asked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any diplomatic communication by M. Thouvenel, expressing it to be the view or intention of the French Government to leave the French troops at Rome until a Congress should have determined upon the settlement of the Affairs of Italy, had been addressed to or brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government?

said, that the hon. Gentleman would find in the blue book on the Affairs of Italy, at page 91, Part VII., a despatch from Lord Cowley, and also an extract from the Moniteur, declaring the intentions of the French Government upon that subject.

said, he would beg leave to ask the Lord Advocate, If any Commissioners of the Herring Fishery have been appointed in pursuance of the power granted to Her Majesty by the Act passed last Session to nominate five additional Commissioners; and if not, whether it is the intention of Government to recommend the appointment of any Commissioners, and when?

said, there had been some delay in making those appointments, but they would be made in a short time.

said, that having received letters informing him that during the late election for the county of Aberdeen there had been serious riots, in the course of which several voters had been maltreated and injured—one so severely, that he had since died—he wished to ask the learned Lord Advocate, Whether he had received any similar intelligence; and, if so, whether he had taken any steps to suppress such riots, and to prevent their recurrence in future?

said, that his hon. Friend had not given him notice of his intention to ask this Question, but he had no hesitation in answering it, because he had received no information whatever upon the subject to which it referred.

said, he had to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, What has been done to give security to the large steam-vessels which run between Dublin and Holyhead during the present violent gales, and whether a sufficient pier had been built for their reception at the latter port?

said, that last year, before the present line of packets began to run, the Admiralty constructed a temporary pier in connection with the old harbour, which had, he believed, been found useful; and they had further submitted to the Treasury a proposal for erecting at Holyhead a permanent pier for the use of the new packets.

asked whether the proposed pier was to be in the old or the new harbour?

said, that it was to extend from the old dockyard outside the old pier into the new harbour.

rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether a large number of the Volunteer Rifle Corps had not remonstrated against the recent Minute by which rifles must he kept in a depot instead of being entrusted to the members of the corps; and whether it was the intention of the Government to insist on the enforcement of that rule? He acknowledged that a strong case might be made out for this rule, but he trusted his hon. Friend would not give them the reply which had, he was told, been given to some remonstrants—namely, that this was not a new rule, but, in fact, rather a return to the former practice which had been allowed to fall into abeyance. That reply was a very proper one to give to innocent captains in out of the way parts of Norfolk, but it really would not do in that House; because they were all perfectly aware that although a stipulation had been made with each corps that it should have a depôt for arms, that stipulation had become a mere dead letter. Not one corps in 100 had paid the least attention to it. For instance, he was acquainted himself with one corps of 600 men which had never had a depôt to this day; and even those who had provided a depot had scarcely ever kept their arms in it. This was virtually a new rule. The old one was obsolete. One argument that he had heard used in favour of this rule was that in case of a revolutionary I spirit arising it would not be safe for the riflemen throughout the country to have their arms in their hands. He could not I imagine a more futile argument. In the last ten years not a single man in England had even been prosecuted for either rioting, sedition, or treason, nor was there the smallest reason to apprehend a rising of the Volunteers with their rifles in their hands. If such a time of excitement should arise, however, a couple of deal doors to an armoury would not keen the riflemen from getting hold of their rifles. But, then, perhaps, it might be pleaded that if the riflemen had their rifles at home they would go popping about the country and shooting quantities of Her Majesty's subjects. Why, during the last summer at least 100,000 riflemen had their rifles with them at home, and it was most remarkable that during the whole of the year not a single human being had been put to death by a rifleman. Experience in such a case was worth a thousand theories. The only real argument in favour of this rule was that the rifles had, in many cases, been so badly kept that it had become necessary for the War Office to interfere. No doubt the rifles must be kept clean—that was essential; but that could perfectly be done by requiring a written engagement from every captain to hold a monthly inspection of arms. And let the adjutant also, who was in the receipt of pay from the country, make it his paramount duty to see that the arms were properly kept, and require him to suspend, as regarded those riflemen who disregarded that essential point, permission to retain their arms. His first objection to the rule was that it was needless; while the expenses of an armoury, which would cost £100 or £150 a year, would be fatal to many corps. Many corps could not obtain any depôt near their parade ground, and the members would have to walk at least a mile from their homes to the armoury and hack again both before and after parade. Besides, the mere process of handing out the rifles to a large corps would occupy nearly an hour, which would involve a most serious loss of the time now given to drill; further, it would be a grievous waste of an important part of the rifleman's training. The principle that ought to guide the Government should be to make every man ready to start off tomorrow to defend any part of England on which an invading force might land; but the Volunteer whose arms had always been kept in a depot and cleaned for him by some one else, would, after a day or two become quite ineffective. There could not be a more essential part of a rifleman's training than being taught to keep his own arms in an effective state; and it was impossible for any man to become a first-rate shot unless his rifle were continually in his hand. The Volunteer movement had been managed with great ability and courtesy by Lord Herbert and Earl de Grey. All Volunteers had reason to thank them for their wise and kindly conduct of the mass of business thrown upon them. But of late there had been a tendency to exercise too great a paternal supervision over the Volunteers, instead of leaving them to their own judgment and free will. Each morning some new circular made its appearance announcing that new rules were to be enforced, and that Lord Herbert had been taking them into his profound consideration— a thing which he heartily wished his Lordship would abstain from doing. If the Government wished the Volunteer movement to prosper he implored them to treat it with that best of specifics—a little wholesome neglect.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Upon what grounds Dr. R. Thompson, M.D., who had satisfied the Army Medical Director General, Dr. Gibson, that he possessed all the prescribed qualifications, and a degree in medicine and a diploma in surgery to entitle him to be examined as a candidate for a medical commission in Her Majesty's service, and had been directed to attend on the 18th of February to undergo a competitive examination, was, on the morning of that day, in a personal interview, refused permission by Dr. Gibson to appear before the Board of Examiners? In asking this question, he would call the attention of the House to the fact, that by an Act 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 85, s. 87, it was enacted

"That no Native of the said territory, nor any natural born subject of Her Majesty resident therein shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them be disabled from holding any place, office, or emolument under the said Company."

Now, there had just occurred a case which i had he not been convinced of its truth by holding the correspondence on the subject in his hands, he should have been very unwilling to believe possible. It was the case of Dr. Thompson, the son of an English pensioner in India. His mother had a tinge of Native blood —only three quarters, not half-caste. His father and mother were married, and he was legitimate: he had studied at the Medical College of Madras, and showed such talent, and made such progress in his studies that it was thought desirable that he should visit Europe to perfect himself in his medical acquirements. He went to St. Andrew's, and obtained the degree of Doctor of Medicine. He then studied surgery at Edinburgh, and obtained his diploma as surgeon. He then thought that he might compete for a situation in the medical department of Her Majesty's service. He communicated with the Medical Director General, Dr. Gibson, who raised some objections as to his surgeon's diploma. These, however, were overcome, and Monday last was appointed for him to enter upon the examination. On the morning of that day Dr. Thompson saw Dr. Gibson, who told him privately that he could not be allowed to go up for medical examination. "Why not?" said Dr. Thompson. "Well," said Dr. Gibson, "the medical service is no longer exclusively for India. Since the amalgamation of the Indian Local Army with the Line, the medical officers are appointed for general service." Dr. Thompson said he was quite willing to be so employed. "But," said Dr. Gibson, "you were born in India, and, therefore, you cannot compete for general service; because you might very likely be sent to Canada, and you would not be likely to suit that climate." Dr. Thompson said he had produced medical certificates of his physical capacity and of his professional acquirements. He was a British subject, and had a right to compete with other British subjects for office under the Crown. 'No," said Dr. Gibson, "that cannot be, now, because we only appoint for general service, and not for the Indian service in particular." Now, if that rule were to be upheld, the hopes of this gentleman, whose talents were great, and whose testimonials were perfect, were all blighted, and the whole of the expense that he had incurred in acquiring his professional knowledge would be thrown away; and, moreover, his rights as a British subject were negatived. He was recommended to come to him (Colonel Sykes) and he did so, and showed documents which proved his case to be true. It should be remembered that the same rule might be applied to the sons of European officers in India, whether of the Line or local, if those sons were born in India. They might be told that they could not enter the Queen's service because they might be sent to Canada. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give an answer to his question which would be satisfactory to Her Majesty's subjects in India.

said, the Question put by the gallant Colonel was one of some little difficulty. The Act of Parliament to which he had referred was not applicable to the admission of officers into the Imperial army, but only to the admission of Natives of India into the service of the East India Company; and, in his opinion, applied only to those appointments in India which were placed in the gift of the Crown by the Government of India Act of 1858. Dr. Thompson, with one or two other gentlemen, had arrived in this country for the purpose of competing for appointments in the Indian medical service. In consequence, however, of the Act of last Session the Indian local army ceased to exist; and, as no more appointments would be made exclusively for the Indian military service, these gentlemen became desirous of competing for appointments in the general medical service. It was, however, a question whether Indians of Native parentage were fit to be admitted into the general military and medical service; not, he need hardly say, from any doubt as to their ability, or professional education, but because officers of the general medical service were called on to serve in different parts of the globe, and the constitution of Indians of Native parentage would probably unfit them to render efficient service in cold climates. After a correspondence between the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for India, it was determined that it would not be proper to employ them in general service, because their health would probably fail, and they would become chargeable to the British public at an early age, besides being unable to fulfil their duties efficiently. As, however, he understood that possibly neither Dr. Thompson nor the other gentlemen could be considered Indians of Native parentage, the Secretary of State for War would be prepared to reconsider the case in communication with the Secretary of State for India, and to deal with it in the manner which seemed best to them without, at the same time, prejudicing the interests of the general medical service. With regard to the other Question which had been addressed to him, he was bound to say that the arms of the Volunteer force was a subject which had created consider- able interest. However, but very few remonstrances had been addressed to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman had misapprehended the wording, and certainly the intention of the circular to which he had called the attention of the House. It would probably be recollected that one of the principal clauses in the original conditions of acceptance of Volunteer corps was that an armoury should be provided, and that proper measures should be taken for taking care of the arms. It was found to be impossible for members of some Volunteer corps always to place their arms in the armoury; it was found that, in many cases, Volunteers who had to go to the armoury for their arms to attend drill bring their arms back to the armoury, and then proceed to their homes would be put to so much inconvenience that, in all probability, they would throw the thing up as a bad job, and retire from volunteering altogether. In consequence of that state of things the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War thought that a relaxation should be made in the terms of the original circular; and the circular now objected to as imposing a more stringent regulation was, in fact, one which relaxed a rule that already existed. Its object was to enable officers commanding corps to allow, under certain circumstances, Volunteers to keep their arms in their own houses. The hon. Gentleman used words in the course of his speech which he (Mr. Baring) could not allow to pass unnoticed. He mentioned that it had been said by some that it would not be safe to allow the arms to remain in the hands of the Volunteers. He (Mr. Baring) could say, on behalf of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, and also on behalf of the Government, that no such idea had ever existed in their minds. It would have been absurd, indeed, for the Goverment to encourage the Volunteer movement if they did not consider that the men who might join it could be trusted under every circumstance; therefore, if such an idea had ever been entertained, it had not arisen from any one connected with the Government. But he thought it was necessary that the Government, on behalf of the public, should take care that the public property was properly preserved. The arm supplied to the Volunteers was a very perfect and a very expensive weapon, and the expense of its renewal when worn out would full upon the country. If hon. Gentlemen looked back at what had taken place at the time of the last war with France, they would find that the commanding officers were made responsible for the arms in their charge. All the Government intended to do was to insist that those officers should in future be responsible. It was said that that would be impossible. He did not think it would be, seeing that the commanding officers would be assisted by the subalterns and noncommissioned officers in the duty of superintending the care of the arms. His noble Friend Earl de Grey had undertaken to consolidate the circulars; and if any doubtful words were found they would be removed, in order that for the future there might be no misapprehension as to the intentions of the Government.

said, he had put on the paper a question with respect to Harbours of Refuge, and lie trusted the importance of the subject, and the interest felt in it out of doors, would be his apology for offering a few prefatory observations before making the inquiry itself. So long ago as 1857 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the propriety of making further grants of public money for the improvement and extension of Harbours of Refuge. The Committee, which was presided over by an hon. Gentleman whose loss they all deplored, sat during two Sessions, and reported, but it was unwilling to undertake the task of selecting the exact sites or modes of construction, and it ended its labours by recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission to ascertain exactly which were the best sites for constructing Harbours of Refuge. The Committee from the outset wished, as much as possible, to take a broad and national view of the question, and to separate it from the smaller, but also important question of claims of rival harbours, and for assistance from the public purse. A Royal Commission was appointed, and having surveyed the coast and examined a great number of witnesses, it recommended the application of public money in two distinct forms—namely, one for the improvement of existing tidal harbours, and the other for the construction of large harbours at different sites on the coast, where it was believed the greatest saving of life and property could be effected. Last Session, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), who, himself, had been a very efficient member of the Commission, felt it his duty to invite the attention of the House to the subject. The Motion he brought forward was to the effect

"That in the opinion of this House it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to adopt at the earliest possible period the necessary measures for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1858 to inquire into the formation of Harbours of Refuge in Great Britain and Ireland."

That Motion was made on the 19th of June, and carried by a majority of the House though Her Majesty's Government considered it their duty to oppose it on the ground that it was not expedient at that time to carry out so large a scheme as that recommended by the Royal Commission. That was the ground taken by the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but at the conclusion of his speech on that occasion, the noble Lord used these words:—

"This matter has received, and is receiving, very serious consideration; and, undoubtedly, it will be our duty in the next Session to bring it before the House in a practical shape."

