said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to an advertisement in the public papers headed "Army Medical Department," stating that there would be a competitive examination for thirty Military Assistant Surgeons, Whether Her Majesty's subjects in India and coloured British subjects in Canada and the Colonies, would be allowed to compete? Why 1,824 recruits, for the Bengal Presidency alone, were sent out at the end of last year, the fixed establishment of European Troops of all arms for India—namely, 71,000 men, being at the time exceeded by 9,770 men? And why the Queen's Bays, ordered home from India, were stopped at Cawnpore on their march to embark for England?

said, the hon. and gallant Member moved for a return last Session which contained the materials for an answer to the chief part of the question which he had put. It was not intended that the Natives of India should compete for the office of army surgeons in the British army. In the returns to which he alluded there would be found a report from the Medical Board appointed last Session by the late Secretary of the War Department, in which the members of the Board gave it as their deliberate opinion that the native and mixed races of India and other tropical countries would never be able to sustain for any time the climate of northern regions, and therefore could not be employed with advantage to the public service in climates not similar to the is own. The consequence was, that it was not thought possible or advisable to open the office of army surgeon in the general army to Natives of India. With regard to the coloured British subjects in Canada, he hardly knew to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred—whether he referred to the red men in Canada, the aborigines, or the free blacks. He was not aware of any of those classes being in a position to be admitted to the rank of army surgeon.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government are in possession of a copy of any convention which has been concluded between the Government of Spain and that of Morocco, whereby one-half of the receipts of the Moorish custom-houses has been pledged to the Government of Spain; and, if so, whether they will lay the same before this House?

said, that the hon. Gentleman would see by the papers that had been laid upon the table of the House, that Her Majesty's Government were in possession of information with regard to the convention. He (Mr. Layard) believed it was the practice not to lay upon the table of the House treaties between Foreign Powers which had not been officially communicated. As this treaty had not been so communicated, it would not be laid on the table.

said, that in rising to put the question of which he had given notice to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it would be unnecessary to remind the House of the painful feeling excited by the horrible massacres which had taken place in Dahomey. Reports of similar cruelties continued to be received, though not on so extensive a scale, some twenty or thirty miserable captives being killed every two or three nights. A letter which he had received represented the King as being friendly to France, Spain, and Portugal, but hostile to England; and, being completely in the hands of the mulatto slave-dealers, it was easy to discover their motive for instigating the King to acts of barbarity. Their object was to drive away Englishmen, as they knew that if once they gained any influence in the country, the unlawful gains arising from the slave trade would be at an end. There was some ground for the belief that the present would be a favourable time for sending a British commissioner to Dahomey, and in any such mission he thought it would be well that commissioners from France, Spain, and Portugal should be invited to join, in order that he might see he could not really count on the support of civilized nations. The question was one of importance in a commercial sense. In the present distress arising from dearth of cotton, India was naturally looked to for supplies; but the shortness of the staple was such that, as compared with American cotton, our operatives sustained a loss in manufacturing it equal to 25 per cent. The African cotton approximated much more closely to the American than that which was obtained from India; some said it was even superior, but that could only be when superior cultivation had made it so. But, at any rate, by getting a supply from Africa, the wages of the operatives would virtually be increased to the extent of 25 per cent. The entire country from Dahomey to the Niger was one vast cotton field. The cotton plant was indigenous and perennial: consequently it did not require replanting year by year as in America; the crop had only to be picked and sent home. Of the sugar crop the same might be said, so that in considering the question the House would not be dealing with it purely from a sentimental point of view. They would naturally be animated by such high principles as the desire to arrest cruel practices, and, if possible, to put an end to the slave trade altogether, but they might at the same time feel that they would be conferring great and direct commercial advantages on this country if they could establish in Dahomey a better state of things. The King was at present completely in the hands of the slave dealers; but if he saw that his resources would he increased and his own position secured by legitimate commerce, there was reason to believe that he would be willing to listen to representations urged by responsible commissioners. He, therefore, wished to ask the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to send a Commissioner to Dahomey to treat with the King for the entire abolition of his barbarous sacrifices of human beings, and for the discontinuance of the slave trade in his dominions; and further, whether there was any objection to lay upon the table of the House any correspondence or memorials that may have been addressed to the Government on this subject?

concurred with the objects advocated by the noble Lord, but feared that a barbarian like the King of Dahomey would not understand any argument except force, and would not be bound by any treaty, however carefully drawn. He had received information that even our new settlement of Lagos, the importance of which, as a cotton-producing country, could not be overestimated, was in great danger from its proximity to Dahomey, and that its only safety lay in the presence of Captain Bedingfield, who had great influence with the natives, and who had anchored the Prometheus sloop-of-war off the town. He (Mr. Cave) wished to take the opportunity of bringing an important point connected with this subject before the Government. He had intended making it a specific question, but thinking that, in our present relations with America, it would be better not to do so, he determined to take advantage of some occasion like the present merely to mention it, and express a hope that it would receive the serious attention of her Majesty's Government. He had heard from a highly intelligent correspondent on the West Coast of Africa that the whole American slave squadron had been withdrawn except one sailing corvette; that in consequence every slaver carried American colours, and our cruisers had not even their former miserable expedient of towing a suspected vessel to an American ship of-war in order that she might be overhauled. Unless, therefore, some counter-expedient were devised, a large increase in the slave trade must be expected, which had only been delayed by a commercial crisis in Cuba. The same writer enlarged on the absurdity of sending recaptured Africans to St. Helena and Sierra Leone, for the benefit of the Mixed Commission Courts and no one else; instead of direct to the West Indies; but as he (Mr. Cave) intended bringing this subject more fully before the House, when the expenditure caused thereby came before them in the Estimates, he would say no more then; but he begged to remind Her Majesty's Government that the authorities of the Federal States had lately expressed in the most marked manner their determination to put down the slave trade, and had even condemned one Gordon, a slave captain, to death in New York, so that it was possible they might consent to some, if only temporary, measure, such as a relaxation of their rules respecting right of search, in order to prevent the mischief which would, otherwise, arise from the withdrawal of their squadron.

said, that the House might recollect that at the close of last Session he asked the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could inform them whether it was the intention of Belgium to enter into a commercial treaty with this country similar to that which had recently been entered into between Belgium and France. The reply of the noble Earl was that he had been assured by the Belgian Government they intended to do so; but that it was too late to bring the matter before their Chambers until the next Session. The delay was not satisfactory to the mercantile interests of this country; but they had no reason to think that the Government of Belgium was unfavourably disposed towards England. However, since then the Belgian Chamber had met again, and in the speech of the King at the opening of the Session it was stated that it was the intention of the Government to recommend that England should be put on the same footing as France. He was sorry to say that that very satisfactory announcement had not been followed by any action; and great doubt was now felt in the manufacturing districts, as to whether there was a negotiation going on, or whether, if there were, some hitch had not occurred. A statement had appeared both in continental and English newspapers, to the effect that there was a hitch, in consequence of the Belgian Government wishing to sell us a commercial treaty and make the price of it the capitalization or redemption of the Scheldt tolls. The Belgian Government had not levied the tolls to which they were entitled on that river, and they had not done so because they did not wish to injure Antwerp. He did not complain that they should wish to get as much money as they could in lieu of those tolls, but what he complained of was this—that they should ask England to capitalize or redeem the tolls on the Scheldt when they had made a commercial treaty with France without demanding any such price for it. He did not regret the part which this country and the noble Lord at the head of the present Government had taken in securing for Belgium the independence which she now enjoyed, but he did regret that that independence had not been attended with more satisfactory results for the commercial interests of England. He was glad that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was in office at a time when this treaty was being negotiated. He did not wish the House to misunderstand him. He was a free trader; but he did not complain of free trade not being extended to us by Belgium. He, however, did think that we had a right to expect that a country which was on such friendly terms with us should deal with us on less friendly terms than those which regulated its negotiations with other nations. At one time, indeed, we succeeded in getting a commercial treaty with Belgium; but we failed in securing the clause which had become a matter of custom and almost of courtesy between friendly nations—a favoured nation clause, though such a clause had since been given by Belgium to many other countries, and among them to Russia. Even since the making of the commercial treaty between Belgium and France the former had made a treaty with Turkey, in which a favoured nation clause was inserted. It was not generous of Belgium to treat an old and faithful friend in the way she had done; and although he was not one of those who thought that our political relations with other countries ought to be guided solely by our material interests, it was hardly prudent of Belgium to create the feeling in many Englishmen that it would be to their material interest if Belgium were part of France. Now, with respect to Prussia. It had been matter of notoriety ever since the making of the commercial treaty between this, country and France that the latter had been negotiating with Prussia for a new treaty with the Zollverein. If so, he trusted that opportunity would be taken to obtain a revision of the Zollverein tariff. He, could not exaggerate the importance of our trade with Germany, nor of the obstruction and impediments to it occasioned by the vexatious, and absurd arrangement of the present Zollverein tariff. Not only did it contain duties much higher than they were Originally intended to be, but specific duties, levied by weight, instead of value, so that we paid increased duties for results effected by improvements in machinery. Happily a strong feeling was beginning to prevail in Germany in favour of free trade among the manufacturers, who rightly were coming to the conclusion that they had little or no reason to fear it; and it was to be regretted that the Foreign Office did not promptly take advantage of this improving sentiment in the interest of the British manufacturers. The passing of the French Treaty with this country was a golden opportunity that ought to have been seized for that purpose. All commercial men in this country were agreed on the advantages of the French Treaty, which indeed could scarcely be overstated. It was the one bright spot in the present gloomy state of the commercial horizon, and if there were a town in Yorkshire which at the present moment enjoyed a good trade, it was owing to the French Treaty. In negotiating that treaty with the aid of the Board of Trade the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) rendered the greatest official service ever bestowed on any country by an unofficial man. There was a strong opinion in the north that if the hon. Gentleman had gone on from Paris to Brussels and Berlin we might have made a treaty with Belgium and the Zollverein also. But he did not go, and the Foreign Office did nothing. The noble Lord at the head of the Government being always anxious to protect the interest of Englishmen, it could not be charged against him that he did not care for the welfare of the British manufacturers, and consequently the apathy of the Foreign Office must be ascribed rather to ignorance of the way in which it could be secured. It was his own impression that there was a want of proper administrative arrangements at the Foreign Office for the promotion of commercial interests. In the autumn of 1860, after our treaty with France, negotiations were set on foot by France for a commercial treaty between France and Belgium. Two months elapsed, during which representations were made to the English Foreign Office from several Chambers of Commerce at Bradford and elsewhere; but nothing was done, and the opportunity was lost. Of course the Foreign Office must conduct commercial as well as political negotiations, but they could only do so upon information obtained from abroad as to the desires of foreign countries, and here at home as to the wishes and interests of Englishmen. The information from abroad was obtained directly by the agents of the Foreign Office, but at home it was obtained indirectly through the Board of Trade; and it was believed that this system of one office obtaining information from another was clumsy and inefficient. Commercial men thought that their interests had been neglected at the Foreign Office, though he was glad to say that of late there had been manifest improvement; but, in fact, the real evil lay deeper: if commercial interests were neglected at the Foreign Office, it was because commercial men had not looked after their interests themselves. He would therefore strongly urge upon the Government to take advantage of the present state of commercial feeling not only in Prussia, but also in other countries, and especially in Italy, where he understood that the French were taking the initiative, and to endeavour to obtain from them, as well as from Belgium, the same advantages for our trade as France was seeking to secure for herself. In conclusion he would beg leave to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House of the present position of the negotiation with Belgium for a new commercial treaty with that country; and if, in consequence of the commercial negotiations between Prussia and France, there is a probability of a revision of the duties levied in the Zollverein on British manufactures.

