Mr. Chairman, when the was last engaged in the discussion of this Bill, I stated that I objected to Clause 5 standing part of the Bill if Clause I remained either in the shape of which it appears on the printed paper or as it is proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. I also stated that if that clause were filtered in the manner that had been suggested by hon. Members near me on more than one occasion, I should not be disposed to persevere in my opposition to the 5th Clause; and with a view to avoiding unnecessary discussions and divisions, I requested, and I believe I obtained, the tacit assent of the Committee to consolidate the discussion on the 1st and 5th Clauses, which are closely associated together. I think I may now congratulate the Committee upon having at last arrived at a period when this matter may be fairly discussed; and I believe that the result of free discussion will be to show that the points of difference are reduced to a narrow issue, and that the question may now be disposed of without further waste of time. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was a little hard upon those who opposed the Bill when he complained of the manner in which their opposition was conducted. It was not, however, our fault; rather it was our misfortune that the Bill has been put down day after day at the bottom of the list, or has been called upon at times when discussion was impossible. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that, in order to arrive at a proper conclusion with respect to either the 5th or the 1st Clause, it is necessary to consider, first, what is the existing law on the subject, and, in the next place, the decisions to which the Committee has already come. I do not ask the Committee to reverse anything it has done before, although I was not able to acquiesce in its decisions, and have voted in the minority against some of them. But the first question is what is the existing law upon the subject? And here I ought to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), for having attributed to him, on a former occasion, opinions with regard to the law which were in fact pronounced by one of his colleagues. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, so far from differing from me respecting the state of the law as I laid it down on the last occasion, in fact agrees in that view. So that it is only necessary for me now to refer to what I stated on that occasion; that is, that the decision of Lord Cottenham, in the case of "West v. Shuttle-worth," to the effect that a gift made for the purpose of saying masses for the souls of the dead comes under the head of "superstitious uses," and is consequently illegal and void, was a decision which did not strain the existing law, and was not an innovation upon the decisions of former Judges, but that it was in entire unison with the previous authorities and with the statute law. That decision has not been departed from, but has been fully recognized down to the last reported case—a case which arose upon the construction to be placed upon the will of the celebrated musician, Dragonetti, and which was decided a few years since by Vice-Chancellor Kindersley, who stated that the decision of Lord Cottenham left no doubt whatever as to the state of the law upon the subject, down to the passing of the Act of the 2nd & 3rd William IV. I trust, therefore, that we shall hear of no further doubts upon that head. I come now to consider what the Committee has already decided. And, in the first place, I cannot help thinking it will be seen that the decision to which the Committee arrived has given to Roman Catholic charities a considerable advantage when compared with other charities. For upon a division on the question whether gifts for Roman Catholic purposes were to be exempt from the obligation which the law imposes in respect of all other charitable gifts—namely, that the founder of a charity should have survived the gift for the space of twelve months—the Committee decided that that provision should not remain in force so far as Roman Catholic charities were concerned. I was unable myself to see the reason of that distinction, and I spoke and voted against it, but it was carried by a majority, and whilst we are considering the Bill in Committee, we are bound to acquiesce in I that determination. The Committee has evinced a disposition to give another considerable benefit to Roman Catholic charities. For whereas, as was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, in all other cases where that which is legal is inseparably connected with that which is illegal, the whole becomes void, and the property lapses to the heir or next of kin of the founder, or in some instances to the residuary legatee; notwithstanding that rule, which is also applicable to the cases of charities, it appeared to be the opinion of a large majority of the Committee that, in respect of Roman Catholic charities, although there might be a portion which was good and a portion which was void by reason of the gift being subject to the rule against superstitious uses, yet the gift should not, in the case of a Roman Catholic charity, be void, and that there shall not be a lapse in favour of the heir or next of kin. I am not very wrong, therefore, in saying that the decision of the Committee has gone a long way in straining the existing law in favour of Roman Catholic charities; and, if this be BO, that it is not unreasonable to ask for something on the other side. Well, what is now asked on the other side? And what is the point at issue in these two clauses? In the first place, it is required, and in this the Committee has acquiesced, that instead of their being as heretofore two or three different sets of deeds, one or other of which is to be produced as occasion requires and the rest to be concealed, there shall in future be publicity with regard to such charities as with respect to all others, and that the governing deed shall be enrolled. That was adopted by the Committee. But the next question that arises, and it only arises in cases where, according to the existing law, there is something illegal, and therefore void; the real question now at issue is this—in such cases where there is something that by law is illegal and void but which by the construction the Committee wishes to put upon Roman Catholic charities shall in future be valid, by whom is the charity to be regulated hereafter, and in whose hands is the jurisdiction to be placed which is for the first time to render that legal which would otherwise be illegal and void. I hold in my hand the Bill as originally introduced by its promoters, and the Committee will bear in mind that the first clause in the Bill proceeds thus:—

"No use, trust, gift, foundation, or disposition of real or personal estate for any charitable purpose relating to or connected with the Roman Catholic religion shall, by reason of any trust, condition, or request for procuring prayers for the soul of the donor or any person, or by reason of any trust, condition, or request in conformity with the doctrine, discipline, canons, laws, and usages of the Roman Catholic Church attached thereto, be or be deemed to be superstitious, unlawful, or void."

I do not wish to review or repeat any portion of the discussion which took place on a former occasion with respect to that clause. I will only observe that it was felt to be so contrary to established law and to the feeling of the Committee, that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, with his usual fairness and candour—at once agreed to withdraw it, and undertook to prepare another which should be a fair expression of what was his intention, and which intention was acquiesced in by a majority of the Committee, and at the same time should not be open to the serious objections which were made to the clause so framed and forming part of the Bill. Accordingly, he made the attempt, and we have the clause in the shape in which it appears on the paper, with the Amendment of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) has given notice. But if my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had not been labouring with insuperable difficulties, such a master of language as he is would not have failed so completely to express in the clause the intention which he clearly enunciated to this Committee. Sir, I undertake to show that this clause, as framed by my hon. and learned Friend is one that cannot be put into practice, and that it will be productive of most injurious effects, whether you consider it in reference to the position of the trustees, or the benefit of the charity, or the general public interest. The question which we are discussing only arises where there is a gift which is partially void by reason of being attended with some illegality. What does the Attorney General's clause propose to do? It says:—

"That no gift or disposition made or to be made for any legal charitable purpose connected with the Roman Catholic religion shall be, either as to the whole or any part, unlawful or void by reason of any purpose, request, or direction, which may be deemed in law superstitious or unlawful, being made part of or united with such gift or disposition, but the whole of the property comprised in such gift or disposition shall be applied exclusively for such legal charitable purpose."

Let me state to the Committee what I conceive to be the insuperable practical difficulty in the way of adopting such a clause as this; and I will do so by means of an illustration. I will suppose a man to give £50,000 for charitable purposes; that £10,000 of it was to be applied to a small charity for which that sum would ho an ample endowment, and sufficient to exhaust all its purposes; and that the remaining £40,000 was to be applied to purposes which came under the head "superstitious uses." According to this clause, without the possibility of intervention on the part of any tribunal, the trustees would be obliged to apply the whole £50,000 exclusively for the legal charitable purpose; notwithstanding that the testator, who of course was the best judge, had bequeathed only £10,000 for that object. To that the trustees would be bound, without the possibility of appeal, because it had been settled by statutable authority that they were to apply the remaining £40,C00 exclusively to that legal charitable purpose. Now that is an obvious and palpable difficulty, and I think it shows that the clause in its present shape cannot by any possibility be adopted. Independently of that, there are other objections on principle to this clause. These may be considered, first, as to the position of the trustees of the charity; secondly, as to the benefit of the charity; and thirdly, as regards the public interest. First, then, with respect to the position of the trustees: as I observed on a former occasion, I am most anxious to abstain from saying anything that is calculated to excite religious dissension or animosity; but as, on the one hand, we are bound to consider what is the existing law on the subject, so on the other we cannot shut our eyes to what is the existing state of facts upon which these questions arise. And bear in mind that the question only arises when you have some gift which according to law is illegal and void, as in the case of "West v. Shuttleworth," and some others of a similar description. We know, or those who are familiar with these cases know, as well as those who have read the Reports of the Committees of this House on the law of mortmain in the years 1844, 1851, and 1852, in what manner these charities are originally established. They know that it is a common practice for Roman Catholic gentlemen, when on their death-beds, to consider it to be a proper and right thing to enter into an arrangement with a Roman Catholic priest for making a settlement of property in order to procure masses to be said for their souls after their decease. Something in the nature of an arrangement is entered into, to which the Roman Catholic Bishop is frequently a party; and he and the priest are usually made trustees for carrying into effect an arrangement to the making of which they had been instrumental themselves. Now, if you put into the hands of the trustees the power of deciding upon and administering such a trust, in what a painful position you put men of character when you ask this bishop and priest, first, to decide what is legal in the gift and what illegal, what is superstitious and therefore void, and then upon their own authority to depart from the will of the testator and the arrangement to which they had been parties. You thus impose upon them the doing of one of two very painful things either departing from the arrangement and doing that which is contrary to the wishes of the testator, or doing that which would he decidedly illegal. The clause, as it stands, is entirely opposed to the principle laid down by Mr. Justice Bayley, in that judgment from which I cited a passage during the last debate on this subject. Then observe, in the next place, what will be its operation upon the charities themselves. If, as soon as a gift of this sort has been made, it should be incumbent on the trustees to make application to the Charity Commissioners or the Court of Chancery for the settlement of a proper scheme for the disposition of the property, expense might be avoided at the outset and the whole thing placed at once on a proper footing; but if you allow the matter to go on in this way—if by this first clause you sanction the trustees themselves, without the intervention of any other authority being judges of the matter, and if by the 5th Clause you give an apparent validity to usage, you will necessarily at some future time involve the trust estate itself in serious litigation, the expense of which will be enhanced by inquiry into previous usage; whereas, if you make it obligatory on the trustees in the first instance to go to the Charity Commissioners or the Court of Chancery, the charity itself will be relieved of those subsequent expenses, and will be established at once on a permanent and proper basis. I know I may be told that to go to the Charity Commissioners or the Court of Chancery is to encourage litigation and necessary expense; but if, immediately that a charity is established, such an application is made, as under the clause which I shall propose would be made, then no such expense need be incurred at all. Because, in the first place, an application to the Charity Commissioners may be made by an ordinary letter which any man of common understanding who was acquainted with the facts might write. He states his case to the Commissioners, and obtains from them an order which will sanction all his subsequent proceedings, and afford him a complete indemnity. On the other hand, if there be any matter of such doubt or difficulty as would render it improper for the Commissioners to decide what ought to be done, then the intervention of the Court of Chancery would become necessary; but it is obvious that the sooner that intervention takes place, the less will he the expense and the Jess the animosity endangered thereby. All that you will have to ascertain is, what is the intention of the original deed or will constituting the charity; there will be no question of usage, nor any vested interests whatever. When I call the attention of the Committee to the 2nd Clause in the Bill of last year, they will see that it does not cast the estate into Chancery, but requires no more than a simple application to a Judge in chambers; and I take upon myself to say from experience that such applications can be made without the expenditure of a single guinea in counsel's fees. I was myself a trustee in a case where circumstances had arisen which rendered it difficult to carry into execution the precise directions of the testator under whose will we acted. Under these circumstances we directed our receiver to make an application to the Master of the Rolls, as one of the Judges of the Court of Chancery, with an intimation that we wished to see him in chambers. Our application was received, and assented to. We went to his Honour's room, sat round the table with him, stated the difficulty we were in, and in a short time, without the employment of counsel, and without any material expense, we obtained an order under which the charity has been regulated and administered ever since. So that, if you regard the interest of the charity itself, it is for its benefit that the matter should be settled conclusively by the proper authority as speedily as possible. This brings me to the third objection to the clause proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney General—that is, as it concerns the public interest, which is mainly regarded in this light-that it is certainly for the public interest that, with reference to property in England and English charities, there should he no foreign jurisdiction or foreign ecclesiastics who should have any right or power or possibility of interference. But according to this clause, as it is now drawn, that interference is not only possible but extremely probable; and I think I can show that this is not an imaginary danger, for any one who reads the Reports of the Committee on Mortmain, and the evidence upon which those Reports are founded, will see that cases of that sort have occurred. I am unwilling to occupy the time of the Committee; but I should like to refer them for a moment to the evidence of Mr. Riddell, himself a Roman Catholic, and fully conversant with these matters. At page 42 of the Evidence before the Mortmain Committee of 1851, he points out the difficulties that had arisen in a case in which his brother was concerned, and says:—

"The district was afterwards divided. There was another bishop appointed, and that bishop in a very long correspondence took several objections to Mr. Brigham holding the living. He afterwards referred the question to the authorities at Rome, the Propaganda. The authorities at Rome took upon themselves to adjudicate upon the question of a right of nomination. My brother acted upon my advice, and denied the authority of the Roman Courts to adjudicate upon a temporal matter in this country. Mr. Brigham was afterwards served by that bishop with a letter containing an extract from a decree of the Court of Propaganda in Rome, and he proceeded upon that decree to remove the faculties and to forbid him to say mass within the district, and visited him with all the spiritual censures in his power."

Subsequently, at page 52 of the same Report, and on the same subject, he is asked:—

"Do you recollect any other case in which there has been a reference to the Propaganda at Rome, with respect to a temporal right in this country?"

And he answers:—

"There was a case of which I can only speak from report, the case of Sir Charles Tempest. He built a Roman Catholic Church at Skipton, in Yorkshire, and he nominated, I believe, the same person to whom I have alluded, Mr. Boyle. The bishop in that case claimed the nomination of the priest. Sir Charles Tempest being an influential man among Roman Catholics, appealed to Rome, and the controversy ended by his nominee being placed in possession."