He (Mr. Liddell) need not remind the House of the circumstances which had recently contributed to make the interest felt in this subject still more painful; but he would refer to a few of the wrecks recorded as having taken place on the 9th of the present month. At Whitby six vessels were driven ashore, and the crew of four saved by that lifeboat which the House would recollect with pain was lost. In an attempt to save the crew of a fifth vessel, that gallant boat, with a crew of twelve men, went down. At Hartlepool sixty-five vessels were wrecked in five hours within the bay. Thirty of these were a total loss, and eight foundered with every soul on board, in the sight of thousands, who were unable to render any assistance. No less than fifty lives and £150,000 worth of property were lost at that spot alone. Five vessels were wrecked at Tyne-mouth, close to the new piers; and eleven others between that port and the Tees, most of them being total losses On the 12th of February, three days afterwards, 139 losses of ships were posted at Lloyd's, that being the largest number ever known for a single day. The wreck chart of each year presented certain ominous black marks and crosses. The crosses denoted those places at which collisions had occurred, and the black marks indicated wrecks. He very much feared that in the wreck chart of the current year those same spots would be found still more darkly stained, and he would particularly call the attention of the House to the fact that the localities so marked, were precisely the places so pointed out by the Committee and the Commissioners to whom he had referred as being places at which the greatest amount of life and property might be saved. He wished to observe that, when he called the attention of the House to the north-east part of the coast, it was from no want of sympathy with other places which also required the protection of harbours of refuge. He wished to look at the question in a national point of view, and it was only because he was better acquainted with the north-east coast than any other that he now particularly referred to it. For a length of more than 150 miles on this coast nature had provided nothing that could afford protection to vessels during a storm. All the harbours on that line of coast were, without exception, bar harbours. Large convoys of vessels left what were called the coal ports heavily laden. If a heavy storm came on they seldom found themselves able to round the dangerous headland called Flamborough Head, they were unable to keep the sea, and were in imminent danger of being driven on a rugged lea shore. They had in those circumstances no alternative but to return and fly for the ports which they had left. If they succeeded in reaching these ports, the access to which was often very difficult, and at certain states of the tide, impossible, dreadful scenes of confusion occurred; scores of ships came tumbling in one after another, and great losses from collision ensued. Often they were unable to reach the harbours they sought, and the melancholy spectacle was too frequently seen of ships broken up upon the rocks, and their crews drowned within the sight and hearing of their relatives and friends on shore. A good deal of importance had been properly attached by the public journals to telegraphic communications having been dispatched, by the order of the Board of Trade, to certain parts of the coast, announcing the approach of the late gale; but he was able to state that no such telegraphic communication had been received at the ports of the Tyne, the Twee, or the Tees. It should, however, be borne in mind that this meteorological science, which assumed to give an account of storms, was still in its infancy, and very great doubt and uncertainty at present existed as to the certainty of the prognostics, or the propriety of attending to such suggestions on account of the exigencies of trade. The demands of the London market for coal were enormous, and the detention of coal-laden vessels in their respective ports under the circumstances he had described imposed great loss upon the owners, and equal inconvenience to consumers. He could not leave the subject without paying his humble tribute of admiration and gratitude to those gallant men who had performed such important services during the recent storms—he meant the crews of the lifeboats. He should be wanting in the discharge of his duty if he did not acknowledge the great services of those gallant crews. Neither the military nor the naval annals of the country bad ever shown nobler, calmer com age, or more intrepidity and gallantry than had been displayed by the crews of the lifeboats; and he rejoiced at the degree of organization which bad been acquired by the National Lifeboat Institution. He had no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the admirable organization and the unheard-of efforts of the men who manned those lifeboats the loss of life during the late storms would have been much greater than it was. There were about 1,000 lives annually lost on our coasts from shipwrecks, and about a million and a half of property, and he asked whether it was for a nation like England to stand by and see all this loss of life and property without making a serious effort to avert it? The preservation of life was the first thing that ought to engage the attention of a people, and the dictates of prudence and humanity alike called for the serious attention of Parliament to the subject. He wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether the Government have prepared any measure for encouraging or assisting the construction of harbours of refuge on the coasts of the United Kingdom; and whether it is their intention to bring the question before Parliament during the present Session in a practical shape, in accordance with a statement to that effect made by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 19th day of June last?

said, he hoped that, if the Government were induced to take any steps in this matter, they would not neglect the claims of the coast of Wales, where there was not a single harbour of refuge. Vessels going to and from Liverpool kept as near the Irish coast as possible, but when the wind and sea rolled heavily into Cardigan Bay it was almost impossible for the vessels to save themselves.

said, he was a member of the Committee which sat on this subject, and he might state that there was no point on which the Committee was so unanimous as that a harbour of refuge was called for at the particular part of the coast referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell). The Commission that was afterwards appointed also concurred in the absolute necessity of one or two harbours of refuge being constructed there. He believed that convict labour might be advantageously employed upou these harbours; and, as the works of Portland were very near completion, be trusted the convicts would afterwards be transferred to the north-east part of the kingdom. These harbours ought to be well planned, and, above all, they ought not to he made too small or undertaken in a niggardly spirit, for the harbour at Holyhead had been spoiled by being constructed on too small a scale, and the same thing was said of the harbours of Alderney and other places. Some interesting evidence was given on this subject before the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure, and he would take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord (Lord Harry Vane), the Chairman, whether it was his intention shortly to move for its reappointment, in conformity with the recommendations of that Committee.

said, that every hon. Member connected with the shipping interest must thank the hon. Member who had again brought this subject under the notice of the Government. He did not speak in the interests of his constituents so much as in the interest of humanity when he urged the claims of Waterford and Carlingford, which were two of the harbours recommended by the Select Committee and the Royal Commission. Some of the worst of the recent casualties had occurred outside Waterford, and might have been averted had a harbour of refuge existed there. It was important, also, to observe that not one of the vessels so wrecked was coming to an Irish port. One of them was a ship of 1,200 tons, eighteen of whose crew perished. She was coming from Mobile Bay to Liverpool, laden with cotton. Another large vessel, bound from Halifax, to Liverpool, was placed in the most imminent danger. The greater portion of the shipping going up Channel on the homeward voyage from America to Liverpool must go by Waterford. A harbour of refuge at Waterford was one of the cheapest recommended by the Com- mission. It need not cost more than £50,000, as no natural or engineering difficulties existed. He trusted that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) would announce that the Government were prepared to give effect to the vote of last Session, since they incurred great responsibility bv postponing it.

said, he should be sorry to see the present discussion degenerate into the advocacy of particular places. He, like other hon. Members, entertained a strong impression where the first harbour of refuge ought to be made. The subject had been, however, fully considered and reported upon by a Select Committee, and afterwards by a Royal Commission, and if there were any use in blue-books they ought to save hon. Members the pains of stating, with less authority than the Royal Commission, where the harbours of refuge ought to be made.

Sir. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the great national importance of the subject which the hon. Member has brought under the notice of the House. In the first place, we lament that so large an amount of property should be lost upon our shores. This, however, is a loss that falls on individuals, and they have the means of indemnifying themselves to a great degree by assurances and other arrangements. But we lament still more the loss of so many valuable lives—the loss of some of the best seamen of the country, for that is a loss against which no assurance can be made, for which no compensation can be obtained, and which is, therefore, a great calamity to the country. But when we say we are sensible to the magnitude of the evil, we cannot shut our eyes also to the magnitude of the remedy that is proposed; and what has passed in this short discussion suffices to show the extent to which the demand would go. The hon. Member who began this discussion urges the claims of the north-east coast of England. An hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Slaney) calls attention to the necessity of harbours of refuge on the Welsh coast. An hon. Member opposite (Mr. Blake) points out how necessary they are on the Irish coast. No doubt, my noble Friend the member for Wick-(Lord Bury) would be ready to insist on the extreme advantage of a harbour of refuge in the place he represents. But these harbours of refuge would cost a very large sum of money, and I am sorry to say that the Government are not prepared at present to propose to Parliament to advance out of the public revenue for this purpose grants at all commensurate with the objects in view. At the same time, we did make a pledge last year that we would propose some measure this Session, and my right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Trade has a Bill ready to be presented for the purpose of taking the first steps in this matter. The hon. Member who spoke first urged that steps should be taken to improve the existing harbours. That is more within the scope of our means than the construction of new works. An hon. Friend who sits behind me (Mr. A. Smith) says that a mistake has been committed hitherto by making all the harbours of refuge too small. It is quite true that, if we are to make new harbours of refuge, care should be taken to make them large enough to meet all demands. As our commerce increases, and as our ships grow larger, we must look forward to new demands of space for this purpose. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) has a Bill ready which enables the Exchequer Bills Loan Commissioners to make advances, both in England and Ireland, to those parties who are willing to take money under certain conditions for the purpose of improving existing harbours. We have been told that the Committee made a recommendation which I am afraid will not be at all approved—that if the Government advance money for the creation of harbours of refuge, the interest of part of the money so advanced may be repaid by passing tolls. Some hon. Members, I am afraid, will not be at all disposed to agree in that recommendation. I hope it will be satisfactory that enlarged powers should be given to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for the purpose of making advances on easy terms to those who draw upon them for the improvement of the existing harbours.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the position of the teachers in the burgh schools of Scotland, under the law as recently declared by the decision of the Court of Session, in the case of the "Presbytery of Elgin v. the Magistrates of Elgin;" and to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he intends to introduce any measure for re- lieving such teachers from the jurisdiction of the Church Courts, to which they had been thereby declared subject, and generally to free the burgh and parochial schoolmasters from the necessity of signing the Test of Conformity to the Established Church?

said, that he was ready to admit that the subject was deserving of attention. It had, however, been brought more than once under the attention of the House in consequence of the strong feeling on the subject. In the parochial schools of Scotland no one who did not belong to the Established Church of that country could be a master, but until recently that law had only been applied to the country schools, and the burgh schoolmasters were not generally made liable to the test, which it was supposed had fallen into desuetude as regarded them. How ever, by a recent judgment this was found not to be the case, and that judgment was tantamount to re enacting the test with respect to burgh schools. In reply to the question, he had to observe that for three separate Sessions measures were introduced by the Government for the purpose of throwing open the schools in Scotland, and on two occasions they were successful in that House, but were wrecked in "another place." Without giving any direct pledge, he would simply say that it was his intention to propose to Her Majesty's Government a scheme in relation to education in Scotland. Whether the Bill could be introduced into Parliament would depend, certainly, on the prospect of greater success than had hitherto attended former attempts.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the number of resignations which have taken place in the constabulary force of Ireland during the last ten years, and to the duties which have been imposed upon the men without any corresponding increase of pay or emoluments; and to inquire, If any amelioration of the condition of the lower grades in the force is in contemplation? Considering the startling number of resignations that had taken place he thought it was clear that some investigation of this subject was needful. During the last ten years 6,281 persons had left the force in the service of which they had voluntarily engaged, so that nearly one man in twenty had left the service of their country without explanation, and apparently without any advantage to themselves. Looking at the matter financially, and rating the cost of training each recruit at £14 per man, it would be found that upwards of £100,000 had been lost on the expenditure of the nation. He attributed this large defection to the heavy additional duties imposed upon the men without a commensurate increase of pay. Since the appointment of the present Inspector General there had been an increase of the pay of the superior officers, and that official was entitled to thanks for his services. Still the Government might judiciously extend the promotion of these superior officers, not only in the offices of Dublin Castle, but in the general Government Departments of Ireland. But the smallest pittance had been added to the pay of the men under the name of long service money, while heavy additional duties, such as the collection of emigration statistics, the regulation of weights and measures, the execution of decrees for small debts, and other harrassing obligations had been imposed upon them. It was now proposed to put upon them the collection of the census returns. He hoped that some better allowance would be made for that than for the collection of agricultural statistics, for the whole duty of collecting which an allowance had been made, of only two shillings to each man. Experience showed that it was impossible to enlist skill and intelligence at the same wages as daily labour; and, owing to circumstances which had lately transpired, it had been suspected that the spirit of Ribbonism was not entirely extinct in the force. He should be sorry to endorse such a suspicion, because he did not believe in it; but he should be glad if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would state that the whole body was free from that fell imputation. The necessaries of life had advanced considerably in price since the constabulary force was first organized. The prices of butchers' meat, eggs, oatmeal, and potatoes had been more than doubled in price, while the remuneration had only advanced by a mere fractional amount. The whole Vote for the constabulary force last year amounted to£707,561. If that sum were supplemented by a Vote of £45,000 a small addition might be made to the pay of the different members of the force according to their rank, which would have the effect of giving satisfaction and confidence to the men. But it was impossible to conceal that much discontent and dissatisfaction now existed. If, however, the long service money was renewed, in addition to some advance in the present pay, such a step would, no doubt, be a fresh incentive to discipline, and would place the force in an efficient state, and more willing to discharge the multiplicity of duties which the executive had, in its wisdom, imposed upon them.

said, it could not be otherwise than a source of gratification to anybody officially connected with the Irish constabulary to be the means of obtaining from Parliament any increase in their pay which it might think fit to grant; hut his hon. Friend, who brought forward the subject must, at the same time, bear in mind that the Minister who asked the House of Commons for money for a particular purpose had a duty to discharge as well to the public at large as to those in whose behalf he might more immediately interest himself. When the House remembered that the Vote for the Irish Constabulary, had risen 1o a sum exceeding £700,000, and when they remembered also that the whole of this force was paid by the vote of Parliament, which was not the case in the other parts of the United Kingdom, they would, he was sure, require him to make out a very strong case before he called upon Parliament for any great or sudden increase in that Vote. He was happy at being in a position to assure his hon. Friend that he had been misinformed, if he thought there was serious discontent in the force, or that there was any difficulty in filling up the numbers of the force, or if he believed there was any of that demoralization prevailing amongst the men which, he (Mr. Cardwell) gathered from the hon. Member's observations, his information led him to believe was the case. Whether he (Mr. Cardwell) communicated with Sir Henry Brownrigg, who had been twenty or thirty years in the force, or whether he communicated with that most distinguished officer, Colonel Wood, who had lately been made second in the force, he found the strongest testimony on the part of those officers to the moral qualities, the high efficiency, discipline, loyalty, and fidelity of the men whom they had the honour to command, If, on the other hand, be looked to the representations which were received from the highest authorities in Ireland; or if he looked to the reports of the Grand Juries or the Fishery Commissioners, or turned to those of the Board of Inland Revenue, he found on all sides the most unmistakable reason to conclude that the services of no force were ever better discharged than were at the present time the services of the constabulary in Ireland. His hon. Friend was mistaken if he supposed that recruiting had fallen off. Perhaps, in the hon. Gentleman's own neighbourhood—in the north of Ireland—increased employment, which was so fortunately the characteristic of Ireland at the present time, and a corresponding rise in the rate of wages induced people at present not to desire employment in the public service; but with regard to recruiting generally, be (Mr. Cardwell) was assured by Sir Henry Brownrigg that never were vacancies more readily applied for or numbers more easily filled up than at the present time. With regard to the remuneration of the men, it must be stated that since Parliament had undertaken the whole of this charge, an increase in the rate of remuneration had been made on several occasions; and, as an instance of the spirit in which the Constabulary had been dealt with he might mention that, according to the Return which had been moved for by his hon. Friend, the salary of the head constable was from £60 to £70, with a residence, clothing, and allowances. As he stated before, they had obtained a body of men whose efficiency was not surpassed —indeed, be doubted whether it was equalled—in any force to be found in the world. He himself had seen the recruits who came to the depôt in Dublin, and he had been astonished by the intelligence and appearance of those men, who had not yet undergone the training of the force. It would, therefore, not be true to state to the House of Commons that the present inducements were insufficient to bring good men into the service; and, with the information before him, he should not feel justified in proposing any large increase in the Estimate of the present year. He held in his hand a Return moved for by his hon. Friend with regard to resignations. In 1853, the resignations amounted to 775; in 1854 to 749, and they varied in the several years. The dismissals in last year fell short of the average, and, notwithstanding the special causes operating last year, the number of resignations and dismissals only exceeded by 40 the number in the previous year. The resignations were 103, the dismissals being 58, and that being taken from 103 left 45. Upon the whole, a more efficient, loyal, and faithful force never existed. With regard to the charge of Ribbonism —without undertaking to say any man could be responsible for 12,000 men, or being at all prepared to say there might not exceptions occur—which unfortunately occurred in the case of Holden, who had paid the just penalty of his crimes—every report made to him enabled him most confidently to refute the charge of disloyalty of any kind, or want of fidelity in the force. He had no doubt his hon. Friend had the best motives in bringing forward the subject, but he (Mr. Cardwell) hoped nothing would go forth which would tend to produce a feeling of discontent in that force, or would lead the House to believe that the liberality with which it had treated that force had not been productive of the most beneficial results.

