremely liberal, inasmuch as they gave any member power to send a school of sixty or seventy, at certain hours, to see the different specimens in their collection. That was an example which he should be glad to see generally followed. As most of the public fairs in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis had been done away with in consequence of their having been ill-regulated, he would suggest that in Regent's Park, Victoria Park, and Battersea Park, fairs under the regulation of the Commissioners might be held for three days in the week twice a year—in the spring and in the autumn. He would venture to say if this were done the whole expense would be paid, and the people would behave as if they were grateful for the boon. If there was an act for the improvement, not the enclosure, of the commons about London, so as to enable persons, by subscriptions, to clear them and put down benches, just as had been done at Clapham Common, it would be a great public benefit. He would suggest, also, that many of the gardens in the squares of the Metropolis might, under certain conditions, be thrown open to the general public. Take the case of Lincoln's Inn Fields. A garden existed there; but it was comparatively useless, for the persons — lawyers and others—who occupied the dwellings which looked down upon it remained in town for the most part, only from ten to five o'clock in the day. He would ask, what harm would be done by throwing open this garden to those persons who dwelt altogether in the neighbourhood — perhaps in close streets or pent-up courts and alleys — for the purpose of slight but still beneficial exercise and recreation? He would venture to suggest to those who were possessed of well-situated properties in the immediate vicinity of this great city whether, without injury to themselves, but with much benefit to those who toiled hard and for long hours in a vitiated atmosphere, they might not, especially during their absence abroad or at their country residences, give facilities to their less favoured countrymen to take recreation in their grounds. The subject was one deserving consideration, both at the hands of that House and of the country. The great and rapidly increasing mass of the people were industrious, contented, and loyal, and deserved every en-encouragement, and all the advantages in point of health which could be afforded them.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not think him guilty of disrespect if he abstained from following him at equally great length through the various topics which he had brought under the notice of the House. Few, he thought, would withhold their assent from the general proposition that parks and other public places, where they could enjoy the fresh air, were of the utmost importance to inhabitants of large towns, especially to the working classes. But the question for the House practically to determine was as to the mode in which, under the existing law, or by any modification of it, provision could best be made for the establishment of such modes of recreation. The inquiry which the hon. Gentleman proposed to institute was not one into which it would be necessary for the House to enter, as, with the exception of London, where peculiar facilities were afforded, either by grants of public money or of land by the Crown, it was evident that improvements such as were now advocated must be provided for out of the local funds under the control of municipal bodies. The existing law defined the objects to which the revenues of every borough were applicable, and proceeded to declare that in every case where the funds should more than suffice for those purposes the surplus might be applied, with the consent of the proper authorities, for the public benefit in the improvement of the borough. The Towns Improvement Act, the Public Health Act, and provisions in various local Acts gave facilities by which advantages such as the hon. Member desired to secure could be to a greater or less extent attained; and exchanges of laud for a similar purpose were likewise sanctioned. The existing law, therefore, seemed to provide various means by which in largo towns these improvements could be carried out, and where obstacles arose the proper course would be for the local bodies to apply to Parliament for further powers. But the Motion of the hon. Gentleman likewise contemplated that Her Majesty's Government should "encourage and direct" efforts of this character "by private subscriptions, voluntary rates, and grants of public money." It was true that it was open to the Executive Government alone to propose public grants of money; but the funds which could be allocated for such purposes were very limited, and there were various objects of local utility which had prior claims as compared with parks or public walks in the neighbourhood of large towns. In interfering by the promotion either of private subscriptions or voluntary rates, the Government, he thought, would rather mar than forward the end in view. The local authorities would naturally, and with good reason, consider that they were better acquainted with the object to be attained than the Government could possibly be, and consequently that they were the persons who ought to take the initiative. If any amendment of the existing law could be proposed, he should be ready to give it an attentive and favourable consideration; but he did not think that the admittedly praiseworthy design of the hon. Member was likely to be advanced by the adoption of a general declaration such as was em- bodied in the terms of the Resolution which he had put on the paper.

said, he rose to move the following Resolution: —

"That the Exhibition in Schools of Art of Females wholly unclothed ought not to receive the sanction of a Public Grant of Money to the Schools in which such practice is adopted."

Last year he presented a petition signed by upwards of 500 clergymen, including the canon residentiary of St. Paul's, complaining of this practice as tending to vice and immorality. He mentioned that fact to justify him in bringing forward a question relating to so disagreeable and distasteful a subject. He thought it was time for the House to apply a remedy to what he considered was a great evil. He believed it was not generally known, indeed he himself was astonished to hear that, in the Royal Academy and in many of the schools of art supported by grants of Parliament, a mode of study had been adopted of a disgraceful and dissolute character. If such a practice had been followed in a lower class of life, he was sure that the most summary means would be taken to put a stop to it, and to punish the offenders for their indecencies. It was, in his opinion, impossible for young men to visit those schools of art, where nude figures were presented, without being led into acts of great debauchery. He understood it was a positive fact that mothers frequently brought their daughters to those places, and actually bargained with the managers of art schools for the exposure and degradation of their children. And what was the advantage gained? He had heard it said that as artists must have living models to study from, it was better they should study them in public institutions, where proper regulations could be made; but if that were so, why not permit gambling-houses and houses of ill fame to be established? It was said that the study of art could not be carried on without the particular practice to which he invited attention, but he did not believe the statement. He had the authority of Mr. Westmacott, the professor of sculpture in the Royal Academy, for saying that the study of the naked female form was not only unnecessary, but injurious to art. In the best ages of art the nude living figure was never required. It was only the prurient vitiated taste of modern times that encouraged that practice. But even if the practice were of use in an artistic point of view, that benefit could not outweigh the outrage it inflicted upon public decency and public morals. Upon those grounds he thought that no public grants should be given to schools that adopted the practice. There were about twelve schools of art in England connected with the Government grants, and in four of them nude figures were studied. When he brought forward his Motion last year he understood that something would be done by the Government to remedy the evil, but as he had been disappointed in that expectation he felt called upon to renew his Motion this year. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

said, he rose to give a brief reply to the noble Lord. For himself, he had no special knowledge of the subject—he meant no knowledge of the practice of the department to which this question related. He was therefore unable to say what instructions had been given upon the subject, but he apprehended it had never been the practice of Government to interfere with the details of the regulations of any school. The noble Lord said that the practice was confined to four schools, but the return on which that statement was based was eighteen months old, and how the matter stood at present he could not say. But, certainly, he could not believe that the study of art had any corrupting influences, nor that it excited prurient thoughts in the minds of the students attending schools of art. He believed that all the ancient masters whose works all admired, and who were recognized as the classical models in all departments of art, had cultivated their knowledge by a study of the human figure, male and female. It was possible, however, that a more refined feeling of delicacy in the present day might render such a practice impossible. If that were so, it was desirable that such Resolutions as that of the noble Lord should be encouraged by the House; but, in the mean time, he did not think it was at all desirable the House should proceed at present to any vote on the subject.

said, he wished to make a few observations upon this subject, as he had been for a time connected with the department of the Government to which the Resolution of the noble Lord referred. He felt bound, in the first place, to observe that the noble Lord had made an inaccurate statement as to the real facts of the case. The noble Lord had said there were four schools of art out of the twelve that received public grants in which naked women were employed in the studios as models. That was not the fact. The only school of art, aided by Government, that introduced naked women into the life-school was that of Manchester. The noble Lord had referred to the Royal Academy. Now, the Royal Academy received no grant from that House, and, therefore, even if the practice spoken of was adopted, the Motion was inapplicable as far as that institution was concerned. He really thought, when the noble Lord spoke of studios in which the naked figure was studied as places of as vicious a character as gambling houses and brothels, it was a gross misrepresentation on the part of the noble Lord. It was quite evident that the noble Lord's opinion upon this matter was founded upon a false appreciation of the whole subject. The noble Lord had observed, that in the best days of ancient art study from the life was not practised. Now, he (Mr. Adderley) could not tell where the noble Lord had obtained his facts. He should not be exceeding the limits of truth if he said that the portraiture of the human form could not be accurately given without the study of the naked figure as a model. The first lessons of an artist in human portraiture were a study of the skeleton, then came the body clothed with its flesh and muscles, and last of all the living model. If the noble Lord thought that a study of the draped figures in these days of bustles and crinolines was the highest study of art in order to arrive at a true portraiture of the human figure, Madame Tussaud must be nearest to the noble Lord's beau ideal of a great artist. It seemed to him that the noble Lord had altogether misunderstood the nature and object of the study in question, and he would appeal to the noble Lord's own habits to show the fallacy of the ideas he had put forward on this subject. Did he not visit galleries in which were pictures and statues of the naked human form? Had he not seen and admired in common with every other person the magnificent statue of Venus di Medici? Nay, did he not think it was worth going a thousand miles to see it? How, then, were we to get such statues if the noble Lord's notions upon this subject were to be carried out? Were they to fall from Heaven? The noble Lord professed to appreciate the results of the study of art, but would throw obstacles in the way of the only processes by which these results could he achieved. He appealed to the noble Lord that it would be of no avail for him to propound in that House year after year the crude notion that the use of a thing was to be condemned because of the possible abuse of it. If the noble Lord knew of any instance in a public school of art, assisted by public money, in which the study of living models had been pursued for purposes of indecency, let him bring it forward. A few years ago it was reported that in the Hibernian Academy in Dublin the life school had been somewhat irregularly conducted; that young men in large numbers had been permitted to be present when nude women were sitting as models, and that a larger number attended than could properly be there for purposes of the highest art study. He understood that last year the Vote of money for that school was discontinued, and he hoped that the Vote was not to reappear without a guarantee that only students of the highest order are admitted to the life-school. If this study were so regulated, it would be nonsense to talk of the indecency of such a practice; for the higher class of students absolutely needed opportunities for studying the living model. Besides, there was not a studio in London where the living model was not studied; and were the public schools of art to be deprived of the study which is found indispensable by all — places of all others where indecency was least possible, seeing that they were subject to stringent regulations, and constantly under the public eye?

said, he was much surprised and grieved to hear the view taken upon this subject by the right hon. Gentleman and those who had cheered him. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentleman might treat this subject as a matter of laughter, but the people outside were not disposed to treat it in such a spirit. He had that day received a petition, signed by the rural dean and many of the clergymen of Birmingham and other places, deprecating in the strongest terms this pernicious practice, and praying that such indecent scenes as took place in these schools of art might no longer be countenanced by grants of public money. It was said that no practical evils resulted from the practice; but he put it to the House whether it was possible for ten or a dozen students, day after day, to be accustomed to the sight of naked women without harm to their morals? He contended that the inevitable tendency I of such a practice was to deprave the character. Could it be possible for a woman to present herself, perfectly naked, for the purpose of having her likeness drawn, without great moral degradation to her feelings and character? The practice, besides, was contrary to the holy Word of God. They were told that it was necessary for the purpose of encouraging the study of art. He would not condescend to argue that question; he was content to accept the testimony of Mr. Westmacott that the study of the naked living model was not essential to the successful pursuit of art. He (Mr. Spooner) was convinced the practice tended to corrupt the youthful mind, and to engender feelings and desires which broke into positive sin; it ought, therefore, not to be encouraged by grants of public money. It was no argument against interference on the subject to say with his right hon. Friend that the practice obtained largely in private studios. Every man was responsible for his own actions. Surely no man could say it was a light thing to see mothers bartering the honour or virtue of their own daughters for a miserable sum of money which the Government enabled those schools of art to offer them. A grave responsibility would rest upon the Government and that House if they countenanced such an abominable system. Let them, for Heaven's sake, keep the nation free from this sin, at all events, by withdrawing the aid of the public purse from institutions that encouraged such immoral I practices. They were told last year that the public money was not given for this purpose; but it was mere nonsense to talk in that way, when it was notorious that a portion of the money so given was applied to the payment of women who consented to expose themselves in a nude manner to the gaze of men. The feeling of the people against this system was increasing every day, and it would not be long before their voices would find their echo in that House. [Laughter.] Instead of treating this matter as one of laughter, he thought that hon. Members ought rather to be ashamed of making themselves parties to such a disgraceful system.