I ask, then, if that is not merely the possible but almost the inevitable result of leaving such trustees in the position of having to decide the matter for themselves, and not compelling them to do what all other trustees are obliged to do—namely, to apply to an English tribunal to settle the mode in which a charity which I assume is accompanied by something that makes it illegal is to be rendered legal and afterwards conducted and carried on. Is there anything unreasonable in that? It may be said that that is what is intended. If so, then I ask upon what reasonable grounds the suggestion which has been made by myself on previous occasions can be objected to? That suggestion was made, I believe, with the concurrence of almost all of those who, on this side of the House, have objected to particular portions of this Bill. Certainly it was made with the concurrence of my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire; and it would, I think, be a satisfactory settlement of this question. That is to say, that instead of the 1st Clause, as it stands in the printed paper, or as it has been proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, the 2nd Clause of the Bill of last year, which was brought in by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which was considered and prepared with his usual care and accuracy, shall be adopted. Now, what does that clause do? In the first place, it does not in the least degree impugn the decision to which I have adverted, and which gives such peculiar and exceptional advantages to Roman Catholic charities, by releasing them from the obligations imposed upon all other charities, that the founder of a charity should have survived the gift twelve months; neither does it impugn the second advantage of making gifts which are illegal and absolutely void, permanently legal and valid. The clause to which I refer says:—

"No existing or future gift or disposition of real or personal estate upon any lawful charitable trust for the exclusive benefit of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion shall be invalidated by reason only that the same estate has been or shall be also subjected to any trust or provision deemed to be superstitious, or otherwise prohibited by the laws affecting persons professing the same religion, but in every such case it shall be lawful for the High Court of Chancery, or any Judge thereof sitting at chambers, in exercise of the jurisdiction created by the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, upon the application of her Majesty's Attorney General, or of any person authorized for this purpose by the certificate of the Board of Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, or for the said Board upon the application of the person or persons acting in the administration of such real or personal estate, or of a majority of such persons, to apportion the same estate, or the annual income or benefit thereof, so that a proportion thereof, to be fixed by such Court or Judge, or by the said Board, as the case may require, may be exclusively subject to the lawful charitable trusts declared by the donor or settlor, and that the residue thereof may become subject to such lawful charitable trusts for the benefit of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, to take effect in lieu of such superstitious or prohibited trusts as the said Court or Judge, or the said Board, may consider under the circumstances to be most just; and also that it shall be lawful for the Court or Judge, or Board, making any such apportionment by the same or any other order or orders to establish any scheme for giving effect thereto, and to appoint trustees for the administration of the several portions of such real and personal estate, according to the trusts established of the same proportions respectively, and to vest the estate to be so apportioned in the trustees so to be appointed."

Now, Sir, I say that if there be no intention on the part of those who promote this Bill either to make the trustees themselves judges of the matter, or to call in the interference of any foreign ecclesiastics or foreign jurisdiction; if they are really and sincerely desirous to place these Roman Catholic Charities under the same jurisdiction as that to which all other charities are subject; if that be their real and sincere desire, they can make no reasonable objection to such a clause as that. The only one I have yet heard is, that there is some reference made in it to superstitious uses and trusts; and so there is also in the clause proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; so there is, too, in the clause, originally proposed; and so there must be in every or any clause that affects to give Roman Catholic charities relief from the existing state of the law. That law states certain things to be illegal because they are superstitious. The very object of the Bill is to relieve them from that state of the law; and how can you relieve them from the existing rule of law without alluding to that state of things, or to that rule of law? If the words are objected to, and they like to insert others to the same effect; or if they would like to allude to the decision in the case of "West.v. Shuttleworth," or any other analogous one, I shall not object. But the question is, whether Roman Catholic Charities are to be placed under the same jurisdiction as other charities, or left in the hands of trustees who possibly or probably, as I have shown from evidence, may refer to a foreign authority instead of to an English tribunal to decide what shall be the future administration of charitable property situated in the Kingdom of England. The question row really at issue has been brought into a very narrow compass; for the proposal made to the Committee for adding the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to the Bill will, I understand, meet with no objection. Then, I say, that the 1st Clause as it originally stood in the Bill should be struck out, and that, in lieu of the amended clause suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, the 2nd Clause in the Bill of last year of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department should be adopted. When these two things are done, I for my part shall be willing to withdraw any further opposition to this 5th Clause; because I think that the sanctioning of usage is removed from all danger when the usage is to be construed by competent and legal authority. But if you leave the matter in the hands of trustees, or allow it to be referred to a foreign jurisdiction, then it would be highly dangerous for the 5th Clause to pass. Unless, therefore, this is done, I must continue my opposition to the clause; but as I understand that there is no objection to the clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, and as the first Clause in the original Bill was abandoned after full discussion, the real question now at issue is, which of the two clauses, the second in the Bill of last year, or that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, is best calculated to carry into effect the object which the Committee has in view. If the clause in the Bill of last year be adopted, the opposition, so far as I am concerned, would fall to the ground and the whole matter will be settled. I ask the Committee to contrast the two clauses, and to say whether the clause proposed by my hon. and learned Friend is not open to the practical objection to which I have referred; that where a gift of £50,000 is made, £10,000 of which is to go to a small charity for which it is an ample endowment, and the remaining £40,000 to say masses for the soul of the donor,—according to the clause of my hon. and learned Friend, the whole £50,000 must inevitably, without any discretion on the part of the trustees, the Board of Charity Commissioners, or the Court of Chancery, be applied to that for which £10,000 is amply sufficient. That, in my view, is an insuperable and practical difficulty in the way of the amended clause proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. I say also, that whether you consider the position of the trustees, or the benefit of these charities themselves, or the public interest which is involved in the establishment of proper English tribunals, to the exclusion of all foreign or ecclesiastical authorities with reference to the decision of questions relating to property in this country; when you look at that clause in connection with any one or all of these points, you must come to the conclusion that the 2nd Clause in the Bill of last year perfectly meets your object, whilst the clause of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would utterly fail to carry it into effect. Under the existing circumstances I must persist in my opposition to the 5th Clause; but if the clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire is added to the Bill, and the 2nd Clause of the Bill of last year is substituted for the 5th Clause of the Bill of this year, I shall withdraw my opposition. Of course there will be some formal objection to postponing the 5th Clause until after the Amendment I have suggested has been made, hut perhaps we might reject it for the time upon the understanding that it shall be again proposed after the 1st Clause has been agreed upon and settled.

suggested that the Clause 5 should be negatived pro forma.

moved that the 1st clause as it originally stood in the Bill should be adopted, with the addition of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He thought that so amended the clause would not be open to the objections urged against the Bill by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was, "that no such last mentioned trust, condition, or request, shall in any other respect be rendered valid or legal, or invalid or illegal, or be otherwise affected by this Act." The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) was in error in supposing that the effect of the clause would be to compel a reference to foreign tribunals. The clause would not render the unlawful usages of the Roman Catholic Church the test of the validity of any charity, but it merely provided that whatever those usages might be they would not invalidate any charity. The clause would remove from the operation of the law those peculiar circumstances connected with the Roman Catholic Church which now rendered any charity invalid, but it did not render superstitious usages valid.

asked why they should not have proceeded with the clauses which had been given notice of. The Attorney General had given notice of a clause as a substitute for the 1st Clause, which the Committee had rejected; but now they were asked to agree to the original clause, with an Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

thought the course proposed was regular. The hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill was moving the re-instatement of a clause.

said, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock was one to the clause proposed by the Attorney General.

contended that the clause given notice of by the Attorney General ought to have been put first; but looking at the clause now proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, he contended that it would clearly have the effect of making valid superstitious uses. If the object of the hon. Baron was to render superstitious uses valid, then the clause which he had moved would completely effect his object.

said, that this was not the case The clause did not render the superstitious use valid; it merely said that the charity should not be void by reason of its being given to a superstitious use. Nothing connected with the Roman Catholic Church which was of at present legal would be made legal by this has; but its provisions would prevent a c1arity from being invalid, because it might be accompanied with a superstitious use—possibly some small and trifling matter.

said, it was no matter whether the superstitious use was small or large. That was not the question. The objection to the clause was that if it passer a superstitious use would be rendered valid if it was connected' with a bequest for a legal charity. If that would not be the effect of the clause, why had the Attorney General thought it necessary to propose a clause to supersede Clause 1, as proposed by the hon. Baronet?

repeated that the effect of the clause would not be to render valid superstitious uses in connection with any charity.

said, that taking the clause in connection with the proviso of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, he did not think it would legalize a superstitious use, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) supposed. It would, however, leave the law still in an unsatisfactory state; and would not meet the objections of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn), which had very considerable force. Let them take the case suggested by his hon. and learned Friend, that of a man leaving £50,000, of which £40,000 were for superstitious, and £10,000 for legal was. What was to he done with the £40,000? The clause and proviso would not afford a satisfactory solution of the question. They were imperfect, and did not meet the case of a combination of valid and invalid trusts. The Committee ought to see that the Bill met every case. In its present shape it did not. The Roman Catholic would have a privilege not enjoyed by Protestant—that of separating a valid from an invalid bequest. Ought there not, then, to be some provision for disposing of the invalid bequest? It might be answered, "Give it to the valid." But the valid use might not be sufficient to exhaust the whole sum. What would his hon. and learned Friend (Sir George Bowyer) propose in that case? [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Extend the scheme.] But there was nothing about extending the scheme in the present Bill, even if such an arrangement would be satisfactory, lie could see no objection to the clause of last year, which would bring all disputes under the notice of the Charity Commissioners and the Court of Chancery.

The clause merely provided that a valid charity should not become invalid in consequence of being accompanied by an invalid use. Apportionment was unnecessary; the whole sum would go to the legal purposes of the charity. If a man left £10,000 for a charity, and in connection with it £20,000 for masses for his soul, the £10,000 left for the charity would be valid; but the £20,000 left for masses would be invalid and go to the next of kin. If more money were left for a charity than was necessary, the sum would be dealt with by the Charity Commissioners just in the same way as was now done in the case of Protestant churches and schools. The clause was one which would give satisfaction to the entire Roman Catholic body; and that was a circumstance which ought to have some weight with the Committee.

could not read the clause in any other way than one that would make a superstitious use lawful. There was in large and general terms a statement that a bequest should not be rendered unlawful by reason of any gift for superstitious uses. It was said that that was cured by the proviso. He could not think so. The proviso only went the length of saying that the bequest should not, in any other respect than that defined by the clause, be deemed illegal. But if the clause made a superstitious use legal, the proviso did not undo that:—it seemed to him to be mere surplusage, and to have no effect whatever. His opinion was, that the clause and proviso would make "confusion worse confounded."

thought a clause might be drawn up, composed of the first part of the Attorney General's clause, and the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge, so that the object the latter had in view might be carried out.

hoped they would be able to come to a satisfactory settlement of this question. He did not think that the clause moved by the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) would, as some Gentlemen seemed to think, legalize superstitious uses; it would only provide that a gift for a legal object should not be tainted by its association with an illegal object. But it appeared to him that the defect of the clause was, that it did not provide for the disposal of the funds left for an invalid trust. The Committee might take one of three courses. They might adopt the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer); or that proposed by the Attorney-General; or the clause in the Bill of last year, as proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge. Of these three alterations he was prepared to accept the clause of last year, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Selwyn), thinking that the reference to the Charity Commissioners was the best suggestion that had been made; and if no other Member proposed its adoption he would be prepared to do so himself.

would, if he was obliged to give up his own clause, prefer that of the Attorney General to the second clause of the Bill of last year.

then proposed to insert a clause similar to the second clause of the Bill of last year, which would then be the first clause of the present Bill.

proposed the following clause:—

"Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this Act contained shall be taken to repeal or in any way alter any provisions of an Act passed in the 10th year of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled 'An Act for the Relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects, respecting the Suppression or Prohibition of the Religious Orders or Societies of the Church of Rome bound by Monastic or Religious Vows.'"