said, that in reference to a Question put to him by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Truro; (Mr. A. Smith), he wished to observe that I the House would recollect that during the course of the last Session, a Committee had been appointed to consider whether any reductions might not be effected in the Miscellaneous Estimates. He had the honour of being Chairman of that Committee. The advanced period of the Session, however, did not allow time for such a consideration of the subject as was desirable. That Committee adopted a Report which was laid before the House, and which contained a paragraph recommending the re-appointment of the Committee in the present year. If it was the wish of that House that the consideration of this subject should be proceeded with in the present Session, he had no objection to move for the re-appointment of the Committee, and to give it all the services in his power.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee of 1858, on the Consular Service, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of that Committee? He need hardly remind the House that the Committee which sat in 1858 on the Consular Service, contained among its members many hon. Gentlemen, Members of that House, who were eminently qualified to discharge their duty and to throw light upon the question. That Committee was presided over by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), who had the advantage of having visited many of the places where complaints were made against our consular system, and who, likewise, brought into the Committee the experience of deep study into the whole intricacies of the question. The Committee had likewise the benefit of the assistance of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitz-Gerald), who exhibited that ability which distinguished him, both in and out of office, in investigating the details of the consular office. The Committee arrived at a conclusion which they embodied in five Resolutions. First they recommended the establishment of such a system of consular education and promotion as might tend to prevent the employment of any but British subjects as consuls, vice-consuls, or interpreters in that portion of the world comprising Northern Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Levant. They had before them them evidence of the great benefit arising from the education given to young men for the Oriental secretaryships and the indefatigable efforts made by Russia to ensure the appointment of proper persons to take care of her interests generally. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that it would be wise to adopt a system of consular studentship for young men, who should go through a preliminary examination for the discharge of the onerous and important duties devolving upon the consular service in the East, especially upon the Grecian shores of the Mediterranean, the Levant, and various portions of the Ottoman Empire. He hoped the noble Lord would assure the House that he was determined, while he was Foreign Secretary, to pay attention to the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee next recommended the prohibition of all consuls to engage in trade, or to accept commercial agencies (except in such cases as the Foreign Office might especially determine to be advantageous to the public interest, with a view to the opening or development of any new trade), and the appointment of respectable persons already engaged in commerce as British Consular Agent in places where the presence of a salaried British officer was not required. With that narrow and limited exception the Committee recommended the prohibition of all consuls to engage in trade. Under the lax system which prevailed, opportunities were offered to consuls to make their profit out of the distress of British shipping, and they departed from that which ought to be the first element of their duty, and to which their attention should be first directed—namely, the relieving the necessities of the British merchant and the British shipowner. Upon this subject much light was thrown by the evidence of Mr. Mitchell, the proprietor of The Shipping Gazette, a paper well-known as the able and accredited organ of the British shipping interest. There was also another evil which was very much complained of, namely, that our consuls abroad who were engaged in trade had opportunities in times of war, from their official position, of obtaining priority of information upon various matters, which gave them an undue advantage over other merchants not so favourably situated. The next recommendation was the diminution of the number of vice-consuls at present in Europe, with a view to the gradual abolition of the license to trade. The fourth was a recommendation of great importance, and it was very desirable that the House should know whether the noble Lord was prepared to carry it out; it recommended such an organization of the Consular Service as might divide its members into separate classes, receiving salaries adequate to their position, and without any further reduction than that of the income tax; any augmentation for special service or peculiar circumstances to be made in the way of a special allowance. The Committee proposed that the first class should consist of consuls-general, the second of consuls, the third of vice-consuls, and the last of consular students. They held out the hope to students that by industry, knowledge, and ability, they might rise from £100 a year to the office of consuls-general. With regard to the division into first and second-class, it might be that second-class places might have first-class men, and the object of the Committee was that the consuls should be classified—not so much with regard to the importance of the locality as to the ability of the men. The last recommendation of the Committee was the appropriation of all fees — except in the case of unpaid consuls—to the public account; the expense of the office being regulated and defrayed by the Government. The House would see that nothing was of greater importance than that if the consuls were allowed to take fees they should account for those fees to the public, and not put them into their own pockets. He passed now to the year 1858—when the Earl of Derby was in office—and when the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) had an official opportunity of showing the sincerity of his zeal for consular reform. Nor was that hon. Gentleman long before be exhibited, in a practical manner, that zeal in the cause which he had shown when out of office. He held in his hand an important document, which was arranged in a lucid and logical manner. It contained a report of Mr. Murray, who was of the Foreign Office, and had placed himself in communication with the consuls abroad. That gentleman had informed himself thoroughly on the subject, and possessed a large amount of official experience. He made a Report to the Earl of Malmesbury on the subject. That Report was referred to a sub-committee of gentlemen, amongst whom was the hon. Member for Horsham. The Committee agreed to a number of proposals and gave their reasons for them. They began by advising that no consul should be allowed to trade, with the single exception pointed out by the Committee of 1858, to which he (Mr. D. Seymour) had referred. They then proposed that no fees should be appropriated by consuls to their own use. They then recommended that they should be paid by salaries from the Treasury. They recommended, further, that power should be given to compensate for the distinguished and useful services of those officers abroad. They recommended that the notarial and legal functions of the consuls should be extended, and that the fees should be arranged according to the commercial character of the country and the commercial charges of the port where they were exacted. That all fees should be paid into the Treasury; and that no fees of any description should be taken from any ship in a foreign port. They also recommended that in lieu of this deliverance of the shipping interest from those consular exactions there should be a tonnage tax of one penny upon British and Foreign vessels clearing out or entering into any port of this kingdom. He found by a Minute of the present Board of Trade that those recommendations had been summarily dismissed, and upon grounds that had not been as jet placed before the public. The incidence of that penny, however, so far as foreigners were concerned, would be simply a matter of retributive justice. France had adopted a similar principle, and she exacted a much larger amount. Well, the Earl of Derby went out of office, and with him, he was sorry to say, the hon. Member for Horsham, and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) came in. He had read a correspondence which had taken place between the noble Lord, the Board of Trade, and some officials of the Foreign Office, the result of which was to show that the noble Lord had made some great and salutary changes; he had raised the pay of some offices, such as that of New York, where the importance of the place made it necessary that the position should be filled by a man of high ability. In other places he had provided for the reformation, and in others for the extinction of the offices altogether. Upon those points he had no complaint to make—quite the contrary; but lie would come to the Minute issued by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, dated the 16th December, 1859, and purporting to be a memorandum of the official Committee. In that document he submitted to the House there was something like an overruling of the recommendations of the Select Committee. When the House recollected who sat on that Committee, that the representative for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) sat upon it, that the noble Lord the Prime Minister sat upon it, and other gentlemen of large official and commercial experience, it struck one at the first blush that it was strange such a Minute should go forth to the world without any explanation. It declared that it was not desirable that a tonnage duty should he levied upon ships for the purpose of defraying the expense of the consular establishments; that it was not desirable that consuls should be restricted from trading; and that it was not expedient to assimilate the British consular system to that of France. He (Mr. Seymour) emphatically entered his protest against those decisions, which had given dissatisfaction and disappointment to the commercial world. When the Committee laid down a recommendation which the commercial community throughout the kingdom were united in supporting, he protested against the an nulling of that recommendation without some explanation, at least, of the grounds upon which that decision was arrived at. There was also in the Minute a decision unfavourable to the training of young men in the knowledge of foreign languages with a view to tit them for the consular office, except where it was thought desirable to dispense with the aid of native interpreters. Now, to open the office to young men who might be qualified to fill it, was one of the most popular recommendations of the Committee, and he deeply regretted it should have met with so unfavourable a reception at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, he trusted the noble Lord would be able to give a satisfactory reply upon the subjects which he had brought under his notice.

said, that he wished, before the noble Lord rose to reply, to say a few words upon a subject to which the attention of many hon. Members of that House must have been directed. A statement had recently appeared in the public press, that in consequence of the lamentable quarrels which had arisen between the State of South Carolina and the United States, the British Consul at Charleston had been informed that the Custom House functionaries of that port were no longer acting for the Federal Union, but for the State of South Carolina. That intimation was given by gentlemen professing to act on behalf of the Convention of South Carolina. The House would observe that such a notification placed the owners and captains of British vessels in a position of considerable difficulty, inasmuch as the Federal Revenue Laws of the United States imposed stringent penalties upon the non-observance of their regulations. He was not surprised, therefore, to hear that Her Majesty's Minister at Washington had thought it necessary to ask the American Government whether they would hold British shipowners liable for non-compliance, or would indemnify them for any losses arising from compliance with the regulations of the Federal Government. The British trade with Charleston and the other southern ports of the Union was vast and important, and he felt sure the noble Lord would wish to keep all interested in the trade informed as to their actual position. He (Mr. Forster) therefore wished to ask whether there was any objection to lay on the table a copy of the correspondence which had passed between Lord Lyons and Mr. Black the Foreign Minister of the United States? He was not about to enter into the question whether diplomacy should in general be secret or not, but he would say that to attempt to carry out a secret diplomacy with the United States would be unwise because it would be impracticable. If the documents which passed between the two countries were not published on this side the Atlantic, they would be ferreted out by the writers for the press on the other; and, therefore, it would be wise, by publishing them, on our part to correct any erroneous impressions that might have arisen. He should be the last man in the House to desire that this country should interfere in the lamentable dissensions that had broken out between our friends and kinsfolk in the United States. They could not, however, forget that the quarrel had arisen out of the question of slavery, and that we had contracted special obligations with the United States Government, and, therefore, with each State of the Union for the suppression of the African slave trade. He believed that our withdrawal from or relinquishment of those obligations would be as injurious to our interests, rightly viewed, as it would be disgraceful to our honour, and destructive to the cause of humanity. He had the firm conviction that such was the opinion of the country, and it was because he had that firm conviction, and also because he had full confidence both in the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that he was very anxious that they should take counsel with the country in any eventuality which might arise out of the lamentable differences which had arisen in America. He begged, therefore, most humbly and earnestly, that any correspondence which might have passed might be laid on the table.

said, that in reference to the subject of the reform of the consular service, he thought it his duty as Chairman of the Committee to which his hon. and learned Friend had alluded, to state that it was not his impression that any encouragement was given by the Committee to the proposal of levying a tonnage duty upon British shipping for consular purposes. Certainly it was not his own opinion that such a duty ought to he levied. At the same time he would remark that the habit which was growing up of appointing official Sub-Committees for the purpose of reviewing, criticizing, and overruling Resolutions which had been come to by Committees of that House after serious deliberation, was very disrespectful to the House in general, and was likely to be very detrimental not only to the authority of that House, but to the public service.

said, he had not intended to say a single word upon this question, but as a Member of the Committee to which reference had been made, he could not allow the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract to pass without notice. The hon. Member said that the appointing official sub-Committees to overrule the recommendations of Committees of that House was highly disrespectful to the House, and at the same time detrimental to the public service, and he was sorry to hear that that observation was cheered by several hon. Members. Surely if there was one subject to which more than another it was the duty of the executive Government to attend, it was the organization of the public service; and when the hon. Gentleman said that Sub-committees were appointed to overrule the recommendations of that House, he begged to tell him that the object of the Subcommittee appointed by the Earl of Malmesbury, of which he (Mr. FitzGerald) was a Member, was not to overrule, nor did they, in a single instance, overrule the recommendations of the Committee of that House. On the contrary, the object of that Sub-Committee was to give effect to those recommendations. It was true that the imposition of a tonnage duty upon ships formed no part of the recommendations of the Committee of that House. No opinion was expressed upon that subject, and it was because there was a matter which was brought before the Committee upon most important evidence, upon which no opinion was offered—it was upon that ground principally that the matter was referred to the Sub-Committee of which he was a Member, and which, after the most careful consideration, and communication with public bodies and others, recommended the plan which was contained in its Report. As for the appointment of such a Sub-Committee being disrespectful to the House, not only did he think that was not the case, but he should consider any Government wanting in its duty which did not give to recommendations from Committees of the House their early and most serious consideration.

Sir, I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken, that it is the duty of the Executive Government to consider proposals that may be made by a Committee of this House with regard to the branches of the executive service of the State. Indeed, I do not see very well how the Executive Government could carry into effect the recommendations of a Committee without going into those recommendations in detail, and seeing whether they can be made to harmonize with the public service. The Committee certainly was a very important one, and their Report is of great value. Several of the recommendations which they made ought always to be kept in view by the Executive Government, and carried into effect from time to time. It is, however, impossible for the Executive Government, with a due regard to their duty, to carry out suggestions which would impose a considerable charge on the public revenue, and thereby increase the Estimates presented to this House without entering minutely into the subject. Accordingly we find that the Earl of Malmesbury, very soon after the Committee made their Report, took their recommendations into consideration, and stated to the Treasury that in conformity with the opinions there expressed he had framed a scheme by which the position of many of the consuls would be improved. It was perfectly true that there were many consuls in important places whose salaries were insufficient; but even the moderate increase contemplated by the Earl of Malmesbury would have entailed an increase of £12,000 a year on the Estimates; and he very properly thought it his duty to work out the propositions in detail rather than ask for such a large additional sum. After the Earl of Derby retired from the Government I asked every Gentleman in office to consider the matter, and I requested my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to preside over the official Committee, which considered the views that were explained to them by other official persons belonging to the Treasury and the Foreign Office, and especially by my noble Friend Lord Wodehouse, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. One of the recommendations of the Committee—that consuls in the Levant should be British subjects—I think is most valuable, and I have endeavoured to carry it into effect. Another suggestion — that the consuls should not trade—if taken in its absolute terms would lead to the imposition of considerable burdens on the country. I admit that in a port where a large British trade exists the objections urged in the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman alluded have their weight. There is an advantage given to one merchant over others, and it is injudicious that one of them should have the power of taking fees and taxing British commerce. But there are other places where there is very little commerce, where merchants of great respectability are residing, and where, if you were to give £500, £600, or £700 to one man on condition that he should not trade, you would find that you were paying a salary disproportioned to the duty to be performed; while on the other hand, if you only offered £150 or £200 a year you would not get men of character to accept the office. But again, you do find men in trade, merchants of the highest respectability, and moving in the leading society of the place, who will readily undertake the duties at a salary of £150 a year in addition to their ordinary business. Such was the case at Rotterdam. The consulship became vacant, and a gentleman who was engaged in trade was recommended to me, and by appointing him it was not necessary to impose a heavy charge on the public revenue. The Committee to which I allude recommended that consulships should be divided into four classes: — First, consuls who should never be allowed to trade; secondly, consuls allowed to trade or not, according to circumstances; thirdly, consulships which should always be held by traders; and lastly, consulships which should be abolished when vacancies occurred. I have acted on these recommendations, and both when the Earl of Malmesbury was in office and during my own tenure many consuls have been appointed to superior offices or employed in the diplomatic service. One of the best recommendations, as I think, of that Committee was that consuls—who, as a rule, are a most valuable body of public servants—should not be without the encouragement given by promotion, and should sometimes be employed in diplomatic duties. Among those who a very short time ago were filling consular offices are—Mr. Colquhoun, consular agent in Egypt; Mr. Wood, diplomatic agent at Tunis; Sir Charles White, Minister at Mexico; Mr. Longworth, diplomatic agent in Servia; Mr. Green, diplomatic agent in Wallacbia; Mr. Churchill, diplomatic agent in Moldavia; Mr. Alcock, diplomatic agent in Japan; Colonel Neil, Secretary of Legation in China; and Mr. Mathew, Secretary and Chargé ďAffaires at Mexico. These appointments, some of which were made by the Earl of Malmesbury, and some by myself, show at least that there is no unwillingness in the Foreign Department to give promotion to members of the consular service and to recognize its value. Since the Report of the Committee in 1858 a variety of changes have been made. Seventy-one offices of consul have been improved since July, 1858. When I say improved, I mean that in many of these cases salaries have been given instead of fees; an addition has been made to the salary, and the fees have been transferred to the Treasury. That I think is the right principle; though it very often happens that it cannot be acted on while the same consul continues at the post, but when a change of officials takes place the alteration can then be made with advantage. Twenty-one consulships have been abolished since that date as useless, and seven have been placed von a reduced footing. The increase of salaries given amounts to £13,457, but against that is to be set off the decrease by abolitions, £5,600, and by reductions, £3,400—making altogether £9,000, and thereby reducing the net increase to £4,457. I own that it appeared to me better to make these changes from time to time, and to adopt them in the several localities as consulships became vacant than to sanction any large and immediate increase. By this course, the amount has only been swollen by £4.000, instead of the "£12,000 which it would have taken to carry out the suggestions of the Committee. Another recommendation made by the Committee, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Digby Seymour) seems to attach great importance, and which has been much considered at the Foreign Office, is the proposal to have consular students. But when the matter came to be canvassed, it was thought that it would be only placing young men of undoubted ability in a position where they might be for a long time without any chance of promotion; and, as the arrangement, while productive of discontent to them, would, at the same time, considerably increase the charges on the public, it was thought more discreet not to adopt that part of the recommendation. But, on the other hand, in addition to the cases that I mentioned of consuls raised to the diplomatic service, many others have been removed to more desirable positions, and, having performed their duties exceedingly well, have received the proper reward. At the same time, it is impossible to lay down any absolute rule even on this branch of the question, inasmuch as when an appointment falls vacant—and we have consulships in all parts of the world—a case may arise in which you require some peculiar aptitude or some previous knowledge of the country, in order to. render the official at that particular point an efficient public servant. I may instance a case in relation to which a deputation came to me the other day, and, as to which I have received memorials from various towns and chambers of commerce. I allude to the proposal to have a consul at Abeokuta. They stated that the cultivation of cotton had increased in that neighbourhood, and that there was reason to believe a trade would spring up. As I see opposite the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), who was in the chair at one of the meetings held to promote that object, I will say that I think the deputation had great reason for what they asserted. I stated to a number of those gentlemen that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to appoint a consul at Abeokuta. I must endeavour to find a man of experience, and one who will be useful in promoting the interests of British trade, for I do not think it would be advisable to send a person there who had no knowledge of the country, however deserving the particular individual might be of consular promotion. I think I have stated generally the points on which the Committee have reported, and upon which they have founded their recommendations. Upon the whole, we have endeavoured rather to meet the spirit of those recommendations, than to follow them exactly and servilely. I am opinion that the Report of the Committee is likely to make a great improvement in the consular service. It has already led in several places to the abolition of trading by consuls, and in various other places to an increase of salary, which was much wanted. I have stated that it is our desire, as far as possible, not to increase the public expenditure; but, at the same time, to introduce improvements into the consular and other branches of the public service. If the Government had only to consider efficiency, we might at once make great improvements; but these would be effected at a very considerable charge to the public, and hon. Gentlemen are aware that the miscellaneous expenditure has increased considerably of late years. As to the correspondence asked for by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), I shall be most willing to produce it, and I expect to be able to lay it upon the table on Monday next. I think it is highly honourable to the consul at the place, lie was placed in considerable difficulty, not being able to acknowledge the new Government that sprang up; but, at the same time, he did not neglect the interests of British shipping.