I think the House will scarcely deem it desirable to adopt the Motion of the noble Lord. It is one of those endeavours to interfere inquisitorially by legislation, or by Parliamentary sanction, in matters which are really not proper subjects for interference of this kind. In the first place, it is impossible to carry into effect the view of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord means anything—if his theory ought to be reduced to practice, his Motion ought to go further than it does. He ought to bring in a Bill to make it penal for any person, anywhere, to study the female form. The very Motion he has made would at once lead us into a difficulty, because he proposes to resolve that no public money should be granted to any school of art in which the female form, wholly unclothed, is studied. I should like the noble Lord to be more precise in his future notices on this subject, and to mention to what extent he wishes us to go; to say what is the minimum of clothing which consists with his notions of propriety:— because there is a minimum as well as a maximum in such matters, and without in the latter case insisting on crinolines and the voluminous dresses to which reference has been made, it is quite clear that you might go to different parts of the world, to some of the southern climes—the regions of Africa, for example—where you would find patterns of clothing, which, although they might not subject the models precisely to the anathema of the noble Lord, would still undoubtedly be objectionable in his eyes, on account of the large portion of the human form which they discover. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion, and leave this important question of morality to the decision of the persons most concerned. I understand that there are few, if any, of the institutions to which he refers to which objection can now be taken. With reference to the Irish institution mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) I am informed that it is now under the control of the Privy Council, and so regulated that no recurrence of the objectionable circumstances he referred to can take place.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better management and control of the highways in South Wales, said he should not have attempted this task had he not been given to understand that he should receive the support of the Members of the present and late Governments. He felt confident that the Bill would be acceptable to Members generally, and therefore he trusted there would be no opposition to the Motion.

said, he merely wished to say that from what he understood of the views generally of his noble Friend he concurred with him thinking' that, from the facts which experience had shown in regard to management of the turnpike trusts in South Wales, it would be well that all roads in that part of the country should be included in one general Highway Bill.

said, he rose to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire and report how far it may be desirable and practicable to substitute an equitable system of assessment in lieu of the present mode of maintaining the Turnpike Roads and Bridges in England and Wales by tolls."

He did not know whether he was open to the charge of too much pertinacity in bringing forward this Motion this Session, or the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the charge of too little consideration he had for the comfort and convenience of the people in England and Wales. His object in bringing the subject before the House was to induce the House to follow the example which had been set in Ireland. Four years ago a Commission was granted for Ireland, and a Report was presented which recommended that the country should he released from turnpike tolls, and that result had followed in two years afterwards. Another Commission had been issued for Scotland, but it would in his opinion have been fairer and more equitable if the Government had in the first instance granted a Commission for England, because there was but little prospect that the Government would do for Scotland what they had done for Ireland. The debt upon the tolls in Scotland was in a much higher proportion to the value of the real property of Scotland than the debt on the tolls in England was in proportion to the real property of England. The debt in Scotland was £2,400,000, and the annual value of the real property there was £12,000,000, being about 20 per cent of debt upon that annual value; while the debt in England was £5,236,000, and the annual value of real property in this country £117,000,000, the debt being about 5 per cent on that annual value. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had ventured to defend the turnpike system, although he knew that it cost £500,000 to raise £1,000,000 in tolls. Now, he contended that any turnpike trust free from debt had no right to continue to raise tolls. There was a trust, called the first and second district, in Essex, of 180 miles in length, which had continued to levy £3,000 a year in tolls since 1837. That was at variance with the common law of England. There were 135 trusts in England, owing no debt, which collected £170,000 a year. His plan would be to fall back on the common law of the country, as had been done in Ireland. A rate of 2d. in the pound on the annual value of all the real property of the country would give enough to keep up the roads, pay the interest on the debt, provide gradually for its extinction, and buy up all the bridges of the country. He estimated that the whole cost would be £824,000, or £40,000 short of the amount which a rate of 2d. in the pound would give. The right hon. Gentleman last Session recommended him to follow one of two courses, either to bring in a Bill, or, if the Motion were refused, to induce Rebecca to appear again and destroy the toll gates throughout the country. With regard to drawing a Bill the right hon. Gentleman had his own draughtsman, whose public duty it was to do that, and he should therefore desire the right hon. Gentleman to do that work, or get it done for himself. But with respect to "Rebecca," if there were a Rebecca rising in England similar to that which took place in Wales, he could only say that he should, with all his heart, desire a successful result to the movement. If the Government now opposed his Motion he should consider it nothing more or less than a capricious exercise of power. It was said these Commissions were expensive, but he would remind the House that the cost of the Commission for Scotland was £185, and the one for Ireland only £350, and it had resulted in freeing the whole of that country from tolls; and he would further remind the House that the Fine Arts Commission cost the country £11,000, without any good result apparently. It was perfectly reasonable and fail that what he now asked for should be granted, and that it should not be refused through the capricious conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

seconded the Motion.

The two opinions which my hon. Friend has attributed to mo are inconsistent with each other, and I cannot admit that either of the two imputations are well founded. My hon. Friend says that last Session I recommended the people of England to resort to Rebecca in order to get rid of turnpike-gates, and he also represents mo as an ardent zealot for the turnpike system. I have no recollection of having made that recommendation, and I beg to disclaim being in any degree a fervent admirer of maintaining roads by a system of turnpike tolls. I am quite aware that there is hardly any method of taxation the cost of collecting which amounts to so large a percentage. That, I admit, is a considerable objection to the system of turnpike tolls; but the incidence of the tax is to this extent fair, that it falls on those who use the roads, and does not fall on those who do not use them. Although persons who live a short distance from a turnpike gate do not pay so frequently as persons who live close to it, still the general incidence of the tax must be considered fair. When it is proposed to abolish the system of turnpike tolls in England, because such is the effect of the proposal of my hon. Friend, and to substitute an assessment upon the land, it is right to consider what is the present financial state of the existing turnpike trusts. That financial state must undoubtedly be described as favourable. The total revenue has not materially diminished since 1849. In 1849 the total revenue throughout England was£l,097,000. In 1857, which is the last year for which the accounts have been presented, the total revenue was £1,030,000. Therefore, notwithstanding the great increase of railways, and the diminution of travelling on the main lines of turnpike-road, the total revenue must be considered stationary. The repairs, in like manner, have been stationary since the same year. In 1849 the repairs of turnpike roads in England cost £609,000; and in 1857 £611,000; therefore both the revenue and the principal item of expenditure have been stationary since the year 1849. There is also another very material consideration, to which the hon. Member adverted with respect to turnpike trusts, and also with respect to the policy and practicability of making the change which he proposes. That consideration is the amount of the debt and of the interest of the debt. The amount of both is considerable. Nevertheless, it is in gradual process of diminution. Both the debt and interest, considerable as they both are, are in progress of diminution, and therefore it cannot be said that that circumstance affords any reason for such a fundamental alteration in the mode of maintaining the roads as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman. In 1843 the bonded debt of turnpike trusts of England was£6,932,000. In 1857 it was diminished to £5,117,000, showing a diminution of £1,815,000 in that period of fourteen years. That exhibits, I think, a favourable aspect with regard to the state of turnpike finance. In 1843 the interest of the debt was £281,000. In 1857 it was £175,000, showing an annual diminution of £106,000. Therefore, in whatever point of view the finances of turnpike trusts are regarded, whether as regards the total revenue, the cost of repairs, the amount of principal, or the amount of the interest of the debt, we cannot find any circumstance which leads to the supposition that the present state of things is disastrous. As I have already stated, it is undoubtedly true that the tax is objectionable on the ground of the large cost of its collection. It is also a vexatious impost which persons feel who are stopped on the road and called on to pay a small sum. But when that has been said I do not see that any strong case can be established against the present system, nor did I discover that my hon. Friend was able to allege any great defect. If there was a general desire to abolish turnpike tolls and resort to the mode of repairing all the roads of the kingdom by an assessment, there would not be the smallest difficulty in arranging such a system. There is no necessity to issue a Commission in order to frame such a plan. I would undertake, without putting my hon. Friend to the expense of employing a draughtsman, to lay a Bill upon the table by this day week which would most effectually carry that object into operation. But the difficulty is to obtain general consent to substitute for a system of turnpike tolls a system of highway rates. A very simple plan has been sent to me by a gentleman in the country which the House will see would most effectually accomplish the views of my hon. Friend. The plan is to keep up the present turnpike gates until the whole turnpike debt is discharged; that is to say, to make the debt the exclusive charge on the toll revenue, to keep up the gates only to pay the interest of the debt, and to create an annual sinking fund, and to throw the whole expense of the repairs on the rates, as in the case of ordinary parish highways. I think it will be seen that that is a very simple plan, and that after a certain number of years the present turnpike debt would be extinguished. If the House were likely to agree to such a plan, it would not be at all necessary to go through the process and delay of a Commission; but I entertain very considerable doubts whether, if I or my hon. Friend brought in such a Bill, it would be likely to meet with general assent. I feel sure that the difficulty consists not in devising the means for the accomplishment of the end, but in obtaining the general concurrence of the House. For that reason I regret that it is not in my power to consent to the Motion of my hon. Friend.

said, he agreed that the issue of a Commission on this subject was not necessary. It was a mistake, however, to suppose that tolls were abolished in South Wales. On the contrary, the roads there were mainly supported by tolls. No more was levied upon the county rates than was required to pay the interest of the original debt. In his county, out of the sum of £24,000, £16,000, or two-thirds of the whole, went to the repairs of the roads, the remaining £8,000 going towards the payment of the interest of the sum advanced by Government, and for the extinguishment of the debt. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he miscalculated greatly if he thought an impost of 2d. in the pound would not be strongly objected to. At present the rate was not more than ½d. in the pound, and it was strongly objected to, and only tolerated because it was so small. He (Mr. Philipps), for one, was not anxious to see any feeling against turnpike tolls encouraged in populous places, as he thought that police regulations made it expedient that tolls should be levied.

said, he rose to move for correspondence on the subject of officers recommended by the Indian Government for the Companionship of the Bath. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would have relieved him from the necessity of making the statement which he now felt it to be his duty to make to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had recommended him to make another Motion, which would not have answered the purpose he had in view. It would be in the recollection of the House that a short time since he questioned the right hon. Gentleman with reference to those officers who were recommended by the Governor General and Lord Clyde for the Companionship of the Bath, and asked why they had not yet received the decoration. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the limits of the statutes had already been exceeded, and consequently that though he hoped before long new names would be inserted, he could not speak on the matter with any certainty. This answer being indefinite, and therefore unsatisfactory, he (Sir Henry Stracey) had felt it to be his duty to put forward the Motion he had done. He wished to ascertain from his right hon. Friend when there was a prospect that those officers whom the Governor General and Lord Clyde had recommended would receive the order. He understood that in 1841 the number of Companions of the Bath was 485, whilst now it was over 600. A revision of the statutes had taken place at that time, and there was no reason why there should not be another revision now. There was an idea that some partiality had been shown to the officers of the Queen's army in the distribution of this honour, to the detriment of the Indian army. It might be urged that Lord Clyde had sent home a very large number of names; but, as when he left England no restriction was placed on him, there was no reason why he should have been sparing in his re- commendations. It might he said, too, that Lord Clyde had sent home as many names for his short campaign as the Duke of Wellington sent home during the Peninsular war; but besides his well known contempt for these honours, which might induce him to think that other officers would despise them also, it must be remembered that the Duke had but 30,000 or 40,000 British troops under him, while Lord Clyde had 110,000 British troops, to say nothing of the Indian army of at least 250,000 men. Lord Clyde had so many to recommend that it was not to be wondered at that the proportion he recommended should exceed that recommended by the Duke of Wellington, especially when it was recollected that if the great Duke had a failing it was an indisposition to recommend officers for such distinctions. These honours were not hereditary, and thould therefore be conferred as soon as possible after they bad been fairly won. In the French army distinctions were continually conferred at the moment they had been merited; and they were the more appreciated when they could be en oyed in the full vigour of life. It was well known that Her Majesty loved to see Her subjects honoured, and it seemed extraordinary that these officers, who had been so strongly recommended, were still without their rewards. In addition to the in justice done the officers recommended by Lord Clyde, the very worst compliment would be paid to that noble and gallant Lord, if on his arrival in England he found that his recommendations in favour of these officers, who assisted in bringing the conflict with the Indian mutineers to a successful end, had not been attended to. He moved for a Copy of any Correspondence which has taken place between the Indian Board and the Secretary of State for War on the subject of Officers recommended by the Governor-General of India and Lord Clyde for the Companionship of the Bath.

