said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that damage has been done to the Breakwater at Alderney, which it will take at least £50,000 to repair, and if serious apprehensions are entertained for the safety of a larger portion of that valuable structure?

stated, in reply, that in the last Papers respecting Harbours of Refuge, presented the other day, the hon. Gentleman would find an account of the damage upon the occasion of these storms. It appeared that the masonry walls of the Breakwater had breached in two places of considerable length two feet below the level of the sea at low water. No damage had been done to the base upon which the wall was built, the most important part of these breakwaters, and no apprehensions were entertained, as far as he was aware, for the safety and stability of the structure. The cost of the repairs had been estimated at £15,000, but the cost to the public would not be so much, as the contractor was liable for any damage till the breakwater was completed, except in the case of damage arising from great storms, in which case he was liable to pay one-half.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Memorial of Mr. Buckle, relating to his arbitrary dismissal from the office of Civil and Sessions Judge of Moorshedabad by Mr. Beadon, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, contrary to the protests of the Judges of the High Court of Judicature, Calcutta; if so, what steps he has taken on the subject?

, in reply, said, he did not think the terms of the question conveyed an accurate notion of the facts of the case. Mr. Buckle, who had been employed in the Opium Department, had been appointed a Judge according to the old practice of providing in some way or another for members of the Civil Service, and in dealing with causes without a jury he gave satisfaction. He was subsequently removed to a Court where he sat with a jury, and the High Court at Calcutta made representations to the effect that he did not satisfactorily conduct trials with juries; in fact, that he was not competent to sum up evidence. Upon that representation Mr. Buckle had been removed from his post and from all judicial employment, but he (Sir Charles Wood), believing that the reasons for removing that gentleman from all public employment were insufficient, had requested the Lieutenant Governor to give him some other employment for which he was qualified.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to bring into operation at Aldershot the Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill?

said, in reply, that Dr. Leonard, the Inspector under the Act, had been directed to report at the end of last year upon Aldershot and the local hospitals which were likely to be available for the purposes of the Act. He reported that neither the Infirmary nor any other hospital in the neighbourhood was adapted for the purposes of the Act. Under these circumstances arrangements were temporarily made to remove persons subject to the operation of the Act to the Lock Hospital in London. The very limited experience they had had of the working of the Act at Portsmouth, Devon-port, and other places, had shown that, unless the provisions of the measure could be thoroughly and completely carried out, little or no good could result from putting the Act in force. Dr. Leonard had lately made proposals for trying the experiment upon a more complete scale at Aldershot, and the matter was now under consideration.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Returns of Correspondence relating to the Turnpike Trusts of the neighbourhood of Devizes, for which an Address was moved on Thursday, the 11th instant, will be laid upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that the Correspondence relating to the Turnpike Trusts in the neighbourhood of Devizes would be laid upon the table that evening. There had been no unnecessary delay, for the Return consisted of fifty-two pages, and included the signatures of 995 persons who had memorialized for or against the Turnpike Trusts. He thought the attention of the Chairman of the Printing Committee might be called to the question whether the petitions did not rather refer to private interests than to public matters.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to his reply to a question addressed to him on the 15th instant, Whether he is prepared to order that the Medal be now distributed to all the Troops, regular and irregular, who were actually engaged (that being the admitted principle and limitation) in the field against Rebels and Mutineers in the Bombay Presidency during 1857, 1858, and 1859, as it was a matter of absolute certainty that Officers and Men of several Corps, regular and irregular, employed in the Deccan and elsewhere, and who were actually engaged against Rebels and Mutineers, have not received the medal?

, in reply, said, he did not admit that any officers or men who were entitled to medals had not received them. As far as he knew, all those who wore entitled under the general orders of the Government of India and the recommendations of Lord Clyde had received the medals, and therefore he was not prepared to issue any fresh order upon the subject. If any particular cases were brought under his notice they should receive his careful attention.

said, he wished to know whether there were not certain officers employed against the Bheels, and as in the case of the Tantia Topee raid they were practically rebels, and whether those officers were not entitled to medals?

said, he was under the impression, without having the papers before him, that there were present officers employed in putting down the bands of robbers, the Bheels, and the Government of India did not consider that the ruffianism of robbers was to be treated in the same way as the putting down of a mutiny.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Proclamation of the President of the United States, offering 100,000 dollars for the arrest of Mr. Jefferson Davis; and whether Her Majesty's Ministers are prepared to make any representations to the Government of the United States in reference to the treatment of the Southern leaders?