The hon. Member said he thought this clause was essential, and quite consistent with the general legislation of this country. Its principle seemed to be conceded by the Government of France also, as appeared from a statement of the Procureur General. Indeed, he knew no country in Europe in which those religious orders were allowed to establish themselves and to aggregate enormous properties without some legal provisions for their regulation, and to guard against foreign interference. He was glad to learn that the clause would not be objected to.

said, he should like to hear from the Government the reason for the provision in the Bill which would transfer the superintendence of these industrial schools from the Education Department to the Home Office. Why was this, and why had the Bill been brought in at so late a period of the Session? The only reason that he could see as possible to be alleged for the transfer was that the reformatory schools were under the Home Office; but the distinction between the two classes of schools was a wide one. Those industrial schools were in reality the ragged schools of the kingdom; but a severe blow would be struck at the system if they were put on the same footing as the reformatory schools. He objected to the poor children who attended these schools being classified with children of the reformatory schools. The. children of the industrial schools had committed no crime greater than vagrancy, and he protested against their being stigmatized as attending a penal institution. He thought a great blow would be struck at the moral usefulness of these schools, if poverty was confounded with crime. He wished to know, also, why the control over national education should be thus divided and scattered? Measures like this complicated the already complicated machinery of our educational establishments, and would increase the number of Inspectors, who were already much too numerous. He had seen as many as three Inspectors arrive in a small village to inspect as many schools; and he did not wish to see the advance of such a system as that.

said, the object of the Bill was very simple. It originated in a proposal sent from the Privy Council Office to the Home Office, to transfer the schools to the latter Department, on the ground that they were schools having a penal character. The children were admitted after being convicted under the Vagrant Act, and when inmates of the school they were subjected to rules of a very stringent character, which took them out of the category of common schools. It was, therefore, thought advisable to transfer them to the Department of the Home Office, but there was no intention to add to the Inspectors or to the expense of super impendence in any way.

said, he had thought the purpose of the original Act was merely to provide for vagrant children who had not committed any crime.

said, that the object of the Legislature in sanctioning the industrial schools was to prevent children from getting into the class who were sent to reformatories. It was to be regretted the magistrates did not make use of the industrial schools to the extent that had been contemplated; and if the transfer to the Home Office took place, he trusted the magistrates would be instructed to send children to them. He had given notice of a clause which had for its object to secure payments from parents for the instruction given to their children in those schools. There was a difficulty in assimilating the education given in the industrial schools to that given under the education system of the Privy Council, but he hoped a sound moral education would still he given to these children under the superintendence of the Home Office. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not like the use of the word "penal" in reference to either those schools or the reformatories.

said, he did not wish to quarrel about words, but he thought no one could read the words of the 5th Clause of the Act of 1857, and not see that these schools must be regarded as penal schools. The children were actually under restraint, and to all intents in prison, and he could see no harm therefore in looking the thing straight in the face and calling the schools penal schools. They were not schools which the Privy Council Committee could well deal with, and it was very advisable that they should he brought under the superintendence of the Home Office, especially when it was considered that it was through the magistrates that the schools were supplied with children.

said, that the real question was whether these schools had more relation to crime or to education. He thought that the words "taken into custody on a charge of vagrancy under the Vagrant Act," intimated that the children so taken into custody had not committed any other crime than vagrancy, and, therefore, that their only crime was poverty. He thought it better that these schools should be placed under the Department which had the superintendence of education rather than under the Home Office.

said, this was a very simple question. The Government themselves were of opinion that this class of business could be better performed by one particular Department than another. These schools themselves were originally an extension of the reformatories. The children were kept there in restraint, and he certainly thought they would be better under the management of the Home Office than of the Privy Council.

thought there was a misapprehension regarding the character of industrial schools,—at all events as they existed in Scotland,—and he should regret to think that anything like crime could be attached to them. The children got a good and solid education to fit them for being tradesmen, and they were taught industrial habits. Children were sent to the reformatory for some criminal act, and on their arrival there was a brand upon them; but the children in the industrial schools were preserved from a position that would cause their committal to a reformatory. He had never thought of regarding the children as criminals.

thought that there could not he too broad a distinction drawn between poverty and crime, and it appeared to him that the two had been rather confounded in the present discussion.

said, that the commitment by the magistrate was the process, but education was the essence of the Act.

said, the object of the Bill was to give to the Home Office the same powers as were now possessed by the Privy Council. The children sent to the industrial schools must be charged with vagrancy. That charge did not merely mean that the child was a wanderer, but that he had subjected himself to a criminal charge under the Vagrant Act. The Bill was intended to create a class of schools subsidiary to the reformatory schools for the reception of children who had brought themselves within the provisions of the Vagrant Act. Should the House pass the Bill, that was the spirit in which he would carry it into effect.

said, that the House had had the greatest difficulty in obtaining the information necessary to form their opinion on this important subject. He thought that if the opinions of the Members of the Indian Council to be found in the blue-book, now so reluctantly laid upon the table of the House, could have been uttered by those Members of the House, this measure would never have reached a third reading. It was a remarkable circumstance that until lately almost everybody was in favour of a local army in India. In spite of professional bias Lord Clyde and many other distinguished officers were at one time strongly in favour of a local army; he was aware that they had since changed their opinions, but the fact that they ever entertained different opinions from those they now held, was in his mind a strong argument in favour of a local army. The Secretary for India had also changed his opinion since last year, but he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had clearly explained the reason why. Was it to be concluded that because the local army had once mutinied, that therefore they must necessarily mutiny again? The local army mutinied, not because it was a local army, hut because the conditions on which they entered the service were not continued, and any other army would be as likely to do the same. The House had been told that authorities were balanced on the question whether there should be a local or Imperial army in India, and under such circumstances it was desirable to look to the authority of men free from professional bias, and having, in consequence of their position, an opportunity of becoming acquainted both with Indian and Imperial questions. In favour of a local army, then, there was the opinion of men who had been Governors-General of India—such as Lord Dalhousie, Lord Canning, and Lord Ellenborough. The great argument alleged for the change was the recent mutiny; but that took place last year, and the Secretary for India was not then converted to his present opinion. Had a proposal been made to turn over the Queen's army to the East India Company without any fresh bounty, would not that have been likely to create a mutiny? If no better reason were assigned the public would be disposed to impute the change to a desire to increase the patronage of the Horse Guards. Without imputing corrupt motives to the Horse Guards, he nevertheless thought that the patronage of that establishment was great enough already—it was stated in the Report of the Committee on Military Organization to be worth upwards of a million at the regulation price of the commissions only—and that it was not expedient to add to it the patronage of the Indian army. Even if the. Indian army were to be amalgamated with the Royal army, he conceived that the present was an ill-chosen moment for that object. The effect of the proposed amalgamation must necessarily be to increase the Indian expenditure, for the cost of transporting men from one country to the other would be very considerable. Yet neither the finances of India nor of this country were in a position to bear any such increase of cost. In The Times of that morning there was a statement on the subject of Indian finance which furnished a strong reason against the creation of any additional burden. The Calcutta correspondent of The Times, enclosing the annual financial statement, said it was probable that the real deficit in the current year, including various charges, would not fall far short of £8,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India said he was not bound to ask the advice of the Indian Council; but was he justified in flying in the face of the advice offered by that body upon such a subject? It was said that this was an Imperial and not a purely Indian question. No doubt it was, but it was also a matter of Imperial interest that India should be safe and prosperous instead of being a mere nursery for the soldiers of the European army, as it was in danger of becoming under the new system. In the event of any future European struggle there would be a constant temptation to withdraw European troops from India, and unless they maintained a purely local force there it would be difficult to prevent the English Government from treating India as a sort of Algeria, and as a mere training ground for soldiers. Now, we wanted India, not for a military colony, but as a country which hereafter should make us independent of the United States for the supply of cotton, of China for tea, and of slave countries for the supply of sugar. He denied that there was any ground for the allegations made against the local troops. If they were less smart on parade than the Queen's troops they did not fight less well; nor did it necessarily follow that because a local army was maintained therefore its officers must be employed in civil duties. He deprecated amalgamation, because it would destroy that which could never be replaced, and would entirely destroy the individuality of a force which had rendered such good service in India.

said, that as objections had been taken in some quarters that on a former occasion he ignored the services rendered by the local European regiments at the siege of Delhi, and stated that India was reconquered by the Line, or Royal troops, he hoped the House would allow him to offer a few words in explanation. With regard to the first of these allegations he had distinctly declined, in the speech referred to, to follow the hon. Members for Perth, Pontefract, and Aberdeen, in drawing a contrast between the local and Royal officers, as such a contrast would be invidious. Adverting to the second allegation, he must confess that he still retained the opinion that to the Line, or Royal regiments, we were mainly indebted for the reconquest of India. It was not surprising that this should have been the case, taking into consideration the immense flood of Royal troops which were poured into India, and the small proportion of local Europeans who remained available, as was fully explained in the admirable speech delivered by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Colonel Herbert) on the same evening. With the permission of the House he would read a brief extract from the original despatch of Major General Wilson, commanding the Delhi Field Force, to Captain Norman, the Assistant Adjutant General of the Army, dated September the 16th, 1857, giving the following details connected with the assault of that city:—

"The assault was delivered on four points. The first column, under Brigadier General J. Nicholson, consisting of Her Majesty's 75th Regiment (300 men), 1st European Bengal Fusiliers (200 men), and the 2nd Punjab Infantry (450 men), covered by the 1st Battalion of Her Majesty's 60th Rifles. The 2nd column, under Brigadier Jones (Her Majesty's 60th Regiment), consisting of Her Majesty's 8th Regiment (250 men), the 2nd European Bengal Fusiliers (250 men), and the 4th Regiment of Sikhs (350 men), similarly covered by the 60th Rifles. The third column, under Colonel Campbell, of Her Majesty's 52nd Light Infantry, consisting of his own Regiment (200 men), the Kumaon Battalion (250 men), and the 1st Punjab Infantry (500 men). The reserve, under Brigadier Longfield, Her Majesty's 8th Regiment, composed of Her Majesty's 61st Regiment (250 men), 4th Punjab Rifles (450 men), the Beelooch Battalion (300 men), and the Sheend Rajah's Auxiliaries (300 men), and 200 of Her Majesty's Rifles."

With reference to this extract, to the fact of Lucknow being held by Her Majesty's 32nd Regiment, and to the equally important fact that, with the exception of that gallant regiment, the Madras Fusiliers, General Havelock's force of 1,800 men when he quitted Allahabad on the 7th of July, 1857, consisted of Her Majesty's 64th, 84th, 78th Highlanders, and Maude's Royal Artillery, he put it to the House whether he was not justified in making the observations to which objection had been taken. He would merely add that if he required further evidence of the necessity for the amalgamation of our two European forces, he might find it in the spirit of antagonism evinced in the criticism to which his allusion to the services of the Royal army had been subjected.

said, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman in his comparison between the two forces; for he believed both had done their duty to the utmost, and that no body of men ever behaved with more bravery or achieved greater success. But as the local Europeans were nearer the scene of action, he thought there need be no hesitation in believing the testimony of Sir John Lawrence and other eminent officers that the local Europeans had taken a very distinguished part indeed in the siege of Delhi. He had listened to the able speech of the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) with the greater interest because that hon. Gentleman had taken no previous part in these discussions, and his opinion might, therefore, be regarded as unbiassed. For himself, he could not help thinking that this Bill, though a short one, would have most important consequences. It originally consisted of a preamble which stated it was not expedient there should be a local corps for India, and of one enacting clause which stopped all further recruiting for that force. But to this the House had added, on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), a proviso that the House would uphold the rights and privileges of the officers of the local Indian army, and guaranteed to them their pay, pensions, and allowances, together with their advantages of promotion. Now, that proviso brought up a question which lay at the root of the whole matter, and which he hoped some Member of the Government would answer to-night—How was that amalgamation to be carried into effect? Those who had read the five blue-books and the three white ones would see that the ablest men in India—even those who were anxious for the amalgamation—were puzzled to know how it was to be done. He thought, looking at the position of the two armies, there was but one way, and that was by dipping into the public purse. In one army the promotion of the officers was by seniority, and they had a provident fund amounting to £4,000,000 sterling; in the other case, the promotion was mainly by purchase. It was impossible to carry out the amalgamation, except by inducing a large number of Indian officers to retire on their full pay and allowances; and if they did that, what would the effect be on the Indian finances?—and those finances he considered already to be in a disquieting and dangerous position. He objected to the Bill that it took away from the Secretary of State in Council certain powers; and he thought it a great blot on these proceedings that the Indian Council had not been allowed to express their opinion on this measure before the second reading of the Bill. In the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, he had made use of language which had caused considerable pain to every Member of that Council. He said it was natural that the Council should not be willing to part with their power; from which the inference had been drawn that the right hon. Gentleman had charged his Council with being unwilling to lose their patronage. He should not think his right hon. Friend meant anything of the kind—[Sir CHARLES WOOD Hear, hear!]—but such was the interpretation put on it, and his right hon. Friend would say whether that was his intention or not. Reverting to the Bill before the House—it was said that this was an Imperial question. He thought, however, they had better not push that argument too far, for it might be said in India, "If this is an Imperial question, why should the expense of it come out of the Indian taxes? If it is for the interest of the Empire that 80,000 English soldiers shall be maintained in India, we will be very glad if the Empire will pay for them." This argument was taken in India already; and he believed it would be very dangerous to create in India an opinion that the interests of England required that we should maintain there a larger force than the country itself required. Let the House bear in mind that the military Estimates had increased within the last four years from £13,000,000 to £20,000,000, and that the revised Estimates now amounted to no less than £16,000,000. The House was not told anything of the state of Indian finance, but documents before them showed that within the last four years there had been £39,000,000 of deficit; the Indian debt had been increased from £59,000,000 to £97,000,000; and the home charges from £2,500,000 to £5,500,000; and at this moment they were about to resort to a novel and dangerous system of taxation. They all knew with what difficulty this country bore the income tax, and they might, therefore, guess how in a semi-civilized country like India every kind of fraud and chicanery would be resorted to in order to defeat it. It was notorious that when it was attempted to impose a house tax on India, the people left the towns and lived under the trees to defeat it; and so it would be with the income tax. The local army would not be got rid of by this Bill, for there would still be left 17,000 men for whom provision must be made, and to whom their rights had been guaranteed. Then what was to be done with the Provident Fund? he was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman had not consulted his Council, because he was informed that a Committee was to be appointed. The Indian army looked to the Secretary of State in Council, and not to any Committee. The question of expense was also a most important consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that the expense of the amalgamation would not exceed £200,000. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) had little doubt in his own mind that it would be more than £2,000,000. It was calculated that every soldier cost £100 before he was settled down in India from this country; and with the constant transport of troops that would be going on under this system the House might imagine what the expense would be. But another evil was that in abolishing the local force they removed the intermediate link between the Queen's troops and the Native regiments. Hitherto the officers of the Native regiments felt on a friendly footing with the officers of the local Europeans. He feared that would not be the case between them and the officers of the Line. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean to do with the 200,000 Native troops? Did he mean to make police of them? Had not the very best authorities said that the concurrent authority of the Commander-in-Chief and the Governor General was an impossibility in India? It was a double Government of the very worst kind—a species of Government, indeed, which in this country it would be impossible to conceive, and entertaining such an idea even for a moment would be handing over India to all those evils which it had taken the House of Commons and the best men of former times years of patient industry and trouble to counteract and destroy. Then the Governor General, placed as he was in that vast empire, had nobody to look to for support so much as the local Queen's army and the Native army—they had been the instruments of his power, and they had upheld the empire through every danger, and he thought that when Lord Canning told them in one of his despatches that not only among all the military classes, but among all other classes there was a great impatience of remaining in India at all—that no one wanted to stop—that they found it too hot—surely it should be the policy of this country to do all they could to increase inducements to men to remain in that country, and take an interest in the performance of their duties. It was a matter of astonishment that Lord Clyde should have published a letter stating that the officers of the Indian army were dissatisfied with their position, without having that which he did not profess to have—unquestionable information on the point. He regretted the disposition that had been shown to underrate the value of the local army, by whom our empire in the East had been upheld and extended. He could not understand upon what grounds Lord Clyde had asserted that Indian officers were unfit for superior command. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) had read the history of India in a different way, and could point to many officers in India competent to the highest command. He might remind Lord Clyde that the subjugation of the Wuzurees, which he had himself attempted unsuccessfully, bad since been accomplished by General Chamberlain. He thought that the debates which had taken place on this Bill had done some good, by showing that there was a body of men in that House who did attach importance to the necessity of doing justice to the military men of India. And he could not help thinking that it would compel his right hon. Friend to act in future with considerable caution in the matter. The House of Commons had no interest but to uphold British power in India, and that, he thought, would best be effected by allowing one-third of the Queen's army to be permanently stationed there, and arrangements should be entered into for making the country the scene, as it were, of the whole of their career, so that they might become acquainted with the habits of the country and the character of the Natives, as no movable regiments of the Line could do.