Sir, 1 can assure the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford are strongly held by the Chambers of Commerce in the north of England. This is not only a question, however, as to Belgium and the Zollverein, but a question as to the practicability of some new machinery being introduced in the Foreign Office, having reference particularly to the interests of trade. The unfair treatment of England by Belgium is an old grievance, because as far back as 1855 a deputation from the Leeds Chamber of Commerce sent a deputation to the Belgian Government, and also made a representation to our Foreign Office of the extreme unfairness with which British goods were treated in Belgium; they showed that even then Belgium imposed differential duties of between 33 and 150 per cent in favour of the goods of France. Now the case is made much worse in consequence of the recent treaty between France and Belgium, for that has lowered the duties on French goods, whilst the duties on English goods remain the same as before. I have just looked at the state of commerce between Belgium and England for the last five years, and I find that the imports from Belgium have been greatly on the increase, while the exports of English and Irish produce to Belgium have actually been on the decline. The figures are as follows:—In 1856 we imported from Belgium to the amount of £2,936,000, and in 1860 £4,070,000, being an increase of 38 per cent. The exports in 1856 were £1,689,000 and in 1860 they had declined to £1,610,000, being a decrease of 5 per cent. It would seem, therefore, that the unfavourable tariff of Belgium has the effect of continually reducing the exports from this country. The real effect, however, is greater than that which is apparent, because a considerable part of our exports to Belgium are not for consumption in that country, but for transit to Germany; and we feel that we have a right to the best exertions of the Foreign Office to obtain justice and fair treatment for our manufactures on the part of the Government of Belgium, because, to use the words used by the then Foreign Secretary, Earl Russell, this was a question of good faith on the part of Belgium. I consider that we have now a right to put as much pressure as can be used towards a friendly Government on the Belgian Government to make their tariff a fair one as between England and the most favoured nations which deal with Belgium.

said, he entirely joined with the hon. Member for Bradford in urging upon the Government, that if any question was pending between this and foreign nations in relation to commercial treaties, or if there was any prospect of such treaties being contracted, the provisions of those treaties should be most carefully supervised, and that they should not be hurried so rapidly, as they were told by Earl Cowley, in his despatch of last year, that the provisions of the French Treaty had been; for in that case the official representative of this country in France had stated that he was unable to follow the details before the whole negotiation was completed. Every detail of a commercial treaty ought, on the contrary, to be well weighed, not only in reference to one or two interests to be affected by it, but in reference to all the interests of the country. It was only natural that he should take a different view of the operation of the French Treaty from that taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He scarcely thought that this question would have arisen, or he would have laid before the House details of suffering and distress, extending over two years, which had afflicted Coventry and the district adjoining—sufferings which had enlisted the benevolent consideration of Her Majesty, of many hon. Members of that House, and of the public, whom he sincerely thanked for their benevolence. It was very painful to see a prosperous trade struck down, and thousands of industrious men living from year to year upon the charity of the public. During several months of last winter 22,000 persons were depending for subsistence upon the bounty of the public. It was hoped that the pressure would cease, but for several months past as many as 14,000 had been so dependent, and were so still. It might be thought that the suffering was confined to the operative class; but of the manufacturers fifty out of eighty had been in the Gazette, that fifty not including those who had made compositions with their creditors. The number of houses now vacant in Coventry was 2,000, and the sum withdrawn from the deposits in the savings-banks for the last two years was £17,000. It would be needless to go into further illustrations of that which was notorious throughout the country; but why did he allude to those matters? It was that that House might not sanction the infliction of such another sudden blow as had been inflicted with its permission by the late commercial treaty upon the trade of Coventry and the adjacent district. It was perfectly true that the trade both in this country, in France, in Switzerland, and on the Rhine might have been depressed by a change of fashion and the consequent slackness of demand for ribbons. But what was the effect, under those circumstances, upon us? It was that, while the trade was depressed on the Rhine, in France, and in Switzerland, and when the demand of the United States of America was closed by the unhappy strife which prevailed in that once united republic, the whole of the supplies from France, from the Rhine, and from Switzerland, which could not find a market anywhere else, were pressed into the market of England, and the proof of that was the fact—he spoke from memory, but he knew that he was strictly accurate—that the quantity of ribands imported in the first eleven months of 1861—and that was the last account they had—exceeded by 60 to 70 per cent the quantity imported in the same months of the two preceding years. Taking the position of the watch and clock trade which prevailed s in Coventry, the same circumstances to a great degree existed; and he was sure that the House would feel that he was only doing his duty, when he saw the prospect of new commercial treaties being contracted between this and other countries, if he prayed the House to aid him in urging upon Her Majesty's Government that the important provisions of those treaties should be so well considered as to protect the trade of this country, whether in large or small departments, from such grievous evils as afflicted the district which he had the honour to represent

said, that he wished, as being connected with another district the centre of an extensive trade, to state that the same feelings as those which the hon. Gentleman had just expressed existed in the cotton districts of South Lancashire. They were suffering great distress, and they were not without grievous fear that before many months that distress would be greatly heightened. They did not wish, however, that the Government should interfere in that lamentable contest which was going on between the States of America; they wished those States to see the folly of their conduct, and to become amicably united once more, or, if not, to separate as friends; but he thought that everything should be done by the Government of this country to alleviate the distress which prevailed in the cotton districts. They were pressed not only by the want of cotton, but by the want of demand for their manufactures. Their immense trade to India was interfered with by a monstrous import duty imposed upon cotton goods. While trying with the one hand to get cotton from India, the Government with the other were trying to prevent the best of that cotton from reaching this country. They themselves had imposed that duty, and they had allowed, or at least not much protested against, the imposition of grievous duties in their colonies on goods manufactured in this country. At all events, they had a right to expect that, in any negotiations with European nations with whom we were said to be on terms of amity, the Executive Government should see that justice was done to this country. France had obtained great advantages in Belgium, and was supposed to have done so in the Zollverein. Why should those advantages be withheld from this country? No doubt, good diplomatists were sent out; but good diplomatists were not always good commercial men. All they claimed was that men competent to the subject should be united with diplomatic men, and that commercial as well as political interests should be extended between foreign countries and Great Britain without any undue advantage being given to other countries more active in those negotiations than ourselves.