Sir, the only answer I can give to the question of the hon. Gentleman is that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of attempting any interference in the internal affairs of the United States.

said, he desired to have some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the First Commissioner of Works upon a matter connected with the Estimates which they were about to consider. They were told that an extra Estimate would shortly be introduced relative to the new Gallery to be erected somewhere or other for certain collections in the British Museum. Last year the country had to pay upwards of £3,000 for designs for certain buildings that were projected at South Kensington, to which certain of these collections were to be removed, but which the House did not think fit to approve. It appeared that the Government were now having similar plans prepared; and he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of deciding whether it would sanction the transfer of these collections from the British Museum to Brompton. It was hardly respectful to the House that a statement should not be made upon the Civil Service Estimates, similar to that which was always made upon those for the army and navy. According to the short analysis of these Estimates, there appeared to be a saving of £13,000 this year, but the fact was that that apparent saving would be swallowed up by the Votes for public buildings, which it was understood were to come before the House. Nor, indeed, ought the comparison to be made with the Estimate of last year, but with the actual expenditure, in which case the apparent diminution upon the Estimates of this year would entirely disappear. The actual expenditure upon the Civil Service up to the 31st of March last was £7,257,000 while the Estimate for this year was £7,624,000; and if to this Estimate the sums allowed out of the Consolidated Fund were added, it would appear that for Civil Service purposes there was an increase of £2,000,000 over the expenditure for 1854. From a Return of the increase and diminution of the expense of the public offices it appeared that during the year 1864 there was an increase of £132,000 and a decrease of £52,000, showing a net increase of £80,000. He should like to have some explanation of these various matters.

said, that having already spoken upon this Question he was unable to give the hon. Member the explanation which he desired.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) would be able to give the Committee some information with regard to the damage done to the Works at Alderney.

said, he had already stated that evening that the engineers of the works in question had reported two breeches in the wall during a great storm. They stated, however, that the base of the wall, which was the most important part of the structure, had received no injury, whatever. The expense of repairing the damage would amount to about £15,000, half of which, as it was the result of a storm, would fall upon the contractors under the terms of their contract.

said, that Holyhead Harbour was completed for the reception of passengers and mail packets.

said, that the Irish mails were very irregular, and the letters were not delivered until ten or eleven o'clock in the day. He asked when the Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Cork would be laid before the House?

said, the elaborate nature of the Returns had caused a delay in their production.

said, that he understood it was not intended to complete the whole of these buildings internally at present, but he believed that the cheapest plan would be to complete them at once.

stated that the buildings were completed externally, but it was not thought necessary to go to the expense of fitting up more than four-tenths of the interior until it should be all required for use.

said, that the lighthouses at the Bahamas were entirely supported by Parliamentary Votes. The other side of the Florida channel was extremely well lighted by the American Go- vernment and at the service of our shipping free of expense. With respect to the Little Basses Lightship, it was intended to make her self-supporting. Her only value was to ships passing to the Bay of Bengal, and it was thought desirable to levy a small due on all ships benefiting from that light.

said, he was glad to hear that some tolls were to be levied for these lights, for it was monstrous that the people of this country should be taxed for them. In the Bahamas there were no less than eight lighthouses, and he should like to have some explanation with respect to the new lighthouse which had been erected there at a cost of £7,500.

said, he wished to know whether any portion of the charge for the lighthouse at Ceylon was borne by that Island or by the Indian Government? He was in favour of doing away, as far as was practicable, with passing tolls, but then he did not think it right that the expense of maintaining a lighthouse at Ceylon should be defrayed altogether by this country. It was only fair that the Indian Government should pay half.

said, that the prrticular portion of the Vote to which the hon. Gentleman referred was for the maintenance, not of a lighthouse, but of a lightship at Ceylon, and that it was intended to make her as far as possible self-supporting. Ceylon had no special local interest in the keeping up of the vessel, which was chiefly of service to the shipping passing up the Bay of Bengal. The Indian Government had, he believed, declined to contribute towards the cost of the lightship, and it appeared to him but fair that the power should be exercised of levying dues on all ships which were benefited by her light. It would, he might add, be necessary to incur some further expense in that quarter in providing a spare ship to be made use of in case of accident. In answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith), he might state that it had been found expedient to have a new lighthouse at the Bahamas owing to the dangerous nature of the channel navigation.