said, he wished to take this, the last opportunity he should have, of expressing his entire disapproval of the plan proposed by the Government, and of placing on record the strong feeling he entertained of the danger that must follow to the public service if that plan were carried out. As to the guarantees of position and promotion which were promised to the officers of the local army, he could not conceive any regulation by which they could be properly fulfilled which would not create a distinction between the European and Native forces. If regimental appointments in the present local force were to be determined by selection, what would become of the existing system of promotion in the army? And even supposing that regimental promotion was secured to the local offices, what would be their position with regard to other commands? If they aspired to anything beyond their regiments, they would probably encounter that disposition of which they had already seen signs, to regard Sepoy offieers as unfit for the command of British troops. However objectionable the system of promotion by seniority might be, it had this advantage, that it gave a guarantee and security to those who devoted themselves to the service that they would not be liable to any capricious abuse of power on the part of any Governor General or Commander-in-Chief. As to the question into whose hands the patronage of the army should be placed if the system of seniority were altered, he would certainly rather see it confided to the Governor General than to any other person; but it was impossible that such a person could exercise that control which was essential to ensure impartiality over the appointments, or prevent those abuses which must necessarily follow if the scheme of the Government was adopted. There was no ground for assuming that the opinion of Lord Cornwallis was favourable to the scheme of amalgamation. The authority of the Duke of Wellington had also been quoted with just as little reason, for the Duke declared in emphatic language that he saw such difficulty in the proper officering of the Native army if the amalgamation were attempted that the scheme would be attended with great danger. It had been argued that the establishment of a purely local force exposed us to the danger of a combination to throw off its allegiance to this country. But was there any inherent probability of danger of mutiny on the part of a local European force? Was it possible that the men could lose that love of their own country that was innate to every Englishman? The men of the local army were enlisted, as in the Line, for limited periods of ten or twelve years. They were usually induced to stay longer by the temptations of bounty; but in consequence of the climate and other circumstances the force consisted for the most part of young men. This was attended with advantages in 'point both of economy and health, for they were generally a more healthy force than troops of the Line, not because they became, properly speaking, acclimatized, but because they accustomed themselves to the climate of India. The noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke of these troops as a Praetorian army—meaning, if it meant anything, that they were ready to sell themselves to the highest bidder. He added that they acquired local ties, and were thus capable of dangerous combination. But these regiments were really in a state of constant flux, and the noble Viscount was well answered by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) who followed him in debate, and who said that home ties were so strong among the men of the local army, that the difficulty was to prevent the growth of home sickness. How inconsistent were these two arguments? The House had seen an instance of this home sickness in the desire manifested by these men to get home, and in demands which, he would admit, were, in some cases, not made in a proper manner, although in other eases they were urged respectfully enough. It was alleged that the old soldiers took the lead in the mutiny, and that the non-commissioned officers gave no information of their plans. The papers, however, approved both these charges. No doubt, there was commotion among particular regiments at particular stations, but anything like a general combination was contradicted by the evidence contained in the Papers laid before the House. Invidious comparisons had been made between the conduct of the local European force, and that of the soldiers of the Line; and it had been said that when the Queen's troops had a complaint to urge they placed confidence in their officers. Well, the local European army also placed confidence in its officers, and likewise in the declaration of the Prime Minister, in favour of their claim. The combination of these men had been often referred to; but was it a combination for unlawful ends? he rested his case on that point—on the statement of their Commander-in-Chief. Lord Clyde did not ascribe the danger to the fact that the troops were local troops, but to their being soldiers and Englishmen, whose feelings it was perilous to tamper with. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Colonel Herbert) had accused the men of seeking to combine with the Sikhs; but there was nothing in the whole correspondence to support that charge. An isolated letter had, indeed, been found, which was contradicted in every essential particular, and which brought charges not merely against the local force, but against the Royal troops also. Such accusations ought not, therefore, to have been made in that House. They were keenly felt by the service, and were completely disproved by the Papers which had been produced. Certain regiments had, no doubt, been guilty of gross misconduct, and if the Government had proposed to blot out those regiments nobody could have complained; but a whole army ought not to be condemned fur the disaffection of a part. He was surprised that when the ground had been taken away from the advocates of this Bill they should still continue to support it. He warned the House against the danger of hasty legislation on this subject, and appealed to them, if they valued the efficiency of the public service and the security of their Empire, not to give their assent to this measure.

moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. He was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India would have come forward to state the reasons why lie differed from the opinions entertained by his Council. Those reasons should have been before the House at the same time that the objections of the Indian Council to the present scheme of the Government were laid upon the table. During the whole of the discussions which had taken place on this subject they had met with every kind of obstruction, and papers had been kept back which ought properly to have been in the hands of Members on the first occasion when the question was brought forward. He wished now to advert to the financial portion of the question, which had been very little touched upon in the previous debates. He asked the Secretary for India why they were keeping at the present time 80,000 men in India—uniess it was the finances of the country which obliged them to do it? Disarmaments had taken place in different parts of India, and the rebellion had entirely died out. The country was now in that condition that they might gradually withdraw the troops from India, and by the volunteering system have established a local force of acclimatized men for the protection of India and for suppressing any disturbance that might arise. The Government had sent out a gentleman to India to endeavour to arrange its finances, and his first act was to establish an income tax and a monetary system which was altogether opposed to all the principles which had been laid down hitherto by financiers in this country. Above all, he had established protection in India, in favour of three hundred millions of subjects of Her Majesty:—nevertheless while, the night before, they were declaiming against the last shreds of protection which were still left in this country, not one word was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, or any other hon. Member on that side of the House, in reference to the gigantic system of protection which was being established in India, by the gentleman who had been sent out there. They would hear more before long of the income tax which had been imposed in India, for it would necessitate the maintenance of a large army in that country-It would be an instrument in the hands of the tax collectors of India to oppress the Natives, and for every rupee which was collected by them for the Government, two would be collected for themselves. The mutiny which had occurred in India, and about which so much had been said, was the most miserable attempt at strike which it was possible to imagine, and he believed that ten rupees given to each man and a plum-pudding would have put an end to that mutiny, which had branded their local army with disgrace, had shown the Government of India in a most despicable light, and would attach a stigma to it as long as it existed. With regard to the expense, they had been told by the Secretary of State for India that the difference of cost between the two systems would be something like £200,000, but he (Sir James Elphinstone) believed it would be nearer £^,000,000. The expense alone of sending the women and children belonging to two or three regiments to India had actually amounted to £22,000. He should wish that Lord Clyde and Sir William Mansfield had come forward with a clearer and more logical description of the means by which they had arrived at a different conclusion from the one of last year. It was a most remarkable thing that about the same time a series of conversions were made, and among the converts was the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. He bad no hesitation in saying that if this Bill had been referred to a Committee the Report would have been that the Bill was wholly unwarrantable; and, if the measure should unfortunately pass, we should hereafter have to come back to the state of things which at present prevailed in India.

said, there was a mystery hanging over this question, which he was very desirous of having cleared up. Why was it that the Government and the Secretary of State, who had spoken last year in favour of maintaining the local army of India, had so suddenly changed their minds? One of the principal reasons assigned was the mutiny, but it was clear that this was a false pretence. Sir James Outram had designated the stories about the mutiny as an absurd and foolish exaggeration; and said that the men had not mutinied because they were a local force, but because they considered themselves treated with deliberate injustice and contumely. It is evident that the Government concurred in this opinion, as no sooner did the mutineers return to this country than every man who chose was re-enlisted. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for India, was in possession of all the authorities to which he now appealed, when he held a different view from that on which this measure was founded. Indeed, the weight of authority was in favour of maintaining a local force. He attached great importance to the opinion of Lord Ellenborough, a man of great ability, who had been Governor-General of India, and three times President of the Board of Control; who had opportunities during his residence in India of seeing a local army in times both of war and peace, and who was strongly in favour of a local army. He regretted that this Bill was to be persevered in. Those who had voted at first in its favour, after reading the Papers, and hearing the discussions which had taken place, had felt it their duty afterwards to oppose it; and there could be no doubt, if the Bill had been brought forward at an earlier period, and if the Papers had sooner been laid on the table, it would not have stood the test of mature discussion.

understood from the speeches of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth and the hon. Gentleman who last spoke that the grounds upon which the third reading of the Bill was now opposed were, that it was introduced late in the Session, and debated in thin houses;—that the information was incomplete;—the Indian Council had not been consulted, and their dissents only lately produced. Now, he did not think that the introduction of a Bill in June rather than May was any valid reason for resisting its progress. The subject had undergone ample discussion, there was an adjourned debate on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill; an adjourned debate on the second reading; the House would recollect the tedious length to which the discussion was pushed on the instructions to the Committee; and now, on the third reading, there was another discussion. With regard to the state of the House during those debates, the House would remember that on the bringing in of the Bill there was a largo attendance. There was also a large attendance when the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) made a very able speech against the Bill, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon gave his support to the Bill, as well as during the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), and of the Secretary of State for War. Those facts being taken into account, it was rather unfair that hon. Gentlemen should assert that the Bill had been proceeded with in thin Houses. Assertions equally unfair were, he might add, made with respect to information on the subject not having been produced, for more than a year had elapsed since the Report of the Royal Commission, together with the Appendix to it, had been laid on the table. It was contended that the Council of India had not been consulted with reference to the proposed amalgamation, and that their opinion on the point had not been placed before the House; but the fact was, that the opinions of the most distinguished Members of that Council had been presented to Parliament last July twelvemonth. Mr. Willoughby, for instance, Colonel Durand, and General Vivian, had been examined at great length before the Royal Commission, the Appendix to which contained also the opinions of Sir John Lawrence; and he would take it upon himself to say that, except in one or two minor particulars, there was nothing new in that ingenious and elaborate dissent which Mr. Willoughby had recently published. But, beside the information which the Report of the Commission and the Appendix to it conveyed, other information of a very important character had also been presented to the House, before the Bill was introduced. He should further observe that if it were, as the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) seemed disposed to think, a great blot on the proceedings of the Government in the matter that the dissent of the Council of India had not been laid on the table before the second reading of the Bill, the blame of the omission rested entirely with the Council itself, for on the 17th of May his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India gave its Members an opportunity of recording their dissent, while it was not until the 12th of June that the Bill was introduced. With respect to the course proposed by his right hon. Friend, towards the Council, he would only say that it was strictly in accordance with law, and had been deliberately adopted by two administrations. Passing, however, from those preliminary objections to some which were again urged against the measure itself, he must say be could not understand on what good ground it could be maintained that its operation would be to diminish the authority of the Governor General. It could not, he thought, be seriously contended that the influence of Her Majesty's Viceroy would be impaired by the fact of Her Majesty's troops being sent out to India, or by placing a few regiments, simply in regard to discipline, under the supervision of the Commander-in-Chief at homo. Then, again, he knew of no patronage which, by the passing of the Bill would be taken out of the hands of the Governor General, for all Staff appointments would still be made in India. But it was said that if the proposed scheme were carried into effect we should not be able to find sufficient officers fit to be employed with Native troops, or in the Civil Service in India. The fact, however, was that, those officers who had distinguished themselves most in the Native army, and in civil situations, had, in many instances, received their training in the local European regiments; and, he should like to know what the difference was in the training of an officer brought up in that force and in the Queen's army serving in India, and why officers of Line regiments should be incapable of performing duties which their fellow-countrymen in the local force had efficiently discharged. He might point to the names of Havelock, Mansfield, Markham, Lugard, and others which were quoted by a most distinguished Indian officer (Colonel Mayne) in 1855 to show how well qualified they were to do any service which the east India Company might require at their bands—as furnishing a sufficient answer to the opponents of the measure upon that head. The officers of the Royal army were made of the same stuff as their brethren of the local force, and would, he felt assured, find themselves quite equal to any position in which they might be placed. Next came the question of the expense which the passing of the Bill would entail, and which the hon. Members for Portsmouth and Evesham had estimated at £2,000,000; by what process of calculation he was at a loss to understand. It was a conclusion, at all events, very different from that which had been come to by a gentleman perfectly independent of all parties, who was employed by the Government to make the calculation, whose report was upon the table of the House, and who says, that £114,000 would be the extent of the cost of converting the existing number of local European troops into troops for general service. If hon. Gentlemen doubted the accuracy of that estimate, then must they show that the figures of Mr. Hammack were erroneous in order to substantiate their view of the case. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: They are erroneous.] he might add, that Mr. Hammack had taken into consideration the actual expense only of the change, and not the saving which would be effected by the conversion of a double into a single staff, and which, it was calculated, would amount to £20,000 per annum. That sum must, therefore, be deducted from the £114,000 which he had just mentioned; while the comparison would be still more favourable to the Line if additions were to be made to the depots of the local army, as was recommended by Sir James Outram, of no less than five battalions of infantry and a proportionate force of cavalry and artillery, but the extra expenditure for which would not be requisite if the present Bill passed into a law. Again, to keep up a small local force would be, as Colonel Durand had observed, "a half measure of doubtful aspect, far from creditable to England, and might possibly incur the risk of evoking grave discontents," while, in order to maintain a local army on an extensive scale, it would be necessary to raise and discipline at home thirty new local regiments at least, and during the time occupied in effecting that object to employ additional Line regiments in India, to replace those Line regiments by the newly-raised local regiments in due season, and to discharge the troops thus replaced on their return to this country—a proceeding which he thought the British House of Commons would hardly regard with satisfaction. Another point to which reference had been made was the health of the troops. He wished hon. Members, instead of accepting the very ingenious Minute of Mr. Willoughby, without examination, had referred to the papers which it quoted, for it appeared that Dr. R. Martin, instead of having given his opinion in favour of the local troops, as might have been fancied, stated

"That the official results in respect to the mortality at each age among the military officers and the civil servants of the Bengal Presidency afford a convincing proof that in the East Indies no advantage in the way of acclimatization has hitherto been derived from length of residence."

[Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR intimated his dissent.] Perhaps his hon. Friend thought that the carelessness of the soldier was an evil harder to be combated than the effects of a tropical climate. Such, however, was not the opinion of Dr. R. Martin, a gentleman more competent, perhaps, than any other to give an opinion on this point; for he stated:—

"The greater losses in certain newly arrived regiments, as compared to those of older standing in India, are not necessary to the climate and maybe entirely prevented."

The question, however, was capable of being reduced from one of opinion to one of fact. Very recently a return showing the mortality of the troops in both services at the several stations in India for the last forty years, ending in 1856, had been obtained. It appeared that among 815,634 troops of the Line there had been 56,782 deaths, or in the ratio of 6·9 per cent; while of 476,172 local troops 31,943 had died in the same period, being in the proportion of 65 per cent. The difference, therefore, was hardly preceptible. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Have you got the stations?] The return was not for particular stations, but for the whole of India. That the troops sent out from England did not die quickly was clearly shown in the case of the twenty regiments who went out during the mutiny and were not engaged in action. The loss of men in those regiments was about 3–¾ per cent, and among the railway servants in India the mortality was at the rate of 2¼per cent. The most important point raised in the discussion was that relating to the mutiny of the European troops. The hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) talked of unfair charges against the men, and other hon. Gentlemen had adopted the line of argument that there had been no mutiny, that the troops had been ill-treated, and that no weight ought to be attached to the opinion of Lord Clyde. What was Lord Clyde's opinion? he said that it was known with absolute certainty that open resistance on the part of the Bengal European troops had been talked of in the barracks for weeks, and there had been the most unlawful and mutinous combination to intimidate the Government; that the combination, so far as the original design of the movement, might be considered as perfect; and that the recollection of the strike or mutiny would never die out in the Indian local army, for the men would always advert to it when they were dissatisfied; that for those reasons he was irresistibly led to the conclusion that it would be henceforth dangerous to maintain a local European army. The House was bound to listen to the opinion of those who were on the spot, and who, in addition, were responsible. He entertained great respect for the opinions of Sir John Lawrence and of Mr. Willoughby, in reference to matters as to which they had knowledge; but it must not be forgotten that Lord Clyde was on the spot; he was Commander-in-Chief, and he was responsible, whilst Mr. Willoughby and Sir John Lawrence were civilians—they were in England, and they were not responsible. The papers laid on the table showed that Lord Clyde was originally in favour of the claims of the men, and therefore it was also clear that what he subsequently said in reference to their conduct was an unprejudiced opinion. Now, was there any danger in this "strike" of the troops, as it had been called? Lord Canning said, in writing to Lord Stanley—

"Your Lordship will see plainly that for some days a collision between large bodies of our English soldiers has been imminent."

From Lord Canning to Farrier Murphy nobody had any doubt that what had taken place was a mutiny. He would give an instance of what had taken place. The 5th European Infantry Regiment was stationed at Berhampore, and they had a conference; letters were produced from other regiments; they refused to do duty; they rescued two prisoners; they congregated in their barracks to defy attack and to protect each other, and they appointed their own officers. Their commanding officer applied to Calcutta for a force to overawe his men, and Lord Canning sent 500 men and two guns, and to this display of force the troops submitted. Was that but a strike, or a remonstrance? The commanding officer of the regiment, an Indian officer, reported that 205 of his men were "disloyal," a word for the use of which the hon. Member for Hertford had taken the Secretary of State for War to task, and the officers of companies referred to portions of their men as "mutinous." The "loyal" men in the regiment were only 79, and yet this was not to be called a mutiny. He did not wish in any way to blame the officers, but Colonel Mackenzie, a Queen's officer, whom it was found necessary to place in command of the regiment in order to reduce it to a state of discipline, said, that though the officers gave him every assistance in their power, yet their ideas as to the treatment of European troops were entirely different from his own, and this arose from want of experience on their part, lie said that punishments for crime had been quite inadequate, and he instanced several cases, such as a sentry asleep on his post—forgiven; Corporal Harty three times drunk in four months—forgiven; Sergeant Cunningham drunk on guard—warned that he would be tried next time; and, lastly, the instance of a soldier drawing his bayonet with intent to stab another soldier when on guard, who was also forgiven. The fault, it had all along been contended, lay not with the individuals, but with the system. There were forty-two officers attached to the 5th Regiment, but the greater part of them were employed in miscellaneous duties in different quarters of India; of fourteen captains only four were with the regiment; of the nine senior lieutenants only one was present. The commanding officer had served long in the Native army but had no knowledge of European troops. Did not these facts bear out Lord Clyde's opinion that—

"The Bengal army cannot supply officers capable of forming new European regiments. For such business they have everything to learn from the colonel downwards?"

What could be expected from such a system? To continue and extend it, which must be done if the plan of the Government were rejected, would beat once absurd and dangerous. Nobody had any intention to interfere with the rights of the officers. Hon. Gentlemen talked as though the Bengal army was in a perfect state, but the whole of it was gone, and nothing but the skeleton of it in the shape of cadres of officers remained, who were mainly employed with Native troops and in staff appointments There could be no difficulty in continuing that arrangement; whereas, if the scheme of the Government were rejected, the local officers would have to he brought home, to raise and discipline new local regiments, a work for which it was no discredit to them to pronounce them wholly unfit, and their staff appointments would have to be filled by officers of the Line serving in India. A great deal had been said about authorities; but he thought they preponderated largely in favour of the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The Government proposed to do away with the prasent system of Staff employments, arid in the opinion of almost every officer and civilian in India the system of Staff employments had been the bane of the local army. Some hon. Gentlemen talked as if there never had been any jobbing in India; but what was the opinion of the officers of the Indian army? Colonel Harrington was asked before the Commission—

"Do you object to the present system of having a certain number of European officers from the regiment on the Staff—and his reply was—I do; because every young officer who comes out now says,' My father is a Director,' and so and so; 'directly I have passed my examination, in a couple of years I shall be off, and care nothing for the regiment.' And no wonder, when the threat of being sent back to one's regiment is held out as a punishment for misconduct or misbehaviour. Regimental officers are constantly taunted with the remark ' that the best and most intelligent officers are selected for the Staff.' Officers are selected: but the rule is interest, and merit the exception that guides these selections."

What was the opinion of Sir Bartle Frere upon this system? he said—

"It may be set down as a truth hardly disputable, and of cardinal importance, that there can be no reasonable hope of ever keeping an useful Native army as long as we persevere in our present system of making staff appointments away from the regiments an object of ambition to regimental officers, and a better provision for a young man in position and emolument than the command of Native soldiers."

Again, no one had contended that the discipline of the local army was equal to that of the regiments of Her Majesty's Line. No one now would say after the recent occurrences that the difference was in mere pipe-clay, or that it was not in the whole instruction and government of the troops. Authorities, he held, were decidedly in favour of the plan of the Government to get rid of the present system of Staff appointments and to apply the system of English regimental discipline to the European troops in India, So with respect to the political question. It had been said that the Natives of India would suffer by the proposed change; but the staunchest friends of the Natives, the most earnest advocates of their rights and interests—Sir George Clerk and Sir Charles Trevelyan, for example—were supporters of the scheme for amalgamating the two armies. The opinion of Lord Cornwallis had again been quoted against amalgamation; but that opinion was given only five months after the arrival of Lord Cornwallis in India, whereas, for the whole of the rest of his life, he was in favour of combining the local European army with the regular army. An hon. Member had also cited the opinion of the Duke of Wellington; but that opinion was the same as the opinion entertained by the Government in 1855, namely that so long as the Government of India was vested in the East India Company the military authority could not be separated from the Civil Government, and the transfer of the Government from the East India Company to the Crown altogether removed that serious objection to the complete amalgamation of the armies. He would remark that upon that occasion the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, who opposed the present Bill, supported a Motion for amalgamating the two armies. [Sir DE LACY EVANS was understood to intimate dissent]. In 1855 Sir Erskine Perry brought forward a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the expediency of employing Indian forces in the Crimea, and of amalgamating the local European army in India with the regular army. That Motion was seconded by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, who acted as a teller on the occasion, and it was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who now predicted the most direful results from the scheme of the Government. He (Mr. Baring) must request the House not to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, for he was convinced that the Bill would place the European forces of Her Majesty in India on an efficient footing; that concomitant measures would increase the general efficiency of the army; and he was no less convined that there was nothing in the Bill which interfered unjustly with any of the rights or interests of the officers of the Indian army.

said, that the hon. Gentleman alluded to something that took place a few years back; but he (Sir De Lacy Evans) did not recollect to have heard at that time a word about amalgamatian, and all that he did, as far as he recollected, was to support a Motion for obtaining reinforcements from India in aid of the war in the Crimea. But no sooner did he hear of the scheme of amalgamation than he protested against it. The hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his speech alluded to the rights and privileges of the officers of the local European force, and said that there was nothing in the Bill which endangered those rights. Of course the Bill did not touch them because there was no allusion to them whatever. That was what they complained of—they did not know what was to be done. The Bill only declared that there should be no local European force in India, and did not explain how the new system was to be carried out. It had been stated that this object had already been effected, as the local force had dissolved itself; but it appeared by the Returns that from 18,000, to 20,000 men still remained, and the Bengal Artillery, lauded as not being inferior to any Artillery in the world, had been brought up to its complement by Lord Canning through the means of volunteers who had seen five or six years' service. The Artillery of Bombay and Madras likewise remained intact. Were these still to be maintained or were they to be broken up? The Bill told them nothing; and what he contended was that such a measure ought not to have been brought forward without a full and complete statement of the manner in which the amalgamation was intended to be carried out. The measure had been introduced in a most objectionable way late in the Session, and without Papers or information, and when the Papers were at length produced they did not amount to one-third of what they had a right to expect; and when objections were made to such a course of proceeding, it was stated that there were 800 pages of documents connected with this subject not before the House. The Secretary for India said that he did not know anything about them, or that they were not in his possession; but, after considerable discussion, it turned out that they were in the possession of the Secretary for India. The noble Lord at the head of the Government then requested that the second reading of the Bill might take place, promising that all the documents should be presented to the House before the next stage. Nevertheless, another stage was proposed, when only one- third of those documents were before the House. The necessity for this Bill, as alleged by the Government, was occasioned by the improper conduct of the European forces in India; and therefore it was requisite that the documents should be before the House, in order that the House might judge whether or not that allegation was sustained. On the recommendation of Lord Clyde, Courts of inquiry were instituted, and the men who had claimed their discharge went before those Courts and respectfully stated their grievances. It appeared that these men were mainly induced to claim their discharge in consequence of a statement made in a speech by the Prime Minister; and, considering the manly character of that noble Lord, it was surprising that the complaints of the men were allowed to continue so long without the expression of an opinion from the noble Lord as to the right of the men to claim their discharge in consequence of the statement he made. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had now changed his mind, and, because the House had not changed with him, he reproached them with factious opposition. Then although he knew as much of the facts of the case as now, he would not allow that there was anything like a mutiny, and he laid it down that the conduct of the officers had been so honourable that it would be discreditable to the House to do anything injurious to their interests. There could not be a better answer to the speech of the Under Secretary for India, who had just sat down, than the speech of his superior in August last. He was afraid that patronage had something to do with the change which had taken place. The authority of the Duke of Wellington had been frequently quoted in these debates, but he had laid it down most clearly that the Commander-in-Chief in India should have the exclusive and independent command of the army there. The Marquess of Wellesley, too, had stated that to attempt to control the patronage of India from home would be most injurious to Indian interest. lie was afraid, however, that the authority of the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief in these matters had already been impugned. The patronage of the Commander-in-Chief at home was greater by far than that possessed by any other Department, either in England or any other country—and yet they were about largely to increase it. In conclusion he must protest altogether against the measure. It had been brought forward in a most improper and unsatisfactory manner and without any information being given on the subject; and there had been almost a contest in obtaining even the Papers that were before the House.

said, the arguments of those who supported amalgamation were founded on alleged defects in the organization of the Indian army, on the absence of officers from their regiments, and the consequent bad state of discipline. But those were points which ought to have engaged the attention of the Government, and the existence of such defects furnished no valid argument against the system. He must protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. T. G. Baring), who, in defending the Government measure, said that the officers of the Queen's army were competent to perform all the duties now performed by the officers of the local army. He thought the contrary must of necessity be the case. Every officer of the Queen's army who went to India thought chiefly how and when he should come home again; but an officer of the local army, who looked to spend his life in India, studied the language and the character of the Natives, learned to treat them with consideration and conciliation, and learned also how to take care of his own health. This great difference between the feelings of the two men, necessarily rendered the one less fit than the other for Indian service. He felt certain that it would become necessary hereafter to have a local force in India; and, such was his confidence in the character of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), that he believed he would be the first to acknowledge the error of the Government, and endeavour to rectify it. Meanwhile, he trusted that those who, like himself, entertained the greatest repugnance to this Bill, would now allow it to pass. The arguments against it had been repeatedly urged, and the opponents of the Bill might now leave the responsibility with the Government, and allow the House to pass to the other pressing business of the Session.

said, the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir E. Colebrooke) had referred to some observations that fell from him on a former occasion. As far as his recollection would serve him at this distance of time, what occurred was this. In answer to those who bad declared that there had been no mutiny among the European troops in India, he had observed, that when troops barricaded themselves in their barracks, and talked of seizing the guns and joining the Sikhs, this was, at all events, very like a mutiny. In support of what he then said he would read an extract from a despatch of Sir William Mansfield, dated the 26th of September, 1859:—

"Such was the feeling throughout the Bengal artillerymen that, though the old soldiers and non-commissioned officers were too wary to commit themselves to overt crime, not one of them, in any part of the country, came forward to warn their officers of what was impending, their combination and conspiracy in this respect being more thorough than that of the Sepoys themselves in 1857. There was actually a design to march to Delhi from Meerut. In one intercepted letter an artilleryman speculated on raising the Sepoys, and calling on the Sikhs to help them, with which help he thought he would be able to ' drive the Royals out of India,'—his own expression. We found out from a recruit's letter, after the discovery had been made at Meerut, that it had been the common talk at Cawnpore six weeks before that the Artillery were to seize the guns in an up-country station."