seconded the Motion. He was, he said, as anxious as any one to see that our brave officers of the Indian army obtained all deserved honour, but still he could not help thinking that the decoration of the Bath had recently been distributed with rather too much profusion. The correspondence, if produced, would prove the truth of this assertion. At the same time he would admit it was necessary to avoid taking any step which might seem to infringe upon the prerogative of the Sovereign.

said, that it would be also satisfactory if the Secretary for War could give any information in respect to the honours recommended to be given to the civil service in India.

said, he quite agreed in the observation that Companionships of the Bath had been rather too lavishly distributed; and this put him in mind of a naval saying that there were a great many more C.B's than A.B.'s.

said, that before he said anything in reference to the particular Motion before the House, he was anxious to disabuse the mind of the hon. Baronet by whom it had been brought forward of the impression under which he seemed to labour, that the Queen's officers had been treated with some partiality as compared with the local officers in the distribution of distinctions for services in India. So far from that having been the case, there had been a very remarkable preponderance in the number of honours bestowed upon the Indian army. To the officers of that army there had been given, down to the month of August last, 69 companionships of the Bath for services performed during the Indian mutiny, and 24 more officers had been selected for the same distinction, and were to receive it as fast as vacancies occurred; so that the total number of officers of the local force thus honoured amounted to 93. But in the Queen's army, three times as numerous, the whole number of companionships and crosses distributed was only 90, and consequently, if there were any reason for complaint in that case on the ground of numbers, it must be on the side of the members of Her Majesty's service. He had no doubt, however, that the recommendations had all been made with the strictest impartiality, and that the disparity of numbers was to be attributed to the fact that some corps had been more fortunate than others in meeting with opportunities for distinction. Comparing the services for which these recommendations were made with the services formerly thought necessary for the honour, it was impossible to deny that the distinctions were now distributed with a more lavish hand, the standard of service being lower. In 1847 the statutes of the Order of the Bath were revised, and an addition of 50 was made both in the Queen's and in the Indian service. Nevertheless, the number recommended had been so great, that the limit had been exceeded, and on that account the Government, without refusing the recommendations, had recorded the names of the officers who would receive decorations as vacancies occurred. It was obvious that it would be very wrong to distribute these honours with so lavish a hand as to destroy their value. The hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the distinction of the Legion of Honour being conferred on the spot, when the Sovereign in command bestowed the distinction, drawing it from his pocket. He did not think, however, that the people of this country would like to see the Order of the Bath made so common in England as the Legion of Honour was in Prance, where it was conferred almost indiscriminately on every civil functionary of a certain grade, and on every military man who had attracted the notice of his commanding officer. With regard to the correspondence asked for, he thought its production would be objectionable, as it would have the appearance of interfering with the prerogative of the Crown in respect to the choice of persons to receive these distinctions, and of teaching individuals to look to the House of Commons rather than to the Sovereign for the acquisition of honours. He also felt persuaded that the correspondence which passed between public departments ought not to be laid before the House, except in cases which implied some marked impropriety of conduct. The officers who engaged in that correspondence took it for granted that as a general rule it was not to be published; and any departure from that rule would only impose upon them an inconvenient reserve, and lead them to conduct their communications either verbally, or in some private and confidential form. Looking, then, at the nature of these honours, the source from which they flowed, and the anxiety with which they were looked to, he did not think it would be consistent with his duty to produce the correspondence moved for by the hon. Baronet. He had no desire to withhold any information on the subjeet; he had stated the facts of the case, and under these circumstances he hoped the House would not sanction the Motion.

said, the House would recollect that there was a rather sharp debate the other evening on the subject of our gunboats. The Government must feel that the House was extremely indulgent on that occasion. The moment the Secretary to the Admiralty stated that the contractors had honestly intimated beforehand that they had not timber sufficiently seasoned to build the gunboats with, the House saw that no blame attached to the contractors as far as the employment of green timber was concerned. It also acquitted the Admiralty of any blame in the matter; for, as he himself stated at the time, if the gunboats had been built a year sooner, even with green timber, the Baltic campaign might have terminated differently. But the question of bad and fraudulent workmanship was a totally different thing. Ships built of unseasoned wood would not endanger the lives of their crews, at least for a certain number of years, but a terrible catastrophe might happen at any moment from bad construction. The Secretary to the Admiralty had declined to give the names of the builders of the defective gunboats. Why should those men be screened from public censure? He did not say that the contractors had any particular pecuniary interest in building the gunboats with short bolts or no bolts at all. They were probably sitting in their offices when the fraud was being carried on; but it might have been avoided by a moderate amount of care and supervision. The contractors might not have been personally cognizant of the fraud, but they were responsible for the work done in their establishments, and if their vessels were built badly that fact ought to be published to the world. Would any naval officer contend that any builder belonging to the Royal dockyards who should fasten his vessels with short bolts ought not to be immediately dismissed from the service? Moreover, by giving the names of the contractors the Government would show that they were doing everything they could to punish the guilty, and prevent them ever again having it in their power to endanger the lives of our seamen. The publication of names might appear a hard measure, but what would the drowning of hundreds of men have been? Each of our gunboats was manned by something like 150 men, whose lives, what with short bolts and bad workmanship, would have been at the mercy of the first gale of wind. It was wicked to conceal the names of the contractors, and why the Secretary to the Admiralty should have changed his mind on the subject he could not understand. The Admiralty could have no interest in withholding information from the public. He might be told that they were going to prosecute the guilty parties, provided the Law Officers thought a verdict could be got against them. He was too old to be deceived by that trick. The contractors would probably go to the Admiralty and express their sorrow for what had happened. Then the noble Secretary would throw the blame on the shipwrights; other business would intervene, and eventually the whole matter would be thrown aside. Now there was nothing like hitting the nail at the proper time, and he hoped the House would insist upon having the names of the contractors at once. He wished to know how many of our gunboats were fit for service. It had been stated in "another place" that we had 164 altogether. Two had been broken up; other two were undergoing the same process; and sixteen had been examined and repaired. Of the rest a hope was expressed that they might not be so bad. The House might depend upon it that all, whether in or out of the water, were equally defective. They ought to have been examined long ago. We had plenty of inspectors and surveyors for the purpose. At all events there could be no harm in giving the names of the contractors. He knew some of them, and would not conceal their names. The builder of the Caroline, in which 100 short bolts had been found, he believed was Mr. Green. If he was wrong, let the Secretary to the Admiralty set him right. But why should the name of Mr. Green alone be published to the world. He should like to know some of the others. This was an important matter, because the same thing might happen to ships which were now being repaired or converted. It was therefore high time that the country should know, without any concealment, the condition and state of repair of all the ships in the navy. Only on the preceding evening he was introduced to an American gentleman who owned more ships than there were in the United States Navy, and who, with another American and a Prussian gentleman, had recently visited Toulon. These gentlemen said that there were at work in the dockyards of that place no less than 14,000 men, besides 3,000 convicts, and that the French could in 14 days fit out and send to sea 20 sail of the line. By employing their large steam transports, which were from 260 to 300 feet long and were capable of carrying a large number of troops, and the vessels of the Messagerie Impériale they could in 14 days send to sea 30,000 men; and if they sent men from Cherbourg and Brest by railway they could, as these gentlemen asserted, do it in even a considerably shorter time. Well, that was the position in which we stood as regarded France. The right hon. Gentleman told them the other day that the country was not in a very safe state, and they had since heard that Russia was collecting an army on the banks of the Pruth, with what object it was not difficult to guess. The late Emperor of Russia was looking out for the death of "the sick man." But the sick man, by the aid of France and England, recovered for that time; but was there no reason to apprehend that the sick man might not be again ready to receive medicine, and that a severe dose might not be preparing for him? What security had we that Russia might not propose the same game to France that she wished us to join in? It might be France had declared she would enter into no arrangement for the dismemberment of Turkey; but they could all recollect that last year France, in spite of a declaration that she would not attack Austria, had deprived her of one of her fairest provinces. Again, they had been assured that the Emperor Napoleon had no designs upon Savoy and Nice, and yet shortly afterwards they saw those territories actually in his possession. In the same way he might now tell us that he was not going to do anything in the East, but had we any reason to trust him? Suppose there were a secret design on the part of Russia and Franco against any part of the dominions of the Porte—Egypt for instance—the first news that we should hear of it would be that an expedition had sailed for Alexandria, and perhaps had landed. We had a respectable naval power in the Mediterranean—12 sail of the line —but that would nut be sufficient to cope with the 30 sail which France could in a few days equip and send out from Toulon fully manned. It was well known that the first news we had here in England of the first Napoleon's expedition against Egypt was the intimation that he had landed there with an army of 40,000 men; and at that time, be it remembered, there was nothing but sailing ships, and very bad sailing ships too; and now, when the motive power was steam, the army might be transported there in less than a quarter the time. He thought the Government ought, at least, to be able to satisfy the House and the country as to what was the exact state of our navy—how many ships were efficient and sound, and how many they could man in a case of sudden emergency. In his opinion, they could not man many more than they had now in commission. The Government had not carried out the recommendations of the Manning Committee—indeed, they had done little or nothing towards it. He found that he was in error the other evening when he stated that we had 7,300 Coastguard men. What we really had was only 3,200 regular Coastguard men, 1,900 of the district ships' companies, 1,500 Revenue men-civilians who were not fit to go on board a man-of-war—and 600 men in the Revenue cutters. Thus, instead of the 12,000 men recommended by the Manning Commission, we had only about 6,000. The reason of this was that the qualification for entering the Coastguard was 10 years' service. If it was reduced to seven years we could, he was informed, speedily raise the whole 12,000 men. The noble Lord had accused him of insulting sailors by saying that the Coast Volunteers were not to be relied upon, but he was not to be humbugged by calling the Coast Volunteers sailors. He would proceed to notice some other points in which the recommendations of the Commission upon the Manning of the Navy had not been carried out.

said, he must remind the hon. and gallant Admiral that the question before the House was, Whether a Return should be ordered of names of the gun and mortar vessels which had been constructed with short bolts, and not as to the Manning of the Navy generally.

said, he had thought it was as well to take that opportunity of making a few observations on the general subject; but as Mr. Speaker ruled he was out of order he would content himself with submitting the Motion in the terms stated. He contended that there could be no valid reason for refusing to give the names, and if they were withheld by the Admiralty on the ground that the contractors were about to be prosecuted, he warned the noble Lord that he was about to enter on a long ob. The law officers must be consulted, inquiries would have to be made into the specifications according to which the contracts were undertaken, and time would be lost in every possible way. The builders, meanwhile, would represent that the fault lay altogether with the men who drove the bolts; that on their parts no disposition whatever existed to jeopardize the lives of brave men, but that it was impossible for them to exercise a never-failing supervision. In the end the whole affair would be shown to have originated in a misapprehension, the inquiry or prosecution would result in nothing, and the country and the House would not be a bit the wiser. In conclusion, he wished to obtain from the Admiralty, without any prevarication or subterfuge whatever, the names of the gun and mortar boats with the short bolts, and the names of the builders, together with a statement of the vessels in that class which were actually fit for service, and he, therefore, would move for Returns conveying that information.

seconded the Motion.