said, that being of opinion that some portion of the expense of the lightship at Ceylon should be borne by the Indian Government, he should move that the Vote should be reduced by half its amount.

said, he wished to ask how it was that, the Vote having been rejected by the House last year, it was again brought forward by the Government in the present Session?

said, he attributed the rejection of the Vote last year partly to his not having explained the circumstances under which it was introduced with sufficient clearness, and partly to the fact that the correspondence, which would have furnished a full explanation, had not been laid on the table of the House, That correspondence, however, had since been produced, and it would be seen by it that in 1858 the condition of the criminal pauper lunatics in the Isle of Man having been brought under the notice of Mr. Walpole, at the time, Secretary for the Home Department, he bad called the attention of the local authorities to the subject, and that the result was an application to the Treasury, who had undertaken to pay half the expense of erecting a lunatic asylum in the island, provided the authorities there would undertake the payment of the other half. The House of Keys, availing themselves of that offer, had passed a Bill for the purpose of making the necessary valuation of property with the view to raise their share of the money, and the Government, under the circumstances, deemed it to be their duty to carry into effect their part of the arrangement by proposing the present Vote. The Vote, in fact, was only the appropriation of a portion of the surplus revenue of the Isle of Man, which amounted to £10,000 or £12,000 a year, which was paid into the Imperial Exchequer. It was also thought that the island was entitled to this Vote because the Crown had bought the sovereign rights of the island.

said, he did not see on what ground the Isle of Man should be placed on a footing different from that of Scotland and all other parts of the Kingdom, which were obliged to pay for lunatic asylums out of their own local taxes. If Scotch accounts were balanced in the same way as the Secretary to the Treasury proposed in the case of the Isle of Man, it would be found that Scotland also had a large surplus revenue.

said, he wished to ask, whether the county Mayo, which was at present spending £30,000 for purposes exactly similar to those covered by this Vote, would receive any assistance out of the public funds, if an application to that effect were made. In what did the difference between this portion of the Kingdom and the Isle of Man consist? He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury if he thought the House was bound to pass this Vote because the Government had promised to recommend its adoption. He did not see why the House should this year reverse the Vote of last year.

said, the Isle of Man had a Legislature of its own. There was a great distinction between the Isle of Man and the county of Mayo. When the sovereign rights of the Duke of Atholl were bought, it was thought equitable that the surplus revenues should be paid into the Exchequer. In his opinion this was a special case for the grant of public money. Before, the revenues of the island belonged to it, and were expended there, and it appeared no more than justice to expend now a portion of those revenues upon the local wants of the place.

said, the proceeds of the Customs duties in this country were applied towards sustaining the general burdens, and unless the Isle of Man were prepared to maintain an army, navy, and police of its own, it ought to contribute towards the maintenance of these national forces before it could claim any surplus revenues. The fact of there being a surplus of £12,000 a year showed that the Isle of Man was wealthy, and had I a good trade, and it surely could afford to pay for its own local expenses, as well as any other part of the Kingdom.

said, the Customs duties in the Isle of Man were not of the same amount as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. £300,000 were spent some years ago as a gross job in acquiring the sovereignty of the island, and now the Committee were asked to perpetuate a system thus inaugurated.

said, he must protest against the doctrine that because sovereign rights had been acquired by the State over any portion of its proper dominions it was bound to spend in that portion of its territory whatever surplus revenues might arise therein. Such an agreement had once existed in Hanover, but at that time Hanover contributed largely to our military strength in time of war.

said, he did not know whether hon. Members had read the letter from the Governor, in which it was pointed out that the measures proposed to he carried out had been approved by three Governments. On the faith of that the local Government had raised a considerable sum. The asylum would contain accommodation for criminal as well as pauper lunatics. Even in England and Ireland the State defrayed its share of the maintenance of criminal lunatics.

said, nothing would be easier than to overcome the difficulty last suggested by removing the criminal lunatics from the Isle of Man to Dartmoor, or the nearest establishment of a suitable kind in the United Kingdom.

said, that some compromise should he adopted in this matter. The House, he thought, would not haggle with so small an island for a few thousand pounds if, as suggested, the national faith was pledged to the expenditure.