He would now ask the House to judge between him and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, as to whether he was justified or not in the language he had used. His objection to a local force was not on account of its origin in having belonged to the Company, but because in a force raised for local service alone discipline could not be maintained at so high a pitch as in regiments which were periodically sent from this country to India. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) had alluded to the evidence taken before the Committee on Military Organization, and had remarked on the very large amount of patronage which would be placed in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, and on the disposal of first commissions resting in the breast of the Commander-in-Chief for the time. That statement was quite accurate; but the hon. and gallant Member went on to say that in no other department of the State was patronage conducted in that manner. He would remind the House that the greater portion of the nominations for naval cadetships was in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the First Lord was guided by rules only in his own breast, the same as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army would be in the disposal of first commissions.

explained, that what he had said was, that there was nothing before the House to give 'support to the assertion which had already been made by the Secretary of State for War, on the authority of the despatch of Sir William Mansfield. It was clear that Sir William Mansfield referred to the letter of an artilleryman in the Punjaub. The letter had not been produced, and he did not believe in its existence.

said, that, without wishing to go into the merits of the question, he rose to enter his final protest against this measure being passed, and to restate the grounds of the opposition which he had offered to it. He thought it was a great error to treat this question, as the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down, as a merely military question. He and those Friends of his who opposed the Bill considered it as a question affecting the whole administration of India, and on that account it was that he complained of the little care and pains that had been taken in presenting it to the House. When the Act of 1858 was passed Parliament was of opinion that the transfer of the Government from the Company to the Crown would cast upon the Legislature new duties and responsibilities. The Sepoy mutiny had brought home the vivid reality of the warning that they held their Indian dominions by a precarious tenure, and they felt that their best hope of retaining India was to bring the greatest amount of thought and statesmanship to bear on Indian administration. They had not, however, found in the proceedings of the Government any recognition of the real difficulties and responsibilities of Indian administration. This measure, which effected a total revolution in that administration, was introduced with as much unconcern as a turnpike Bill, or a Bill for paving and lighting a provincial town. It was introduced late in the Session, at a short notice, and contained only one clause, without any plan accompanying it. It was the maximum of change with the minimum of information. He thought the course of the Government had been unusual and unprecedented, and that opportunity had not been afforded to Parliament to form an accurate judgment upon the matter in which great responsibility was to be incurred. Another ground of complaint was, not for what the Bill contained, but what was omitted—not for what it disclosed, but what it concealed. An enormous change was about to be accomplished without any indication on the face of the Bill of the nature of that charge. Even if it were just in principle Parliament was not justified in passing a measure of which it had such imperfect means of judging. The first question which he asked the other night, and to which some appearance of an answer had been attempted in the speech of the Under Secretary, was, what would be the future relations between the Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief? The Governor-General, in the eyes of the Native Princes, was a great military Power, and hitherto had been understood to be at the head of all military affairs. But already the Commander-in-Chief in India had been writing despatches direct to the Horse Guards of a controversial character, and impugning the opinions and authority of the Governor-General. That was an indication of what was likely to occur. Already there was a double Government. The military authorities were setting themselves in opposition to the Governor-General, and in that case it was easy to see that the position and authority of the Governor-General would be very much weakened. He might be mistaken as to the nature of the relations existing between the Commander-in-Chief and the Governor General, but he certainly thought the subject ought to have been fully and fairly brought under the notice of the House. Another very large and important question had been mooted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby)—the question of expense. It was admitted that the change would entail additional expense on the finances of India. During the last four years there had been a deficiency in the Indian Exchequer of no less than £37,000,000, for which sum the taxpayers of England were security, and they would eventually have to pay it; yet we were now most improvidently proceeding to increase the expenditure and add to the debt. Surely, then, the House ought to have had definite and precise information as to the effect which the measure was likely to have on the future change which it would entail, in respect of our military expenditure. Then, again, it appeared from the papers before Parliament that 29,600 men would annually be on their passage between this country and India, and the services of those men would be lost during the time they were on shipboard. There was another serious question to consider—the enormous amount of additional patronage that would be conferred upon the Horse Guards—more than doubling the patronage that department already dispensed. The House was told that the Commander-in-Chief did not desire that additional patronage, and that a wish to obtain it was no part of the reasons for the transfer. That was, no doubt, true; but the question which the House had to consider was, not what was the character of the present Commander-in-Chief, but whether the transfer was right in a constitutional point of view—whether the transfer to the Horse Guards of so large an amount of patronage ought not to be seriously considered by Parliament before it assented to such a change. A comparison had also been made between the relative efficiency of the local army and troops of the line. Upon the question of health there could be no doubt that men who were acclimatized and seasoned in India were more healthy, and consequently more efficient, than troops arriving from England. Then came the question who were most efficient for Indian duties, and whether officers who had gone out to India young, who bad learnt the languages, studied the character of the people and were acquainted with the country, and who made it the sphere of their future hopes and prospects, were less fitted for those duties than officers who went out merely for five years, who looked upon their residence in India as an exile and a penance, and who desired nothing so much as to leave it as soon as possible? Mr. Wilson, in a recent Minute, said that nothing had struck him so much as the contrast between local officers and officers of the Line in their treatment of the Natives. It was admitted that we could not hold India entirely by force, but that to some extent we must govern by opinion; and then it became a question whether men who go out intending to make India their home were not more likely to study the character and feelings of the Native population than officers who only went out unwillingly for a short period. A further question had been raised as to the fitness of Indian officers for the higher appointments in India. He had seen with regret the opinion that had been attributed to Lord Clyde as to the unfitness of local Indian officers for those appointments. It was invidious to institute any comparison between two gallant armies, but it was a fact that our three greatest military disasters in India had arisen from the inefficiency of the commanders who were sent from England; and those disasters had every one been retrieved by the conspicuous ability of officers belonging to the local force. A study of events during and since the recent mutiny would convince any one that the Indian officers would bear comparison with the officers of the Queen's army. He repeated that all these considerations should have been submitted to Parliament before so great a change was made. It used to be said that India must be governed in India; but now it seemed that India was to be governed in England and from the Horse Guards. This led him to consider whether that Department was equal to this new task. Of the present Commander-in-Chief no one could speak but with respect and praise. As a member of the Committee upon Military Organization he (Mr. Horsman) had heard the evidence of the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War, and he knew how they had co-operated in promoting improvements in the army. Many improvements had been effected, and he was bound to say that great credit was due to the Commander-in-Chief, not only for what lie had done, but for the improvements which he was desiring to carry still further. He believed there never had been a Commander-in-Chief who was actuated by a wiser and purer zeal for the promotion of improvements in the army. But what had been the unchanging, and apparently unchangeable character of that Department, not only in the present, but during the last two centuries? It had been notoriously the worst managed Department of the State. History was full of instances of military disasters caused by inefficient commanders, of Commissions of Inquiry after our military operations, and nowhere had there been greater mischief in that respect than in India; favouritism, and not efficiency, had been the principle which governed the distribution of its patronage. The subject had been forced upon his attention by a speech delivered two years since by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes). The Native army at that time consisted of 300,000 men, besides the Native contingents of 400,000 more, making 700,000 men over whom the Commander-in-Chief had the control, and of which he might at any time be called upon to take the personal direction. There was no post which required on the part of a Commander-in-Chief so great a combination of physical and mental energy. Nevertheless, the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen in 1858 stated that he had himself as a Director seen a Commander-in-Chief sworn in at the India House, who was so infirm that he could not rise from his chair to return thanks for the honour that had been conferred upon him; and he had also seen another Commander-in-Chief sworn in who was so blind that he would have fallen over a chair in leaving the room but for the interposition of a benevolent Director. With such Commanders-in-Chief no wonder great disasters occurred. There were other instances which could be given of the manner in which the Horse Guards filled up that responsible and difficult post in India. By the change now proposed a great addition would be made to the duties of the War Department, which was already in a state of confusion, and which the House had been warned would break down if any war-strain should be brought upon it. It was to this Department which was admitted to be in so unsatisfactory a state that Parliament was about to transfer the whole administration of the Indian army, thereby more than doubling the labours, duties, and responsibilities of a Department already overloaded with work. On what authority was this change to be made? The Secretary of State for India advised the Cabinet; but who advised the Secretary of State? The first advisors to whom he might be expected to resort were the Council provided by Parliament for his special assistance. The fifteen gentlemen composing this Council, eminent men in India, were unanimously opposed to this plan; but that did not seem to have any effect upon the right hon. Gentleman. It might be said that these were all old Indians with Indian prejudices. Well, what other opinions had been given? Every one of the last four Governors-General of India was against the Bill, and three of them were living witnesses of the folly and temerity of the change. A Governor General of India was chosen from the ranks of English statesmen and Cabinet Ministers. He went out to India without prejudices, and came back with Indian experience. These authorities warned the Government that the change they were about to make would be attended with the worst consequences. Lord Canning, Lord Dalhousie, and Lord Ellenborough, all English statesmen with Indian experience, were strong and emphatic in their condemnation of the abolition of the local army. That was surely a reason why Parliament should pause and why it should have time for reconsideration. There were few who did not feel that in the face of such authority against the Bill, they were incurring a very serious responsibility in passing it. He did say that even if the change were right, the House ought not to act hastily in the face of such authorities. Two authorities certainly had been cited. There was the authority of Lord Clyde, and also of Sir William Mansfield. He confessed he should pay rather more attention to their authority if their opinions had been more consistent. They had, however, originally been in favour of a local army, and it was a curious coincidence that Lord Clyde, Sir William Mansfield, and the Secretary of State for India, who were now cited as important authorities in favour of this Bill, changed their opinions at the same moment, and that moment was when the plan of the Commander-in-Chief for the abolition of the local army was submitted to them. It ought also to be remarked that the authority of Lord Clyde and Sir William Mansfield was a military authority. They treated this as a soldier's question—as a question merely affecting the army of India. The Governors-General of India and the Council of India, on the contrary, regarded this not only as a military, but also as a civil and political question, affecting not only the discipline of the army, but the safety and maintenance of the empire of India. He would rather defer to the opinion of statesmen and those who had governed India than take the opinion of military men, who*looked at the matter in a merely professional point of view. The explanation for the change of opinion in regard to the abolition of the local army was that a mutiny had taken place among the troops, and that recent information had given to this mutiny a graver and more alarming character. It was said that the mutiny had not been confined to the young troops, as had been at first supposed, but had spread to the veterans. That, however, was called a mutiny now which was described by Lord Clyde as a just demand of what were the soldiers' rights. It was also made known to the soldiers that the Prime Minister of this country had declared that if the soldiers of the Company's army did not choose on the change of Government to transfer their allegiance to the Crown they were entitled to their discharge. They claimed their discharge accordingly, and now it was called a mutiny. It now appeared that all the particulars of this mutiny were known last year to the Government, when no change was thought desirable. Before the papers were produced the House agreed to the second reading by a large majority; but after they had been laid upon the table one Member after another rose to express his regret for the vote he had given, and his intention to oppose the further progress of the Bill. So great had be "he change of opinion produced by the papers that many lion. Gentlemen who had voted for the Bill had since stated their belief that if the Bill had been introduced early in the Session it would have been doubtful whether the Government would have carried the second reading. As it was, the Bill would, no doubt, be carried. The failure of the opposition was chiefly duo to a cause which had been predicted when the Act of 1858 was passed. There were some who thought that when the transfer of the Government of India from the Company to the Crown was effected, the Secretary for India would act under a sense of responsibility and that Indian affairs would receive due attention. Others thought that that would not be the case, and in particular Sir Charles Trevelyan then warned the Committee before which he was examined that the financial, judicial, political, and other affairs of India brought before a Parliament already overburdened could not be attended to, that the control would therefore become nominal, and that habitual apathy would soon succeed. Had not that been the case during the present Session? If not, should they have had seven India Bills all introduced at the fag-end of the Session—one of the most important of which, dealing with the finance of India and involving a large loan, was actually put off to the last week before Parliament separated? He hoped that the debates on this measure would tend to remedy this evil. They had not effected much this Session, but they had laid a good foundation for the future. Any Minister of India must now feel that when a serious measure of Indian legislation was to be brought before the House, it must be well prepared, early introduced, supported by the most ample information, and must undergo that full discussion which it was the duty of the Minister to invite, and which Parliament would grossly neglect its duty if it did not take care to enforce.

said, he wished to correct an error into which the Under Secretary for India had fallen in estimating the financial results of the change. Mr. Hammack distinctly stated that an Indian army of 80,000 men, in the proportion of troops of the several arms as proposed by the Commander-in-Chief, would, if composed of Line troops, cost £6,765,084, and if of local troops £6,302,316, the difference between the two being £462,763. Mr. Hammack also estimated that the substitution of Line troops for the local force of 19,500 men in India in February last would entail an additional cost of £114,253; and he went on to show that if the entire force of 80,000 Europeans consisted of two-thirds Line and one-third local the additional annual expense would be £308,512. One-half Line and one-half local, £231,384; one-third Line and two-thirds local, £154,256.