I hope the gallant Officer will not accuse the Admiralty of wishing, intentionally or otherwise, to screen any persons who may have not performed their contracts or have fallen short of their duty to the Government. It would not be fair to the Admiralty to do so; because, so far from entertaining any such desire, I beg to inform the gallant Admiral that before the circumstances were made known in this House, or received publicity in the public prints, the Admiralty had already taken measures to ascertain how far their powers extended of prosecuting such contractors as might appear to be deserving of punishment. The gallant Admiral asks mo to mention the names of the gunboats in which the short bolts were found, and the names of their builders. The Admiralty could have no objection whatever to make their names known to the House, if it were not that to do so while the matter is what may be called sub judice would be manifestly unfair to all parties. We are taking the opinions of the law officers as to the propriety of prosecuting certain individuals, and if I were now officially to give their names I should he unfairly prejudicing the public mind, and possibly that of the jury before whom their case may hereafter be tried; and I believe the House would feel this to be an act of great impropriety on my part. I am not prepared to say that we shall be able to prosecute any person; but, if the materials for establishing a case should exist, it is our full intention to bring whoever may be the offending parties to justice. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman a that considerable time must elapse before a complete legal case can be prepared; but this unavoidable delay ought not to make us forget the principle that every man is innocent until he is found guilty; whereas to couple the names of men with fraud is to condemn without granting them a fair hearing. As regards the gunboats, there can be no objection to granting, as far as our information extends, the Return which the gallant Admiral has asked for; but, knowing that many of these vessels have before now unexpectedly turned out to be defective, we must not be surprised if that Return should not be strictly correct. The gallant Admiral knows that a vessel may appear to be perfectly sound, and that defects, if they exist, cannot be discovered till we open her timbers and try. The condition of the gunboats is no new discovery. The late Board of Admiralty were aware that there was a great deal of decay among them, and they had no less than one hundred men engaged in their examination and repair. The present Board have increased that number of men to one hundred and fifty, and we are getting these vessels in hand one after the other as fast as we can. Those which are not sound will be repaired, and if—as was the case with some of the mortar boats— they are not worth repairing, the next best thing is to break them up. It is very easy to say—"State the number of efficient gunboats;" but are we to haul them up together, and to employ the whole of our men in the dockyards in examining them to the neglect of other duties? The Board of Admiralty is fully alive to the importance of this matter, and likewise to the necessity that justice should be done. If on examination we find we have no legal case, we shall offer no opposition to a Committee, or to any other inquiry which the House may desire; but, under present circumstances, and bearing in mind that we are acting under legal advice, I trust the gallant Admiral will not press his Motion.

said, he did not attach much importance to the Returns them- selves, but he did not think the question had been put on a right footing by the noble Lord who had just sat down. The House did not ask the Government to say whether the contractors were guilty or not; what they wanted were the plain simple facts—in what gunboats had these defects of construction been found, and what were the names of the contractors who had sent out from their dockyards vessels defective in such important particulars? The House had not interfered, and he was not aware of any intention to interfere, with any decision which the Board of Admiralty might arrive at relative to the prosecution of the contractors; and the actual state of the gunboats could not be told until they had been thoroughly overhauled. But, unless the noble Lord declared that the production of these names would be pre judicial to the interest of justice, he should advise the gallant Admiral to persist in his Motion.

said, nobody who was conversant with the proceedings of a dockyard could for a moment suppose that the contractors had been guilty of wilful fraud in substituting short bolts for those of a proper length, because no one would put himself in such a false position for the comparatively trifling amount which might thus be saved. Every shipwright in the yard would have to be an accomplice in such an act of spoliation, and would expect to share the spoil. But the charge which was preferred against the contractors was, that owing to their neglect and to the want of proper superintendence on their part, the lives of hundreds of men had been jeopardised; and the sooner an exposure of their negligence took place the better. The affair might be sub judice, and it might be a difficult task to decide who ought to be prosecuted and who not; but that was surely no reason why the House should not be enlightened upon a simple matter of fact—namely, what were the names of the gunboats in which the bolts were found to be short, and who were the contractors in whose yards they were built. That was all the information now sought, and its production could not interfere with any pending legal proceedings. The case might not be one of fraud against the contractors, but that there had been gross negligence nobody could deny, and they had, therefore, a perfect right to ask where the responsibility for that negligence and its consequent risk rested. The noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) was not sure that the Admiralty would be able to prosecute at all. That was an additional reason for granting this information, for if it was found that legal proceedings could not he taken the whole matter would fall to the ground, and nobody would be any the wiser. The required information could he obtained, indeed, in a roundabout way, but he hoped the noble Lord would re-consider his decision and consent to furnish it in a direct and official shape. He believed chat when the rest of the gunboats were examined the whole of them would be found to be thoroughly rotten, owing to the hasty manner in which they were built and the badness of the materials. But a larger and much more important question was involved in this matter. The noble Lord said the late Government were perfectly aware of the state of the gunboats. No doubt of that. Everybody was aware of it. Discussions took place on the subject in that House last Session, and the condition of the gunboats was a standing joke. But that being so, why had the survey of them been deferred till the present time, instead of taking place immediately, for the double object of ascertaining on what gunboats we might rely for purposes of defence, and of adopting prompt measures to arrest the progress of their decay? If a gunboat, found to be rotten in October, was not examined, and the bad material removed, till the following spring, her condition must have become tenfold worse in the interval. She would be touchwood from stem to stern, and not even worth burning. Why, then, were not immediate steps taken to repair the mischief as soon as it was discovered? Moreover, with the knowledge that they had hardly a gunboat that was worth a pinch of snuff, the Admiralty had been lately discharging thousands of shipwrights and other workmen. The noble Lord said it was impossible to employ the whole of the dockyard force in repairing gunboats; but it appeared, with all their admirable professions of anxiety to maintain the efficiency of the navy, the Board had been dismissing large numbers of artisans. In their wretched parsimony the Admiralty had put off the work required to place these gunboats in proper order until they were now found thoroughly rotten.

said, the hon. Gentleman assumed, without evidence, that the whole of these gunboats were in a state of decay; but such was not the fact. Within the last three years seventeen or eighteen of them had been upon the China station, knocking about in all sorts of weather and tried in every conceivable way, and yet not one word of bad report had been sent home of them. There were also a vast number afloat in the harbours at home of which no bad report had been made. There were sixteen gunboats upon Haslar slip which had still to be examined. These things must, to a considerable extent, be a question of degree. The gallant Admiral thought that the moment one gunboat was found rotten all other work ought to have been suspended to see whether the rest were not in the same condition. [Sir C. NAPIER: No.] The Estimates were pretty large in amount, and perhaps the House might think the Government had gone on fast enough with this expenditure. With regard to the Returns asked for, it would be unfair to make public the names of the contractors who had built these particular boats, while the names of others were withheld who, for aught they knew, were equally guilty; moreover, the facts were not all collected. As he had said, some of the boats had not yet been examined. Besides, the House was perfectly satisfied the other night with the explanation that was given on the subject by the Government. If the Government found that they could not proceed with the prosecutions they would not object to a Committee. The gallant Officer and the hon. Gentleman said they only wanted facts, but the Admiralty could not give the facts without raising a storm of indignation throughout the country, which, whilst the matter was still under consideration, would be contrary to that spirit of fair play which characterized their proceedings. If the gallant Officer waited for ten days or a fort night he would have that information which if given now would have an appearance of vindictive hostility.

said, he thought the House could not, on mere hearsay, adopt a course amounting almost to the impeachment of a respectable body of men. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had fairly answered the Motion before the House. No doubt, if the contractors had not faithfully executed their engagements proceedings would be taken against them; but in the meantime opportunity ought to be allowed for a proper inquiry into the state of the gunboats.

said, he had had some twenty of these vesssels under his command, and must say that no boats could have done their work better as far as concerned their general character and structure. Many of them received hard knocks, and saw a good deal of rough service, and yet, although the whole of them came in sooner or later for casual repairs, he knew of no instance in which the timber used in making them had been found to be faulty. Indeed, in the main, they might be said to have been extremely well constructed. Many of them had been wholly stripped of their copper, and their only defect was a leakage from a Utile slack caulk—a circumstance not uncommon in contract-built ships. Caulking was nowhere done as well as in Her Majesty's dockyards. He could not well support the Motion of the gallant Admiral near him; and he hoped that, for the reasons stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty, it would not be pressed. The original sin of these vessels appeared to be the character of the timber of which some of them were built. It was well known that not only in Her Majesty's dockyards but in the private building yards of the country there was a lack of that properly seasoned timber which the undertaking of a large number of such boats would require. Now, in France it was not an unusual thing — in fact he believed it was the system—to give a salt water seasoning in the dockyards to a large quantity of timber, sufficient for the consumption of six or seven years. This was admirably arranged; and he never heard in France of such decay in ship timber as sometimes attacked our vessels. This plan was well worth the attention of the authorities.

said, that what he was most anxious for was to have security for the future, and be hoped some system of rigid and thorough inspection of gunboats and vessels generally might be adopted, periodically reporting the results to that House. On the other side of the water experiments were constantly being made, not only in the building of ships, but in testing the strength of their sides; and he did not see why we should not in these matters emulate the activity of the Emperor of the French.

I think my hon. and gallant Friend will feel that this is merely a question of time—and that a very short time—not a question of granting or refusing information to the House. My noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty stated that in the opinion of the law officers of the Board the case of those whom it was now intended to prosecute would be prejudiced if a Return were laid before Parliament indicating that they were persons guilty of fraud, and permitted negligence in the construction of these vessels. Whether they have been guilty or not will he the subject of investigation by the prosecution it is intended to institute; and if my hon. and gallant Friend will only wait for a short period, be will find, in ten days or a fortnight, whether prosecutions can be instituted. If prosecutions can be instituted, the result of them will give much more ample and complete information than the Returns now called for. If it be found that there are no legal grounds on which a prosecution can be founded, then undoubtedly any primâ facie evidence which a Return can give might be properly laid before the House. But my hon. and gallant Friend will see that the Return at present would really not give the full information which is required, because it would state that in regard to a certain number of gunboats the deficiencies had been found, but until sixteen others, now about to be examined had been so, the Return would be incomplete; and therefore not only would it prejudice the case of those mentioned, but exempt and acquit others in the sixteen additional cases which might appear to be equally guilty when actually examined.

said, that he thought it very desirable that they should have accounts kept of the repairs necessarily incurred by bad workmanship, distinct from those consequent on the time the boats had been in use. This was the only way of knowing how much blame was attributable to the contractors.

said, the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman one of the Lords of the Treasury (Mr. Whitbread) appeared to give a very lame excuse, and therefore the noble Lord came to the rescue. He had guarded himself particularly and most distinctly against accusing the contractors of fraud. All he wanted was the names of those contractors in whose yards the short bolts were used; and be could not sec why the names should not be given. He did not ask the names of all the builders, but only those who came before the public as having driven short bolts and bad fastenings into the gunboats. What this had to do with prosecutions he did not understand. As for a storm being raised against them, why, all he could say on the subject was, "the sooner the better;" because that storm would force the Admiralty to go on and bring them to punishment—the punishment which they would well deserve, of never being employed again. The noble Lord said it was very difficult to know, on looking at a ship, whether there was any defect in it. That was all the excuse the noble Lord could offer on behalf of the inspectors for permitting vessels to enter into the service which would sink when they had been twenty-four hours at sea. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir M. Seymour) had spoken about the gunboats sent to China. It was not about them that he wanted to know anything, but about the gunboats now at home. The gunboats might have been examined more easily than any other class of vessels. If precautions had been taken at the proper time, the progress of the rot might have been stopped. After the observations of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, however, he would not divide the House, but he was not satisfied with the explanations that had been given; he thought the names of the builders of the faulty vessels ought to be known, in order that they might receive the reprehension which they deserved. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

said, he rose according to notice to move an Address for Copy of all Correspondence between the Home Office and the Directors of the South Eastern Railway Company, in the year 1859–60, relating to the conveyance of Persons intending to commit a breach of the Law. He was not on that occasion about to enter into a discussion on the merits or demerits of prizefighting. On a recent occasion an exhibition of that kind, at no great distance from the Metropolis, was declared—rather reluctantly and apologetically, he must say—but it was declared by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be illegal; and it consequently followed that those who attended those illegal exhibitions or promoted them were accessories before the fact, and equally guilty with the principals. That was not the first time on which complaints had been made of the conduct of the South Eastern Company in this respect. That company had been entrusted, as everybody knew, with a very large portion—he might almost say, with a mono- poly—of the traffic in the counties over which their lines ran; and they had been warned of the illegality of aiding and abetting prize fights by himself, when he was a Member of the late Government. It was then understood the directors pledged themselves that nothing of the sort should again take place. Last year a letter was addressed to them by the bench of magistrates of the county of Surrey on a similar occasion; the answer of the Secretary was, that any arrangements for the conveyance of such excursionists had been made without the knowledge of the directors, and that it should not occur again. But so far was the company from keeping this pledge that it allowed two special trains to be run down the line on the morning of the recent fight. At every station in the county of Surrey these trains were met by police, but on passing into Hampshire no police were found, the passengers got out at a station in that county and the fight took place. Nor was this all; with one of these special trains, he was informed, was an officer of the company, a superintendent from the office at London-bridge, while the use of the telegraph was denied to the police authorities while the fight was going on. Under these circumstances he submitted that the complicity of the company was clearly established. Whether it was possible to bring the law to bear on the directors was another question, perhaps it would not he right, as he perceived none of the law officers of the Crown present, to ask the opinion of the Government; but he hoped the House by assenting to his Motion would intimate that they would not permit persons to whom they had given great powers to wield those powers in defiance of the law. Few could form an adequate idea of the inconvenience which arose from those special trains, from which 2,000 or 3,000 of the worst ruffians in London were in a moment launched upon a quiet neighbourhood. He was happy to quote the example of the South Western Company as a Company that had entirely given up the practice, and that had recently refused to giant trains for any such purpose. The House knew that the Executive was not very strong when opposed to numbers, as shown by the case of St. George's-in-the-East, where a mob of ruffians had for the last three months been able to keep up a continual disturbance in the church. He thought it right, therefore, to ask whether the Government had in this instance attempted to enforce the law; or whether anything had been done to stop the practice to which he had referred?