said, it was important to ascertain how the faith of the country stood pledged, if at all. If an undertaking by a Secretary of State that he would propose a particular Vote to the House amounted to a pledge on the part of the country to grant the money asked for, the Committee of Supply might as well abandon its functions at once. He wished to understand distinctly from the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement that the Isle of Man possessed a revenue and a Legislature of its own, was to be taken as a declaration that the Isle of Man undertook its own defence, and would not make any call on the national forces. The colonies paid towards the Imperial expense incurred in their military defence. The Isle of Man was a part of the Empire, with a local Legislature, hut it did not pay for its own defence. The House could not admit that it was bound by any engagements which might have been made by any Member of the Government as to the payment of this money.

said, that no Member of the present Government would presume that he could bind the House beforehand to any Vote of money. The authorities of the Isle of Man, however, had reason to expect, from the assurances, first of the late Sir George Lewis, and afterwards in still stronger terms of the Government of Lord Derby, that the Vote now before the House would be recommended and supported by the Government. Did the Parliament of this country treat the Isle of Man with greater liberality than the colonies? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last was in error in supposing that the colonies contributed towards their own military defence. The rule had been that they did not so contribute, and the contrary principle was only of partial and recent adoption. He believed that the Isle of Man paid over to the Imperial Exchequer a larger proportion by far than any other dependency of the Empire. The dependencies which in many respects it most resembled were the Channel Islands. The latter had an independent Legislature, hut they did not contribute a farthing to their own defence, while the Isle of Man paid over one-third of the whole revenue to this country. The Channel Islands were so far favoured that they received grants from the Privy Council for their schools, without contributing a farthing to the fund from which those grants were taken.

said, he saw no reason why the lunatic asylums of the Isle of Man should be paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer. The Vote was refused last year, and that, in the absence of any new arguments, was a very good reason for refusing it again.

said, that if hon. Members would read the note appended to the Estimate they would find that the probable cost of this building was about £20,000, in addition to £2,016 for the purchase of the site. Half the amount was to be provided by Parliament, and the other half by the island. The House was now asked to vote £4,000, which was one-half the cost of the site, and of such portion of the work as would be paid for within the year. The correspondence was laid before Parliament in 1864, and he wished to know why the Government did not take the opinion of the House on this subject at an earlier period.

said, he agreed that the expenses of lunatic asylums were generally borne by local rates. An objection to this Vote, however, came with an ill grace from Members for Scotland, for the very next Vote was one of £20,000 for Courthouses in Scotland. In Ireland the latter expenses were defrayed out of county rates.

said, he thought it quite right to restore to the Isle of Man £13,000 of the money taken from the island in taxes, but the Government forgot I that they drew £4,000,000 out of Ireland.

said, he wished to ask for some explanation of the large sum of £38,000 for the Sheriff's Court of Edinburgh, which was not larger than other Courts in various parts of Scotland.

said, it had been very difficult to obtain a site, and though the sum was large, it was not larger than the necessities of the case required.

said, there was no ground for assisting local rates in England out of the Consolidated Fund when nothing of the kind was done in Ireland.

said, it was only within the last few years this Vote had been proposed. It was an enormous advantage to the people of Greenwich to have Government establishments there. Would the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich be content to-morrow that those establishments should be transferred to the Shannon or the Cove of Cork? If the establishments were removed to Ireland, and grants were asked in aid of local assessments, there would not be the least chance of getting them. Government establishments prevented pauperism. He should oppose the Vote, and if encouraged would go to a division upon it.

said, the Committee that sat upstairs had settled the question of Government rating. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) spoke of the advantage of Government establishments. But in the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford, where the dockyard was, the rates were 12s. in the pound. Was there anything like that in Ireland? In Woolwich, also, where the Government occupied the best part of the river frontage the rates were exceedingly high. Of late years various improvements in drainage, lighting, and other matters had been introduced for the whole district, and would it not be monstrous that the Government occupying lands for the benefit of the nation should not contribute to the expenses incurred? Who wore the roads? Why the artillery, and the people paid for them. Were the Government of this country so poor that in places where they possessed these large establishments the inhabitants should light, watch, pave, and make sewers, and the Government pay no rates? The fact was that this Vote was miserably small and inadequate, and ought to be increased.

said, he thought that the Government establishments at Woolwich added more to the value of the property in their neighbourhood than that property was depreciated by the additional poor rate at which it was assessed.

said, that this £27,000 could surely not be the whole sum to be contributed by the Government in aid of local rating.