Sir, in regard to the question put by my noble Friend (Lord A. Churchill) with respect to Dahomey and the slave trade on the coast of Africa, the House knows very well that measures for the suppression of that traffic have occupied the most anxious and active attention of Her Majesty's Government for a great number of years. My noble Friend probably knows that two missions have been sent out at different times to the late King of Dahomey for the purpose of endeavouring to persuade him to abandon that barbarous practice of human sacrifice, and to assist us in suppressing the slave trade. I am sorry to say that they were not attended with success. Per- sons, however anxious they may be for the attainment of their objects, must recollect what obstacles the passions and habits of mankind sometimes oppose even to the most beneficial reforms. This practice of human sacrifices has prevailed extensively over the whole of that part of Africa, and when you go to a barbarian (like the King of Dahomey for the time being) and ask him to forego these practices, to which he has attached a value as symbols of authority and power, and as being tokens of respect for those who have gone before him, it is just as if you had asked the ancient Romans to forego the murders which were committed in the amphitheatres, or were to ask the Spaniards of the present day to give up those bullfights which would disgust an Englishman, but which afford great delight to spectators in Spain. Mr. Duncan was sent some time ago to the King of Dahomey, and spent some days at his capital, and the account he gave was utterly disgusting. The palace was surrounded by a large and extensive wall, which was decorated with human skulls on spikes. He (Mr. Duncan) was compelled to be a witness to one of those human sacrifices, where the unhappy captives were put into things like canoes and thrown over a parapet from forty to fifty feet high; and if not killed by the fall, they were despatched by people standing below. Nothing was accomplished by the mission, and I very much doubt whether any persuasion would induce the present King of Dahomey, who seems, if possible, less imbued with feelings of humanity than his father, to abandon this practice. At the same time I can assure my noble Friend and the House that no opportunity will be lost which appears to Her Majesty's Government calculated to open an opportunity with the King of Dahomey for effecting our object. With regard to the slave trade, I fear persuasion will not induce him, any more than other African chiefs, to abandon it. They will only be induced to abandon it when convinced that it would be more to their advantage and more easy for them to carry on legitimate trade. The fact is, that the chief derives greater profit from the slave trade, while the people under him derive more profit from legitimate trade. The occupation of Lagos has proved a great instrument in impeding the slave trade in that quarter. Arrangements have been made at Porto Nuovo and Badagry which have had the same effect; and if we could shut up Whydah, which is the only other port through which the King of Dahomey can carry on the trade, we should have done much to drive the slave trade from that part of the coast. But, as stated by my noble Friend, the slave trade is carried on by Spaniards, Portuguese, and Brazilians; and, though their Governments have, as Governments, abandoned the practice of the slave trade, yet habits which are once engrained in a people are very difficult to be eradicated, and there will be found renegades who will take advantage of the facility which the habits of Africa give them to carry on the abominable traffic. At the same time much progress has been made, and my noble Friend is right in saying that, if this slave trade from the West Coast of Africa could be stopped, there are sources there of legitimate trade of infinite value, not only to that country itself, but to England and a great part of Europe. Cotton plants have been seen growing naturally, within a great zone, in great abundance, and shedding the cotton on the ground; and it is evident that this is a matter of great importance to the manufacturers of this country. I can assure my noble Friend that no exertions will be omitted on the part of the Government, first of all to endeavour to eradicate the abominable system of human sacrifice, and in the next place to put a stop, as far as possible, to the slave trade. It is quite true that, owing to the civil war in America, the Federal Government has withdrawn the greater part of their cruisers from the coast of Africa, and I cannot say, offhand, whether there still remains that number of guns which the United States are bound by treaty to maintain on that coast for the suppression of the slave trade, but it is quite true that the Federal Government have shown a sincere desire to put in force their laws against the slave trade. The condemnations which have taken place at New York are a convincing proof of their sincerity, and it may be expected that when the present unfortunate dispute in America terminates, whether in the establishment of one or of two Governments, the American authorities will concur with Great Britain in some arrangement by which more effectual assistance may be given by American cruisers to check a crime which is a capital offence by the laws of the United States. With respect, therefore, to the African coast, I hope my noble Friend will believe that we are anxious to carry out those views which he has so properly expressed. With regard to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), it will be satisfactory to him to be informed that negotiations are now going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government, which are conducted in a most amicable and friendly spirit, and which I trust will terminate in a treaty giving to Great Britain the footing of the most friendly nation with respect to commerce with Belgium, and unaccompanied by any condition with respect to the other question of the commutation or capitalization of the dues on the Scheldt. It is quite true, as has been stated, that England bore a very prominent part in those negotiations which resulted in establishing the independence of Belgium, and therefore if the Belgian nation were to form an exception to all national character, and to be inspired in its acts by a sense of gratitude, which, I am afraid, is not to be expected from collective bodies, they ought to have been anxious to give England every advantage possible, either equal or superior to those given to any other country. But one of our objects—and in that we succeeded—was to give to Belgium a national representation and a free constitution. Now, if you give to a people a free constitution, by which the passions and prejudices of the population are actively represented, you must make up your mind to endure inconveniences which national and local passions and prejudices are sure to entail; and this has been the case not only in Belgium, but in Portugal and Spain, where also greatly by the influence of the British Government constitutional institutions were established. We in this country were a long time before we were taught to believe that freedom of trade is an advantage to all parties concerned, and we clung for a lengthened period to the notion that protection to native industry, or particular branches of native industry, was a benefit to the country at large. Luckily, we have been undeceived; but the Belgians have not yet advanced so far in political education, and the Belgian Government have had to overcome great local prejudices and the resistance of particular interests in Belgium, and they pay us the compliment—for a compliment it is—of being much more afraid of competition with English industry than with French industry. Therefore they are more easily led to extend to France indulgences which they would not be disposed equally to extend to England. But I trust that all difficulty on this score is over, and that by the treaty to be concluded we shall be put in all respects on the footing of the most favoured nation. With respect to the question of the Scheldt dues, I may observe that when the treaty was negotiated by which the independence of Belgium was acknowledged by the five great Powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia most reluctantly agreed to the conclusion, and clung step by step, and point by point, throughout the long and tedious negotiation to everything that might be advantageous to Holland rather than to Belgium, and made a point that a toll should be levied on vessels passing through Dutch waters up to Antwerp. The object of this was to assert the territorial rights of Holland, and, no doubt, to put some check on the commercial prosperity of Belgium. This toll was to be levied at Terneuse, in the Dutch territory; but afterwards, by agreement between the Belgian and Dutch Governments, it was levied at Antwerp, in order that the vessels might not be stopped in their passage up the river. Subsequently, the Belgian Government, feeling sensible that this toll would operate as a discouragement to vessels going to Antwerp, threw by a law the payment of the whole of the toll on Belgium itself, and from that time vessels coming up to Antwerp were free from toll. That was a voluntary engagement on the part of Belgium, depending on a law passed by the Belgian Chambers, and liable to be revoked; and if revoked, and if, in consequence, Belgium ceased to take the payment on itself, the toll would be levied by Holland, and the nations to whom the vessels belonged would be subject to the inconvenience, whatever it may be, of the payment of the toll. However, it will be matter of negotiation, after the treaty of commerce is concluded, to deal with the question as between Belgium and Great Britain. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the Belgian Government have acted throughout with the greatest desire to do all that fairness and justice would require. As they have, however, to deal with a popular assembly, which represents, as all popular assemblies do, the passions and prejudices of the nation represented, they have had difficulties to encounter which would not have been felt in countries of a more despotic constitution. It is said that the Foreign Office is not a department sufficiently well constituted to represent and give effect to the commercial interests of the country. Having had the honour of being in that Department for a long time, I can assure my hon. Friend that he is mistaken in that opinion. It is quite true that for information bearing on the commercial interests of the country the Foreign Office has to refer to the best authority—the Board of Trade; and the only result of creating in the Foreign Office a department of trade would be that the Foreign Office would then have to rely on an authority inferior to that which it now depends on. The Board of Trade is in constant communication with all the trading interests of the country, and is the depository of a vast mass of information in reference to them, and a department of trade in the Foreign Office would not have the same information, and the same means of giving advice, unless it established the same organization; and in that case there would be two similar departments—one perpetually employed in its general duties, and the other only occasionally consulted when a commercial treaty might be discussed. But the opinion of foreign nations is not at all that which has been stated this evening. Hon. Members think that the Foreign Office neglects the commercial interests of the country, and looks only to political objects. What, however, is the reproach made against England by foreign nations? It is that our political relations are conducted mainly with a view to our commercial interests. Foreign nations regard England as a selfish Power—a Power which looks only to its own trading advantages, and that is made a reproach against us. I now come to the Zollverein. It is true that the duties imposed by the tariff of the Zollverein are very heavy, but what has been the feeling of Germany for some time past? It has been that England was advocating the principles of free trade for the purpose of ruining Germany, that our object was to inundate Germany with British commodities, and so to extinguish and destroy German industry in all its branches. Foreign nations have a notion that we give our commodities without taking anything in exchange; that we overwhelm them with presents, forgetting that they take nothing from us which they do not pay for by articles of their own production. They cannot see that trade is a system of barter, and that by admitting an unlimited supply of British commodities they impose upon themselves the necessity of producing an equal value of commodities of some kind or other to pay for what they receive from us. Their apprehensions are perfectly chimerical, and are founded upon a narrow and short-sighted view of their real interests. Nevertheless, that fear has existed, though I trust it is now about to be dispelled. It is disappearing gradually, and the treaty we concluded with France will have a material effect in disabusing Europe upon that point. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has paid a deserved compliment to the hon. Member for Rochdale—Mr. Cobden—I may name him as a Commissioner on that occasion and not as a Member of this House—for his invaluable services in the negotiation of the French treaty. I am glad to take this opportunity of saying, in justification of Her Majesty's Government, that it is not our fault, but arose from what I think is an overstrained and too refined delicacy of mind, that Mr. Cobden has not received for his services on that occasion some signal mark of the favour of the Crown. An honour was offered to him. He declined it, from motives which do him great credit; but, nevertheless, his refusal caused much regret to myself as the organ of communicating the pleasure of the Crown to him. I can assure my hon. Friends that the Government is not likely to fall into the error of neglecting the commercial interests of the country, and that the arrangement which now exists—by which, on the one hand, we have the Board of Trade full of all the requisite information for commercial negotiations, and, on the other, we have the Foreign Office in friendly and daily communication with that department—is, in my opinion, the best and indeed the only arrangement which, by division of labour, could produce any good results. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) lamented the fate of the Coventry riband weavers, and ascribed the distress which they have suffered to the French treaty. I believe my hon. Friend is entirely mistaken as to the cause of that distress, which arises chiefly, not from the French treaty, not from any inundation of French ribands, but from a change of fancy and fashion in this country. Our manufacturers are in one respect in the condition so well described in the well-known prologue—

"Hard is their lot who here by fortune placed

Must watch the wild vicissitudes of taste."

It is the vicissitudes of taste which from time to time lead either to an increase or a cessation of demand for particular manufactures. The ladies, who exercise so great a sway in all human affairs, by changing their style of dress, inflict distress upon one set of manufacturers, or give abundant occupation to another. The Coventry riband makers are suffering from the absence of ribands upon the dresses of their fair countrywomen; but, on the other hand, the steel manufacturers of Sheffield are driving a flourishing trade in those implements of destruction which have become so fashionable of late. They have left off, by cessation of American demand, making some articles dangerous to human life, but they have taken to the manufacture of engines which, unfortunately, though not in an equal degree, are fatal in another way. It is not, then, the French Treaty which has caused the distress in Coventry. That distress arises from the conditions of human society, by which those persons who occupy themselves in the manufacture of luxuries are liable to have great employment in one year and less employment in another. I hope, Sir, I have been able to give satisfactory answers to the questions put to me, and, in conclusion, I can assure my hon. Friends that the commercial interests of the country will never be neglected by Her Majesty's Government.

stated, that with a view to afford explanations of his motives for putting the questions, he had intended they should appear upon the paper on the motion for going into Committee of Supply; but, inadvertently, they were printed amongst the ordinary questions of the day, and he was disabled by the forms of the House from giving explanations. He now, therefore, begged to repeat his questions, Whether Her Majesty's subjects in India, and coloured British subjects in Canada and the Colonies, would be allowed to compete; why 1,824 recruits, for the Bengal Presidency alone, were sent out at the end of last year, the fixed establishment of European troops of all arms for India—namely, 71,000 men—being at the time exceeded by 9,770 men; and why the Queen's Bays, ordered home from India, were stopped at Cawnpore on their march to embark for England? The reason alleged last Session, as stated by the Secretary for War, for refusing to allow natives of India to compete for medical commissions in the Royal army was, that their constitutions would not bear exposure in northern climates. But admitting this to be the fact, which it was not, there was always an army of 200,000 men in India, Europeans and Natives; and if it had been desired to give natives of India the full rights of British subjects, provision could always have been made for any number of coloured medical men in India. But the argument of birth failed entirely with respect to coloured British subjects in Canada. There were at least 10,000 coloured persons, either born in Africa or descended from fugitive slaves, who had formed communities in Upper Canada, and passed unscathed many Canadian winters: many of them had gone through the curriculum of the Toronto University and become members of the liberal professions, and in London the year before last, at the meeting of the International Statistical Association, a Dr. Delany, a pure negro, took a distinguished part. The inference, therefore, was that a lamentable prejudice against colour deprived one class of British subjects of their rights. But if the colour of the skin were to exclude, what shade was to be the standard—black, yellow, brown, or whitey-brown? With respect to sending to India European recruits unnecessarily, as the European force in India already exceeded the fixed establishment, he must remind the House that it was stated in the Calcutta papers that the European force cost £110 per head per annum, while a veteran sepoy cost only £10. Since 1857 the native army of 232,224 has been reduced by 121,824, saving therefore, at £10 per head, £1,218,240; but the European troops are now in excess of the strength of 1857 by 27,778, and the increased charge therefore is £3,055,580; and Mr. Laing had stated to the Chamber of Commerce, at Calcutta, that he could not diminish taxation while the military charges continued at their present amount. With respect to the Queen's Bays he would simply ask why they were not permitted to return to England?