I do not intend to offer any objection to the noble Lord's Motion, but I must make a protest against the sort of exaggerations in which the noble Lord has indulged. He has described the railway launching 2,000 or 3,000 ruffians upon some quiet neighbourhood in a manner that might lead one to imagine the train conveyed a set of banditti to plunder, rack, and ravage the country, murder the people, burn the houses, and commit every sort of atrocity. I am not going to dispute the point, because I am told that it is the law, that a fight between two men—not a fight of enmity, but a trial of strength—is, technically, a breach of the peace, and an act that renders the parties liable to prosecution; nor whether the persons who go to witness it are not, technically, involved in the charge. But, as far as the latter are concerned, they may conceive it to be a very harmless pursuit; some persons like what takes place, there may be a difference of opinion, as a matter of taste, whether it is a spectacle one would wish to see, or whether it is calculated to excite disgust. Some people look upon it as an exhibition of manly courage, characteristic of the people of this country. I saw the other day a long extract from a French newspaper describing this fight as a type of the national character for endurance, patience under suffering of indomitable perseverance, in determined effort, and holding it up as a specimen of the manly and admirable qualities of the British race. All this is, of course, entirely a matter of opinion, but really, setting aside the legal technicalities of the case, I do not perceive why any number of persons, say 1,000 if you please, who assemble to witness a prize fight, are in their own persons more guilty of a breach of the peace than an equal number of persons who assemble to witness a balloon ascent. There they stand; there is no breach of the peace; they go to see a sight, and when that sight is over they return, and no injury is done to any one. They only stand or sit on the grass to witness the performance, and as to the danger to those who perform themselves, I imagine the danger to life in the case of those who go up in balloons is certainly greater than that of two combatants who merely hit each other as hard as they can, but inflict no permanent injury upon each other. I think there should be moderation in all things—moderation in all opinions; and, although it may or may not be desirable that the law should be enforced — whatever the law may be—still I do not think any advantage is gained or good done either to public morals or public feeling by the sort of exaggerations in which the noble Lord has indulged. At the same time the Motion is one to which I see no objection, and therefore I do not oppose it.

The noble Lord has pleaded the cause of prize fighting so strongly that I am almost led to expect that he will bring forward a Bill to make it legal. I was under the impression that all breaches of the law were to be discouraged and guarded against by the Government, and more especially by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but the noble Lord very skilfully turns the discussion into one on the merits of prizefighting, whereas I specially guarded myself against saying a word on that subject. I hold with respect to it opinions the opposite of those of the noble Lord; but I did not say a word about prize-fighting. I said that some thousands of ruffians had been carried down by the train to one spot for that purpose. There were persons present at the fight who were not ruffians, I admit. I have heard of great names as having been present. ["Name !"] Of course I shall not mention names; but if the noble Lord had done what I did—if he had gone in a train with some of the gentlemen who were present at the fight—[Laughter]—I assure the House I was only a casual passenger— he would have seen that many of the passengers were not such as he would like to be in company with. I repeat, I am not going into the merits of prize fighting; but if these things are to be put down let them be put down. If they are not, let us not be calling on the police to endeavour to preserve the peace in those cases, while you, who occupy a much higher position, are endeavouring to contribute the whole weight of your influence to support those who are abettors in a violation of the law. Let us have one thing or the other.

said, he did not think it right to let it go abroad that the noble Lord (Lord Lovaine) stood alone in that House in his condemnation of those exhibitions. He, on his own part, must enter his protest against them; but he thought the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion should fly at higher game than the directors of a railway company who were guided by a desire of profit. The Minis- ters of the Crown, instead of putting down prize fighting, lent every encouragement to it. The Home Secretary, whose peculiar business it was to put down prize-fights, defended them; and now the noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke of them only as playful exhibitions of the animated nature of the British lion. It was the duty of the Government to enforce the law, whether they considered it a good law or not. Such used to be the doctrine laid down in his own country, and ought to be applied in this instance. He could only add, that his schoolboy experience taught him that those who set others on to fight were generally cowards themselves.

said, he had a few nights since asked the Homo Secretary to state what was the law relating to prizefights, but received in reply an indirect defence of the practice. He thought that if the law said one thing the Secretary of State ought not, even by anticipation, to say another. He did not object to fighting with gloves as an exercise, nor did he object to the art of self-defence, which was better than the knives or stilettos used in foreign countries. Neither did he object to fencing with foils; but he drew the same distinction between such fencing and a duel with swords as he did between a fight with gloves and a prize-fight. The paper which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had quoted as eulogizing the recent fight, was the journal des Débats; but, in fact, the paper did not justify such proceedings, and only mentioned it as an instance of the pugnacity and vigour of the Anglo-Saxon character. The Siècle, however, a paper of great circulation, condemned the proceeding in strong terms. He hoped that the present discussion would terminate, and that they would hear no more in that House about this matter.

said, that in justification of the Directors of the South-Eastern Railway Company he felt bound to say that he was informed that they did not admit they had forfeited any pledge. Upon a former occasion a special train was stopped without the Directors' knowledge or sanction, at a place intermediate between two stations, where a fight came off, and a promise was given that in future no trains should be allowed to stop anywhere but at stations on the line. Some time after, and that was the occasion more particularly alluded to by the noble Lord, a train stopped at a station and a fight took place, but the Directors maintained that they know nothing about it, and had not broken their word. They declared, truly or not, that they could not tell the intentions of those who travelled by their trains, and could not assume that any breach of the peace was intended.

said, he was not one of those who were very squeamish on those matters. He admired the skill and courage displayed by Englishmen on such occasions, and more especially the pluck and skill shown at the recent fight; but the question was whether prizefights were not breaches of the peace, and magistrates ought to know what would be their position if they took part in endeavouring to keep the peace on those occasions. He happened to live on the South-Eastern line, and was also a magistrate for the county of Surrey. One or two of those prize-fights had taken place in his own immediate neighbourhood, and one or two of his brother magistrates bad run considerable risk of personal danger in endeavouring to prevent them. But what would be their position when it was known that those proceedings were sanctioned by the voice of the Government in that House? He was very much astonished at the tone of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) on this subject; and he wished to place before the House the position himself and his brother magistrates would be in if they thought it to be their duty to suppress those breaches of the peace while they were sanctioned by the executive Government, and encouraged by the railway companies for the sake of gain.

I distinctly stated that it was ruled by legal authorities that such prize-fights were breaches of the peace; but I protest, at the same time, against the exaggerated terms in which the noble Lord (Lord Lovaine) characterized the conduct of the spectators on those, occasions.

said, he was surprised to hear his hon. Friend (Mr. V. Scully) take the noble Lord at the head of the Government to task for the remarks he had made on this occasion, for he (Colonel Dickson) could not understand an Irishman objecting to fighting. The noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) had not laid himself open to such taunts. He sat on a different side of the House from the noble Lord, and did not often find himself in the same lobby with him on a division; but he would say for the noble Viscount, that if he had one attribute more than another which endeared him to his countrymen it was his thoroughly English character and his love for every manly sport, He (Colonel Dickson) would not stand up for prize-fighting, nor had he ever seen a prize-fight in his life; but he would say that the two men who fought on the recent occasion showed qualities of which the whole English race had reason to be proud; our own man in particular, who evinced powers of endurance and an indomitable pluck which entitled him to the admiration of his countrymen, lie said so advisedly, as he had been partially disabled at the commencement of the struggle. Many men in this country received honours who did not so well deserve them. He did not think Parliament ought to legislate with the view to put down manly sports; and, with regard to the duties of magistrates, about which the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Jolliffe) professed to have doubts, the law was clearly laid down. Magistrates themselves ought to know when to act and when to shut their eyes.

said, until the gallant Gentlemen (Colonel Dickson) had spoken he was not prepared to hear that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, after fifty years of memorable public service, would be known to posterity as the patron of prize-fighting. He thought it an unfortunate thing, whether or not it was in the power of the Government to stop those exhibitions, that the First Minister of the Crown and the Home Secretary should be found palliating, if not sanctioning, them. After what the noble Lord had said, he thought the caricature in a certain facetious public print, which a few years ago represented the noble Lord as a bottle-holder, was not altogether wrong,

said, that pursuant to notice, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Bill reminded him of a certain personage, who was said to be like—

"Three single gentlemen rolled into one;"