said, he wished to ask, whether it was intended that any portion of the money should be applied in payment of rates in Ireland or Scotland?

said, that no distinction was made between England and any part of the United Kingdom, There were two heads into which this Vote was divided. The first related to property newly acquired by the Government. With regard to this property, the Government indemnified the parish against any loss sustained by its transfer from private hands to those of the Government, and the same rates were paid as it would have been liable to if it had remained private property. But there was this condition—that the rateable value should continue the same as it was when the property was acquired by the Government. That course, he thought, satisfied every claim which could be preferred by the parishes concerned. It was true that the parishes lost the advantage of any increasing value, but this was a conjectural estimate, and you must take into account the benefit conferred upon the district by the large scale of Government expenditure. In such an arrangement the Government were fortified by the authority of Parliament, this being the rule laid down with regard to purchases made for fortification purposes. The other head referred to property long in the possession of the Government. That property had always been exempted from rating, and the Government thought this exemption ought to continue, and that the present body of ratepayers had no right to the benefit asked for by them, they having acquired their property in the parish knowing that the Government property there paid no rates. The only exception to the general rule thus laid down of maintaining the non-liability of this class of Government property was where the proportion of that property to the rateable property of the parish was very largo. This proportion as recommended by the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, was fixed at one-sixth, and he thought that such an arrangement would meet the claims of the parishes on account of any burdens which might devolve on them owing to those Government establishments.

said, be thought that the recommendation of the Committee, which was presided over by the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, should be carried out, and the rating of Government property be regulated by Act of Parliament. At present it was altogether an arbitrary matter.

said, he must remind the Committee that, with ordinary persons, it was the quarter sessions which decided upon the rating, but the Government claimed to assess themselves. The Committee which had been referred to came to the conclusion that Government property ought to be rated upon the same principles as the property of individuals; but now the Government asked the Committee to vote this sum of £27,000, as representing the total amount it should contribute to the rates for all its property in the United Kingdom. Such a proposition was absurd, and he hoped that next Session the question would be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner.

said, his attention had been drawn to the inadequate contributions which the Government made to the rates of those districts in which their great establishments were situate. In the principle of exempting Government establishments from local rates on the ground that they benefited the district in which they were situated were carried out, every large private establishment ought to be exempt also. Whatever advantages resulted to certain districts from the presence of Government establishments, those advantages were counterbalanced by the consequent disadvantages.

said, that hardships did arise to individuals from the present system, but it must be recollected that the system was not one of to-day, but had existed for a long period of time, and to call upon the Government to contribute to the rates on account of all these establishments, in the same proportion as individuals, would impose a charge upon the public purse that would affright the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, in fact, would lead only to taking out of one pocket to put into another. It might, indeed, render it necessary to re-impose a part of the income tax which had been taken off. He hoped, however, the subject would be fully considered in a future Session.

said, he wished to ask for some explanation of the different modes of assessment adopted by the Government.

said, the difference consisted in the fact that the Government did not think they ought to pay upon the same principle in places where the property had been long in the possession of the Government as in places where property had been recently acquired and thus transferred from ratepaying occupiers to them.

said, he thought that the same principle of contributing to rates should apply to every part of the United Kingdom.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. It was early, twenty minutes to eleven, and if, as was supposed, Parliament was to rise in the second week of July, some progress must be made with the Estimates with which at present they were very backward.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he saw a charge in the Estimate for the attendant on the ventilation of the House. That individual was paid by the country for pumping cold and unwholesome air into the House to circulate about the feet of hon. Members to such an extent that it was impossible for hon. Members to remain in it in the early part of the Session, and it was the most cruel thing possible to ask the House to vote anything for his salary. The House was kept in such an uncomfortable state that some hon. Members were unable to remain for the night, and others were obliged tore-tire to warm themselves to enable them to return to their duties. The House was made so injurious to health that hon. Members suffered very considerably in consequence. When the east wind was blowing it was thought in this country to be a very comfortable thing to get inside a building; but in that House the east wind blew as disagreeably as it did outside. Some attributed the disagreeable state of the House to the gas in the roof, but that was a very curious idea, when in truth the whole evil was caused by the cold air that was blown into the House from below. The sooner the nuisance was got rid of the better.