I am very glad that my hon. and gallant friend has put these questions to me. He implies rather than makes a charge against the Home Government, which has been made directly against us elsewhere, and it gives me an opportunity of stating what has been the conduct of the Home Government and of removing a fallacious impression which I know prevails with regard to it. I will not enter into a discussion as to what should be the European force in India, further than to remark that an overgrown Native army has cost the finances of India much more than the sum of £10 per man, which my hon. and gallant Friend calculates as the cost of a Native soldier. I think, therefore, that the Indian Government, with the entire concurrence of the Government at home, and of every man of sense, both here and on the spot, wisely determined upon reducing, very largely, the Native army and maintaining such a force of European troops in India as will insure us, as far as human precautions can insure us, against a recurrence of such a calamity as, unhappily, we have had to deplore. The charge is that we have forced upon India a larger number of European troops than the authorities of India thought necessary, and thereby thrown upon the finances of India a burden which ought not to have been imposed. I might content myself by simply stating that the charge is totally incorrect, and that it is not true that the fixed establishment of troops in India is exceeded by 9,000 men. But I do not think I should do justice if I did not state rather more fully what the conduct of the Government in India and of the Go- vernment at home has been, and how far the charge made is foreign to the truth. I quite admit that the amount of European force in India must entirely depend upon Indian considerations, and that there is no justification for saddling upon India a larger force than is necessary for the safety and protection of the country. The immediate charge against the Home Government is that we sent out last summer a larger number of recruits than was necessary, and thereby imposed an unnecessary burden upon the Indian finances. In the summer of 1860 the Government of India sent home an estimate that the force required would be 92,000 men. The Home Government thought it excessive, and I took upon myself materially to reduce it. The Military Committee of the Indian Council had reported that in their opinion the force ought to be 80,000 men. I could not pretend to give orders on my own authority in opposition to the opinion of the Government in India, and of persons who were far better acquainted with the position of India than myself; but I did suggest privately to Lord Canning that he might reduce the number to a little above 70,000 men, and the number which I recommended to him as quite sufficient was 73,000. The whole question was brought under the consideration of the Home Government in the summer and autumn of 1860, when, in consequence of the conversion of the local forces into regiments of the line, we had to determine how many regiments should be formed in the Queen's army out of the local troops. In the spring of 1861 we had to determine what number of recruits should be sent to India. The House is aware that recruits are only sent out once a year—in June or July—in order that they may arrive at the commencement of the cold season. In 1861 the Home Government took upon themselves to reduce the establishment of Queen's regiments in India from 1,000 to 850 men, and the depots in this country nearly one-half. A calculation was made in the India Office as to the number of recruits which ought to be sent out. We took the number of men in India according to the last return, and such a number of recruits was to be sent out as with a fair allowance for casualties would keep up the regiments to the reduced strength. The calculation was made in the spring of 1861, and the second arrival of recruits would be twenty months afterwards. The rate of casualties in Indian regiments, including men who have served their time, is 10 per cent; and as twenty mouths would elapse without any fresh supply, recruits were to be sent to make up the number of the regiments to 15 per cent above the reduced strength; but where the regiments were more than 15 per cent above the reduced strength, no recruits were to be sent. There were and there are regiments which are above 15 per cent beyond the reduced strength, but any one will see that it could not be desirable to discharge men and send them home, and that it was far better to leave the reduction to be effected gradually by casualties. That was the principle upon which the calculation was made; but we did not send anything like the number of men which we should have been justified in sending upon that basis. It was only in the month of June, 1861, that a general estimate was sent from India, showing that a less number of men would be required. We were not in possession of it when the recruits were sent out, and therefore, when I show, as I shall, that we kept the number below the calculation even for this less number, I shall prove more than is needed to justify the Government in the course which they pursued. The recruiting had been carried on on the basis of the previous establishment; but when we had to send out a body of men proportioned to the reduced establishment there was a considerable number of men who had been recruited for Indian regiments whom we did not send out. These men were thrown upon the home Government, to their great inconvenience. In June, 1861, the Government of India, which may be regarded as the best authority on such a question, sent home a proposal that the strength of the army in India should be 73,577—that is to say, their estimate in that year was within 500 of the suggestion I had made the year before. The casualties in India are 10 per cent per annum. If, therefore, we had sent out such a number as would have maintained to the end of the year the force which the Government of India requires, we should have despatched upon their reduced estimate (which, however, we had not then received) 7,300. The minimum number we were justified in sending out on their estimate was 5 per cent on the strength required, or 3,650, which would have kept up the average strength throughout the year. The number we actually did send was 2,844, or, in other words, 800 less than the minimum necessary to maintain the average strength on the reduced demand. Can it then he said that we have so overdone the sending out recruits that there are a great many more men in India than the Government require? On the 1st of October in Bengal, and the 1st of November in Madras and Bombay, the total number of European troops in India was 73,286. If the recruits had arrived, the number in India was below the requirements of the Government of India. But I will assume that they had not arrived; that is the view most unfavourable to my argument. If we add the 5 per cent (or 3,650 men) for the numbers weought, at the least, to have sent out, that brings the total up to 76,936. The numbers of the actual force on the 1st of December, as near as I can ascertain, were 74,015, or nearly 3,000 below the number required, with the proper allowance to make up casualties, according to the calculation of the Indian Government. 1,000 Artillery recruits were despatched later than the others, and it is possible they may not have arrived; but, after deducting them, there is still a deficiency of 2,000. The House will, therefore, see how groundless is the assertion that the proper strength of the Indian army has been exceeded by 9,000 men. The hon. and gallant Gentleman states, I do not know on what authority, the fixed establishment of European troops in India at 71,000 men. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that his figures are correct. Ten per cent on that number would be 7,100, the addition of which would raise the strength to 78,100. An addition at the rate of 5 per cent, or 3,550, would make the total number 74,550. But we sent out only 2,844, instead of 3,550; and, while the actual strength ought to be 74,550, it is only 74,015. I think I have shown completely that the Indian Government has asked for more men than we have given them; that even on the reduced establishment we have not sent out a sufficient number to keep it up; and that from the first the Home Government has been far below the Indian Government in its estimate of the force required to maintain British power in India. Then, so far from the finances of this country having been relieved at the expense of India, to a small extent the reverse has happened, for we have had to take, on the charge of this country, a number of men whom the Indian Government threw upon our hands. As to the other questions of my hon. and gallant Friend, I would observe that in 1858 the Government of India made a calculation of the force required for the garrisons of that country, and that after two years' consideration they adhered to their former estimate, Lord Canning, however, differing from Lord Clyde, in thinking a large force necessary. The Cavalry force they then requested for Bengal was ten local and three Queen's regiments, with an aggregate strength of 6,600, two regiments for Madras, and two for Bombay. The Home Government, after communicating with the Secretary for War, the Commander-in-Chief, and the military Members of the Indian Council, determined to allow for Bengal only eight instead of thirteen regiments, with a strength of 5,000 men instead of 6,600, to be further reduced on the new establishment to 4,000. There were at the time in Bengal four Queen's regiments and five local regiments, to be made into three; in Madras two, and in Bombay three regiments. In order to provide the required force for Bengal the Home Government proposed to retain the four Queen's regiments which were already stationed there, and the three regiments to be formed out of the locals, and one regiment to transfer from Bombay. The Bengal Government, however, declined to receive the regiment from Bombay. We took one regiment of cavalry on the Home establishment more than we calculated on; and the force in Bengal was thus reduced to seven regiments. Recently they have determined that they only want six regiments, and proposed to send the Queen's Bays home. They intended to keep the new regiments which had been made out of the locals, and to send home one of the old English regiments which was not wanted at home, and would have to be reduced if it came here. It seemed to us hard that an old regiment should thus be sacrificed to a new one which had never seen any service. We wrote out, "We are not prepared to say that a single regiment shall be retained in India which you do not think necessary, but we cannot receive more cavalry regiments at home, because we do not want them. If you have made up your minds that six regiments are all that are required in Bengal, instead of thirteen for which you asked, or eight which we sanctioned, you may reduce the youngest regiment,"—that being the universal practice in the Queen's service. "Therefore," we said, "don't send home the Queen's Bays, but if you think it safe that six regiments only should be retained in Bengal, the last and youngest regiment must be reduced, and you have our authority to reduce it." I hope, therefore, that I have satisfied my hon. and gallant Friend and other hon. Members that the Government are not responsible for imposing any unnecessary military charge upon India; but that, on the contrary, we have done our utmost to keep that charge as low as possible.

hoped that the House would allow him to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a matter of some importance and urgency. Within the last day or two an advertisement had appeared in all the principal Irish newspapers, stating that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were about to nominate four candidates to compete by examination for a vacant place in the class of sub-inspectors of national schools, and adding that none but members of the Roman Catholic Church "are eligible to compete for the present vacancy." Now, as a friend and admirer of competitive examinations, he objected to this introduction of sectarian questions into the Civil Service examinations. They had been told that the national system in Ireland was established to bring men together regardless of their religious opinions; yet here was an attempt to nominate exclusively Roman Catholic Inspectors. He could hardly believe that the Secretary for Ireland was the author of the change proposed. He rather attributed it to the traditions of the Irish Office and the Irish Government, who endeavoured to become popular by holding out, he would not say bribes, but inducements to a class in the shape of Government appointments. A striking instance of this had recently occurred in the appointment to a seat at the Education Board of Lord Dunraven, who had always doubted the policy of the system of National Education in Ireland, but who had accepted the office without changing his opinions, and was now protesting against the policy of the Chief Secretary as to mixed education. Against the conduct of the National Commissioners, he (Mr. Hennessy) ventured to protest, and he trusted that through the intervention of the Chief Secretary they would be compelled to rescind the Order to which he had called attention.