for it dealt with three separate subjects rolled into one. At that period of the Session, that was an exceedingly convenient mode for the Government to deal with business which seemed likely to overwhelm them. Nothing could be more easy than in that way to despatch a number of subjects which had no necessary or intimate relation to each other. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had, in the Bill under consideration, embodied three distinct principles, three distinct sets of details, and three very complicated pieces of machinery, dealing with different interests and different persons. The first branch of the Bill had for its object to enable the limited owner of an estate to charge the inheritance with a terminable annuity, terminating at the expiration of twenty-five years, for the purpose of raising money, to be applied to the improvement of the land. To a principle of that sort, which was a wise and healthy one, he (Sir john Walsh) could have no objection; for under its operation, the settlement of an estate could no longer operate as a bar to its improvement; but when he came to look at the details of the measure, several strong objections presented themselves to his mind. He might also observe that as a difficulty arose from the conglomeration of Bills in the measure, as he objected to the details of some, but to the principles of others. Amongst the first of his objections to this special legislation was that it did not deal with the relation between landlord and tenant, properly so called, at all, but it dealt with the law of real property itself. Why, then, should it be confined to Ireland? There could be no reason why Ireland should be made the subject of exceptional legislation of this kind, regarding the relations between the limited owner and the owner of an inheritance. But he found that this legislation bad already been, to a great degree, applied to England. The Attorney General for England introduced a measure which passed in 1856, called the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act, and which provided for nearly all the cases that were, by the present Bill, the subject of special legislation; and this same Act of 1856 had been extended to Ireland, and was actually now in operation in both countries. It dealt safely, prudently, cautiously, and, as he was informed, effectually, with the relations existing between the limited owner and the owner of a subsequent estate of inheritance. If it were necessary to make any alterations or amendments in that Act, let them he made, but in the presence of such an Act, where was the necessity of this part of the Bill? Why not have the same law in this respect for both countries? But the right hon. Gentleman introduced this measure on the ground of the necessity, as he said, of special legislation for Ireland. He objected, also, to the machinery by which the measure was to be carried out. The relations of the limited owners and the owners of the inheritance were of a very delicate character, and required, when touched at all, to be administered by high and competent authorities. But the whole of the machinery of the Bill which dealt with these delicate relations was made to turn on the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Ireland. He was to be the agent for carrying the Bill into effect. Members connected with England did not, perhaps, understand the exact position of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Ireland. He was a very different person from the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in England. In Ireland he was a stipendiary officer of the Government, and exercised not the very highest judicial functions. He did not wish to say a word in disparagement of the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland. They were members of a liberal profession; they had many able men in their ranks; but every scale had two ends, and it so happened that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief justice were at one end of the judicial scale in Ireland, and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions at the other. He was alarmed at the idea of giving such excessive powers as this Bill proposed over the whole landed property in Ireland to judicial functionaries, not holding the very highest position in that country; and they were to exercise their powers without appeal; so that they would, in fact, be irresponsible for their decisions. The principle of Sic volo, sic jubeo—stet proratione voluntas, would be their rule; and after their decisions were pronounced, it would be impossible to reverse them. In the second portion of the Bill, which dealt with the powers of limited owners, it was provided that the limited owner might grant leases for twenty-one years, and improvement leases for forty years. This was a power attended with great danger. So long as he kept steadily in view the ultimate interest of the owner of the inheritance, the matter was safe; and he (Sir john Walsh) would not, of course, depart from the principles of equity or justice. But the House ought to recollect that the Bill was dealing with the interests of those who were inadequately able to protect their own interests. No doubt the Bill made ample provision for notices which were to be served in various ways, according to circumstances. If the party concerned were a minor, the guardian or trustee was to be served. Every legal requirement was embodied in the Bill. But they all knew how difficult it was by those notices to guard the interests of persons who were absent, or perhaps not then in existence. They knew how careless and indifferent guardians or trustees were sometimes to the interests of minors. Perhaps the minor might be a young soldier fighting battles in China, or a midshipman engaged in the Pacific Ocean. How was such a person to be guarded against fraud by the empty formality of legal notices? These improvement leases might be worked by a limited owner greatly to his own advantage, and to the injury of the owner of the inheritance, through the trickery and chicanery that this Bill would enable him to employ. A lease for forty-one years in Ireland was a very marketable commodity. There were plenty of people who would pay a large fine for such a lease; and numbers who would be glad to give a considerable sum of ready money to possess it. He might be told there were clauses in the Bill that prohibited any fine from being taken; but how were these stipulations to be enforced, when the person most interested in enforcing them was not present? Suppose a limited owner endeavoured, with this forty-one years' lease, to deal with a tenant who was willing to make an engagement by which he might possess himself of the farm, at a very low rent. They would look at the improvement clause and see what improvements were necessary. The clause said "these improvements, or any of them;" and there might be six or seven, would qualify the tenant to receive an improvement lease, and would justify the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in giving his sanction to the grant of a lease by the limited owner to the tenant. Suppose the improvement was held to be the removal of stones from the fields, and let the House imagine, for the sake of the argument, that there were some boulder stones among them. That was an improvement that would justify the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in sanctioning this forty-one years' lease at a low rent; and this arrangement would be facilitated by a sum of money which the limited owner might quietly receive. The House could at least imagine a reckless spendthrift or involved landlord who might have the power, through this Bill and its machinery, of defrauding the owner of the inheritance, the latter of whom might come some twenty years afterwards into the possession of a barren estate. He always entertained great objection to very long leases in Ireland. It was the fashion to object to the customary yearly tenure in that country. Forty years ago very long leases were as general as year by-year tenure in the present day. He believed that three-fourths of the distresses, the agricultural difficulties, and the evils which bad afflicted Ireland, but which were now passing away, were owing to that very system of long leases. To that practice might be attributed the subdivisions, the subletting, the divorce, and separation of the head landlords from his tenants. Regarding, then, these long leases as the curse of Ireland, he looked upon the proposal for their renewal contained in the Bill with jealousy and suspicion. If they looked to Scotland they would find none of these long leases in those parts of the country where the greatest agricultural improvements had been effected. The common tenure of laud in Scotland was a twenty-one years' lease, under which large tracts of country bad been reclaimed within a very recent period. But in the midst of the most flourishing agriculture the traveller saw now and then patches of six or eight acres not yet reclaimed. These were precisely the pieces of land that the tenant had not been able to get at, through some long existing lease or other obstacle to possession. By the present Bill the sole protection to the owner was the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and a most imperfect protection he was, as he could not be supposed to scrutinize all the improvements narrowly. Another defect in rendering the Quarter Sessions and the chairman the entire agency for carrying out this Bill was, that as the court was not one of the highest practice, the best legal practitioners did not usually resort to it. If the provisions of the Bill relative to leasing powers, which he had thus felt bound to condemn as the great blot of the measure, were passed at all, they would require considerable modifications. He now approached another portion of the Bill, which might properly be said to refer to tenant right. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen near him would receive it as such, or whether it would fulfil their expectations, but he supposed it was the mode in which the Government proposed to deal with this much- vexed and difficult question. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) in opening this question to the House naturally began with the Devon Commission. It was the text-book of every one who was not practically acquainted with Ireland. He did not admit in an unqualified manner the authority of the Devon Commission, He did not wish to disparage the labours of the eminent men who were engaged in it; but that Commission was really an advertisement for grievances. The Commissioners went round the country to collect evidence, and those who were discontented made their complaints known, while those who were contented stayed at home and said nothing. The Devon Commission always seemed to him like a bad photograph, in which all the prominent features were enlarged and all the best parts were thrown into shade. It gave a very exaggerated likeness of Ireland, even in the depressed and calamitous state in which the country then was, when on the eve of a tremendous social convulsion. The Devon Commission described the state of things immediately previous to the famine. He believed that about sixteen years had elapsed, but above one hundred years had passed if they measured Ireland by what it was now and what it was then. The country was altogether changed. Great improvements had been effected, and the remedies which were then applicable were not so now. The Devon Commission gave a very long, and in many respects an exceedingly able, catalogue of remedial measures. The majority had already been adopted, and of the small remnant which the Report indicated was the question of tenant right. That question had been brought forward in many different shapes, and had been constantly rejected as contrary to sound sense, as contrary to the feelings of equity of the British people, and as contrary to those principles of policy and justice which had always led them to the conclusion that the relations between landlord and tenant were better left to the free agency of landlords and tenants themselves. All attempts to interfere with the natural free action of men were false and faulty in principle. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who was so distinguished a disciple of the principles of free trade, would acknowledge that he was correct, and that a departure from those principles could only be justified upon very strong and exceptional grounds, But he said that if those ex- ceptional grounds ever existed in Ireland they did not exist now, and that the state of things was such that there was no difficulty whatever in landlord and tenant dealing with each each other as landlord and tenant did in England. Many of the evils which formerly existed arose from subletting, and he believed that sublet-tings were gradually disappearing. Except where some old lease subsisted the relations between the landlord and the occupying tenant were now direct, and it was the general desire of landlords in Ireland to establish that rule. Hon. Gentlemen who represented Irish constituencies were exceedingly anxious to persuade the House that the people were not happy and not progressing, and that all ideas of improvement were illusory. An hon. and learned Gentleman, who had a Bill upon this subject, took the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to task for having spoken of the increase of horned cattle as a test of prosperity, and quoted statistics to show that the cereal acreage had diminished. [Mr. HENNESSY: Hear, hear!] He had great respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a young Member of great promise; and distinguished talents; but as far as he could see, the bent of the Gentleman's genius was not bucolic. In dealing with facts and statistics he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman exactly understood whore they would lead him. The number of acres under wheat cultivation was not a test of progress. A better test was the number of quarters per acre which the land produced. There might be too much cultivation. Bad farmers sometimes grew too many corn crops and impoverished the land. Although it was quite possible that the number of acres under corn cultivation might be less in Ireland now than ten or twelve years ago, he was quite certain that the agricultural improvement in that country had been most marked and most decisive. These horned cattle, which were the bugbears of the hon. Gentleman's imagination, really were great fertilizers. If they wished to have good corn crops, it was necessary to have stock on the land, and therefore the increase of horned cattle was rather a proof of the increased fertility of the soil. It might be that crops of turnips and clover had taken the place of corn crops, but there was no doubt of the fact that the improvement in the agriculture of Ireland was wonderful. It was now the agriculture of the farmer instead of the cottier, with his wretched cultivation of a few potatoes, a patch of oats, and, perhaps, a little wheat, extracted from the soil by the stimulus of lime, until the stimulus failed and the land would produce nothing. The whole of Ireland was now advancing in cultivation and in comfort, and it was impossible to visit the Irish peasantry in their own homes without seeing that they were better dressed and fed than they used to be. They were no longer those miserable objects who used to haunt the roadsides to pain and disgust the passer-by. Well, then, he thought Parliament ought to leave well alone. They ought not to interfere between landlord and tenant, and attempt by this peddling legislation to alter a process which had worked so beneficially. He admitted that for a Tenant Right Bill there never was one more mild and moderate than that of the right hon. Gentleman. His objection to the earlier portion of the measure was not so much to principle as to details; to the latter portion he was opposed on principle rather than on points of detail. There was a danger in admitting the necessity of dealing with the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland otherwise than in England. If such an admission were made, there would be plenty of people to push it further than those who proposed it ever intended. Even the fact that the Bill was almost of a permissive character, and gave the landlord a veto upon projected improvements, inspired him with alarm, because hon. Gentlemen would say "You admit the principle, and yet you shrink from carrying it out. We thank you for the principle, but we spurn your provisions. By passing this Bill you will give us a ground of vantage, and will show to Ireland that you are endeavouring, by a worthless concession, to satisfy an agitation which you will thereby only feed and excite." No doubt, hon. Gentleman who favoured the tenant right movement would use this argument. The Bill would not satisfy them, and this concession would give them a stronger ground for carrying out those ultimate objects which were so subversive of the real prosperity of Ireland. Of late years the whole tendency of events, even the misfortune and calamities which Ireland had undergone, had tended to remove the differences which existed between the two countries and to bring them into closer connection. A wise legislation would encourage and assist these processes, and endeavour to unite the two countries still more closely by similar interests and simi- lar laws; but the Bill aimed at the very reverse of all this. If it passed there would he a broad distinction between the mode in which Irish and English tenants were dealt with. He, therefore, objected to the measure as uncalled for and mischievous, as likely to promote agitation, instead of appeasing it, and he should feel it his duty to move that it be read a second time that day six months.