said, that before putting to the Under Secretary for the Colonies the question of which he had given notice, he wished to refer briefly to what had appeared respecting the slave Anderson. He bad been an inhabitant of the State of Missouri, and had escaped from slavery, He took the life of a white man, also an inhabitant of that State, who was endeavouring to capture him while he was trying to flee from his master. After that event Anderson succeeded in effecting his escape, and got into Canada. The relatives of the man who was killed, having traced him out, demanded him under a law of the province—not under a treaty, as had been stated in this country— but under a law of the province containing many provisions of the treaty of extradition. Certain provisions of the treaty that had been agreed upon between this country and the United States had been adopted by the province and passed into a law, and it was in that way that the treaty received the only validity which it could have in Canada. Under that law Anderson had been arrested, and the question had been brought before the Supreme Judges whether or not he should be delivered up to the officers of the State of Missouri. It had been inquired into and adjudicated on by that Court. He wished that he might not be misunderstood, for in a case of the kind, which had created so much feeling in this country, he might be misrepresented. He, therefore, distinctly stated that it was not his intention to offer any opinion on the act of the man Anderson, as to whether it amounted to murder, or manslaughter, or justifiable homicide; as to whether he was rightly captured in Canada, or as to whether the judgment of the Court there was right or wrong. On all these questions he had no observation to make. His object was neither to vindicate the rights of the State of Missouri nor to maintain the rights of the prisoner Anderson, but to state that there had been two violations of the rights of the people of Canada during the trial of this case, and before its final termination. After the decision of the Canadian Court had been given, an application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench in this country for a writ of habeas corpus to bring Anderson out of the gaol in Canada and before the Court, in order to have his case inquired into. There had been some very singular circumstances attending this case in the Queen's Bench. Here, again, he wished to explain that it was very far from his intention to make any remark whatever disrespectful to the Judges of that Court. Their learning, their very great ability, and the wisdom and impartiality with which they decided everything that came before them, not only entitled them to, but commanded for them, the respect of every one. The country ought to be proud of such a Court, and he should be wanting in self-respect if be made any remark derogatory to its Judges; but at the same time they were not infallible. Appeals from decisions of the Queen's Bench had at various periods of our history been brought before the House of Lords; and in some cases those decisions had been reversed. In the present case he could only suppose that the Court acted on the supposition that they were adjudicating on the terms of a general treaty between Great Britain and the United States, which was within their cognizance and jurisdiction. But, if such was the fact, one would have imagined that some reference would have been made to the law officers of the Crown, and, in the application to the Court, the services of the hon. and learned Attorney General would have I been employed. Instead of that the affair was a voluntary one. A man with an unpronounceable name, who he (Mr. Haliburton) believed was a Polish refugee, and in no way connected with the authorities of Canada, or those of this country, made the application. Upon the voluntary affidavit of that gentleman the discussion in the Court of Queen's Bench took place, and the case was dealt with as being a simple and common application for a habeas corpus. Several reported cases were referred to in the argument, which had nothing whatever to do with that before the Court. The writ of habeas corpus was granted, and addressed to the gaoler who had possession of the prisoner, and to the Governor of Canada, a civil officer with military powers. A writ of habeas corpus. might with as much propriety be addressed to the Governor of Newgate and the Duke of Cambridge. He spoke the sentiments of the ablest lawyers in this country when he said that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had created great surprise here, and he knew that it had caused the greatest consternation in the colony. In these observations he made no reference to the case of Anderson. They would apply equally to any other case. The sympathies of the people of Canada were with Anderson, but, at the same time, they complained that their constitutional rights had been violated. The Court of Queen's Bench, no doubt, founded its jurisdiction on the treaty; but the best authorities in Canada called in question the power of the Government of this country to make any treaty, that was obligatory on them, where its provisions had to be carried out in the colony. The colony had a government and a legislature of its own, and was competent to perform all the acts that were necessary to the government of its people. In all internal matters it was supreme, and its jurisdiction exclusive. There was provision made for appeals from the decisions of its courts of law. If a man was dissatisfied with the decision of any of the ordinary courts, he had a right to appeal to a higher tribunal, and from that again he could appeal to the Privy Council. That was the only mode in which the judgments of the Canadian Courts could be reversed, and a very proper mode it was. Such a constitutional appeal was willingly conceded. It was beneficial to the people, and a great relief to the Courts. For however able and learned the Canadian Judges might be, they were themselves ready to admit that they had neither the experience nor the erudition of the Judges of England. But to send a writ to Canada to take a man out of the country, and bring him over here to be adjudicated upon, was to invade the constitutional rights of the people of Canada, and was a claim on the part of the Queen's Bench that would never be submitted to. The people of the colony, and especially of Montreal, rejoiced to think that they had got rid of the responsibility of this case, and were nearly illuminating their houses from joy, until they found that this relief could only be obtained, at the expense of their own independence. The ordinary course of ap- peal had been passed over; a writ of habeas corpus had been sent out, and an officer despatched with it to receive the man. It was rather a humiliating proceeding to see an officer of one of the superior courts of this country sent on such an errand, considering the answer he was sure to receive. The answer would be that they did not recognize the authority of such a court as the Queen's Bench extending to Canada, which had a responsible Government, and an independent judiciary of its own. He certainly wished that they would deliver the man up under protest as such a case was not likely to occur again. No one pretended to say that there was any intentional violation of the rights of Canada in what had been done. It was regarded as a hasty and inconsiderate but not an aggregate act. He supposed the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench had some idea that there was such a place as Canada, just as he had learned that the Channel Islands were Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney and Sark. He took it for granted that there was such a place as Sark as it was to be found in the map, but he had never seen it, and never saw a man who had. The Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench seemed to have some such idea of Canada, and to have attached similar importance to it. With regard to the orders sent by the Duke of Newcastle to Canada he should like to know first of all what authority he had to send orders at all. The Colonial Office seldom interfered in the colony at the right time, and when it did interfere it usually did so in a wrong manner. He hoped the correspondence would be laid on the table, that the people of Canada, and of the other Colonies too, might be able to see what these orders of the Duke of Newcastle were, and whether they were justified by the constitution of Canada. As the nominee of the Colonial Office, the Governor of Canada was often in communication with the Colonial Secretary; and there might he many occasions on which it was necessary for the latter to communicate advice to the Governor, and to recommend that he should take such-and-such a course, under certain contingengies, and such correspondence as might be inconvenient to disclose. But direct orders were public documents, and as such ought to be made known. The country was not to be governed by orders that were not to be seen. The Government of a constitutional colony was to be carried on by the Governor by and with the advice of his Council. If, therefore, any order went out which directed him to pursue a certain course without the advice of his Council, it would be a contravention of the constitutional rights of the people. It would place him in antagonism with his constitutional advisers, and be subversive of anything like responsible government. The Duke of Newcastle had been recently in Canada, and had seen there the noble reception given to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; he had seen the enthusiasm and heartfelt demonstrations of the people—not demonstrations got up, as in a neighbouring country by means of spies and police, but hearty honest outbursts of loyalty and affection; he might have seen also from the very different receptions he met with himself, where they conceived themselves injured or slighted, what the character of those colonists was—that they were Englishmen in feeling and principle, and not a people likely to put up tamely with what they considered a slight or an insult. He took it for granted, therefore, that the Duke of Newcastle would be cautious how he addressed them, and that the orders contained nothing that was unconstitutional. But if the production of these orders was refused, he would take it for granted that they were like certain letters which he wrote to the mayors of some of the towns of Canada during his recent visit to Toronto, of which, whether rightly or wrongly, the people made loud complaints. It might be said that this was only bad manner, but bad manner implied bad conduct. They were not people to put up with nonsense, although they would do anything they were asked in civil language. The difficulty arose merely from their having been badly managed, tie would, however, say no more on this subject, as it would probably at no distant day be brought before Parliament. He would confine himself at present to asking the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies for information as to the extradition of the American slave Anderson, now in custody in Canada; and if he would lay upon the table copies of all correspondence that had passed in relation thereto between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor in Canada and for all orders issued thereupon.

There are one or two points in the speech of the hon. Member into which the House will not be surprised if I do not follow him, I do not intend to follow him in the ob- servations which he has thought it right to make upon the conduct of the Duke of Newcastle in his dealings with the Orangemen of Canada. I am glad, however, that an opportunity will be offered to my noble Friend in "another place" of justifying himself; and I am quite content to leave the defence of his conduct in his own hands. But the hon. Gentleman has spoken to-night in terms of complaint, which I trust will not be echoed in Canada, of the efforts made by the Government and by private individuals in this country for securing to the unfortunate man Anderson a fair and full consideration of his rights. The hon. Gentleman represents that a double invasion of the rights of the people of Canada has taken place—the one consisting in the action of the English Court of Queen's Bench, which has deemed it right, upon the application of a private individual, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to Canada. It is not my duty on the present occasion to enter into any discussion of the matter. I shall neither discuss whether the Court is entitled to issue the writ, or whether, if it is, that is a fit state of the law. This, however, I will say, that the only step taken by the Colonial Office has been to forward a despatch simultaneously with the writ to the acting Governor General, instructing him that in case any action should be necessary in consequence of the issuing of the writ he is to be guided by the opinion of his Canadian law advisers. The other invasion complained of by the hon. Member consisted in this, that my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle, with great promptitude, and with a decision which the country appreciated, despatched that instruction to Canada of which the House was informed some days ago by my noble Friend at the head of the Government. I have the despatch here, and I will read the passage bearing upon the subject. My noble Friend had heard a few days previously from Governor Head, who was then in this country, of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench at Toronto. Now, considerable misapprehension existed with respect to the effect of that judgment. The effect of it was neither more nor less than this—the Court refused to grant the writ of habeas corpus, and they remanded Anderson to prison. They did no more. The Court of Queen's Bench said it could do no more. It might have set Anderson free on the habeas corpus, or it might, as it did, have refused to do so; but to deliver him up to any fo- reign Power was not within the competency of any Court of justice. That is fully admitted by Chief Justice Robinson himself. He stated the law accurately when he said that the power of the Governor General, under the statute, to surrender or retain a fugitive could not be affected by anything said or done by the Court. That is the fact. The fugitive, Anderson, can only be delivered up under the hand and seal of the Governor General of Canada, and it was with a knowledge of that fact that my noble Friend thought it right to address those instructions to the Governor General to which the hon. Member has referred. But when the hon. Member talks of it as an invasion of the rights of the people of Canada that the Secretary of State should have addressed such instructions to the Queen's representative in the colony, the hon. Member makes a claim which it is impossible to admit in this House, and which will not be asserted by any reasonable person in Canada. Just consider the nature of the case. The controversy arises entirely out of a treaty concluded, not between the colony of Canada, but between the Imperial Government and the United States. I have now in my hand the despatch of my noble Friend, dated the 9th of January, and it contains this passage—

"If the result of the appeal should be adverse to the prisoner, you will bear in mind that under the treaty he cannot be delivered over to the United States by mere action of the law—that can only be done by a warrant under the hand and seal of the Governor. The case of Anderson is of the gravest possible importance, and Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied that the decision of the Courts in Canada is in uniformity with the views of the treaty hitherto held by the authorities in this country. You will, therefore, abstain from completing the extradition in any case until further opportunity has been afforded for the consideration of the question."

Such were the instructions of my noble Friend, and I have no further information to give, for the only communication since received from Canada has been a simple acknowledgment of that despatch. Her Majesty's Government have under their consideration what instructions should be sent to the Governor General; but I can assure the hon. Member that the production of the papers in our possession would add nothing substantial to the information I have communicated. At the same time, in a transaction of this delicate nature, which may lead to a diplomatic correspondence, it is not usual or advisable to lay papers before the House. In conclu- sion, then, let me say, the question is not in the hands of any Court of justice here or elsewhere, but in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and the House may safely leave it there.

said, he rose to ask, Whether the Board of Admiralty persisted in their determination to refuse Marine Volunteer Artillery facilities to practise afloat. There were a great number of seamen wishing to practise artillery afloat, and the Admiralty, by taking them on board a gunboat and giving them gun drill, might thereby assist in manning the navy?