thought the hon. Member for the King's County deserved credit for bringing this subject, though a Roman Catholic, under the notice of the House. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not, as an ex officio Commissioner of the National Education Board, consider it necessary to defend all the acts of that Board. Lord Derby was the author of the National Education system in Ireland, but it had been so altered since the period of its first introduction that the noble Lord could now hardly recognise his own bantling. The Board consisted of twenty members, every one of whom was a strong supporter of the principles of the present Government. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not, however, responsible for that state of things, as all those gentlemen had received their appointments before his accession to office. The constitution and the administration of the Board were condemned by the universal voice of public opinion in Ireland. He believed that there was not one member of the Board who had ever been distinguished in any literary capacity, or by his devotion to the education of youth. The members of the Established Church in Ireland had special reasons for complaining of the constitution of the Board, for out of the twenty Members only six were of that religious persuasion. He hoped the constitution of the Board would be altered, and the recurrence of such an event prevented, as had been brought under their notice by the hon. Member for the King's County.

complained, that this subject had been introduced without notice, and admitted that he was not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman categorically. He could state, however, that he was not an ex officio member of the Board of National Education, that the Board was an entirely independent body, and that the Government had no control, direct or indirect, over its proceedings. With respect to the point which had been raised by his hon. Friend, he could only state upon that occasion that he believed it was the practice that there should be among the Inspectors under the Board a certain proportion of Roman Catholics, of Churchmen, and of Presbyterians; and if vacancies had occurred among the Roman Catholic Inspectors, he saw nothing extra- ordinary in the notice that had been given. He could not, however, upon that occasion offer any precise information in reference to the special case which had been brought under their notice, and he could only give a pledge that he would take care to make it the subject of inquiry.

The advertisement says that any person can compete, with this proviso, that no one can do so except Roman Catholics.

I will inquire into the subject, and let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

, in rising" to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, expressed his surprise that no strong grounds had been given to the House for such an extraordinary interference with the rights of property. Before taking away from the owners and occupiers of property the right of managing their own affairs, it ought to be shown that they had so grievously neglected their duties as to deserve this severe punishment. The Bill was uncalled for and unnecessary. For several years similar Bills had been submitted to Parliament, but scarcely a single petition had been presented in favour of them, while, on the other hand, there had been a large number of petitions, from large and small parishes, presented against them. What the parishes ask was that they may be permitted to manage their own affairs in the most economical way they could. He objected to the Bill, because it was an extension of that principle of centralization and bureaucracy to which the people of this country were so much opposed, and he felt sure that if that system were pushed much further they would not remain so patient as many hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate. The exercise of the right of parishes to meet in vestry and manage their own affairs was essential to fostering a spirit of independence in the people, and ought not to be interfered with. The Bill, he believed, would not effect the object which it professed to aim at. He would remind the House that the principle of connecting parishes into districts for the more convenient repair of their roads had been in existence for a great many years. Parishes already had the power, under the 5 & 6 Will. IV., so to accumulate themselves into districts. If this could be done with advantage, he had not so mean an opinion of his countrymen as to think they would not have availed themselves of this power; but the fact that that Act had not been carried out showed that this Bill was entirely uncalled for. He was informed that the power had been used in only one county —the instances, at any rate, were very few. The only argument used for the Bill— that the repair of the roads under the present system was everybody's business, and therefore nobody's business—was a very weak one. If it could be shown that the powers of the present law had not been put into force, or that its provisions had been found inefficient and imperfect, there would have been some reason for an application for a change; but, even then, the change ought to have been made in a different manner from this extreme provision for confiscating the rights of property. He believed that many hon. Members were not aware of the present condition of the law upon this subject. It was this—every parish met in vestry once a year, and elected an officer to perform the duty of seeing to the repairs of the roads—they appointed their own surveyor for their own parish, to look after their own expenditure. If the roads were not kept in proper repair, anybody might go to any justice of the peace and get a summons against the surveyor under whose care they were; the charge, however, must be heard before the justices at special sessions for the highways. The justices might then either inspect the roads themselves, or send a competent person to view them; and if his report were that the roads were not properly kept, they might fine the surveyor for neglect, and make an order for the repair. A preliminary inquiry had to be made whether the parish admitted that the highway, the non-repair of which was complained of, was within their limits. They might deny it altogether, or defend themselves by stating that some private person was liable to repair ratione tenure. In case they disputed their liability, the question would be raised by indictment at the next assizes; and the House, he thought, would hardly be in a hurry to deprive them of the privilege of having the question determined before a judicial tribunal by the verdict of a jury. It was difficult to master the extremely complicated details of the Bill, which had been in the hands of Members little more than twenty-four hours; for, instead of stating precisely what its object was, there were references to innumerable Acts of Parliament. But if it did not take away this privilege from the parishes, at least it threw great difficulties in the way of its exercise. If the liability of the parish were not disputed, the magistrates, having satisfied themselves that the road was really out of repair, had the power of fining the surveyor £5, of ordering him to repair the road immediately, and in default might inflict a further forfeiture of a sum sufficient to put the road in repair. Nothing was easier under the present law than for a person to procure a summons, and have any grievance redressed. The surveyor is to keep a weekly account of his receipts and expenditure, and his account is to be at all reasonable times open to the inspection of any ratepayer without fee or reward. At the end of the year the surveyor must lay his accounts before the vestry, and before the justices of the peace at the special sessions for the highways; and the justices are required to examine him as to the truth of the accounts, and to hear any complaints against them. From personal experience, he could testify to the simplicity and satisfactory nature of the process. If the decision of the justices at petty sessions gave dissatisfaction, an appeal lay to the whole body at quarter sessions. It seemed strange that alteration should be needed in a system so simple as this; and if change was required, it certainly was not in the direction of an extension of taxation without responsibility, But if difficulty was experienced in getting roads repaired under the present law, he wanted to know what would be the case under the new Bill? All the duties, liabilities, and responsibilities of the surveyors, were to be transferred to the new District Boards; but he looked in vain for any provisions by which these Boards could be compelled to repair. One clause in the Bill expressly repealed the penalty leviable on the surveyor for neglect of duty; and another clause declared that no member of the Board should be responsible in any shape or way. If the object of the Bill were to secure the better repair of the roads, would hon. Gentlemen be good enough to point out the clauses in which compulsory powers were given? The pub- lic ought also to know something of the way in which waywardens were dealt with. They got no gratuity whatever, but were liable to a penalty of not more than £5 or less than £1 for every meeting of the Board they failed to attend, although the meetings might be held at five, six, or ten miles from their own residence. It might be supposed that under the new law, which gave to the minority uncontrolled dominion over the property of the majority, great care would be exercised with regard to financial operations. But the new Bill proposed that, instead of producing their books annually, the Board should audit their own accounts; they were not to produce them anywhere, or to subject them to any examination, beyond publishing a copy in one of the county newspapers, and sending another copy to the Secretary of State, who would lay an abstract of them before Parliament. Supposing that one of his constituents had reason to complain of gross jobbery on the part of the Board—and Boards were liable now and then to gross jobbery, the only remedy would probably be to request him to move in Parliament for a copy of the account in extenso, in order that he might point out some item peculiarly open to objection. This would furnish employment to Members on Fridays, when they were at liberty to bring forward grievances. Unfortunately, they usually did so to empty benches, and it was not difficult to foresee the result of a discussion raised on a local highway grievance. In conclusion, he had to express his hope that the House would reject the Bill; and he begged to move that it be read a second time that day six months.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that when this subject was before the House two Sessions ago he ventured to state his objections to the Bill then brought in by the Government, many of which he perceived to be continued in the present Bill. He should not, therefore, trouble them with a repetition of his opinions in detail, especially as he had not seen any reason to change his mind since that time. He was free to admit that some objectionable features of the former Bill were not to be found in the present; but still he believed there was fault sufficient to be found with the measure now before the House. He could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment as to the feeling which existed against this Bill on the part of the constituencies of the country. Indeed, the matter was placed beyond a doubt by the number of petitions which had been presented during the last and the preceding Session against the Bills now before the House. The question was not whether the roads and highways of this country were in as good a state as they could wish them to be. Neither was it one as to whether the parsimony sometimes displayed on this subject was economy or not. He quite admitted that it would be desirable to have our highways in a better state, even though that object were to be accomplished by an increased expenditure; but he denied that the remedy was to be found in legislation such as that proposed by this Bill. It was contrary to all experience to find a divided responsibility—or, he should rather say, irresponsibility—in public Boards result in an efficient management of the duties intrusted to their charge. He regretted that the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) had not made an explanatory statement in moving the second reading, for, under present circumstances, the House was rather left to guess at the arguments by which they were called on to support it. On all former occasions they had the Boards of South Wales paraded before them. In a Committee on which he served last Session he had an opportunity of hearing something of roads in South Wales; and what was stated showed that they were in anything but a satisfactory state, and that there was anything but a unanimous opinion that these Welsh Boards were successful. Besides this, the case of the Welsh roads had always been treated as an exceptional one. Then they had been told to look at the turnpike roads of England. He had taken the trouble to look into the expense of the turnpike system. He was perfectly astonished at the cost; and he had arrived at the conclusion that the system was utterly inapplicable to the highways of this country. The district plan had also been recommended to them; but the fact that the districts formed in the early stages of the working of the present law had not been adopted as a model, was sufficient to show that the district system had not answered. He hoped the House would pause before they destroyed a system which was theoretically right because it was said to have been badly administered. Had it in reality been badly administered through the fault of those intrusted with its administration? Within a comparatively short time after the present Act came into operation there was a tremendous onslaught made on it by the authorities of the Home Office, and from that time to the present these attacks had been continued. Could it be wondered at, under such a state of things, that the law had not been well carried out? What set of men were likely to incur the odium of putting a large expense on a parish when there was good reason for supposing that the law was about to be altered? It would be as reasonable to expect improvements by an agricultural tenant who was kept under a perpetual notice to quit. But assuming that the present system would not work satisfactorily as it stood, would it not be much wiser to add a plan of supervision instead of deparochializing the system? An inspector might be appointed to look after the highways, and to advise the road surveyors in case of neglect. If his advice was not attended to, he might be afforded the means of compelling the fulfilment of his requirements by appeal to a magistrate. The accounts might be audited by such inspector or by the present auditor of Poor Law accounts. By the 37th clause of the Bill now before the House justices of the peace would have power to perform judicial functions with respect to cases in which they had acted as way-wardens. That was a very objectionable principle, and one repugnant to English usage. This was not so much a question of good roads as preferable to bad; the great question was, whether they would annihilate their present parochial system, and take one step more in the policy of centralization that was diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Constitution, and the feelings and inclinations of the country. He seconded the Amendment.