Sir, the House has listened to the hon. Baronet with that attention which his ability always commands; still I cannot help saying that I have never heard a stranger speech or a more unaccountable Motion than that which he has delivered and proposed. What the real object of his notice of Motion is, I really do not know, unless it be that he wished to have an opportunity of stating his views and opinions at considerable length, not only for the advantage of this House, but of the country at large. Sir, it is my duty to refute some of the statements and assumptions of the hon. Baronet; and I shall also endeavour to show the House that it would act wisely, not only in adopting the principle of the Bill now before it, but in making it better and more useful for the classes for whose advantage it is intended, and thus laying the broad foundation of the future prosperity of Ireland, and cementing between the two nations those bonds of amity and union, without which England is not and cannot be really strong or powerful. It is also my duty to show that Ireland is not so happy and prosperous as the hon. Baronet described her to be, and that the state of things in that country is not so balmy and delightful as it was his object to make us believe it to be, from the picture which he has so glowingly painted. The objections of the hon. Baronet to the first part of the Bill, indeed to two parts of the Bill, refer entirely to their details, and not to their principle. But there was an objection as to the structure of the Bill, and the variety of subjects which it embraces. Now, I cannot see the force of the objection that the Bill is divided into three parts, and that it deals with different interests; for, after all, no matter in what manner they are described, all these different branches are of the same question, and refer to the same subject,— they are all intimately identified with the one ostensible object of the Bill, the improvement of the soil and agriculture of Ireland. So that I cannot agree with the hon. Baronet in condemning the Government for having treated the interests of different classes—limited owners, inheritors, and tenants at lease and at will—in the same measure. Besides, were they treated of in distinct Bills, one Bill only might be passed, and that the least important, while the more important measure might be sacrificed to the discussions on the other. In as far as the hon. Baronet's objections mainly apply to the machinery and details of the Bill, I would avail myself of the stereotyped answer given on such occasions, which answer is in this case founded in justice, and ask the hon. Baronet to support the second reading, and then in Committee seek to improve the details, and make perfect the machinery—in which task, no doubt, he would be supported by a majority of the House. The hon. Baronet strongly objects to referring matters of such grave moment as those connected with property and laud to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, or Assistant Barristers, as we are in the habit of calling them in Ireland. But here again is a more question of detail; and it the hon. Baronet will only attend when the Bill is in Committee, he may propose, that an appeal should be given to the Judge of Assize in cases where serious controversy should arise, or he may endeavour to limit the value of the interests to be entrusted to the Jurisdiction of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. However, I can assure the hon. Baronet that those officials, whom he seems rather to think lightly of, are generally not only men of great eminence in the legal profession, but that many of them are large owners of property, and that all of them are more or less imbued with strong landlord sympathies, and respect for what are termed the rights of property. At the same time they are just and upright men, and, though their sympathies, interests and feelings are not identified with the tenant class, I firmly believe they would hold the scales of justice evenly, no matter whether those who appealed to their tribunal were clad in broadcloth or in frieze. The hon. Baronet gives us his idea of the real cause of the misery of Ireland — the misery which, he asserts, is entirely of the past, but which, according to him, has no existence whatever in the present day. Before he does so, however, he cleverly seeks to damage and discredit the authority of the Report of the Devon Commission. But is there any man pretending to the character of a statesman who is not prepared to rely on the authority of that Commission and its Report? No matter what Government happened to be in power since the publication of that grave document, they have successively relied upon it as their chief justification for dealing with the question of the tenure of land in Ireland. The hon. Baronet is entirely wrong in saying that the Commission was a mere advertisement for grievances, and that it reflected only one phase of society in Ireland. On the contrary, eminent landowners, agents of extensive estates, men in high position and entirely impartial, came before that Commission and gave their evidence; and not merely tenant farmers who had wrongs and grievances to expose, and who would perhaps naturally give exaggerated pictures, the result perhaps of their individual miseries and oppressions. Having done his best to discredit the authority of the Report of the Devon Commissioners, the hon. Baronet then places all the evils of Ireland to the credit of long leases. No doubt such leases as created the system of middlemen were a great evil, and had acted injuriously on the country; but that system has been utterly swept away; and what we now seek for, are not leases under which tenants may divide and subdivide the land, but improvement leases, for the encouragement and protection of intelligent and industrious tenants, and for the better cultivation of the soil. The Devon Commission did not lay the misery of Ireland to the score of long leases; and in order to show the hon. Baronet and the House the real cause of the evil which existed, and which I assert still exists, I will quote a passage or two from the digest of their Report. The chief reason assigned is that farmers would not invest their capital in the improvement of the soil, because, from the want of legal security, they were not certain of reaping a remunerative profit from their investment. Here, Sir, in the following passage is a cause very different from that assigned by the hon. Baronet:—

"It has been shown that the master evil, poverty, proceeds from the fact of occupiers of land withholding the investment of labour and capital from the ample and profitable field for it that lies within their reach on the farms they occupy; that this hesitation is attributable to a reasonable disinclination to invest capital or labour on the property of others, without a security that adequate remuneration shall be derived from the investment; that no such security at present exists in regard to the vast masses of cases, including tenancies from year to year and leases with short unexpired terms; that the characteristic tillage of the country is most barbarous and unprofitable, &c, &c."

After describing the evils resulting from this fatal system, the writer thus continues:—

"No effort is made by the farmer—1st. Because he is not certain of being permitted to reap a remunerative benefit from his exertions; 2nd. Because, if a tenant-at-will, he may be immediately removed from the improved lands after having invested his labour or capital without receiving any compensation for what he has done, or his rent may be immediately raised to the full value of the improvement thus effected by such labour or capital; 3rd. Because, if a tenant with a lease, the unexpired period of his term may be insufficient to remunerate him, and at its termination he may either be removed, without receiving the balance of his investment, or his rent may be raised so as to deprive him of the power to repay himself from the lands."

These extracts show most clearly that the reason why the tenant did not expend his labour and capital on the land—in other words, in improving his dwelling and his out-offices, and in developing the capabilities of the soil—was, that he did not know when he might be removed, or his rent raised to the full value of his own improvements. The Government have been blamed by the hon. Baronet for having by this Bill attempted to establish one system of laws for Ireland and another for England; but neither this Government nor any other Government is answerable to the charge of having proposed or created a difference in the legislation of the two countries. It is the different practice which prevails in both countries which has made the difference; and legislation only seeks to deal with the state of things which it finds to exist. The fact is, Irish landlords are very different, as a class, from English landlords. The latter, as a rule, do everything for the tenant; the former, with a comparatively few exceptions, do nothing for him. In Ireland, the tenant builds, drains, fences, reclaims bog; and it is his hardy labour that climbs the mountain side, and changes sterility into bloom and beauty. No doubt, there are improving landlords in Ireland, men who delight in seeing their tenantry respectable and comfortable, and who, having means at their disposal, accumulated perhaps during their minority, build houses for their tenantry, and assist them to make permanent and beneficial improvements on and in the soil. It is also true that some Irish landlords, who have resided in England for some time, have imitated the example of their English friends on their estates at home. But these cases, however numerous they may be, are after all mere exceptions to the general rule, which is, as I have said, that in Ireland it is the tenant who does everything, and not the landlord. This being so, nothing could be more monstrous or absurd than any attempt to apply the same principles to both countries. The hon. Baronet has drawn a bright and glowing picture of the present state of Ireland. I wish I could believe that the picture was a faithful one; but I regret, as an Irishman, to be compelled to express my doubts of its accuracy. And I hope that Irish Members, for the sake of a momentary object, will not be led to represent their country otherwise than it really is. Can any Irishman in this House assert that his country is so prosperous that no cause for regret is left? Is there no misery, no poverty, no oppression, no discontent? Was it last year, or was it the year before, that an hon. Member, now a Member of the Government, moved for an inquiry into the state of Donegal? That inquiry took place, and disclosed such an abominable state of things, existing in an extensive district, as one could hardly imagine to exist except in a state of society almost savage. One witness in the landlord interest—a plump, rosy, well-fed doctor— actually came forward to prove that seaweed and bad potatoes were the most nutritious food for the people—that seaweed was an admirable article of diet for the independent and sturdy yeomanry of Donegal ! In many parts of the country there is still great misery among the people, though I cannot deny that, taking the state of Ireland generally, considerable progress has been made within recent years. There does not exist that grim and terrible poverty of the famine period, when thousands and hundreds of thousands of the people literally rotted away from hunger; but what I do assert is this—that, with all the evidences of a better state of things, there is no comparison between the condition of Ireland and the condition of England. The hon. Baronet is in the habit of visiting the south coast of Ireland once a year, seeing his agent, drawing his rents, and off again: but if he would leave his yacht in Cork Harbour or Valencia Harbour this summer, and make a tour through the south—through Cork and Kerry—I venture to say he will have a different talc to tell when he next rises to address the House on this Question. Where in Ireland are the comfortable homesteads, the substantial out-offices, the advanced tillage and scientific treatment of the soil, which meet the eye everywhere in this country? In Ireland, the English traveller beholds bad cultivation, rude implements of husbandry, and houses in which, it may be said of too many of them, an Englishman would scarcely wish to put a dog. Not to say anything of the millions of acres of waste land, there are to be seen large portions of the soil, within the limits and boundaries of farms, almost in a state of nature, and left to remain in that condition, to the injury of the tenant, the landlord, the community, the country, and the empire at: large. Now, these things, which make an Irishman ashamed, do not proceed so much from the poverty of the people, as from their disinclination to invest their capital in substantial and permanent improvements,; because of the small security which they, have of ever being able to obtain a return I from them in case of eviction. Of course, there are many instances where tenants have built for themselves, or their landlords have built for them, commodious dwellings and sufficient out-offices; but, as a rule, the state of things which I describe too generally exists to this day. There are in Ireland as noble specimens of the landlord class as any country can boast of; but there are, unfortunately, unscrupulous, tyrannical, political, and foolish landlords as well; and the greater part of this class require the constant prick, not of conscience, but of a strict law, to keep them right. Legislation is not required for the good — they are good without it; it is for those who are inclined to act unfairly or foolishly, that, for the interests of the country, legislation is necessary. For instance, a tenant may improve; but if an election come, and he is moved by a strong sense of right to vote against his landlord, what security has he that he will be allowed the benefits of his improvements? — what security has he that he may not be summarily evicted from his farm? How is it that so few Irish Members have raised their voices in favour of reform? Because they know that, to the great mass of farmers, those who hold from year to year, and who are, therefore, entirely dependent on the will of their landlord, the franchise, so far from being an advantage, is a positive curse. It is a no- torious fact, that if a candidate at an Irish election have the landlords with him, he is pretty sure of his return; but, if he happen to have them against him, the most desperate efforts must be made to counteract their enormous power. Tenants from year to year, on whom the burden of the cultivation and improvement of the land rests almost entirely, are afraid to improve; for they know they may be turned out at a moment's notice. In his speech the Secretary for Ireland stated that evictions had fallen off last year to 2,500. Surely that number was more than sufficient. It is no proof of prosperity and happiness that so many families were compelled to abandon their only means of livelihood. I object to the material portion of the present Bill, because it does not provide that sufficient protection for the industrious tenant, which the circumstances of the country imperatively demand. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) is anxious to serve Ireland; still I cannot help regretting that the Attorney General had not more to do with the Bill—for he knows the wants of the country, and what would really promote its prosperity; and he cannot be satisfied with the measure as it now stands, or believe that it meets the necessity of the case. The great foundation of the social fabric in Ireland is the farming interest, represented by the occupiers of the land; and, if their condition be benefited, if their farms be improved, the estates on which they live must be improved, and the position of the owner must be improved; and while the happiness and prosperity of Ireland is secured, England is enriched, and the empire is strengthened. At first, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, if a tenant-at-will applied to his landlord for leave to improve, and if the landlord refused, that refusal terminated the tenancy. That most absurd and fatal proposition does not appear on the face of the present Bill; but the Bill now provides that if the landlord refuse to allow the tenant to improve, he must not do so. I ask the Government, is that the way to improve the condition of Ireland?—is that the manner in which the energy and industry of the occupiers are to be stimulated and encouraged? On the contrary. Ought not the object of legislation be to give every man who is willing to improve his holding, by the sweat of his brow and the outlay of his capital, the fullest opportunity for the exercise of his energy and industry; and in the event of his tenancy terminating, ought not the tenant have a claim for full and fair compensation—provided that his improvements were: suitable to the holding, and calculated to; raise its letting value? If a man build a; good house on his farm, or erect suitable offices, or reclaim bog or waste land, he injures no human being thereby; but he benefits himself and the estate, he improves the condition of the landlord, and he gives an impetus to various branches of industry in the village near him. To render the Bill really suitable to the emergency, the veto of the landlord should not he a bar to improvement. If the landlord will improve, let it be so; but if he will not or cannot himself make the required improvement, do not allow him to prevent the tenant from doing so. Bid him stand out of the way, and not he a barrier to progress and prosperity. Then, as to the nature of the compensation given where improvements are made with the sanction of the landlord, it is utterly inadequate. For instance, after twenty-five years' occupation of a house which the tenant has built, he is not entitled to any allowance whatever. Would any Gentleman present build a house on such terms? Would he consider that the occupation of it for twenty-five years was quite sufficient return for his outlay? Surely not. Hear what the Devon Commissioners say on this subject;—

"If the full value of the land be paid by a tenant, where new buildings are required, and that no deduction or allowance be made to supply the means for erecting such buildings out of the proceeds from such lands, or out of the proprietor's funds, it appears reasonable to adopt the suggestion of a large class of witnesses, who recommend that the tenant who builds at his own cost should be repaid, on removal from his farm, the value of such buildings in their then existing state, limiting, however, the class and cost of buildings and the consequent claim of the tenant with strict reference to the size and description of the farm or holding; and this latter restriction in Ireland would require much caution and forethought.

"The broad principle here is, that the farmer must be supplied with all those essential matters which his enterprise absolutely requires, and that this must be furnished out of the proceeds of the land."