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that the Admiralty were not behind the rest of the public in admiration of the Volunteers of this country. The question now put had been much considered by the Admiralty. They had received propositions from various parts of the country to send one or two gunboats to the ports in order to embark those who were enrolled as Volunteers, to take them to sea, and drill them in the use of the great guns. No doubt that would be done if the Admiralty could do it without cost to the public; but if they sent gunboats for such a purpose, they must provide accommodation and bedding and comforts such as the seamen enjoyed. It was, therefore, a mere question of expense. That was the reason why the Admiralty, with every desire to further the Volunteer movement, could not comply with the various requests made to them on this subject. But the hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention that every seafaring man in this country had the opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the drill, besides which, he would be paid for his time and trouble in acquiring it. If he disliked entering into the Naval Reserve, and the consequent liability to be called out for service in the fleet, he might join the Naval Coast Volunteers. The latter force would only be called upon to serve in the immediate neighbourhood of the coast in the event of war, and that would be the precise duty of the Volunteers, whose cause had just been advocated. If they wished to "get their sea legs," and to become useful to Her Majesty in such an emergency, the obvious course would be for them to join the Naval Coast Volunteers; and it would be advisable for Gentlemen who took an interest in these matters, to encourage our seafaring population to enter either this body or the Naval Reserve, with a view to practice heavy gunnery. When the House came to discuss the Estimates, it would be seen that the system of teaching our merchant sailors the use of heavy guns was a very costly one, and it was upon that ground only that the Admiralty, however desirous they might be to forward the Volunteer movement felt bound at the present moment, where the naval expenditure was so large, to refuse these applications on behalf of the Marine Artillery Volunteers. He would, however, convey the wishes expressed by the hon. Gentleman to the Board of Admiralty, and he was sure they would receive due consideration.

said, he wished to ask the President of the India Board, Whether, for appeasing the disputes between the planters and the labourers in Bengal, a more prompt and effective system of police and of civil procedure will be adopted, and whether an efficient law of contract will be introduced, and a cheap system of registering contracts? While the free action and enterprise of European settlers deserved every encouragement, the ryots, on the other hand, had a right to protection. It appeared to him, as it appeared to the Committee which considered the subject, that one of the principal remedies for the state of Bengal and India generally was the establishment of a good and efficient police. There should also be a simple and speedy system of procedure with a strict limitation of the power of appeal. A law of contract was also required which should clearly define the position of the two classes, and along with such a law there should be a system for the registration of contracts. He would not enter on that occasion, however, into a lengthened discussion of the subject, but would content himself by expressing a hope that the Government would adopt these and other measures as tending to the security of property, the employment of labour, and the tranquilization of the country.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member that it was not advisable to go into a discussion on that most important subject on that occasion. He had assented to the production of all the papers, which, in the course of a day or two, would be laid on the table, and the House would discuss the question with much greater advantage when it was in possession of all the facts. With regard to the first question he was happy to state that the police of India was at that moment being reorganized on what he trusted would prove a cheap and an efficient system. He agreed with his hon. Friend that one of the greatest misfortunes of India had been the want of an efficient police, and the supply of such a want would, he believed, enable the Government to reduce very considerably the Native Army of India. A more useful reform could hardly be attempted. But the attempt had already been made. The police force would be modelled on the system introduced by Lord Harris in Madras, and partially carried out by Sir Charles Trevelyan; and that system was in course of establishment throughout India. With regard to the civil procedure, that also had, to a great extent, undergone reform; and this reform would contribute largely to the simplification of trials, and the execution of justice without unnecessary expense or delay. The other two questions referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been discussed in the Report of the Commissioners who inquired into the indigo disputes, and a difference of opinion prevailed among them as to the law of contracts and a plan of registration. Both the subjects, however, were under the consideration of the Indian Government.

said, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the state of the packet service between this country and North America, he wished to observe that he was in no way connected with any of the steamship companies trading with the United States, or with the ports from which the vessels sailed; but, as a merchant carrying on business with the United States, he felt a deep interest in securing the most regular and speedy communication possible between the two countries, and as a member of that House it was his duty to see that for the large sums of money granted by Parliament in the shape of subsidies the country got value received. They now paid to the Cunard Company £173,000, and to the Galway Company £78,000—in round numbers, £250,000 per annum—for the conveyance of mails between this country and the United States. Every shilling was money thrown away. Subti- dies might be absolutely necessary in many cases, but whenever there was effective competition on any ocean, then the system of subsidies ought to cease. That was the almost unanimous opinion of mercantile men, and it was confirmed by the result of Lord Canning's Committee which, in 1853, arrived at the same conclusion. Upon the North Atlantic such a competition did exist. The Packet Committee of last year also declared their conviction that it was quite practicable to dispense with large subsidies in cases where the ordinary traffic supported several lines of steamers, and that, under the circumstances which had for some years existed in regard to our communication between this country and North America, no such subsidies were required to secure a regular, speedy, and efficient postal service. Now, was the Committee justified in arriving at this decision? They would believe it was, from the fact that on the North Atlantic there were at the present moment no less than ten competing lines of steamers; and it was another remarkable fact that more than half of the whole number of British passengers to America in the past year were carried by an unaubsidized company—the Liverpool, New York, and Philadelphia Line. Large subsidies, instead of encouraging competition, prevented it. Were they withdrawn on the next day from the North Atlantic lines the public generally would be secured all the advantages which a fair field and no favour always produced. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might admit all that to be true; but he would probably say the Government was bound by existing contracts. But let him ask how these contractors performed their obligations. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware of all that was going on, or of the extent to which the companies failed to perform the conditions of the subsidies. The Cunard Company was receiving an annual subsidy of £173,000. He would not say a word in disparagement of that Company; they had performed the service right well in times past. It was stated in evidence before the Committee that for twenty years the Cunard boats had navigated the stormy North Atlantic without a single accident either to the passengers or the mails. But he could not shut his eyes to two ugly facts connected with that Company. First, it had always represented that the large Government subsidy was required to enable it to run the expensive paddlewheel steamers that were better adapted for the mail service than the screw boats; and this reason had been constantly admitted by the Treasury. Secondly, it had always stated that, without the subsidy, it could not afford to go on building the large vessels required to keep pace with the demands of the public and the requirements of the times. Such were the reasons given for keeping up the grant; but at present the Company was acting neither on one nor the other. Sir Samuel Cunard stated that the service could not be performed by screw-steamers. Yet the Australasian, that sailed from Liverpool on the previous Saturday, was a screw-vessel; the Jura and the China were both screw-steamers; and the Company had offered for sale the Niagara and the Arabia, which were both paddlewheel boats. In fact, the Company was preparing to adopt the screw system; it was gradually selling off its wheel-steamers, and substituting the screw-boats it had always represented as unfit for the service. As to the other reason it gave for continuing the subsidy, that it was required to enable it to build a sufficient number of new and large vessels—was the Company observing that condition? Why, of the eight Cunard steamers employed in the mail service, four were 13 years, and two more than 11 years old. In the nine years since 1852, the Company had only built one new steamer. In the same period the unsubsidized Liverpool and New York Line had built eight, the Hamburg Company five, and the Bremen Company two. It came to this, that every unsubsidized Company had built more new vessels than the Company to which the Government paid £173,000 annually in order that it might be able to build them. The other subsidized Line was the Galway Company. He was sorry he could not speak of it with the same respect as of the Cunard Company. That was substantial; and though it had been paid a great deal of money it had done good service for it. But he believed the Galway Company had something of the nature of a sham or a hoax. It had obtained a large subsidy of £78,000 annually, on condition of providing a fortnightly communication, commencing with the 26th of June, 1860, and performed in vessels of 2,000 tons and 450 horse power. So far as he had been able to ascertain at that moment, it had not a single vessel that answered the requirements. The Connaught broke down, and the Parana was to take her place. No vessel sailed on the 21st of August. On the 28th of August the Government, for reasons which he could not understand, permitted the Prince Albert to take her place. The Prince Albert made two voyages, but she did not in any way answer the conditions of the contract. The Connaught was burned at sea, and since the 23rd of October there had been no service from Galway. He had heard it rumoured that arrangements were being made to transfer all the business of the Galway Company to Limerick. He hoped some one would be able to state whether the rumour was altogether unfounded or not. He understood there was another proposition for transferring that memorable contract to Canada, as the Canadian Government wished to obtain a line. There had been an amount of jobbing about the Galway contract that had stirred up the greatest indignation in the commercial community, and he hoped the Government would not sanction any transfer of the agreement. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What means there were of compelling the Company to act up to its contract, and what money the Company—if it existed—had received from the public purse? what reasons had induced the Government to take the extraordinary step of extending the contract with a Company that had no ships from June to March? and, lastly, whether it was prepared to accede to the prayer of a memorial from merchants trading between this country and America that the contract be annulled?

said, he wished to say a few words on this subject. The general question as to the propriety in the abstract of abolishing these contracts was too large a one for him to enter on, though he might remark that the arguments which the hon. Gentleman brought forward tended rather in favour of some port in Ireland than Liverpool as the port of departure. The hon. Gentleman showed clearly that subsidies had not prevented competition, because he stated that the service across the Atlantic was carried on by ten lines, of which only one was subsidised, and that one of the unsubsidised lines carried more passengers than the one that was subsidised. Since the Galway contract had been entered into the Cunard Line found it worth their while to call at a port in Ireland, which they had never done before, subsidy in this case giving the people of Ireland the benefit of two lines. The mode in which Cunard's Company carried on the service required no praise from him; and with regard to the other line, which more immediately concerned him, he must declare that it was a reality, and not a sham. The hon. Member said that since the Galway Line had been in operation no vessel belonging to what was called the Galway Company of the requisite tonnage had gone across the Atlantic. Now, that statement required some explanation. I; would be remembered that the contract was entered into in the month of April, but it was not ratified by Parliament till the 9th of August. Since then the vessels of the Company had crossed the Atlantic; and the Prince Albert, one of the Company's ships, had made the quickest passage across that ever was known. She had made it in six days; and news brought by ships from America had been anticipated by vessels of the Galway Company which started subsequently to them. Thus it was shown that some advantage was gained for the public by the direct communication with America through Ireland. It was true that since the contract was signed the Connaught was the only vessel of the required tonnage that the Company had started, and she was unfortunately lost after her first voyage. It was said that the Company ought to have had the proper number of vessels; but he hoped the House would take into account the circumstances in which the Company had been placed. Rumours were freely circulated to the disadvantage of the Company, and many of the shareholders in consequence declined to pay their calls, the result of which was that the directors were reduced to such straits that they were unable to get their vessels ready. Then he must say, with all respect to the Government, that the delay and vacillation they had shown in deciding on the claims of the Company exercised an unfavourable influence on their affairs. It was true that more recently they had been treated with considerable for bearance by the Admiralty and by the Postmaster General; but he would venture to say it was not more than the Company was entitled to He would not detain the House further, except to say that he should be glad to receive a direct assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the hon. Member's observations respecting the transfer of the Galway Company's packet service from one station to another were as devoid of foundation, as he believed they were, and he could not suppose that Government would sanction such a transaction.

said, that as the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had alluded to the future circumstances of the Galway Company, he would read a communication which had been put in his hand a short time ago, but which he begged the House to take as coming from the directors of the Company, and not from himself. The House was aware that one boat, the Connaught, built at very considerable expense in accordance with the contract, had been already lost. The document he had just referred to stated that two more of the Company's ships would be tried in the course of a few days by the Government surveyors, that the Company were on the eve of completing the purchase of two large ships, and that this fleet of four ships would be amply sufficient to carry out the postal service contracted for; and that another ship, launched some time back, had the greatest part of the machinery on board, and was rapidly approaching completion. According to this statement, it appeared that three of the Company's ships would be ready almost directly, being two more than had been constructed, as the hon. Gentleman had admitted by the great Cunard Company in the space of seven years. He did not understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's observations, unless it was to induce the Government to be inexorable in-refusing to prolong the time for getting the vessels ready to perform the contract. The Postmaster-General, acting with the best motives, had given a suspension of time until the 26th of March, and he was informed that these vessels would then cross the Atlantic and perform the service regularly. He was surprised that the hon. Member should have made such an attack, considering that for fourteen months the matter of the contract was kept in suspense, and the operations of the Company completely paralysed by the ambiguous attitude of the Government and the House of Commons. It was found impossible to get the shareholders to pay up their calls, and the shipbuilders had no great confidence in a Board which rested on such insecure foundations. He would not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a further prolongation of the time, but he thought the Government had exercised a wise discretion in the indulgence they had granted.

My part, Sir, on this occasion is a very simple one. I shall not enter at all into a discussion of the general principles which ought to govern the conduct of Administrations and Parliaments with respect to this matter of mail contracts. In the clear statement of the views of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) on that subject I quite agree, and on those principles we have acted since we have been in office. Passing from that subject, I shall also be very brief in what I have to say with respect to the Cunard contract, for I am not aware that there has been any case made out to warrant the interference of the Government. At the Treasury we have no direct and standing cognizance of these contracts. They are brought under our notice only when anything of a special character occurs to cause an appeal to us from the Postmaster General. Now, my hon. Friend asks what steps the Government are prepared to take with the view of compelling Sir Samuel Cunard to act up to his agreement or to accept a smaller subsidy; and in reply to that question, without seeking to question or contradict any statement which my hon. Friend has made on this subject, I would refer him to the Report of the Post Office Department, which says:—

"That the Cunard packet service is being performed in a very satisfactory manner; that the vessels employed in it greatly exceed the power required by the contract, and that they arrive and take their departure with great regularity."