said, that, as a resident in the country and conversant with country matters, he must say that his experience of the condition of the highways brought him to a conclusion the very opposite of those stated by the hon. Members who had spoken on each side of him. The parish roads were mostly in very bad condition; and he had never found an overseer or waywarden, as he was called, who knew more of making a high road than he knew of the way to the moon. He knew the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire represented the opinions of his constituents, but on this subject he doubted if he represented their interests, for he knew that in his hon. Friend's county, as well as in his own, the roads were generally in a very bad state, and he was convinced that the change pro-posed by the Bill would not only greatly improve the roads, but at the same time materially reduce the rates. He would take the liberty of mentioning the case in which he had found himself. Some time ago he occupied 400 acres of land; it was in four different parishes, and there were four overseers of the roads. It was difficult to find out who they were, for the most intelligent farmers would not accept the office, and it was generally taken by the smaller occupiers. In one of these parishes a bridge was destroyed—swept away by a torrent. It was rebuilt; but, in the first place it was constructed diagonally to the stream, instead of straight across it; and the work was so imperfect that it had to be done over again. Such instances were occurring every day. Only last week he had been compelled to threaten an indictment to obtain the repair of a piece of road that could not be passed without danger to the carriage and passengers. It was true that, to escape the indictment, the repairs were made. Yes, but consider the difference between a high road in an indictable condition, and one in good repair. The subject had excited more interest than he had supposed; and of this they might be certain, that without some change in the persons charged with the duty of overseers it would be impossible to keep the roads in good repair, or secure an economical and effective system of management.

thought, that whether the high roads of the country were in a proper state of repair or not, was a very important question. There were many parts of England where the old parochial system had been well carried out, and where the roads were still in a good state of repair: but it would be found that this was where enterprising landlords and tenants had expended capital on the land, and they had taken care that the roads so necessary to their welfare and comfort should be properly attended to. But what was the state of the roads in districts where farming was backward, under small holders and needy landlords? In some of these districts the repair of the high roads had been lamentably neglected. The question for the House to consider was, whether the repair of these high roads was not an important object, and whether the present Bill was a measure that met the case. He thought that, with some alterations and amendments in Committee, the Bill might be so framed as to be made a very useful measure. In the poorer districts, where the repair of the roads had not been carried out, there it would be found that, by a want of management, persons not qualified had been employed in the work, and that material had been carted on to the roads at improper seasons of the year. Where the amount of the high-way-rate was worked out by the farmers, when the team could not be employed on the farm it was sent to work on the roads; and probably the amount of a shilling in damage was done for every eighteenpence spent in carting stone at that time. He did not think he overstated the case in setting down one-third of the roads throughout the country as in good repair, one-third in a moderately good condition, and one third in a decidedly bad state. He gave every credit to those efficient way-wardens who had done their duty well and honestly; but, taking the whole of the country into consideration, he thought something more must be done. The question was, would the Bill effect that object? It had been stated that there was already an Act under which parishes might be amalgamated together, and a paid surveyor of the roads appointed. In the few cases he knew of a paid surveyor having been so employed the system had worked admirably; the highway rates that had risen to 2s. 6d. in the pound had, in more than one instance, been reduced to 1s. He ventured to think that, if a Bill of that kind could be applied to the districts that required it, it would be no detriment either to landlords or tenants, and of vast benefit to the community at large. He would therefore give his cordial assent to the second reading.

said, he had voted against two previous Bills on this subject, but in the present measure what he most had objected to was removed. The present Bill allowed a part of a county to be formed into a district. He did not think the Bill involved such a confiscation or such centralization as the hon. Member for Nottingham then apprehended. The adoption of the Bill would rest with the local magistracy, and the working of it with the rate-payers. In fact, it applied to the management of the highways the same principle that had been applied to the administration of the Poor Law. The area of management was to be extended from the parish to the district, as under the Poor Law the area was extended from the parish to the Union. But the landowners and the rate-payers would still have the management of their own affairs. The evil of the present system of road management was its inequality. In a distance of six miles five might be tolerably good, and the sixth very bad indeed. The larger area could make larger contracts, give better work, and pay a good surveyor—a person not to be found in every parish. At present the management of the roads was generally handed over by one farmer to the other, who knew very little of roadmaking; and there was a tendency to give the work on the roads to the worst men— the incapable, the idle, and the vagabond. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire said parishes had the power to unite into districts under an existing Act; yes, but under it one parish could defeat the good intentions of several adjoining it. He said, "You have power enough already, if you will put in force the present law." But how was the difficulty of the poor parishes and the small area to be dealt with? Owing to the existence of this small area, the necessary expenditure could not be afforded, and it was here that you wanted some such arrangement as was provided by the Bill. Then it was said that the bad roads were the result of the terror which had been excited throughout the country from the introduction of these Highway Bills. But, if there was any truth in this statement, not one-third of the roads only would be bad, for this cause would operate universally. In his county the roads were in general exceedingly well managed; but there were other parts of the county in which this was not the case, and it was in these bad districts such a bill was required. A short time ago he had occasion to drive from a country town to a railway station, a distance of five miles and a half; and the roads ran through seven different jurisdictions for repair. The first half mile was a turnpike road No. 1; then came two miles of a parish road No. 1; next a bridge and 200 yards kept by hundred rate No. 1; then half a mile of parish road No. 1; next a bridge and 400 yards kept by twelve tenants ratione tenurœ; then a mile of parish road No. 2; then half a mile of turnpike road No. 2; then a bridge and 200 yards kept by hundred rate No. 2; and the rest of the way was turnpike road No. 2. The turnpike road No. 1 was not had, No. 2 being better. Parish road No. 1 was very good, but No. 2 was execrable. The hundred rates cost £6 or £8 to make, and therefore were seldom raised. The ratione tenurœ tenants did nothing for twenty years and then appealed to the public for help, because there was so much to be done. Surely it would be highly beneficial to have in force a system which would get rid of some of these small and different jurisdictions, and place the roads under one good management. It would also be desirable in some cases to afford facilities by which an obnoxious toll-bar might be got rid of. But those were matters for consideration in Committee rather than in a discussion of principle. No doubt, the Bill was a complicated one, and perhaps the best course under the circumstances would be to read it a second time and to refer it to a Select Committee.

said, that two Sessions ago he joined his hon. Friend (Mr. Barrow) in opposing the second reading of the Highway Bill then introduced; but the opinion of the House was so strongly expressed in favour of some such measure that he should not himself have thought it necessary to trouble the House by asking them to go to a division at this stage, more especially as the changes introduced into this measure were all an approach to the principle which he had ventured to advocate. The Bill was, however, still objectionable in this respect—that it really introduced compulsory government by Boards. True, it was at the option of the magistrates to constitute a Board of Highways or not. But his constituents did not like that such a system should be forced upon them at the option of any persons. They had no faith in the economy of Boards, however efficient; and they feared not only that a Board of Management would be attended with great expense, but that it would lead to some ulterior measure—some central Board in London on the pretence of maintaining uniform legislation throughout the country. He believed there was a good deal of reason in these objections; and, at any rate, he thought that so great a legislative change ought not to be made if the same result could be secured by some more simple measure. Believing that this might be done, he should at a future stage try to accomplish the end in view in a more direct and less expensive way. The defects of the present highway system were very simple. He differed from his hon. Friend in thinking that there were no defects. The great blot in the present system was that the public had no sufficient voice in looking after their own interest, and that the managers generally misapprehended their duties. The general impression among the surveyors seemed to be that if the roads of the district were sufficient for the requirements of the district, this was all that could be looked for. But the public were just as much interested in these roads as the district itself was, and were equally entitled to expect that they should be in good condition. The public, however, might be protected by simpler means than were proposed. It had been suggested that a district surveyor should be appointed, with power to inspect and report to some higher authority. Now, the ratepayers would not, he believed, object to some greater power being exercised on the part of the public if they were allowed to make the repairs ordered in their own way. He would therefore merely divide the counties into districts, appointing a surveyor to look after each, and in this way a remedy would be applied to all the defects of the present highway system. The law, would then, he thought, have to be enforced in very rare cases, and when the public had a voice in the matter all the roads would be much better looked to. He was aware that this proposal was liable to the objection of his hon. Friend, that it would take more power out of the hands of the ratepayers. But he believed that the ratepayers would not object to the authority he had suggested. After the strong opinion which bad been expressed in favour of some such Bill, he would advise his hon. Friend not to divide the House against the second reading. Perhaps the best mode of dealing with the Bill would be to refer it to a Select Committee, as had just been suggested. He should not himself offer any opposition to the second reading, but should take the opportunity upon future stages of the Bill of endeavouring to make it more conformable with his views.

said, the roads of South Wales had been mentioned somewhat disparagingly, and he thought rather unfairly. He recollected when those roads were in a really bad state, but he wished to bear testimony to the improvement that had been made under the operation of Lord Cawdor's Act. Not many years ago a Welsh clerk of the peace, being asked by a committee of the House of Commons "what was the state of the highways in Wales?" replied, "There are none." He was asked, "How do you travel, then?" to which he answered, "In ditches." He had himself ridden many score miles in roads which wore more truly the beds of brooks. He (Mr. Bruce) lived in a parish of 18,000 acres, and in it there were four hamlets. The surveyors used to be farmers, who in many instances celebrated their year of office by making good roads up to their own farm-houses. Each hamlet had its own unpaid surveyor. Availing themselves of the powers given them by the Highways Act, the parishioners appointed one paid surveyor for the four hamlets, at a salary of £40, and in a very short time he reduced the highway rates to half their former amount, while the roads were four times as good. The highways of South Wales were now managed on a system almost identical with that proposed by the Bill before the House. The adoption of that system was not due, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hodgkinson) supposed, to the Rebecca riots, which affected only turnpike roads, but was the work of a nobleman of great ability and administrative powers—the late Lord Cawdor. At the request of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) he had written to clerks of several districts in Glamorganshire to inquire into the relative efficiency of the old and new systems. He had received very full and satisfactory returns, making out, he believed, in every instance, a case of reduced expenditure and increased efficiency. The measure worked well, and without any of those evil consequences threatened by the Member for Notts.