said, be had made a personal application to the officer in question, and his reply had been very unsatisfactory, he (Mr. Whalley) could not do his duty, although he had tried his best, and the effect of the present arrangements was to drive away all the independent Members. He understood the law of nature to be that the upper stratum of air should be cooler than the lower, in order that the impurities of human breath and other impurities might be carried off. But in that House they had created an artificial beat above. The system of ventilation adopted in that House was the cruellest form of despotism ever invented. Instead of allowing the hot air to escape they sent it down on hon. Members. He had been up above and down below, and really—speaking for himself—he could not stand it. Whether it was by creating an artificial heat above or forcing in artificial east winds from below he could not say, but the system of ventilation was fundamentally wrong; and nothing could be more deliberately ruinous to the health of independent Members.

said, he wished to call attention to the large expenditure for messengers, not only in this, but in all the public Departments. The sum asked for the expenses of messengers in all the public Departments in London was no less than £34,794. When he had occasion to make any communication to a public Department he usually intrusted it to the post, and he generally found that it arrived safely; but whenever he received an answer it was delivered by a messenger. Why could not the Departments make use of the Post Office in the same way instead of having such a multitude of messengers, many of whom were lounging about doing nothing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to the subject he would find that at least one-third of the staff would be quite sufficient.

said, he wished to ask why it was necessary to come to that House for Votes on Account if the salaries were due at the end of the quarter?

said, the salaries were paid at the end of the quarter, but by the recent Appropriation Acts it was impossible to use any of the unappropriated balances, and consequently he was obliged to come to that House for a Vote.

said, he wished to ask how it was that in the Vote for the Treasury the number of messengers employed, and the salaries given, were stated in detail, and a lump sum taken for the Home Office?

said, that the latter sum was limited to the Home Office alone; whereas in the Treasury it included those employed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Office also, and they required to be separated.

said, he did not see why the details could not be given in both cases.

said, they should be given next year.

said, that as we had adopted a policy of non-intervention—of never assisting our friends, and of letting any injustice go on in any part of the world—the time had come when some of our Foreign Office machinery might be dispensed with. In the new path of peace on which we had entered we had neither to defend our territories nor raise a finger when treaties are broken. The only object of our diplomacy had hitherto been to prevent other nations from going to war. Nobody ever proposed seriously to attack us; the only way in which we ever got into wars was by de- fending our friends, and if we had made up our minds to let our friends take care of themselves, and let foreign nations go on cutting each other's throats within sight of us without interfering, we might as well get rid of some of the expense which our diplomacy caused us. ["Move, move!"] Certainly not; he was not going to do anything so invidious. His hon. Friend opposite the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had now quite a sinecure in his post of Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In former times he had had occasion to trouble him very frequently; but latterly he had not had occasion to ask him a single question.

said, that in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Devizes, he would say that the question of the maintenance of our Foreign Office did not depend upon the adoption or not of the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. The voice of history warned us that so long as this country maintained its Protestant principles and remained the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty, it must always expect to have arrayed against it the animosity of States which had a different policy. This country was an asylum of persons who for their political or their religious principles had to leave the land of their birth, and as long as we desired to have England pre-eminent in upholding the principles of civil and religious liberty we must maintain our Foreign Office.

said, that he did not think the country got value for the £1,500 paid to the Medical Officer of the Privy Council. Considerable sums had been spent on experiments connected with vaccination. He thought that the experiments and Reports of the medical branch of the Department were superficial, and the conclusions come to empirical and not satisfactory.

said, he wished to know was this medical officer the gentleman who had made the very elaborate Report which had been used by the Government in the recent debates on the Poor Laws, and who seemed to have a very slight acquaintance with truth. If so, the salary ought to be stopped. In referring to that Report his observation was founded on the statements made by hon. Members in the course of the debate.

said, that the document referred to was not penned actually by an officer of the Government, but by a gentleman specially employed for the particular duty. He (Mr. Bruce) was not then prepared to accede to the criticizms passed by certain hon. Members upon it. He should on Monday have an opportunity of conferring with Dr. Hunter, when, he believed, he would be able to show the House that the charges directed against that gentleman were made under a misapprehension. He (Mr. Bruce) referred especially to those of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire. He must say, that he know no more able nor hardworking officer than Dr. Simon, who had already conferred the greatest benefits upon the public by his inquiries, which had been attended with the best results to the public health. He believed that those inquiries ought to be continued by that gentleman.