That is the information, and the only information, of which I am in possession on the point. My hon. Friend also asks what sum of money has been already paid to the Galway Company, and I may inform him that although I am not at this moment in a position to state the precise amount, yet that for the small number of voyages which have been performed the payments of the Company have been made under the rules of the contract, subject to some deductions which in certain cases were stipulated for by the instrument itself. The precise sum paid can be stated, but as I was not aware that this inquiry would be addressed to me I have not the figures now at hand. My hon. Friend next asks why the Company was allowed an extension of time for the performance of the contract, from June until the 26th of March. I do not think the Government is at all open to animadversion for having hesitated in the matter. The very first step taken by the present Treasury Board on its accession to office was to move for the appointment of a Committee to investigate the whole transaction. That Committee was appointed. The Government at once acted on its Report, and made a proposition to the House in conformity with their views as to the course which ought to be adopted. I do not think, therefore, that we have done, or so far as I know omitted to do, anything which can fairly be held to render us responsible for the great inconvenience by which this case is characterized. Without, however, entering into any controversy on the subject, I may venture to tell my hon. Friend how we felt it to be our duty to act. We did not think the engagement one which was wise or politic; but we found the contract in existence, and after the decision at which the Committee arrived with respect to it, we deemed it right to ask Parliament for the necessary money, and it was granted. The engagement then became permanent and absolute, and we thought ourselves bound to extend to the Company every indulgence to which, under the most liberal view of the contract, they could lay claim, quite irrespective of any objections to the original arrangement which we might entertain. Indeed, I do not think it would have been fair on our part to have excluded from our consideration the fact that much inconvenience had resulted to the Company from the delay which had inevitably taken place before the mind of Parliament on the question could be fully and formally declared. We thought it, in short, but just to look at the whole facts of the case, and it was after those facts were calmly weighed that the various indulgences which they received were accorded to the Company. Some of these indulgences relate, as my hon. Friend has stated, to the use of particular vessels which did not, strictly speaking, come within the terms of the contract, but as regards the broader facts of the case what occurred was this.—The Company on the 25th of October made a proposal to the Government to the effect that the service should he only monthly till the 12th of March, 1861, and that then a fortnightly service should commence. My noble Friend the Postmaster General informed me that he had stated to the Company he would accede to this arrangement only on certain conditions, and that it was not for some time that he learnt whether the Company would or would not be prepared to comply with those conditions. On the 7th of November, however, the Company, not finding themselves able to accede to them, made the request to my noble Friend to have the contract placed altogether in abeyance until the 26th of March. That application—and the demand was, I must admit, a very large one to make-was taken into consideration by the Government, and we thought it, upon the whole, our duty to grant it upon certain conditions laid down by the Postmaster General, He informed the Company that the required delay would he accorded provided they forthwith executed an agreement stipulating that if they wore not prepared to carry on the service at the period named, and otherwise to fulfil the conditions set forth, then the contract was to terminate without any claim on their part to damages. The Company took some time to reply to those propositions, but on the 24th of January they did execute an agreement by which they have undertaken to despatch packets on the line in question on and after the 26th of March. With respect to the means at the command of the Company for the purpose of fulfilling their engagements, I have no other in-formation than that received from the Post Office, which states those means to be considerable. Having made these observations, the House will, I think, concur with me in the opinion that it is better I should refrain from any remarks of a prospective character, avoid referring to hypothetic cases, and thus obviate the danger of giving expression to anything which may lead to misunderstanding. My hon. Friend, however, having stated in the course of his speech that he had heard various rumours with respect to the change of the port of departure, and the transference of the rights of the Company of which I am speaking to another, I deem it right to say that I am in entire ignorance of the existence of these rumours, and that, as far as I know, no such steps as those to which he has referred have been taken or even thought of by the Government. I looked with great jealousy upon a proposal which was made shortly after I acceded to office for the transfer of a contract of this kind. I declined, on the part of the Government, to accede to that proposal; nor can I conceive any circumstances which would be likely to induce the Government to sanction such a transaction. I could, of course, enter into no positive engagement on a matter of the sort without having the particular case fully before me; but I should certainly be disposed to view it primâ facie in a spirit of disapproval.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill during the present Session to amend the laws or the constitution and procedure of the Courts of the Island of Jersey? He put the Question in consequence of the information which reached him during the last few years, from time to time, that deep and bitter complaints were made with reference to the injustice arising, not only out of the state of the law of that island, but of the administration of it by the Courts. The whole administration of the law of that island was concentrated in one great court, called the Royal Court. That Court was composed of a bailiff, who was appointed by the Crown, and twelve jurats, who were popularly elected. The only person possessing a legal education was the bailiff. The only necessary qualification of a jurat to hold office was, that he should be possessed of land of the value of £30 a year; and the only disqualification was keeping a public house, or trading as a butcher or baker. The bailiff could exercise no authority whatever in a Court so constituted, and the whole administration of the law and justice was left to the jurats, who had no legal education. Under such circumstances it could hardly be a matter of wonder that there was a maladministration of the laws of that island. The Commission which issued in 1846 to inquire into the administration of the criminal and civil laws of the island, reported that the Court did not possess the confidence of the inhabitants, nor did it deserve it. In 1859, another Commission was issued, of which Sir John Audry was the head, and the Report of that Commission would show to the House that the Court of Jersey combined every bad property and qualification which could belong to a court. Nevertheless, it was the only court in which justice was administered in the island, with the exception of a court for small debts and the manorial courts. They stated that it was sometimes impossible to maintain order in court, and scenes of violence took place which the Court was unable to suppress. Moreover, great uncertainty also prevailed as to what the law was, and the Commissioners wound up by declaring that any reform would be absolutely useless which would leave the duties of the superior court in the hands of a numerous body without professional education, whose attendance was precarious, and for whose nomination no one was responsible to public opinion. With that view, they did not recommend any reform of the laws until reform of the Court had first taken place. He would give a few illustrations of what the law was in the island. Unlike the practice in this country, the law of arrest could be put in motion by any suitor who chose to make a statement, not verified by oath, to an officer of the Court, who immediately issued a warrant. The law of arrest, too, according to the Commissioners, was put in motion for the worst purposes—extortion and oppression. There was the case of a gentleman, who had carried on business in London for many years, and who was appointed one of two trustees under a marriage settlement. That gentleman having gone over to Jersey was seized and thrown into prison, where he was kept for two or three years, on the ground that he was a debtor for the corpus of the trust, although he urged that he could not make over the corpus without committing a breach of trust, exposing him to attachment by the Court of Chancery in England. Another person resident in Birmingham, who was arrested in Jersey for a debt contracted while temporarily residing in Jersey, was still kept in prison because he could not produce a settlement of property to his wife's separate use, which the trustee in England refused to part with. The absence of any law of uses or trusts, was a most important question for persons who might wish to form themselves into a joint-stock company for gas, water, or other purposes, which could not now be done without the greates risk. Other parts of the law were in an anomalous state; for instance, the law of evidence. A man could not call as witness the husband of his aunt; and there was an instance of a case in which the suitor's wife's former husband's father was not admitted. Neither did the inhabitants enjoy trial by jury in any form. Again, the law of guarantee was so unsatisfactory that the Commissioners reported that it was impossible to acquire an estate free from incumbrances, without limit of time or extent, no matter what the wealth of the purchaser. The Commissioners finally reported that in their judgment legislation was imperatively required to settle those important questions. Not only had these Reports been made by Royal Commissions, but a memorial, signed by nearly 600 inhabitants, had been presented to the right hon. Baronet, stating that they were anxious that the suggestions and recommendations of the Commissioners should be carried into effect, as the best means of promoting the prosperity and tranquillity of the island, He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not be influenced by any representations directed against the Report of the Commissioners proceeding from interested parties, but that he would exercise his own sound judgment upon the subject.

said, that as the first Commission which sat upon the question was appointed as long ago as 1846, it was high time that the matter should be settled. He would recommend the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to deal with it according to the dictates of his own sound judgment. He was assured that the value of land in Jersey would increase 50 per cent provided the defects in the laws were removed. The inhabitants, whether of English or French origin, were loyal subjects of the Queen, and they were most anxious for the reforms recommended by the Commissioners.

said, that notwithstanding the doubts which he had heard expressed on the other side of the House as to the existence of the Channel Islands, he could personally testify— having been an ocular witness not only of Jersey, but also of Sark—that there were such places in rerum natura, and that they were unquestionably to be included with the dominions of Her Majesty. With regard to the question just put to him he hardly thought that at that hour, and that extremity of miscellaneous and desultory discussion, the House would expect him to follow the hon. and learned Member in his extensive review of the legislation of Jersey; but he was not at all prepared to deny that there were great defects both in the law of that island and in its administration. Unfortunately, however, it was not the habit of that House to legislate on the internal concerns of Jersey. No doubt, the supreme power of legislation resided in Parliament, but it was not the practice of Parliament to legislate with respect to the internal affairs of the possessions of the Crown, whether as near or more remote than the Channel Islands. As to any suggestion that, instead of referring the question to the consideration of the States of the Island of Jersey, there; should be legislation upon it under the; simple authority of the Crown by means of Orders in Council, that would certainly be a strong measure to resort to at that early period, and before the States of the island had had an opportunity of examining the Commissioners' recommendations. He, therefore, did not think the Government I would be justified in adopting that course. With regard to the defects which the hon. and learned Member for Reading — no doubt an enlightened law reformer—might discover in the institutions of Jersey, perhaps that hon. Gentleman would find, on further inquiry, that many of those defects were pleasing to the inhabitants of the island. The people of Jersey were attached to many of those ancient laws and customs with which time had familiarized ' them; and it was by no means clear that any act of the Queen in Council making an extensive alteration in their institutions would he hailed with general approbation in the island. It, therefore, behoved Her Majesty's Government to proceed cautiously in this matter. But if he had not gone at as rapid a pace as the hon. Member for Sheffield desired, it ought not to be supposed that he shared that blind-ness to some of the defects of the institutions of Jersey to which he had ventured to advert.

said, he was very glad to hear that the right hon. Baronet was determined to prosecute; the matter; and that, although there might be further delay in dealing with so nice and critical a constitution as that of the island of Jersey, and with laws to which the islanders were perhaps more attached than the merits of those laws deserved, yet that the Government did not intend to allow the subject to drop. The remarkable peculiarities, not to say abuses, of the institutions of Jersey had been fully and ably set forth in the Report of the Commissioners, who, he must say, had discharged their duties in a very admirable manner.

Although the House is not oppressed at the present moment with very much important business, yet, I think that some apology is due for bringing forward again a question which has been six times debated, and al- though with great success in this House, has, nevertheless, not yet become the law of the country. There is, too, some apology, perhaps, due to the House for intruding on its attention a question which has no political interest, no claims on party affection, which offers nothing to interest us but the fact that it is a great question of public justice, and concerns the comfort of many thousands of our fellow-countrymen. On this occasion, as I have no reason to believe that any opposition will be made to the introduction of the Bill, it would be inconvenient for me to renew the discussion of those questions of historic and theological interest which have occasionally formed the staple of the previous debates in this House. Whatever may be necessary on those subjects will be much more fittingly introduced on the second reading of the Bill. The Bill which I propose is one which reduces the means of attaining my object to the narrowest limits. The House is perfectly aware of the state and condition in which this question was left by what is commonly called Lord Lyndhurst's Bill of 1835—a designation which is a great calumny on that great jurist and statesman. That Bill was not Lord Lyndhurst's Bill. Lord Lyndhurst, as the noble Lord himself has declared, said nothing in his Bill about annulling marriages. It was for the object of limiting the time during which these marriages might be disputed; and the clauses afterwards introduced were framed in a totally different spirit from that which Lord Lyndhurst had brought in. I may, perhaps, be deemed to have some right to bring forward this question, when it is considered that I presented to night a petition from the county of York—intimately acquainted as I am with the interests and habits prevailing there—signed by 55,534 persons, of whom 21,000 are of that sex that we are repeatedly told is to a woman opposed to the Bill. This petition, coming from a single county, presents a singular contrast to one presented in "another place" by an eminent prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, as from the women of England, which, on investigation, was found to contain only forty-two signatures, a considerable portion of them being apparently written in a male hand. It is impossible to deny that this is a question deeply interesting to many thousands of Englishmen and Englishwomen. The law of the country has been left in a state which, both in respect of justice and legality, is anomalous. There had been going on ever since the time of Henry VIII. a condition of things in which these marriages occurred. They were only avoidable by suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts. But, while any other marriage of an incestuous nature would at once be met by a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, these marriages occurred with great frequency, without scandal and without injury. Indeed, it appeared from the Commission of 1832 that there was hardly on record a single case in which any action had been brought against these marriages. It was felt that there was something special in these marriages, but nothing repugnant to the religion of a Christian people, and they were practised without any injury to society. It is impossible to determine what number of these marriages took place. We know from the words of that eminent Nonconformist, Dr. Adam Clarke, that largo numbers of preachers connected with the Wesleyan Methodist body contracted such marriages without scandal, so far as their congregations were concerned. We know from Miss Edgeworth that her father contracted such a marriage without any injury to his character, and without any disapprobation on her part. We know from all these circumstances, that these marriages were frequent, and that the state of the law was altogether unsatisfactory in regard to them. But there arose a case in which one noble family was most deeply concerned, which brought the matter prominently before the public, while hundreds and thousands of these marriages taking place in other ranks of life passed unnoticed and unregarded. The law was changed, and what is the effect of that change? Was it to the advantage of the general community? No, but to the advantage only of a few—to the noble family in question and to the detriment of the mass of society. This is a law which begins in illegality, in injustice, in that discrimination of classes which is repugnant to the sense of Englishmen, and can never be regarded as a sound basis of legislation in this country or any other. Starting from this invidious and unjust principle it produces nothing but injustice. It declares that up to a certain period the parties having contracted such marriages shall be considered lawfully married, and after that it declares the parties guilty of concubinage and their children bastards. Say, if you will, that such marriages are improper, and that they should be prevented altogether; but do not allow the flagrant injustice to continue by which, on the one hand, a man may sit in the House of Lords in virtue of a law which bastardizes a large portion of our fellow-countrymen. We have, therefore, a primâ facie case for bringing this measure forward again and again. I propose to introduce it on the present occasion in the simplest form—in a form which, I trust, will not shock the most delicate conscience. The Bill simply provides that henceforth all such marriages celebrated by registrars in the purest civil form shall be legal marriages. I do not propose to touch upon the ecclesiastical question in any way whatever. I shall leave every man to judge of that matter according to his own conscience. What I contemplate is a purely civil contract. I have only to add that there is a clause which declares that there is nothing in the Bill which shall affect, in the slightest degree, any dignity, title, fortune, or other arrangement which may be dependent upon the present condition of the law. Probably I shall be met on a future occasion with arguments of a religious character. Now, we are not very competent in this House to deal with questions of theology, or questions touching the consciences of men. I believe, however, that in ancient times there was no doubt whatever on the subject. Dr. Adam Clark declares that the opinion of the Jewish rabbis is conclusive as to the correct interpretation of the much-disputed passage in Leviticus. Even that acute controversialist the Bishop of Exeter acknowledges that it ought to be construed simply as a permission of polygamy with certain limitations. Such, moreover, is the opinion, not only of the people of England generally, who interpret the passage according to the natural meaning of the version which they hear read from the pulpit, but of a large majority in this House. Many of the bishops have expressed the same view, though hitherto, at all events, they have opposed all Bills like the present upon ecclesiastical grounds. But it is not my intention to involve the House in a theological argument. In the other House, where the Church is adequately represented, such questions can be discussed with a completeness which is here impossible. All we can say as simple laymen, looking back upon the history of the Church, is that the question which my Bill is designed to set at rest every now and then crops up in theological controversy, in close connection with the celibacy of the clergy. There is not a single writer quoted by our opponents who does not at the same time declare that the clergy ought not to be allowed to enter the marriage state. Moreover, the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife is invariably connected in one condemnation with a number of other unions which are permitted in this country, such, for example, as the union of cousins german, a marriage which is absolutely prohibited by the Greek Church, and for which a dispensation is required in the Roman Catholic Church. But let us leave these thorny questions to be discussed in the other House. I know that reference will be made to the authority of the bench of Bishops; hut I know, at the same time, that many of our prelates before they attained their present high position were of opinion that the marriages which form the subject of my Bill ought to be permitted by law. Is it too much to expect from those prelates that they should publicly state that they do not believe such marriages are opposed to Scripture, but that, on the other hand, they are prevented in their representative capacity, as speaking on behalf of the general clergy, from taking an active part in promoting a change in the law? Upon the position taken up by the bishops, and upon the encouragement given to the other House by a strong manifestation of opinion on our part, depends the satisfactory settlement of this question. I know there is a social objection, resting upon the much-quoted passage in Leviticus. It is because many of the people of this country, particularly women, think it would "vex the wife in her life time" that they are averse to legalize the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife. That, however, is a matter of opinion which every one will judge for himself. We may not think, with the poet Cowley, that if a man is to marry a second time the best person he can select is his wife's sister; but that is no reason why we should absolutely prohibit such marriages. Some hon. Gentlemen have argued as if the object of Bills like the present was to force every man to marry his wife's sister. That is a mistake. We simply want people to be allowed to please themselves. You may not think these marriages desirable, but you have no right to interfere with them on the part of others who entertain a contrary opinion. I find that among my own dependents, my own friends, my own constituents, such marriages are constantly taking place. They are not productive of evil consequences; on the contrary, they diffuse a large amount of happiness and comfort throughout the community. The fact is, as stated by the Commission which was presided over by the Bishop of Lich-field, that legality has nothing to do with the matter. Either we must have these marriages, or we must suffer concubinage. The English people have settled the question for themselves. They know that their grandfathers were permitted to do this thing unchallenged by the law, and suffered no injury in consequence; they see their friends and neighbours doing it almost every day; and they find that all who enter into these unions are objects of sympathy. Surely we ought, under such circumstances, to endeavour to change the law so as to bring it into accordance with the habits and feelings of the people. It is because we do so in other cases that the law in England is so highly venerated. Let me mention one case which has come under my own observation. The leading surgeon in a small town in which I feel interested contracted one of these marriages. No objection was made to it, nor did it injure him in character or practice. His second wife died in childbed, and she died before she had an opportunity of leaving her property by will to her child. What was the consequence? The child was deprived of his mother's fortune, which went to a distant relative, and he was left without the means of subsistence. Similar cases are occurring all over England at this moment, and is it for us to say that, in order to consult the selfish convenience of a portion of the upper classes, we shall neglect a common want of the English people? Therefore, I trust, on these grounds, that you will continue not to oppose the measure. Above all, let me entreat you not to allow this question to become a party question. What on earth has it to do with political relations, or political parties? Surely, it is a great scandal to see the division list on this question, and to find one man going into this lobby and another into that, merely because they happen to sit on a certain side of this House. Let each man take this question to his individual conscience; let him consider whether he has a right to perpetuate a state of things which is so miserable for thousands of his fellow countrymen. If each one will do so I cannot but believe that the true spirit of Christianity will induce him to allow a measure of freedom and tolerance, and, though he might shrink from such a union himself, convince him that he ought not so cruelly to forbid it to others. I do hope that the House will consent to put an end to the miserable anxieties and difficulties which, in consequence of the present state of the law, surround the devolution of property, to give peace to those susceptible minds which are now so disturbed and unhappy, and to reconcile the law of the land with the conscience of the British people.

said, he begged to second the Motion.