said, that having for many years felt great interest in every measure of this kind, and being desirous of seeing something done to remedy the defects of the present administration of highway law, he could not but support the second reading of this Bill. In doing so he must not be taken as agreeing to all the clauses, or even all the principles in the Bill. In the first place, he thought it was unnecessarily complicated. He could not see upon what principle the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to be drawn in as an active party in carrying out the provisions of this Bill. He believed it would be better if it were left to the magistrates of the county in the first instance to set the new system in motion, and that they should have the power, if they thought fit, upon representations being made to them, to sub-divide the county into districts in such manner as would best enable them to administer the law. Having done that, he did not see why the Secretary of State should be called upon to confirm such arrangement. The Secretary of State would be placed in the predicament of deciding between contending parties upon matters of which he could have no positive knowledge, and concerning which he could only derive his information from the magistrates on the one hand or the parishes on the other. There were other parts of the Bill to which he objected; but, as they were matters that could be better discussed in Committee, he should not enter upon them on the present occasion; he should therefore confine himself to the general principle of the measure and the reasons why he thought the House would adopt and the country would accept something, although, perhaps, not this Bill in its present shape. His experience led him to think that a large amount of money was now thrown away upon the management of highways. Some hon. Gentlemen were afraid that the new system of way-wardens and what had been called irresponsible boards, would necessarily cause increased expense. He had a firm conviction that if the waywardens did their duty a large diminution in the present rate of expenditure would follow. The public had a right to expect when travelling over eight or ten miles of roads that they should not be subject for one-half the distance to journey over execrable roads, when, by simple management, the road might be made equally good throughout its length. He was sure that a larger area of management under proper control would lighten the expense upon all, and greatly tend to the advantage of the public. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) had used a hard word—"confiscation," but neither he nor the hon. Seconder had given any definition of the term to justify its use in reference to this Bill. Whore could be the confiscation of property when the management was to be in the hands of the parties interested—the ratepayers and the waywardens? The hon. Gentleman had said that, under the present law, the ratepayers met in vestry to elect officers; but that was really not a correct description of what took place. True, the vestries elected officers, as they were compelled to name some one to be surveyor; but it was notorious that one man after another sought to evade it or to get out of it as soon as possible, and, when obliged to serve, the surveyor was incompetent to perform his duties because he was ignorant and uninstructed in them. That state of things demanded a remedy, and he knew none so good as the appointment of a district surveyor—a man with specific duties, who would be paid for the discharge of them and responsible to some authority for their due performance. Such a remedy would, he believed, tend to improve the parish roads, and at the same time to diminish the expense. It was said that the vestries might give salaries now; but who would expect them to do so when the person elected knew nothing of the duties he had to discharge, and who only accepted the office because he could not avoid it? Some such system as that now proposed was necessary. The hon. Seconder of the amendment had alluded to clause 37, giving the magistrates certain powers which he thought they ought not to possess, but upon reference to the clause it would be seen that it only applied to magistrates at quarter sessions who happened to be way-wardens and who were not therefore to be precluded from acting as magistrates. A hint had been thrown out about referring the Bill to a Select Committee. If he believed that such a reference would shelve the Bill, he should oppose it, because he thought the measure was based upon a principle laid down by a Committee; but, assuming the principle to be adopted, and with the distinct understanding that the Committee should entertain nothing but the Bill in order to put it into working shape, without taking evidence, he should not object to the suggested reference. Looking at the diversity of opinions upon the subject and the complicated nature of the Bill, he was disposed to think that would be the most practicable mode of getting some measure passed this Session.

said, that feeling a deep interest in this subject, he was anxious to bear his testimony as to the necessity of passing some measure of the kind. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Hodgkinson) had said that it was not a question whether there should be good roads or bad roads, but whether the parishes should he interfered with. He (Mr. Walter) thought the House would agree that in a Bill for the better management of highways, the state of those highways had something to do with the question. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Barrow) had given the House a minute description of the legal remedies available for the enforcement of the present system; but from his experience he (Mr. Walter) could conscientiously say that he should never dream of attempting to resort to those remedies, because there was no machinery to carry them out. Any one riding along a country road, and seeing the way in which road-mending was carried on—a cartload of large stones tumbled down and merely strewed over the road—the side, which should be left turfed for the benefit of riders, being broken up and destroyed -could come to no other conclusion than that those who were employed in carrying out the repairs were incompetent to the performance of their duties. Let any one consider what the parochial system was upon a matter of this kind. He believed the average area of the parishes in this country was 3,000 acres. No one would say that such an area was sufficient to employ a competent staff to manage the repairs of the roads. Then again, there were in many districts in the South of England what were called "drift ways," which were being gradually brought into use—roads which until within a few years had been merely sand roads or turf roads, but which, in consequence of increased population, were being gradually put into a proper state of repair and made passable for carriages. Suppose three parishes— and he knew of such a case; that the parish at one end, which he would call A, put its road in perfectly good repair; the parish C, at the other end, did the same thing; but the parish B, between the two, left its road utterly impassable, for carriages. Would any one tell him that was a proper state for the roads of the country to be kept in, or that any Hill which deprived the parish of the power of leaving its roads in this disgraceful condition should be charged with centralization and confiscation, and he knew not what other terms? There were certainly some clauses in this Bill which he should wish to see dispensed with. He did not know why the Secretary of State should trouble himself with the accounts about those roads, overburdened as he was already with other business. He considered that that was really the centralizing element of the Bill. There was no more reason that accounts should be sent into the Secretary of State for those districts roads, than that the accounts for county bridges and roads in general should be referred to the Secretary of State. He hoped, therefore, that in Committee that clause would be expunged. It appeared to him that roads, being intended for the public benefit, and not for the benefit of the parish merely, should be kept in repair for the benefit of the public. If such roads were merely means to an end, it must be quite evident, he thought, to every one that the public at large were as much interested in the roads at one end of the kingdom as in the roads in their own parishes. That principle he had always supported as an amendment of the present law, and he should cordially support the second reading of the present Bill.

said, they had had Highway Bills so often before them, that it would be a curious thing to have a sort of variorum edition of Highway Bills, to see how they agreed or differed one from another. His opinion of the merits of the present Bill would depend very much upon the answer be received from the Home Secretary to the question he wished to ask as to the true interpretation of the 5th clause. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given a very curious illustration of the evils of the present system, when he said—Suppose that parish A and parish C made their drift way good at either end, but that parish B bad an impassable bad road in the midst. Well, under the existing law the remedy was very simple—it was as simple as A B C. Assuming it to be a legal highway—for otherwise neither this Bill nor the existing law would enable it to be done — the remedy was most simple. Let them go before the magistrates at petty sessions, and the thing might be done; it was inexpensive and of no difficulty. But, so far as be had been able to read this Bill, that remedy had been entirely cut from under their feet. He did not see any remedy at all in the Bill. The Bill expressly exempted the Board from all the penalties which fell upon the surveyor now if be did not do his duty, by the express enactment that those penalties were taken away. But it might be said they had the old remedy by indictment for nuisance. Unfortunately the parish might be indicted and the inhabitants amerced by fine; but they would have no power by law, according to the Bill, of abating the nuisance. That was a point which was capable of being remedied in Committee; but it had been said that Boards had neither noses to be polled, nor another part to be kicked, and it did not appear what remedy was given against Boards if they failed to discharge the duties imposed upon them. Boards, however, were very pugnacious, and he ventured to say that country Boards would fight any one who attacked them, to the last breath in their body. They were very pugnacious, because, among other reasons, they did not fight with their own individual money, but with the money of the ratepayers. He was almost induced to call this a pleasant Bill, because there was really a provision in it so very extraordinary that he had not seen anything like it of late years. They would constitute a Board of way-wardens, who were to be elected. Those gentlemen would meet. The right hon Gentleman was evidently afraid that his Boards would not meet, and therefore he imposed a penalty upon them of something between £1 and £5 for non-attendance. But who was to enforce it? Why, the gentlemen themselves. That was a very pleasant arrangement. But if they did not do their duty, who was to fine them and make them meet? Why, they would fine themselves. That was a degree of virtue which he thought it possible that a Board might not always possess. They had heard in times past of churchwardens' dinners and all that sort of thing, which they had hoped was got rid of; but here was a nice machinery set up exactly for the same purpose. Here was a Board which had power to fine from £5 to £1. They might borrow to any extent; there was no limit except the consent of the Secretary of State. And then they were to audit their own accounts; so that the parties whose money was spent were to have no check. But those men were to have the auditing of their own accounts, which was equivalent to saying that there was to be no check at all. Why, they might have turtle dinners put in as items in the road accounts. Who was to know? He thought the right hon. Gentleman Would see that that was a provision which, whether the Bill went upstairs or was dealt With in that House, must have a proper remedy put to it. Where persons were spending other people's money it was right there should be an independent audit. These were some of the prominent objections which appeared to him to exist to the details of the Bill; and, certainly, some rather odd arguments had been used that night in its favour. The hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) had given a strong illustration of the inconvenience he suffered in going a distance of five miles and a half through seven different jurisdictions to a railroad. One turnpike road was bad, and one good; there was a parish road very good, and another execrable; there were I two "hundred" bridges, and there were roads ratione tenurœ. But this Bill would not deal with the "hundred" bridges; they would remain untouched— the bad turnpike roads would remain untouched. He might have a chance of amending his bad parish road or of making the good one worse. That was all the hon. Gentleman would gain by the Bill. But this Bill, if he had read the 5th clause aright, relieved him of a good deal of the difficulty he had felt with regard to the other Bills that had been submitted to the House. He did not know whether, under this clause, the magistrates at quarter sessions would have power simply to make one district, and so from time to time to bring other districts into the system, if it ! was thought desirable; or whether, upon the requisition of five magistrates, it would be imperative on the quarter sessions to divide the whole county into districts. The; nature of the information he received would decide his vote. If it was left open to the ' quarter sessions, on the requisition of magistrates in the neighbourhood, to form a; district, it might be generally presumed I that that would not be done without the wishes of the inhabitants, and he for one could see no objection to a system of that kind, because the principle volenti non fitinjuria was a very sound one. If the parties wished for such an arrangement, they would be brought to have a good district surveyor, and no doubt the roads would be: made better and more economically. If they got a good district surveyor, they got better roads. But in a poor district with small farmers they might have a district surveyor job, as Boards would job as well as other people; and if they got a bad surveyor, they would have more expense and worse roads, because there would be less control over him. And therefore it would depend upon the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman would give of the 5th clause, which was by no means clear, whether or not he would support the Motion for the second reading. It was true that these and other points might be amended in a Committee, either upstairs or in that House; and as the Bill had been introduced early in the Session, he hoped something would be made of the subject in time.