The hon. Baronet was perfectly correct in his anticipation when he predicted that my hon. Friends would desire more than the Bill proposes to give. It is our duty to demand all that we can or ought obtain for those we represent; and we, therefore, vote for the Second Reading, in order to afford ourselves an opportunity of endeavouring to make the Bill better in Committee. We are accused of wishing to deny, or rather not enjoy, the tide of prosperity to the soil. The population of Ireland are which, according to the hon. Baronet, is now flooding our country. Why, Sir we would be the first to rejoice at the prosperity of our country, and the happiness of our people; but we are here to speak, and not to disguise, the truth. I ask the House, I ask the Government, if Ireland is so happy and contented as she is staled to be, why has the Government refused to entrust the people of that country with arms at this moment? I ask, why are they not called on to arm, as the people of this country? The truth must be told—because it is well known that a large class of the people are discontented, and not happy and prosperous as represented. But, Sir, it is not too late to effect a change; wise and generous legislation, given with kindly and noble words uttered by Parliament, would work a magical effect on a sensitive, a warm-hearted, and a grateful population. I demand an earnest and an honest legislation for Ireland, not merely in the interest of Ireland, but for the peace and happiness of the empire at large. God knows I look with the gloomiest apprehension to what I believe is looming in the future; and it is for the welfare of all the interests that this House holds most dear, as well as for those which I represent, that I implore the Government to improve and pass the present Bill, and to give other remedial and conciliatory measures to the people of Ireland, I ask this House, is it a sign of prosperity that the Irish race are leaving the land of their birth, and that the stream of emigration is deepening and widening in its current and in its volume? The bone and sinew of the land are being wafted across the Atlantic to add to the population and strengthen the power of America. That would be a fearful day for England if America, losing sight of her cotton interest, came into collision with her—with the strong Irish element against her; for every Irishman who leaves these shores carries with him an abiding sense of wrong, that rankles into hatred in his breast against England and English institutions. This may seem exaggerated language; but I have seen letters written by those who have been driven to the United States, either by the pressure of adversity, by the action of oppression, or by a love of adventure; and they breathed a feeling of hate and vengeance which no language could exaggerate. I desire to give our people a stake in their country — something that they could defend, something to bind them to the soil. The population of Ireland are now as a ship riding at single anchor, awaiting the first favourable wind to unfurl its sails, and seek a distant shore. I want to retain what we still have left to us after famine, death, and emigration; and while I believe that nothing would tend so much on the one hand to give a further impulse to that which needs no additional impulse, I believe, on the other, that a liberal Bill would have a tendency to check what I hold to be a ruinous draining of the strength of a nation. I honestly desire that you will now try and make the people of Ireland—those whom we can still call our own—prosperous, independent, and happy, the friends of peace, law, and order; and, Sir, the statesman who will effect this, by wise and liberal legislation, will prove himself the greatest benefactor that country has ever possessed.

said, that if anything could have induced him to oppose the second reading of this Bill it would be the speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He thought the time had gone by when the House of Commons was to be treated to a tirade of abuse against the landlords of Ireland. The hon. Member had given play to the fancies of his brain, and gloated over the imaginary wrongs of his country. The hon. Member had painted miseries which had no existence, He possessed as much experience as the hon. Member; he was continually travelling in Ireland—north, south, east, and west — and lie must conscientiously say that the statements of the honourable Member were exaggerated, if not entirely unfounded. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland of his solemn declaration that it was not the intention of the Government to affect the rights of the landlords of Ireland, or to lend themselves to the subversion of the rights of property. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman state that one rule was to be observed in Ireland, and another rule in England—and that that which was done by usage and good feeling in England must be done by law in Ireland. To speak of the Devon Commission as a criterion of the state of Ireland at the present day was a great solecism. That Commission was issued in 1845, and the witnesses who were examined before it were such only as had grievances to dilate upon and expose. The state of Ireland in 1845 and in 1860 was as different as the state of the desert and the most blooming garden. At that time there were misery and woe in the country. It was on the very eve of that fearful famine which began in 1846, and continued for years afterwards. What was the fact now? How changed was the country from what it was? That very morning a Statistical Return had been delivered to hon. Members, in which he found some facts that bore upon the question before them. He found that, in 1849, four years after the date of the Devon Commission, the number of paupers in Ireland, including the outdoor recipients of relief, amounted to 620,747, whilst at that moment they were only 44,929. But it was not alone in the physical aspect of the people that there had been improvements. Their moral status had infinitely changed; and in the next column of the same Return he found that, whilst in 1849 the convictions in Ireland were 21,202, in 1859 they were but 2,735; that in 1849 the acquittals were 20,767, and in 1859, 3,109. He thought, then, he was justified in saying that both in a moral and physical aspect the situation of the Irish people since the date of the Devon Commission had greatly improved, and that the Report of the Commissioners was no guide to the present condition of Ireland. It was notorious, unhappily, that in the same period the population had seriously decreased; that owing to the famine and its attendant evils, and the emigration which succeeded, it had been reduced from 8.000,000 to 6,000,000, though, perhaps, 5,000,000 was nearer the correct amount. There was another circumstance that was worthy of notice. By the operation of what had been the Encumbered Estates Court, and which was now known as the Landed Estates Court, no less than £25,000,000 of property had changed hands in that country, and he believed that considerably more than £20,000,000 of property had, by investment of Irish capital, been transferred to the hands of the Irish people. In many instances farmers had become proprietors, and the difference in the aspect of the country concurrent with that change was remarked by every traveller. Allusion had been made to the decrease in cereal crops; and he thought that might be accounted for to a certain extent by the enormous diminution in the population, which had led, of course, to a scarcity of and an enhanced value for labour—a circumstance that had induced many farmers who used formerly to indulge a little too much in tillage crops to resort to grazing, in which they had been further encouraged by the high price which butter had realized in the market. At the time of the Devon Commission too the number of small holdings in Ireland was 691,000; but that amount had fallen off in 1851, when the last census was taken, to 113,222. These facts he had mentioned in order to show the House that the Devon Commission was no criterion to go by, because the state of the country then and now was totally different. The whole system of labour in Ireland — the agriculture, the habits, and manners of the people, had become more and more assimilated to those of England; and so far from endeavouring to draw a line, that there might be one usage in England and a strict and obligatory law in the sister country, he believed that the anxious desire of every Government ought to be to increase as rapidly and as completely as possible that assimilation of the two countries which consisted in an identity of interests, rights and privileges, burdens and obligations. That that principle was not thoroughly recognized was, however, proved by the fact that there were upon the Paper that evening five Bills which had exclusive reference to Ireland. With regard to the Bill now before the House he could not concur in the definition of a limited owner, as contained in it; nor did he think that the provisions as to leasing powers were so good or so clear as those of a leasing powers Bill which had already passed the House of Lords. He strongly objected to the large powers which were by this Bill to be transferred to the judges of local Courts in Ireland. The extent of the facilities which a tenant for life would enjoy of burdening the inheritance as against his successor was also a point to which he was opposed. In the name of "improvements" by the limited owner and his tenants a sum might be raised which would diminish the value of an estate of £1,000 a year by £400 per annum. Having repeatedly expressed himself in favour of a settlement of the landlord and tenant question he should vote for the second reading of the Bill, without however pledging himself to those details of which he disapproved.

said, he would support the Bill as likely to give considerable satisfaction in Ireland. He firmly believed that this Bill would be the means of effecting a great deal of improvement in the relations of landlord and te- nant. In answer to the objection that this Bill would give a tenant for life great opportunities of burdening the estate, he could say that a similar provision was in operation in Scotland, which had been attended with no ill results. Considering the great increase of emigration that was going on in Ireland, and the progress of agriculture in that country, he thought they were particularly bound to consider and settle this question at the present moment.

said, he also should give his support to this Bill. He had not heard the speech of the Secretary for Ireland in introducing the measure, but he was surprised on reading it to find the name of Mr. Sharman Crawford, who had brought the question forward in 1835, when he sat for an English constituency, omitted from the list of those who had assisted in the legislation upon this subject. In the Bill before the House he recognized a fair and just measure, and one that contained within itself the elements out of which a satisfactory settlement of this question might be effected, The circumstances of Ireland were such that the capital as well as the industry of the tenant was required for the proper cultivation of the land, and tenants were therefore entitled to fair compensation for the improvements they had made whenever their tenure was altered or terminated. He rejoiced that it was proposed to extend the powers of landlords to grant leases, and he should hail the disenthralment of the soil from various feudal restrictions by which it was still bound. The press of Ireland had declared that the Bill would become a dead letter, and certainly the measure did not create any enthusiasm in the northern counties of that country; but he trusted that the present offer to set at rest this long-vexed question would not be rejected, and that, stripped of all illusory enactments, this Bill would soon be enrolled in our statute book.

then moved the adjournment of the debate.

appealed to the hon. Baronet (Sir J Walsh) to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to be read the second time. In Committee they would see whether they could not make a good Bill out of it. The provisions respecting tenant's improvement formed the only part of the measure that he cared a farthing about. The rest was all "bosh." The machinery of the Bill required remodelling.

said, the hon. Member for Cork had adduced the best argument for agreeing to the adjournment. That hon. Gentleman had alleged that two-thirds of this measure were, as he had classically phrased it, "bosh," and the remaining third impracticable. For himself he desired to see the question settled; but having served a long apprenticeship to it he was convinced that this Bill never would settle it. Dealing as the measure did with the real property of the country, it ought not to be passed without the fullest consideration. The hon. Member for Cork, in his oratorical excitement the other evening, said he would prefer a bad law for both countries to a good law for Ireland and a different one for England. Now, he took exactly the opposite view, and wished to have a good law for Ireland, which was at the same time not very dissimilar from the law in England.

said, he had no wish to stand in the way of an adjournment if such were the wish of the House. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) when he had the opportunity, would state all the objections he could urge against the Bill; and, on the other hand, he believed he should be able to show sufficient reasons why it should be sent to the other House with every prospect of successful enactment this Session.

said, he rose to move the second reading of this measure. [Cries of "Adjourn."] He hoped he should be allowed to proceed with the second reading of this Bill. It was merely a measure of law reform which all sides of the House consented to, and his object in moving the second reading was to advance it a stage. It was a Bill for consolidating the existing law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, and was principally taken from the Bill of the late Lord Chancellor for Ireland (Mr. Napier). It repealed partially or wholly fifty-five Acts of Parliament. The principal Amendments in the law it proposed to introduce were these. It made the relations between landlord and tenant a matter of contract. It proposed to restrict the power of distraining for rent for one year, and to provide that all receipts should specify the date for which they were given,; and that in the absence of date the receipt should be held to apply to the last rent due. It proposed to give remedies against waste. It proposed to extend the right of ejectment for non-payment of rent to yearly tenancies; but so that the tenant should, on payment of rent, get back his land; and it proposed to extend the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts from £50 to £100. These were the principal provisions of the Bill. He would most gladly receive suggestions as to its Amendment, from any quarter. The Bill involved no social changes, but, as he had said, it was simply a measure of law reform.

said, that it was true that the clauses of the Bill were similar to that which had been introduced some years ago; but there was this difference, that neither the law of distress nor the law of fixtures bad been dealt with. The Bill he had prepared was, no doubt, a better Bill than that introduced some years ago, and the law of distress was dealt with. It had been thoroughly revised and reprinted, and he would compare it with the Bill now introduced, and on a future occasion submit it to the House.

said, he must protest against the Bill being now read a second time. It was a very long Bill, and required great consideration.

said, he was of opinion that if this Bill was not read a second time, they would never get on with their legislation. It appeared to him that there was nothing in the Bill that would press heavily on any tenant who was desirous of paying his rent and managing his farm properly. The details could be more maturely considered when the Bill got into Committee. At the same time, he should be very glad to see the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite dealing with the law of distress introduced. The two Bills might be considered together, and, if necessary, referred to a Select Committee.

said, he also should support the second reading of the Bill. The measure of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) was not the objectionable Bill before referred to; but the one which had been privately printed and circulated, and was a measure he should be glad to see introduced and considered with the present Bill.

said he rose to order. It was the rule of the House that a Bill should not be brought in on the same subject twice in one Session. He was informed by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart) that this Bill was identical with one on the same subject which the House had rejected in March last. It was now brought in under another name.

said, if the Bill was the same in substance, it was undoubtedly the rule of the House that it could not again be introduced, and the order must be discharged. But the fact must be ascertained.

remarked, that independent of this objection this was a Bill to which the greatest objections existed on other grounds.

said, the noble Lord had given him no notice of the course he had intended to pursue, and had moreover spoken in the absence of the hon. Member for Westmeath. If the order for the Second Reading were postponed till Thursday, he should be prepared to say what the Bill was.