My hon. Friend has certainly made a very able speech in defence of the proposition which he has submitted to the House. He said at the beginning of his speech that he understood there was to be no opposition to the introduction of the measure. I believe, Sir, that, with the exception of one single instance, no opposition was ever made to the introduction of this Bill, because, when what is represented to be a large number of people send a measure to be considered, it is only respectful to them that it should be laid on the table of the House, and that the fullest attention should be given to it. For that reason, then, if for no other, I should certainly not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill; nor, indeed, should I rise to make any objection upon the speech of my hon. Friend, did I not think it right to guard myself, as well as the House generally, against one or two of the propositions which he advanced, but which I do not think he intended to enforce in the latitude and to the extent which his words suggested. My hon. Friend adverted to the Act of that great jurist and statesman, Lord Lyndhurst, which he informed us was not Lord Lyndhurst's Act. Whether it was or not I will not now stop to inquire, but I cannot admit that the scope of that Act and its effect upon the people of this country were fairly represented by my hon. Friend. Down to the time when that Act was passed a marriage with a deceased wife's sister stood in the category of what were called voidable marriages—that is to say, that within a certain period after such an union was contracted, it was in the power of any interested party to apply to the Court to set aside the marriage, and get it declared void, notwithstanding that the parties had cohabited, and that children had been born; but if within the prescribed time no one attempted to set it aside, then the marriage was not void. Lord Lyndhurst's Act made this change in the law—it provided a remedy for those cases where such marriages had been contracted previous to its passing, but instead of leaving the law in an uncertain state, which in the case of marriages of any kind, is the worst state in which the law can he, it laid down the rule, conformably with what had been the precept of the Christian Church, that such marriages, in point of fact, were not sanctioned by the law of God, and would in future be deemed illegal. My hon. Friend seemed to me to represent to the House, by the argumentum ad invidiam, that the law to which I have adverted drew a distinction between the rich and the poor— that it was a law in favour of a great duke and not of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] I presume from that cheer that hon. Gentlemen think that the distinction does exist. Is it so? The Act decided retrospectively that none of these marriages could he set aside down to that period, no matter whether they were contracted by a duke or any great peer, or by any person whatever. Well, did the Act make any distinction between rich and poor prospectively as to these marriages? Certainly not; it placed all on precisely the same footing. Whether the law be good or not is not the point with which I am dealing; but I venture to say, and no one can contradict me, that the law did not make a distinction between the rich and the poor as my hon. Friend, I think, inadvertently and with too great latitude, endeavoured to represent. There is one other point on which I think my hon. Friend was not so guarded as he should have been, and it is a very important one. My hon. Friend used such a latitude of expression in describing his measure, that I am at a loss at this moment to understand the exact nature of it; and that is another reason why I should be curious to see it. I understood my hon. Friend to say that his Bill was simply to enable persons to contract marriages before a registrar without interfering with any ecclesiastical rule; but he spoke so loosely that I do not know whether he intended that any person might contract a marriage with any other person, and that provided it was done before a registrar it should be legal.

— The scope of my Bill is solely confined to marriage with a deceased wife's sister.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has explained this point, for his speech suggested the idea that the measure applied to marriages generally. He used the remarkable phrase that persons ought to be at liberty in this matter, and that all he wanted to do was, in the exercise of that freedom, to make that a marriage which would now be concubinage. If that argument is sound I wish to know whether my hon. Friend is prepared to say that a similar freedom is to be given to all persons who are now living with women whom they cannot at present marry, as well as to those who wish to marry their deceased wives' sisters. Is the law to be partial in this respect or general? Do not argue the question on the ground of general freedom unless you are ready to give a general power. If you are going to make a special exception in favour of a particular class, found your proposal on reason and morality, and then you will substantiate your case; but if you proceed on the popular notion that there is to be no restriction on personal liberty in such matters, and that, provided the contract is a civil one, a man is to be at liberty to marry whom he pleases, with the condition, I presume, that there is no consanguinity between the parties to prevent a marriage, see upon what a flood of immorality you will immediately launch the people of this country. I entreat my hon. Friend to consider the consequences of this measure before he is so sanguine, as he seems to be, of altering the law of marriage in this country to the extent he proposes, without exposing himself to the argument that, on the same grounds as those he now urges in favour of this kind of marriage, he will be bound to admit as legal other unions from which he now revolts, and which he knows the Legislature would never tolerate. I will not enter further into the discussion of the measure at this stage, nor do I intend on any future occasion to argue this question upon what my hon. Friend conceives the opponents of the Bill will be likely to argue it, on theological, still less on ecclesiastical grounds. I found my arguments on this, and I believe I am right, that the last thing a nation ought to do is to alter its law of marriage, especially when a moral, religious, and therefore the best of all sanctions has been given to it by the usages of the country, by the feelings of the people, and by the high moral tone which the nation has derived from it. I deprecate any alteration of the law of marriage, which has been sanctioned by the usage of so many centuries; but I still more deprecate any alteration of that law unless you are satisfied that you can take your stand upon some intelligible principle, which will prevent the alteration being extended still further hereafter. My firm belief is that you cannot do that. My firm belief also is, that if the people of this country were fairly canvassed with reference to this question, the great majority of them would say, as they have said hitherto, "Leave the law as it is." Give the greatest freedom you can to the people to marriage provided they do not break through those obligations which have contributed more than anything to raise this country to the high position as to morality which it now occupies, but do not peril this upon any imaginary notion of general freedom, unless you can prove upon grounds of morality that that freedom will not deteriorate, as I believe this measure will deteriorate, "the moral condition of the people of this country."

said, he wished to explain that he had strictly confined his remarks to the case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. That was the subject to which, following the usage of the House, he had endeavoured to restrict himself, and he had no apprehension that the provisions of the Bill would be extended to any other relation of life. He wished for no change whatever that was not required by some large body of public opinion in the country.

said, he thought the question was eminently a question for the consideration of the hon. Member's countrymen, and still more of his countrywomen. The House ought to be guided exclusively in the matter by the feelings of the women of the country. He had done all that lay in his power to ascertain what were the feelings of his own countrywomen on the subject. They were unrepresented in that House, and he entirely surrendered his judgment to what he might consider to be their feelings and instincts, for, of course, whenever a measure was passed in England it was likely to be extended to Ireland, and he had always found that they revolted against such a law. He had descended amongst the lowest classes of his countrywomen and found that such a men-sure was as repugnant to them as it was to the higher classes, and he would, therefore, vote against it.

who had given notice to move for—

"A Select Committee to inquire into the local taxation and government of the Metropolis, and the expediency of constituting the Metropolis a county of itself, for the administration of justice and the better management of its affairs."

Said, that in rising to move for the Appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Local Taxation and Government of the Metropolis and the Local Administration of Justice therein, he wished at the outset to disclaim any desire, such as had been imputed to him, of absorbing every district authority in the Metropolis, and substituting a single corporation which should administer all its affairs, he entertained no such desire. On the contrary, he adhered to the principle upon which the Local Government of the Metropolis was originally established— namely, that there must be Local Boards for district purposes, and, at the same time, a corporation aggregate which should deal with all those questions which could not possibly be discussed by the Local Boards or Vestries. If that principle had been constantly adhered to as the Metropolis increased, there would have been no necessity for now discussing the subject of Metropolitan Government and Taxation. Unfortunately, it had not: attempts had been made to get over the difficulty by partial Legislation, and during the present century not less than 400 Acts of Parliament had been passed to dispose of small and inconsiderable questions as they had arisen. At length, Lord Llanover introduced a measure which was somewhat comprehensive, and if that measure had given perfect satisfaction, all further trouble might have been avoided. It had not, however, answered the expectations of those by whom it was framed. It had not satisfied the inhabitants in consequence of the manner in which the Metropolitan Board was elected; and it had not satisfied the public because that Board had not sufficient powers to enable it properly to discharge its duties which it ought to undertake. Last Session the House was troubled with a Bill upon this subject of such vast dimensions that it could not pass it, and he supposed that a similar measure would be introduced this year. Difficulties were always arising as to water, gas, or the Thames; but a still more important question demanded attention. The Board of Trade had invited the House to take some steps to prevent the Metropolis being placed at the mercy of a number of railway companies. Another difficulty which was much felt was, that the communication between the two banks of the Thames was in a most unsatisfactory state. Tolls were exacted at one place; in another there was a tottering bridge. The Metropolitan Board of Works, when asked by the Metropolitan Members what they wished to do, presented a schedule of works which they desired to carry out, the cost of which would be £15,000,000. That was a most alarming demand; and this formed one branch of the inquiry which he desired that a Committee should undertake. The second branch of the inquiry related to the administration of justice, which was different on one side of Temple Bar from what it was on the other; and, to the injustice of withdrawing men who lived in the heart of the Metropolis from their homes and business to serve as jurors at Guildford, or somewhere in the middle of Kent. The third head of the inquiry which he desired was the Local Taxation. The inhabitants of the Metropolis complained that the direct taxation levied upon them was increasing year by year, and also that they were subject to a large amount of indirect taxation. The City of London claimed the Metropolis as a private inheritance, and levied from it a sum of £60,000 or £70,000 a-year, which, it said, was as much its private property as was the estate of any individual. A Committee sat on the subject but made no report; he desired, therefore, to rake up the investigation and see whether there were not some abuses arising out of antiquated pretensions no longer applicable to the existing state of things. When such enormous sums were collected from the inhabitants, it became necessary to inquire whether they were justly levied, by whom they were collected and to what purposes they were applied. No one could have a right to levy indirectly a special tax on the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and, at the same time, to be wholly irresponsible as to the application of the funds. He desired to have the subject sifted to the bottom, with the object of procuring the ultimate establishment of an efficient local administration. It was of the utmost importance that in the governing body of the Metropolis all classes should be represented. Not merely ought the respectable shopkeeper to take part in its deliberations, but it should also include men of rank and station; and, by acting on proper principles a local administration would be secured, which would act in accordance with the true interest of the inhabitants, and thus command their respect, at the same time that it would prevent the City from being given up as a prey to schemers and speculators. The hon. Member concluded by moving

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the local taxation and government of the Metropolis, and the local administration of justice therein."

said, he rose to second the Motion, though he could hardly say that he was very sanguine as to the result of the inquiry. The difficulties in the way of satisfactory legislation were enormous, and were every day increasing in magnitude. All those interested in the welfare of the Metropolis, therefore, owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) for his attempt to grapple with them; and he would no less be entitled to the thanks of the House if through the instrumentality of the Committee they were saved in future from the eternal repetition of metropolitan questions. He had no wish to cast blame on the Metropolitan Hoard of Works, but from its very birth it had been impossible that it could give satisfaction to the ratepayers. Not one of the extensive questions connected with the gas companies, tolls, the administration of justice, or the direct and indirect taxation of the citizens, had received a satisfactory solution, and he feared this Augean stable hardly admitted of being thoroughly cleansed. The Committee, however, was a step in the right direction, and he hoped that whoever consented to sit upon it would not shirk his share of the work, hut would earnestly strive to do justice to all concerned, and to bring about a result satisfactory to the House and to the country.

said, that as the terms of the Motion placed in his hands differed from those of the Motion on the Notice Paper, he wished to draw particular attention to the proposal of the hon. Member. It was, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the local taxation and government of the Metropolis, and the local administration of justice therein."

expressed a hope that the appointment of the Committee would not prevent the consideration by the House of several useful measures respecting the Metropolis of which they had promise. The coal tax, for example, with the authority under which it was levied, and the objects to which it was applied, must shortly come under the notice of the House. That was an indirect tax levied upon the inhabitants of the Metropolis, but those who paid it had not the smallest means of questioning its appropriation. He trusted, therefore, that the Government by assenting to the Committee would not prevent useful legislation on that or any other subject of local interest.