said, that he had not addressed the House on moving the second reading, because he felt that he had nothing new to state, the present measure being identical in principle with other previous Bills which had received the sanction of that House. With the exception of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and second ed the Amendment, the Bill appeared to have met with very general assent as far as regards the principle that Highway districts should be formed, and Highway Boards established, to superintend the repair of the roads in those districts by means of paid district surveyors, whose business should be exclusively to attend to that duty. These Highway Boards were to be composed of the representatives of the ratepayers in each of the parishes forming a district. The Bill rested on authority and experience. The House had repeatedly affirmed its principle. The existing Highway Act, as it passed the House of Commons, contained a provision for the compulsory union of parishes as Highway districts, which provision was modified by the House of Lords so as to make it optional on the parishes to form the districts. The result was that that provision was acted upon but in a very few instances, as the assent of every individual parish had to be obtained; but in the districts where the power had been exercised, and the roads placed under the charge of district surveyors, the result had been most beneficial in the improvement of the roads and the economy of expenditure. An hon. Member (Mr. H. Bruce) had referred to South Wales, where it was stated the system adopted was almost identical with that proposed by the present Bill; and he found, by the last accounts, that in 1859 the expense of maintaining the roads there was, on an average, only £6 per mile, while in England it amounted to £11 2s. Thus it appeared that the expenditure on roads in South Wales was very little inure than half the amount spent in England, while, according to the testimony of the hon. Member, the roads in South Wales were kept in a better condition. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) said that the Bill would confiscate the rights of parishes and deparochialize the country. Now, assuming that the high roads of England might he treated as parochial matters (which he denied), did the Bill confiscate the rates of parishes? The rates were to be collected within the parish I and applied within the parish, with the exception of that small portion which was to be appropriated for the expenses of the Board, the district surveyor, and clerk. As to deparochializing the parishes, was it the fact that roads ought to be considered as exclusively local matters to be confided exclusively to the charge of each parish? That, as had been truly stated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), was not the case, and the public at large had a direct interest in a continuous road passing through several parishes, and would naturally desire that the management should not be broken up into several small jurisdictions, producing different results in respect to the manner in which the road was kept. It was said that there existed means for compelling the present authorities to do their duty. No doubt, that was the case, if the roads should be in an indictable state and not passable; but there were many roads which, though not in an indictable condition, formed a very unfavourable contrast with what was termed a good road; for there was a science in road-making as in other things. An hon. Gentleman had described one manner of road making to consist in the careless throwing down of cartloads of stones, and filling up a hole here and there, without any system. A road so repaired might be passable for carts, but it would not be in such a state as a line of communication between one part of the country and another ought to be in a civilized community. It could not be denied that many of the present surveyors were wholly unfit for the duty. It must be borne in mind that the establishment of railways had made some difference in respect to the public roads. The turnpike roads used to be the great lines of communication; but now other roads, radiating in all quarters from railways, were brought very greatly into use, and he feared that they would never be maintained in an efficient state of repair unless some such system as that proposed by the present Bill were adopted. But it was said by the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Col. Wilson patten) that a Board was a most cumbrous mode of obtaining the end in view, and might very well be dispensed with, and that all that was wanted was a district surveyor. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that a district surveyor was essential; but it must be remembered that the Board was a representative body, and he thought the Bill would have been open to greater objection if it dispensed with a representative Board, and merely left the appointment of the district surveyor in the hands of the magistrates. He believed that the Teal difficulty in passing these Bills through Parliament had proceeded from fear on the part of the ratepayers of expense consequent on the adoption of the proposed provisions. He did not deny that, when the roads were bad, there would be some expense in repairing them; but, when once the roads were, under the new system, put into a good state of repair, they would afterwards be kept in a much more efficient condition at much less expense than under the old system. One or two Members had asked why the Home Office interposed in this matter, if the magistrates agreed to divide a county or a portion of a county into a district. The only reason why the assent of the Home Office was made necessary to the final formation of a Highway district was, in case there should be any strong local opposition to the decision of the magistrates, that there might be an appeal to the Secretary of State, and an opportunity for reconsidering the matter. There was no desire on the part of the Home Office to add to its own duties by taking upon itself business of a merely local nature. It had been suggested last year that there should be a formal appeal from the decision of the magistrates. That, however, would clearly have been a cumbrous and inconvenient mode of operation, and a reference to the Secretary of State had been inserted instead. Still that precaution might be an unnecessary one; and if such should be the opinion of the House in Committee, he would be happy to dispense with it. It had been asked why the Home Office should interfere with the accounts. Under the present law, the accounts of turnpike trusts and of highways were sent to the Home Office, principally, he believed, for statistical purposes, that department being thought a convenient channel through which all such information should be obtained for Parliament. That, he believed, was the object of this provision. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had objected to what he called the indefinite power of borrowing given to the Board, subject only to the approval of the Secretary of State. That was a point to be discussed rather in the Committee than on the second reading; and he hoped to be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentle man that this power was not indefinite. There was a limitation in the amount of highway rate itself which might be levied in any parish. The money must be borrowed on the security of the rates, and no one would lend more than the sum the interest of which could be paid out of the rates in addition to the cost of repairing the roads. However, any amendment that might be proposed on this point might be very fairly considered in Committee. So too, with regard to the audit, in respect to which the provision in the Bill was the same as the one in the South Wales Act. If it should be found that that provision had not worked well in South Wales, it would, perhaps, be better to have an independent audit. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the Board would be under no liability that could be enforced to maintain the roads in good repair. The 19th clause, however, declared that the Highway Board should perform the same duties and be subject to the same obligations as those to which the local surveyor is liable. Therefore, the duty being transferred to the Board to be performed by their servant the district surveyor, if that duty were neglected proceedings might be taken against them as a corporate body to enforce the fulfilment of the obligations imposed on them by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman fancied that the 5th clause was ambiguous, and asked whether it was imperative on the justices to divide the whole county into highway districts, or whether they might limit their action to a part of the county. Certainly it was the intention of the Bill—and he thought that intention was clearly expressed — that it should not be incumbent on the magistrates to divide the whole of the county into such districts, because there might be some parts of it in which the management of the roads did not require any alteration, and others where improvement was urgently demanded; and no doubt it would be competent to the justices in such cases to divide a portion of the county, instead of the whole, into districts. He did not know whether he had now sufficiently answered the observations of the right hon. Member for Oxford.

said, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was so far satisfactory, and, no doubt, if the wording of the provisions was not clear, it would be made so in Committee.

Some of the speakers who were friendly to the Bill had proposed that it should be referred to a Select Committee; and the lion. Member for Kent (MR. Deedes) had said, no doubt sincerely, that he would not make that suggestion if he thought it would tend to defeat the Bill. On a previous occasion, it might be remembered, a Bill of a similar nature to the present was referred to a Select Committee; and, though the Committee were very unanimous in favour of the measure, the result was that it could not be proceeded with that year. Nevertheless, the present Bill had been introduced very early in the Session; and therefore, if hon. Gentlemen adopting its principle, and being anxious only to consider, and, if possible, improve its details, went into a Select Committee, they would probably report in about three weeks, and no serious delay would arise. On that under standing, and provided that the Committee would merely go through the clauses with out taking evidence or discussing the principle, he should certainly not object to the Bill, after its second reading, being referred to a Select Committee.

was surprised that the right hon. Baronet should have said that nobody who had opposed the Bill that night had objected to its principle. Why, there was scarcely any of those hon. Gentlemen who had not objected to its principle. For himself, he strongly objected to it, and that on the ground of its tendency towards centralization. He did not say that the Bill boldly asserted the principle of centralization, but it took a step in that direction, and as those things always began by small degrees and increased in magnitude, he objected to it. The Bill proceeded practically to sweep away all local control. It was said that in the parochial system they had not uniformity; but if the advocates of uniformity should carry this Bill and create district boards, what means had they of enforcing uniformity? They would have to come to that House and seek to enforce uniformity by the establishment of a Central Board sitting in London. There would happen in this case what had happened in the case of the Poor Law; and he asked the Members for England would their constituents and the people of England be satisfied to place their local rates and roads under the power of a Central Board sitting in London? He thought they would view such a proceeding with the greatest repugnance. He had also a constitutional objection to the Bill, and did not think they should abolish what remained to them of local self-government until at all events a case was made out that it had fairly been tried and failed. Was there, he asked, any case made out to show that the system of parochial control and self-government had failed? The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) who bad made an able speech in favour of the Bill, gave an instance to show that they had not tried their present system sufficiently. Having passed over a road that required repair, he applied to the parochial authorities to repair it, and they repaired it accordingly. The system of centralization which the Bill proposed to extend might render it a very good law for the French, but, in his opinion, it would be a very bad law for England. Not a single petition had been presented to the House calling for a reform of the law in the sense proposed by the Bill.

I voted against a Highways Bill upon a former occasion; since that time I have been in communication with my constituents, but I found they were not agreed upon the question, although they were all desirous that something should be done to improve the present system. Finding this to be the case, I have come to the conclusion of giving my support to the present measure so far as voting for the second reading, in the hope that in Committee the Bill will be so improved as to effect the objects which all have in view.

I object to the formation of these Boards; and, believing that the real requirements of the case are exceedingly simple, I cannot vote for a Bill fraught with the dangers which the noble Lord opposite has described. Under the present system aged and infirm labourers are employed, and thus kept out of the workhouse, and farmers have an opportunity of occasionally employing their men and horses profitably. These are advantages which should not be lightly thrown away. It has been said that this Bill will ensure economy. It may create a saving in pounds, shillings, and pence, but with a waste of means which may effect a more real economy.