said, he concurred in the opinion that the Privy Council should have the means of prosecuting these local medical inquiries. But the question for consideration was whether the expenses were not exorbitant for what they obtained. It was well that the Board of Health was done away with, inasmuch as it had made foolish Reports, which invited the severest criticizms year by year. The present system, which was established in its stead, was a much better one. This Department of the Government should, however, pay more attention to the way in which those Reports were made up if they wished to enlist the respect of the House for them.

said, he wished to know how the Special Report was to be paid for. How did it appear in the Estimates? He was not prepared to join in the remarks which had been made adverse to it, because the more clear and bold the colouring of pictures relating to the domiciliary arrangements of the poor the better. He felt sure that on a fair and candid report a state of things far blacker and more disgraceful to our civilization would be found in our manufacturing districts than that reported in the agricultural neighbourhoods. As an owner of property in the manufacturing districts he had found himself continually foiled in his efforts to provide for the manufacturing classes dwellings more favourable to decency and comfort by the ignorance of the very peo- ple for whose welfare he had expended his money. It was of no use to furnish their rooms with the means of ventilation if the people would never open the windows; when he had made arrangements for ample and separate sleeping accommodation, a large portion of the space so provided would be used for the purposes of lumber and storage, and the whole family would crowd into one room. Instead, therefore, of reporting adversely upon the condition of the agricultural districts only, he hoped that the medical officer would give an equally graphic and an impartial description of the existing state of things in both agricultural and manufacturing districts.

said, that the scheme alluded to by his hon. Friend was included in the contingent expenses under the Public Health Act, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 97, which amounted to £7,000, including £2,000 for the National Vaccine Establishment, and £2,000 for vaccination inspection. The Report alluded to contained a great many particulars with reference to an outbreak of fever at Liverpool, and the seven volumes of Reports which had hitherto appeared had treated the subject of our large towns at considerable length. He believed that the charge against Dr. Hunter of presenting a report in which his adverse criticizm was the result of animus was most unjust. It was the first time it had been made, though he had frequently before used strong terms of censure.

said, be believed that Dr. Hunter's inquiries would lead to more accurate reports if some notification of his intended visit to the part of the country were made by that gentleman, so that persons in the neighbourhood might have an opportunity of furnishing him with correct information and of rebutting charges made by interested parties.

said, he was unable to judge himself of the accuracy of Dr. Hunter's report, but a distinguished Member of the House (Mr. Henley) had said that it was incorrect, and that statement was echoed on both sides of the House.

said, he must complain of the cost incurred through the registration of joint-stock companies, and thought that some fees for registration ought to be charged.

said, he must call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that fees to the amount of £21,000 were received in the year 1864.

said, that the expenses in connection with this Vote bad increased from £65,000 last year and £62,000 the previous year to £68.000 in the present Estimate. The increase of expenditure on account of superannuation was especially objectionable. Two gentlemen, Lord Hobart, and Mr. Edgar Bowring, had been superannuated, one at the age of thirty-eight and the other at the age of forty. One of these Gentlemen, Mr. Edgar Bowring held two offices, and though only one of those offices had been abolished, his superannuation was calculated on the salaries of both offices. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of this Department, who was not only known as an advanced Reformer, but was an advocate of peace, and above all retrenchment, whether these gentlemen had been employed in any other Department of the public service after the alteration or abolition of the offices they previously held.

said, he thought that now the restrictions had been so much removed from trade, one-tenth or even one-half of this Vote might be devoted to the protection and encouragement of agriculture, and that the name of the office itself might be changed to "the Board of Trade and Agriculture."

said, he wished to know how much the Vote had been increased by the Railway Bills passed last year. Great hopes had been entertained that the Board of Trade would have been able to relieve hon. Members of a large portion of the duties which devolved upon them with respect to railroads.

said, he hoped that in future the Vote for the Designs Office would appear either in the Patent Vote, orin the Vote for Education, Science, and Art.

said, there was an inquiry into the office of the Board of Trade, with a view to its re-organization, and the office of registrar was abolished. The office of registrar had been abolished, and Mr. Edgar Bowring took the superannuation allowance to which he was entitled under the Act for an abolished office. With regard to Lord Hobart, his duties had become very slight, and he retired upon a superannuation allowance on the understanding that if duties could be found for him in the service of the Government, he would be required to perform them. With regard to the general staff of the Office it was not greater than was necessary for the work to be done. Parliament, by passing year after year new Acts, had been imposing upon the Board of Trade duties which required a considerable staff to perform them. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) would be glad if he could see his way to a reduction of the number of officials; but he did not think that object could be attained without impairing the efficiency of the Department.