The Government of the Metropolis seems to me to be a question by itself: our ordinary institutions for local government, the organization of a county and the organization of a borough—seem equally unsuited to the case of London. With a population now approaching 3,000,000, and with the enormous extent of our Metropolis, the diversity of its interests, and the magnitude of its distances, the attempt would be vain to govern it by a single representative body exercising the ordinary functions of a town council. It therefore becomes necessary to devise peculiar machinery for the local government of different parts of London; and I confess that appears to me a problem of very great difficulty. We start with this anomaly, that we have an ancient corporation representing what formerly was the entire, or nearly the entire, of the City of London, but which now covers only a small portion of its area; and aggregated round that small nucleus we have the principal part of the town which is exempt from the peculiar jurisdiction of the Corporation of London. Under these circumstances, Lord Llanover introduced a Bill for the establishment of a Central Board of Works, created by election from the various districts. It was a considerable advance and improvement on any institution which the Metropolis then possessed. But I am quite aware it was breaking ground for the first time in the constitution of a body representing the entire Metropolis, and, as a few years hare passed, I think its operations may well undergo scrutiny by a Committee of this House. I am, therefore, prepared, as far as the consti- tution and proceedings of the Metropolitan Board are concerned, to assent to the appointment of this Committee. There is, also, a variety of questions connected with the administration of justice in London which may fairly be brought within the scope of its inquiries. Possibly the Committee may have something to say on the Corporation of London; but I confess that, although I do not say it is impossible to propose some fresh changes in the constitution of that Corporation, I doubt if any addition can be made to the facts which are already in the possession of this House with respect to it. To that extent T consent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and think his labours may be attended with useful results. But I do not understand that the appointment of this Committee is to hang up every measure of useful reform affecting this immense Metropolis during the present year, especially a measure affecting the coal duties, with respect to which legislation in the present Session is an absolute necessity. I never understood that the appointment of a Committee took everything out of the hands of the House, or that it was not competent for the House to pronounce an opinion because a Committee of Inquiry was sitting upstairs. I trust I shall not be understood as debarring myself from assenting to any measure which is in progress, although this Committee may be sitting, and its labours may be attended with beneficial results.

said, he should be very glad if he could extract something in the shape of a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that he would listen to no deputations on the subject of the metropolitan coal tax until the whole question had been fully considered by a Committee. That tax was not more unjust and odious to the Metropolis than to the producers of the coal in the part of the country he had the honour to represent. He had heard unpleasant rumours abroad that the Corporation of London on the one hand, and the Metropolitan Board of Works on the other, had a strong interest in the continuance of that tax. That tax had been charged with heavy liabilities which would cease in 1868. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would tell any deputations which waited on him on the subject that he should leave it to the discrimination of the Select Committee first to determine the question.

said, be thought the proposed Committee would prove of compan- tively limited value if its inquiries were confined to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The right hon. Gentleman said that the constitution of a county was inapplicable to the Metropolis; but in point of fact the Corporation of London had a recorder, a common Serjeant, a Judge of a Small Debts Court, a militia, an artillery company, and a Court of Lieutenancy—in fact, everything which a county possessed except a Lord Lieutenant. He did not see, therefore, why the Corporation should not be extended, and why it should not be en trusted with those functions which were performed by the Board of Works. The complaints which were made against that Board were owing to the unsatisfactory mode in which it was elected. The City of London should no longer be confined to its present small area but extended, as in ancient times it had been, and for that purpose the Metropolis ought to be divided into wards, and the representatives of those wards elected by the inhabitants directly. The Metropolitan Board of Works was a kind of distillation. The members of it were selected by the vestries of the different parishes out of their own body, and not being elected directly by the people, did not enjoy the confidence which a corporation would enjoy. He did not see why the powers which were given to the Metropolitan Board of Works, should not have been given to the Corporation of the City of London, extending the bounds of the City from time to time as the Metropolis extended, so that there might be one great governing body throughout the Metropolis. He knew that that proposition had been considered over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman, who gave as his reason against it that the Corporation would be so powerful that it would interfere with the Houses of Parliament. [Sir GEORGR LEWIS: He bad never said so.] He had not the precise words of the Report of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, but the reason given was that if the Corporation were extended it would be too powerful a body. The Metropolitan Board of Works was not a powerful body. It was simply a great taxing engine, and taxing engines were not popular. The Corporation of London bad this advantage, that it bad property yielding it £60,000 a year entirely at its own disposal, which enabled it to make everybody comfortable; whereas the Metropolitan Board of Works had to levy heavy rates which made everybody uncomfortable. He thought the inquiry ought not to be confined, but that the Committee ought to consider whether the Corporation might not be extended to the whole of the Metropolis.

said, he was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would have stated that he intended to carry out the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the coal tax. The concluding part of the Report stated that

"Looking to the unequal incidence of the coal tax, and to the dissatisfaction which it creates in the district over which it is levied, we strongly incline to the opinion that even if it should not he thought expedient to disturb the existing arrangement for 1802, yet it is desirable to abolish it from that period, and to substitute for it a rate levied on the whole Metropolis."

The principle of taxation was, that those should pay the burden who enjoyed the benefit. That principle was violated by the extension of the coal tax over a radius of twenty miles. He had heard a rumour that it was intended by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) to substitute for the present area of coal taxation the area adopted for police purposes. If the proceeds of the tax were devoted to the payment of the police there might be a reason for such a scheme, but as it was the proposal would not have common sense to support it. The tax, as at present levied, bore oppressively on manufacturers as well as on the poor. Those manufacturers who lived within its area must be placed at a disadvantage as compared with those who had not to pay the impost. He had heard from one firm that it involved a payment by them of £220 a year, and from another that it cost them £400.

said, the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, in January last year, had stated, on the occasion of introducing a Bill for the regulation of the Corporation of London, that it was his intention to deal with the coal duties that Session. The Corporation Reform Bill, however, fell to the ground, and the promised measure in reference to the coal duties fell to the ground also. The same promise was now repeated for the present Session, but he feared that though a measure might be introduced it would fall in the massacre of the innocents if its introduction were delayed to a late period. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration all that had been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Puller), and would not permit the coal duty to be levied any longer over an area of twenty miles from the Metropolis. The inhabitants of Hertford felt excessively aggrieved by this tax; and there was one singular circumstance, that coals which went to Hertford, and were there taxed, actually passed through Ware, which being just over the twenty miles from London, did not have to pay the tax,. The provision was one clearly unjust in its operation. The coal duty was re-imposed in 1845 until 1862, and therefore this was the proper time to consider the matter. He appealed to the justice of the House whether it was right that towns twenty miles off should still pay for metropolitan improvement. He hoped that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) would use all his influence with the Government to prevent the continuance of this evil.

said, that a discussion on the coal tax would be raised more legitimately on the introduction of the Home Secretary's Bill than it was on the present Motion. When that measure was definitely before the House, no doubt many hon. Members would be ready to say it was unjust that the town of Hertford should be made to pay the tax. He did not see that the House of Commons had anything to do with the local self-government of London. It was true that they passed a Local Management Act some time ago, and it was said that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not given general satisfaction. He was not one who condemned them. It must be remembered that that body had had great difficulties to contend with, and there was an old saying about giving a dog a bad name. That was what had happened to the Metropolitan Board of Works. If members of the Board did not do their duty, let others be chosen in their places, but do not let the Act he condemned because the majority of the ratepayers neglected their duty with regard to local affairs. He thought that before they decided on the continuation of the coal tax they should decide who was to have the expenditure of the money. He understood the Government had now appointed a Commission to inquire into the embankment of the Thames, and if that was so he saw no reason why the Government should not grant the coal tax for another year in its present shape.

in moving for copies of Correspondence which had passed since November, 1853, to the present time, between John Clare, jun., and the Board of Admiralty and the Surveyor of the Navy, on the subject of Mr. Clare's patents and plans for building iron vessels for the Royal Navy, and of similar correspondence with the Board of Trade and with the Treasury, explained that in 1853 Mr. Clare submitted certain plans to the Board of Admiralty for building iron ships, which were condemned and refused by them. Since then a long correspondence had taken place, and Mr. Clare alleged that the Warrior and other iron vessels were now being built on his scheme, and that his patent had been infringed without any remuneration being given him. He understood that the Secretary of the Admiralty objected to the production of the correspondence on account of its length and its irrelevancy, but he should be quite content to have the essential part of it—that which gave the original plans and the decision of the Admiralty upon them, so that the House might be in possession of full information on the subject.

said, he felt bound to refuse the production of the correspondence. Mr. Clare's claims had been referred to the Comptroller and the Solicitor of the Navy, and they had decided that they were entirely without foundation. The correspondence was of great length, comprising no less than eighty letters, and was very irrelevant. He, therefore, thought it very unadvisable to produce it. He might add that both the late First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty concurred in this course.

said, he regretted that the noble Lord had thought proper to refuse to comply with the request of his hon. Friend. He need not remind the noble Lord that for many years there had been frequent charges preferred against the Board of Admiralty for condemning, in the first instance, without due consideration, suggestions laid before them for the benefit of the service, which, in many cases, they had subsequently adopted. The object of his hon. Friend's Motion was to establish the fact that the Admiralty had, in the first instance rejected, and afterwards adopted the plan. It was not one charge but a hundred charges of a similar kind that had been brought against the Admiralty, and that should be a reason why the Government should not refuse to accede to the Motion, especially as his hon. Friend was willing to reduce it within the narrowest possible limits—namely, to the correspondence between Mr. Clare and the Admiralty between the years 1853 and 1854.

said, he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty would consent to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norfolk. Much had been said about Mr. Clare's claims out of doors, and the Admiralty would only be doing a simple act of justice to themselves in producing the correspondence, so that the public might see whether he was right or wrong in his allegations.

said, he was not surprised to find that his noble Friend had refused to accede to the Motion as it had been proposed. But he thought his noble Friend might fairly adopt the suggestion that he should give the correspondence which had passed upon that subject in the years 1853 and 1854.

said, he would consent to do so.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the relief of the poor in Ireland under the orders, rules, and regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, puruant to the provisions of the Poor Law Acts, and into the laws relat- ing to the relief of the poor in Ireland. Last year he moved for a Bill to make certain changes in the administration of poor relief in Ireland. Soon after he received a communication from a large body of the representatives for Ireland requesting that the Poor Law Commission should not be continued for five years, but for a shorter period, and that a Parliamentary inquiry into the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland should take place. The answer he gave was, that if the Government saw nothing objectionable in such an inquiry it would be granted. The Bill was subsequently passed continuing the Commission for only two years; and now, in compliance with the desire so strongly expressed he moved for the appointment of a Committee. He did not, however, believe that any important changes in the Irish Poor Law were likely to result from this inquiry. The Poor Law system of Ireland was, he believed, founded on principles of wisdom, and in the main it had been administered with great ability and wisdom by the Commissioners. The law had stood the test of very trying seasons and had been found adequate to every occasion; its operations had tended materially' to the relief and well-being of the poor of Ireland.

said, he thought it was unnecessary to appoint a Committee on the subject. There had been no failure of the law, there bad been no statement of extravagant expenditure on the one hand, or of insufficient relief to the poor on the other. Nor had any great change been demanded. He was not aware that any charge had been made against the Poor Law Commissioners for any maladministration on their part. On the contrary, he thought the general feeling of the people of Ireland was that those gentlemen had administered the law with great ability, and with as much satisfaction to the public as could be expected from gentlemen in their position. Ample information, in the shape of the voluminous details that were printed every year, was already before the House, and in possession of the country. The inquiry, therefore, was unnecessary, and might be mischievous in raising delusive hopes.

said, he tendered his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the appointment of this Committee, as he believed an inquiry might lead to a good result, and be the means of assimilating the law of England and Ireland.

observed, that the people of Ireland were not so much en-amoured with the administration of the Poor Law Commissioners as the noble Lord (Lord Naas) seemed to think. Oil the contrary, they had given great dissatisfaction to the gentry by the supercilious and insolent way in which they conducted themselves, and to the people generally, by the manner in which they had administered the funds for the relief of the poor. The workhouses were no proof of the state of the labouring population, for the workhouse relief fell far short of the intention of Parliament and the public. But for the religious and charitable associations in Cork, which distributed about £3,000 a year in out-door relief, the squalor and wretchedness of that city would be greatly intensified. He believed that a judicious administration of out-door relief would be a great improvement on the present system. The whole subject required careful inquiry by a Select Committee.

said, he considered that the inquiry would be useful, because it would give the Poor Law Commissioners an opportunity of vindicating themselves. In order that the inquiry might he less restricted, he would move the omission of the words, "under the orders, rules, and regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners."

seconded the Amendment, as he thought the inquiry ought to be as general as possible. He held that the Irish Poor Law was one of the worst Acts upon the statute book. Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners."

said, he could not agree that it was desirable to assimilate the Poor Law in Ireland to that of England. A vast mass of pauperism existed in that country, which would render the application of the principle of out-door relief most dangerous. He could not see that the inquiry was required from any misconduct on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners. There might have been some error in the administration of the law, but there had been no case of misconduct alleged against the Commissioners. It had been the rule in England that deserted children should be brought up at the expense of the State, but the right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill last year which would altogether alter that wholesome rule. He did not at all think that the Bill of last year was worthy of the commendation which had been passed upon it. He did not object to the appointment of the Committee, because he believed that if honest evidence was brought before it, the effect would be to keep things in Ireland, in respect to the Poor Law, precisely the same as they now were.

said, he thought the Secretary for Ireland ought to accept the Amendment. He could not agree in the advantage to Ireland of assimilating the law of the two countries; for having sat as a member of a Committee up stairs to consider questions of immovability and settlement, he thought it most fortunate that Ireland had escaped the evils of a law of settlement.

said, his object was to impose no limitation whatever upon the inquiry of the Committee.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Metropolis Local Management Acts, said it was, in point of fact, the same Bill which was brought into the House rather late last year. A difference of opinion then arose as to the apportionment of some debts which had been left by a former commission, and, in order to avoid the difficulty, he had divided the measure of last Session into two Bills. It had been said that the Board was a great taxing machine, but it should be remembered that they had the whole drainage of the Metropolis to attend to, and had to Spend £3,000,000 for the purpose, as well as to pay off large debts which they did not themselves incur. He moved for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, he wished to ask whether the hon. Member intended to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, as was done last Session?

hoped the hon. Member for Bath in his Bill of this Session had pro vided an appeal for those who might feel aggrieved at the decisions of his Board. They were told last year that the Bill could not be worked with such a provision, which meant, he supposed, that the action of the Board would be so oppressive as to drive a number of people to the unprofitable venture of attacking a strong body who would defend themselves with the plaintiff's own money. In spite of the panegyric of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) the public were not, he thought, sufficiently satisfied with these irresponsible Boards to wish their powers to be increased without some better remedy against injustice, or to deliver themselves up bound hand and foot without the means, however small, of striking a blow in self-defence.

said, it was not his intention to ask that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The expenditure in the Committee of last year had been some £12,000, of which the Board had paid £4,000. He proposed that the second Bill which he was about to introduce should be so referred.

hoped that the House would watch narrowly the course adopted with regard to these two measures, particularly after their experience of the course pursued during the last Session.

in moving for leave to introduce a Bill in order to provide for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland, stated that this Bill was similar in its provisions to one which he had introduced last year when he had the honour of being Chief Secretary for Ireland: the only alteration being that he proposed to pay the registrars by salary instead of fees, and to make a considerable diminution in the number of superintendent registrars. He hoped eventually that they would be able to do with one in each county. He did not wish to conceal from the House that the difference between his Bill and that of the Government was as wide as possible; and, therefore, he hoped the House would fairly examine them both. But to whichever of the Bills the House gave the preference, he hoped that Session would not pass without one of them being adopted; for it was a crying disgrace that Ireland should have remained so long without some statistical information on these points—information which was obtained in every other country in Europe except Hungary and Turkey.

said, he objected to the large number of Members, twenty-one, named as the Committee. The former practice of the House was to limit the number of Select Committees to fifteen, and it would he better rather to diminish that number than increase it; but lately, and especially in the present Session, the practice of appointing Committees of much larger numbers had grown up. A Committee had already been appointed of twenty-one Members. That under consideration would be the second of the same number, and he had seen the list of a Committee, not yet named, that was to consist of thirty. Such a practice led to great inconvenience. There were fewer to choose from, the attendance was less regular, and he believed the business was not so well done as by a smaller number.

said, the investigation to be undertaken by the Committee was not an ordinary one. It was desirable to include hon. Members who had had experience of the operation of the Poor Law system in all parts of the country. A great number of hon. Members had applied to have their names put on the Committee, and two former Committees on the same question, had consisted of twenty-one. The number, therefore, was not without precedent, and he had heard regret expressed that the Committee was not larger.