I stated that the Government plan would increase the cost of the present force by £114,000.

was sorry he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He wished the House, however, to observe these facts. He must reiterate his surprise and regret at the manner in which the opinions of the Indian Council had been set aside on a question which so deeply concerned them, and that the opinions of such distinguished men as the Governor General, Sir James Outram, Sir John Lawrence, and others, should be disregarded by the Government. Not only the financial but the political interests of India were imperilled by this measure. He rested his opposition to this Bill upon the clear and able speech of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, upon the statements of other hon. Members in this House, and upon the opinions of Lord Canning and of the other eminent men whose names he had mentioned. He had not opposed it from any hostility to the right hon. Baronet opposite, for whom and for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War he had great respect. He had acted according to what, in his conscience, he believed to be his duty, and therefore he was not open to a charge of faction.

rose to complain of the restrictions which impeded the commercial intercourse between this country and some districts of India. It was a question in which his constituents were deeply interested, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would speedily direct his attention to the subject.

It will soon—I hope on Monday next—be my duty to lay the financial state of India before the House, and the hon. Gentleman will then have a more fitting opportunity for discussing the question to which he has referred than is afforded by the present occasion. I hope that I may congratulate the House upon having at length reached the last stage of a protracted discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) as well as several other hon. Members, has continually complained that upon two or three points the House had received no information as to the views of the Government; but I must remind him that on the 12th of June, in introducing this measure, I stated fully what were our opinions with regard to those subjects. I then stated that we had pledged ourselves to take the opinion of the House upon this most important question, and that it would be most improper for us to adopt any measures in regard to it which had not received the sanction of this House. I fully agree with those who have stated that this question is one of vast and mighty importance to the welfare, and perhaps to the safety, of India, and I am disposed to regret that some Gentlemen have rather dwarfed its proportions by introducing subjects of minor importance into the discussion. They have made the question to turn more upon the mode and form of carrying the scheme into effect than upon the merits of the scheme itself, and have wasted much time by referring to returns which after all are comparatively unimportant. Whatever some hon. Gentlemen may think of the necessity of preserving a local European army in India, and however high may be the authorities arrayed against the Government, I can assure the House that we had only one motive for adhering to our scheme, and that is that we conceive the welfare and prosperity of our Indian dominions would be best promoted by the course which we propose to adopt. A good deal of argument has been raised, as though the whole question turned upon the inconsistency of the course which we have pursued. I have never concealed from the House that I have changed my opinion since last year. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster said that I last year introduced into this House a Bill for the purpose, not only of maintaining but of increasing the local Indian army. That assertion is quite incorrect. The real object of that Bill, however, was not to increase the local army, but to legalize the employment of 4,600 men who, owing to the exigencies of the time, had been added to it by the Government of Lord Derby beyond the limit allowed by law; and I then said that the course which the House might adopt upon that occasion would not prejudice any question which might thereafter be raised in regard to the Indian army, and that nothing which we did or said was to he considered as implying an opinion that a local army ought to be maintained in India. Hon. Gentlemen have gone on repeating, until I have no doubt they believe it, that we were in August, 1859, in possession of all the circumstances of the mutiny of the local European troops. I have always stated that my change of opinion has in part arisen from the views which were taken of what then occurred by such men as Lord Clyde, Sir William Mansfield, Sir Hugh Rose, and Sir Patrick Grant, and of many of their letters I was not in possession in August, 1859. Although some letters had been received, if lion. Members will look at the dates they will see that four-fifths of the communications which have been laid before Parliament could not have been in our possession in August, 1859. I attach the greatest possible importance to the letters of Lord Elphinstone, and I cannot omit to avail myself of this opportunity, the first which has occurred since his lamented death, to pay a tribute to his memory. A man of sounder judgment, of greater energy, of greater talent, or of greater discretion and tact, as evidenced through all his long Indian administration, was never sent out from this country. Not one of his letters was in our possession in August, 1859. The letters of other eminent authorities had not then been received; and therefore it is quite a mistake to say that in August last we were in possession of the grounds on which we have formed our present opinion. Mr. Hammack's report is also dated November, 1859, and some other papers relating to this subject are dated as late as April last. The statement of the hot), and gallant Member for Westminster that I was aware in last August of 10,000 men having taken their discharge is also quite inaccurate. When I spoke at that time I was not aware of the discharge of a single man. The circumstances had totally changed when we came to the determination against continuing a local army in India. It wa3 the intention of the late Government to maintain the small local army which then existed; but it was found that such a course would not satisfy the advocates of a local army, who insisted that, in order to keep up its character and efficiency, it should be a large force. They insisted that the local army should be two-thirds of the whole European force. [Mr. D. SEYMOUR: Lord Canning does not say that]. Lord Canning in his last despatch does not insist upon two-thirds, but says that one half will do; but the opinion of Lord Ellen-borough and of the military commission of the Indian Council is, that of the whole European force of 80,000, two-thirds should be a local force. When, therefore, we learnt that the 10,000 men had taken their discharge, we had to consider, not whether we should continue a small local army, but whether we should create a large one. Any candid and impartial man will admit that the circumstances had entirely changed between the summer of 1859, and the succeeding winter and spring. That is my answer to the charge of inconsistency. But even if it had not been so, surely the fact that men like Sir William Mansfield and Sir Patrick Grant, who were responsible for the safety of the army, and were eye-witnesses of the events passing in India, were induced to change their opinions and driven to the conclusion that it would he impolitic to maintain a local army in that country, affords some excuse at least for our also coming to the same conclusion. It has been erroneously said that Lord Clyde changed his opinion. Lord Clyde was never in favour of a local army. That is, indeed, stated in Mr. Willoughby's Minute, but it is one of several inaccuracies which have crept even into that able document. The fact is that Lord Clyde says he had abstained from expressing any difference of opinion from the Governor General, because he thought it his duty rather to obey than to dissent from that authority; but that when the events of last summer occurred, a strong impression was produced in his mind, which he should not conceal, against the maintenance of a local army. This change of opinion on the part of Sir William Mansfield, and of Sir Patrick Grant, himself a Sepoy officer, who could not be supposed to have entertained a prejudice against a local army, seems to my mind one of the strongest reasons for giving weight to their judgment. This question has, no doubt, important political bearings, but still it is pre-eminently a military question. The right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Hors-man) said we have never stated our views as to the effect of this measure on the authority of the Governor General. Now, on the 12th of July I said we did not conceive that the course we were pursuing would in the slightest degree affect the Governor General's authority—that he was the representative of the Crown in India, and ought to have precisely the same power in controlling and directing all military operations as the home Government has in this country. It has been observed that the sceptre and the sword must be wielded by the same hand in India. Well, if the sceptre was shaken in the hand of the Governor General during the mutiny, who replaced it as firmly as ever in his grasp but the troops of the Line. The Governor General selected the officers appointed to the command of expeditions in India; and the same power in all respects would remain with him under this Bill.

Does the Native army remain under him?

Certainly. I said before that ultimately the Native army was to be officered from the Staff corps, which was to be entirely selected by the Indian Government.

Is not the Native army to be under the Horse Guards?

Certainly not. If, instead of imagining all sorts of hypothetical consequences from this measure, hon. Gentlemen would confine themselves to the measure itself, as it has been stated in Parliament, they would save themselves and the public from much misapprehension. There will be no change in the position of the officers; and to give assurance of that, I am quite willing to accept the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire with respect to the rights and privileges of the officers and soldiers of the local army; but they are quite unnecessary, because the Bill does not in the least touch those rights and privileges. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Correspondence in which the Commander-in-Chief at home expressed his opinion that the Commander-in-Chief in India ought to communicate with him in reference to the condition of the local army in India. But all that the Commander-in-Chief in this country stated was, that he thought reports might be made to him of the discipline of all European regiments in the Queen's service. It was not unnatural that the head of the army should entertain such an opinion; and there is no reason to believe, as it seems to me, that such a proceeding would weaken the authority of the Governor General. My right hon. Friend behind me very naturally laughed at the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, that we had become guarantee for the £37,000,000 of debt occasioned by the late war. There is no such guarantee. We have entered into no such engagement, and we have uniformly repudiated the notion that there was any such intention, and in a recent declaration of the Government of India Lord Canning states that he thinks it essential, in order to enforce a good financial administration in India, that the Government there should not look for the assistance of this country, but stand on their own resources. Then, as to the expense, I took the proportion of two-fifths local and three-fifths Line, as proposed by the late Government, and the cost of substituting two-fifths Line for two-fifths local I stated would be £184,000, all things included—in round numbers it would not exceed £200,000 a year; and if we are right in supposing that the change proposed would add materially to the efficiency of the army and the safety of the empire such an increase in an expenditure of between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000 for military purposes should form no impediment to its adoption. In many respects there will be considerable economy in having a single instead of a double establishment, and I certainly do not think the additional expense will exceed £200,000 a year. Then comes the health of the army. I believe the greatest nonsense has been talked about the acclimatization of the local army in India. It is much more likely that living some time in India will diminish health. Let me quote on this subject one simple paragraph from Dr. Martin. He says:—

"Length of residence in India, so far from conferring any advantage on the English constitution in the way of acclimatization, surely and gradually leads to physical degradation."

It is perfectly impossible to state the matter more distinctly and decidedly. I admit that there is ground for serious consideration in the statement that the breaking up of the local army may diminish the number of men from whom able and useful official servants could be selected in India; and I yielded for a considerable time to the force of that argument; but I believe we have good reasons for expecting that the supply of able servants for civil employment to be drawn from the army will not be diminished by placing the whole army in the immediate service of the Crown. With reference to the political bearings of this question, so far from coming to a hasty conclusion, I hesitated for a long time. The military grounds were clear enough: on them I have not for some months entertained a doubt; hut the political bearings of the question on India I had very seriously to consider, I fully admit it was for some time before I could make up my mind on that subject. If this was a question on which all Indian authorities were on one side and all military authorities on the other more doubt might be entertained respecting it; but it is perfectly notorious that Indian authorities are pretty nearly divided on the subject, while most of the able men recently returned from India, who have seen recent changes and recent events, are in favour of amalgamation. The opinion of the Duke of Wellington has been referred to. This is what he says:—

"The difference in the state of the King's troops in the East Indies from that in which the East India Company's European infantry is known to be is conclusive against it in my opinion. The British army cannot be made a colonial corps without destroying its character and strength. Would it not be a most disgraceful and terrible mode of losing possession of any part of Her Majesty's dominions by means of a mutiny of the officers of a local or colonial army employed to garrison it? Yet that is what we must look to if the army is to be employed as mere colonial troops, and never to quit the Colonies from the] day they enter the service."

I do not think it necessary to trouble the House at greater length on this subject. Whatever course is to ho pursued with regard to India, we think the first clement of strength is to have the most efficient army the country can provide; and while consulting the wishes and feelings of the people we must impress them with the conviction that it is from affection and kindness to them, not from fear, that any concessions are made to them.

rose to move that the Resolution, with respect to the duty on the importation of Foreign Malt should be recommitted. The lion, and learned Gentleman said, that the main point then at issue was whether the duty on foreign malt should be 25s. or 26s. a quarter. He had to observe that that was not a question arising out of a treaty with France. This was a question in which France took no interest at all, for the French were not large manufacturers of malt. But whether it was a question arising upon the treaty, or a question of policy with Her Majesty's Government, the result of the Resolution passed by the House of Commons would be the same. The point to be decided was whether, consistently with the principle adopted last night with reference to paper, the Government should add 3s. per quarter only to the Excise duty now payable on malt, or whether, in justice to the English maltster, they should not add 4s. per quarter. lie would, however, first consider the relative positions of the English and the foreign producers. It was, he admitted, impossible to arrive at anything like certainty in a computation of the expenses of manufacture. [Hear!] He regretted to hear that cheer, because, if the questions were one of doubt—if it was impossible to arrive at any certainty with reference to what would be necessary to equalize the condition and satisfy the rights of both parties, surely upon this first experiment being made, taking into consideration the fact that it would affect so materially the price of beer—that single, solitary luxury of the poor mart—it would become the Government to resolve that doubt in favour of the trade and of the poor labouring classes, who were so deeply, though indirectly, interested in the question. Ho would take the price of malt at 42s. per quarter. Then came the first difficulty—what were the expenses of the manufacture of barley into malt? He had endeavoured with his utmost ability to arrive at this expense, and lie believed he could state it without exaggeration at 4s. per quarter; it ranged from 3s. to 4s. 6d., but the average was 4s. per quarter. The average cost of conveyance from the place of manufacture to the nearest market town—a charge which of course varied with the distance to be got over—he found to be 2s. 6d. per quarter. Adding these amounts—42s., 4s., and 2s. 6d.—together made 48s. 6d., and that, according to the best information he could obtain upon the subject, was the absolute cost of production to the English manufacturer irrespective of duty. Now how stood the case with respect to the cost of production to the foreigner? He could safely say he was understating the figures when he said that the price of barley in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and the North of Germany was from 2s. to 3s. per quarter less than in this country. The difference in the cost of malting were striking; the price of labour for that purpose being in those countries scarcely one-half of what it would be in England. In no case did it exceed 2½francs, or 2s. per quarter. The cost of conveyance to this country was extremely moderate, not exceeding Is. 6d. per quarter, and therefore, taking the primary cost of malt abroad at 40s., it could be imported into this country at 43s. 6d. per quarter. Quite independently of all duty, there was at least a difference of 5s. against the British manufacturer, so that the same article produced in England would cost at least 48s.6d. Surely such a prodigious difference as this alone would induce Her Majesty's Government to determine the question of the shilling in favour of the British manufacturer. He then came to the question of duty, which, to avoid fractions, he would take at 22s. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that he proposed an additional duty of 3s. per quarter on foreign malt, principally from the consideration that, whereas the foreign importer was permitted to keep his malt in bond without, paying duty, practically until he sold it, the English manufacturer had, in most cases, to pay the duty, even more than six months before he sold his malt, and therefore suffered a disadvantage to which the foreigner was not subjected. But beyond that there was this consideration, that whereas the foreign maltster had no Excise duty to pay at all, was liable to no restrictions or limitations in manufacture, might make large or small quantities at any time or in any season, might sell immediately or keep his malt in bond for six, nine, or even twelve months, and, in fact, might deal with it as he chose, export it at his pleasure without duty and free of expense; on the other hand the British manufacturer was exposed to a series of difficulties which, if not actually money, were money's worth, and really added to the value of the malt the entire amount—namely, Is., which he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) hoped to induce the right hon. Gentleman to add to his present proposition. But the paramount consideration was that in this country the duty was paid long before the malt was sold, and it amounted to upwards of £2,000,000 per annum. He did not hesitate to call this a forced loan, under the law as it existed, by the maltster to the Government. It was a well known fact that it was during the winter months only, from November to April, that malt was permitted to be manufactured in England. Therefore, according to the short credit now given, the duty upon the whole would be paid, he would assume, on the 30th of June. But seven or eight months would frequently elapse before the maltster sold his malt. It was not simply the loss of interest, though that was something considerable, of which the maltster so much complained; but it was of the still greater loss caused by the want of capital which he could be employing in the extension of his trade, and the consequent reduction of annual profits. But there was this further point to which he desired to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Foreign barley actually paid the extra shilling per quarter. Why, then, should not foreign malt be similarly taxed? It seemed to be a most inconsistent variation, malt being only barley in another state. He was sure the Government could only desire to do what was just and fair. The question at issue was of no consequence whatever to foreign manufacturers of malt, but it was of the last importance, as he was informed, to the British producer. It should be recollected, moreover, that malt entered largely into the manufacture of beer, and as beer was the poor man's only luxury he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that in the question of the duty upon foreign malt the labouring classes were almost as much interested as the British maltsters themselves.

said, there were one or two points he really did not understand in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech; for, having made a pathetic appeal in the interest of the poor man as the principal consumer of beer, he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) had strangely enough from that fact deduced an argument in favour of raising the duty payable on the material from which beer was manufactured. Then another observation to which he had failed to discover the key was, that this was a question totally unimportant to the maltsters, not only of France, but of every other country abroad, and yet was at the same time of vital importance to English maltsters. For he could not understand bow it was unimportant to those abroad unless their importations were few or none at all, which was really the fact; and, if so, it was impossible to show how it could affect the interests of the English maltsters. With respect to the French Treaty, the question lay in a very narrow compass. He apprehended that malt came distinctly within the treaty. At the same time it was open to the House of Commons to discuss the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, provided they discussed it with reference exclusively to that addition which ought to be made to the import duty on account of Excise charges in this country. It was perfectly natural the hon. and learned Gentleman should feel an interest in a question like this, which was so important to his constituents; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed that the maltsters of England were of opinion that they had nothing to dread from foreign competition. The trade was indigenous to this country; it was conducted on a large scale, with great skill and large capital; it was one thoroughly familiar to the habits of the people; and he did not believe that under any circumstances we should import any considerable quantity of malt from abroad. They had rather to satisfy the dictates of equity and justice in adjusting this duty, than to provide for any new considerations of trade. But he also believed that the maltsters were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement which the Government had made, and which the Committee had adopted. Of course he entertained the highest respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, and admitted that he had large opportunities, considering the extent to which his constituents were interested in this trade, of obtaining information with respect to the various details involved in a discussion such as the present. But it should be borne in mind that Her Majesty's Government had still larger and more extensive opportunities of gaining such information. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to pride himself on an erroneous position when he took into his computation of the price at which the British maltster could bring his commodity to market as compared with the foreigner, and when he appeared to leave it to the House to draw the conclusion that the difference of 5s. a quarter was a difference which they were bound to make good in the way of a surtax. If that were what he intended, he need hardly point out that it would be a revival of the doctrine of protection in its purest form; and if it were not what be intended, he was at a loss to conceive in what way that part of the argument was at all relative to the question. They had nothing whatever to do with the price at which the foreigner could get his barley, with the cost of manufacture, or with the carriage; they had only to consider what proportion of the cost to the British producer was due to the imposition of the Excise duty. He must, however, criticise the figures of his hon. and learned Friend when he said that there was greater charge for manufacture and for cost of carriage to the British maltster; that the foreigner could bring his malt into the market in this country at Is. a quarter less than the Englishman who resided in this country. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had thought that this country was celebrated at least for facility of carriage. The question, however, before the House did not admit of taking these elements into consideration, and, after having heard his hon. and learned Friend, he deprecated the further prosecution of this discussion in the interest of the British maltster, for he felt certain that if, under the influence, perhaps, of patriotic and creditable motives, the Government had committed an error, that error had been in asking Parliament to grant, under the name of surtax, a larger sum than the British maltster would be in strictness entitled to. If his hon. and learned Friend had been arguing the case against the British maltster, he should totally despair of convincing him that the British maltster had a claim to a surtax of anything like the amount that had been named. The elements to be taken into consideration were simple. There was the question how far the 1s. duty on foreign barley could be said to enhance the price of British barley. There was the question what advantage the British maltster was entitled to on account of the privilege of bonding possessed by the foreign importer; and the third and only other element on which they were justified in giving this surtax was, what was the positive cost to the maltster in England of the Excise regulations imposed for the necessary security of the revenue. He did not think that they could enter on the disadvantage to the maltster of making his malt in six months to he consumed in twelve months, for it was not a consequence of the Excise duty that it regulated the seasons of the year. As to allowance on account of bonding, if the average length of bonding were taken at six months, and 5 per cent were allowed upon the duty for that time, there would be got no more towards the surtax than 6d. a quarter. If he were to assume that the duty on foreign barley added 1s. a quarter of cost to the maltster—though this was undoubtedly beyond the truth—there would be altogether no more than 1s. 6d. towards the surtax. As to the Excise regulations, how did that matter stand? The surtax was nearly 3s. 4d. and 1s. 6d. having been accounted for there remained 1s. 10d. not accounted for. His hon. and learned Friend only stated the difference of manufacture between the Englishman and the foreigner at 2s. a quarter, and 1s. 10d. a quarter was allowed as surtax. His hon. and learned Friend, however, he was sure, would not think of saying that nearly the whole of this 2s. was due to the Excise duty. The truth was that in dealing with the French Government on the question of malt, they had done that which they could not have done in the case of spirits; they could not have sustained a surtax so considerable as that which they proposed. If the case of the British distiller were examined it would be seen how rigidly the Government had dealt with it on every point—how they had weighed in gold scales every statement the distiller made, how they had tested every item brought forward to make a surtax; and the maltster upon this examination would have very good reason to be satisfied with his position. The distiller paid the duty, and lay out of it for a very considerable time, so that the advantage to the maker of foreign brandy on this head was considerable, because he could bond. They had, as he had said, made the case more favourable to the British maltster than they could have done if they had an antagonist to satisfy upon the matter.

could assure the House that if the British maltsters were satisfied the British farmers were anything but satisfied with the existing arrangements. They considered that they should share more fully the advantages of free trade, for they considered that the present tax fettered them in their trade. It fettered them in supplying their labourers with a beverage which enabled them to compete in labour with the foreigner, and it fettered them in competing with the foreigner in fatting cattle. He believed that there were more than 400 petitions before the House complaining of the Treaty with France, and the way in which it had been carried out. They complained that in reducing the duty on wine no consideration was shown to the maltsters of this country. This question affected the great body of the people, who consumed beer, and he considered that he was pleading the cause of the man

"Who rising sees his work begun,

And ends it with the setting sun."

To such men beer was a necessary of life. The country generally felt that the days of the malt tax were numbered, and there were many who would take every opportunity to enforce the abolition of the tax.

felt that the House would hardly bear with the discussion of this subject at length, or it would not be difficult to show that the maltsters and brewers had received rather hard measure at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had reduced the duty on every article that could compete with malt, and at the same time increased the tax on malt. The contraction of the credit was itself a very great drawback to the trade, and made a difference against his trade alone of £1,800 a year. Nothing could be more obvious to the negotiator, when he was reducing the duty on wine, to consider what articles were likely to be affected by that, and to make the best bargain he could on their behalf. But it did not appear that Mr. Cobden ever named the subject of beer to the French Government, though it was notorious that they would have made concessions" on the subject in consideration of the competition that would be introduced by the admission of French wines. The Chancellor of the Exchequer underrated the difficulties with which the British maltster would have to contend in competition with the foreigner. The average price of barley during the last thirty-three years had been 33s. per quarter and the duty 21s. 8d. In many instances, including restrictions and the advantage taken by the Excise, the duty was brought up to 22s. 4d. per quarter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had left this out of sight. The foreigner, who paid his own duty on his malt, could conduct his business with a capital of 33s., while the British maltster had to pay 22s. in addition, and the foreigner would thus he enabled to do as large a business with £33,000 of capital as the British maltster could with £55,000, and 1s. additional duty would make no adequate compensation for want of capital. It was said that we never imported foreign malt; but the fact was that we were daily importing barley from Hamburgh for malting, and he had that night sent a gentleman over there for the purpose. Malt-houses and labour could be got as cheap at Hamburgh as hero, and doubtless British maltsters would now be led to establish malt-houses abroad, 'where they could carry on their operations free from Excise restrictions, and so this country would be deprived of the advantage its manufacture gave to the employment of a great amount of labour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a comparison between the maltster and distiller. The latter paid his duty before he sold his spirit; but it was six weeks before the maltster could put his stock into consumption, and it must be considered that malt must be made at the end of March for consumption until far into December, so we paid our duties six months before our malts were consumed, while the foreigner kept his at home or in warehouse until it was required for consumption in England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to allow maltsters to make their malt in bond, and so put them on a footing with the foreign maltster, and he had miscalculated if he thought the trade would not receive a great extension abroad. He had seen foreign malt within the last few weeks that would bear comparison with any English malt. Many maltsters were apprehensive of the measure, and were persuaded that malt would be made abroad for a large portion of the London trade. It could only affect his business by bringing the foreigners to compete with him for barley in their own markets.

rose to move the discharge of the Order for going into Committee on the group of measures of which this was one. They had been prepared with great care and deliberation; they were in themselves unobjectionable, and would effect a considerable improvement in our criminal law. At the same time the period of the Session at which these Bills were received from the other House, and the state of public business: rendered it impossible to proceed with them. It would be undesirable to pass one or two of these Bills, and it was quite obvious that to attempt to consider them all in Committee would be an inexcusable consumption of valuable time. It was the intention of the Government to bring them forward early in the ensuing Session in this House, and it would then be for the House to determine whether they should receive consideration in Committee of the Whole House or in a Select Committee. He therefore moved that the Order for going into Committee be discharged.

expressed his astonishment at the statement of the Solicitor General after the statement yesterday by the Attorney General of the intention of the Government to proceed with these Bills in the present Session. Thousands of pounds had been expended on the Statute Law Commission, and it would be a disappointment to the public to find that the announcement in Her Majesty's Speech, that the criminal law would be amended, would not be realized.

also expressed his disappointment and regret at hearing that those Bills were to be abandoned this Session. he, however, hoped that they would be re-introduced early next Session, for he looked upon them as calculated to make a great improvement in the criminal law.

likewise expressed his sorrow at the necessity which existed for the withdrawal of those Bills. He trusted that they would not have the same farce enacted in regard to those Bills next Session as had been performed this Session. They had involved an immense expense of money and time, and it was not creditable to the Government to keep them so long on the Paper, if they did not see something like a certainty of passing them into a law. He thought it would be desirable to refer the Bills to a Select Committee up stairs.

said, that it was with great regret the Government had concurred in the Motion which had just been made. He was in hopes until very lately that the House would be induced to take these Bills, trusting to the labours of the Lords' Committee and the Statute Law Commission. But there did not appear to be any inclination to adopt that course. On looking more attentively to the Bills he found that, although generally they were Consolidation Bills, there were alerations in the law proposed which would require separate consideration. It was obvious that at that period of the Session Bills of this length could not be got through in a satisfactory manner, and there appeared to be no alternative but to postpone them until the next Session of Parliament. Whether they should be referred to a Select Committee to perform the same functions which had been performed by the Lords' Committee, or whether the House would find time to dispose of them in Committee of the Whole House, remained to be considered, but the Government had no intention of abandoning the principle of consolidation. He thought it of the utmost importance that a matter upon which a great amount of money, time, and labour had been expended should be brought to some result, but, having determined to withdraw the Bills, he thought the Government had done right to announce their decision as soon as possible to the House.

thought it would be advisable for the Government to take up such measures at the earliest possible period of the Session in order to give them a fair chance of being passed into a law.