said, he wished to ask, how it was that the salary of the chief of the Statistical Department had been increased from £800 to £1,000.

said, that the reason was that there had been an addition to his duties by the abolition of other offices.

said, he hoped that the Vote for Exchequer Bonds would first be taken.

said, he must move the adjournment of the debate, on the ground of the lateness of the hour and the absence of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate), who was unfortunately indisposed. Many Members wished to speak on a subject of such enormous importance. He was anxious to know whether Government were inclined to accept the proposal that had been thrown out in the course of the debate upon this Bill by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole)—namely, that Government should take charge of the matter, and should frame one uniform oath, that would afford adequate protection to the Established Church, and could be taken by all Members of the House, of whatever religious persuasion. He thought, from the general expression of the feeling of the House upon the subject, that this was the course the Government were bound to adopt. In the expectation that they would do so he made the Motion.

, in seconding the Motion, said, a great number of Members interested in the question had been induced to leave the House in consequence of seeing so many Orders of the Day on the Votes, and therefore it would not be fair to force the matter on in their absence. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, whether he would not, under the circumstances, postpone the consideration of the question.

said, that in answer to the appeal of the hon. Baronet, he could only say that the measure had already been twice postponed. There had been a decisive majority in favour of the Bill. He did not wish to take any unfair advantage, but as he was a private Member, and therefore had not the control of the business of the House, he could only put the Bill down as the first business to be gone into by the House, and if the matter was always to be postponed, no private Member would undertake to introduce a Bill.

said, this was a question of very serious importance and nicety. On a former occasion a person of great authority had made a suggestion, and he now asked whether the Government was prepared to take charge of this important question. He did not think the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Vance) at all unreasonable. By adopting this course the Government would meet the wishes of the House, and, at the same time, preserve the securities for the Protestant Constitution.

said, the Bill proposed an oath to be taken by Roman Catholic Members, which would leave but a slight difference between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic oaths. He thought that one uniform oath would be very desirable. If the singular portion of the former oath, dating from the Emancipation Act, which required Protestants to swear that they did not believe that the Pope had power to exercise any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this country, were expunged, the oaths would be exactly alike.

said, he was not only sorry but surprised that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) the right hon. Baronet was not prepared to substitute a uniform oath for that proposed by the Bill, which he believed afforded no possible security to the Protestant Church.

said, he was perfectly aware that it had been suggested that Government should take charge of this Bill, but he was not aware that Government had entered into any arrangement to do so. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) that the Government should have undertaken the duty of legislation on this subject if it had appeared to them that by so doing they would have promoted the object better than by leaving the matter in the hands of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mon-sell). He did not think there was any reason for supposing that such would be the result of the Government undertaking the subject. It was true that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) had expressed his desire that the Government should take the matter up, but he had not indicated the basis of arrangement or pointed out the way of settlement. No doubt it would be the duty of the Government to bring in a Bill to enact an oath that would be entirely satisfactory to all parties if they could see their way to do so, but as there was no mode by which they could at present unite all parties in assenting to any proposal, it surely was not their duty to do it. It was, doubtless, expedient as a general rule that questions of importance should be handled by the Government, but he greatly doubted whether that was the case in the present instance. They were not altogether without experience in the matter. It had been found on a former occasion that the taking up of the subject by the Government had a tendency at once to throw into the category of party questions in a far greater degree than when it was in the hands of a private Member. When a Bill of the same kind was introduced by Lord Russell, with all the weight and authority of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, that measure failed to pass; whereas his right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell), availing himself of his position and just influence as an independent Member, had succeeded in obtaining for his Bill the assent not only of a large majority of that House, but happily of a majority very variously composed; and he had received valuable support from hon. Gentlemen opposite in the shape not only of votes, but also of very able speeches. He congratulated his right hon. Friend on having placed the question in a position so favourable. The results which had attended his labours went far to show that the Government had done wisely in leaving the matter to him, and likewise in forbearing to bring forward at the present moment what might he a more perfect measure, lest they should fail in carrying that more perfect measure, and also obstruct the most valuable object of his right hon. Friend.

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Vance) had said that in consequence of the illness of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), and also as it was past twelve o'clock, he thought that the debate should be adjourned; but he had not said that the Government, or anybody else, should have brought in such a Bill.

said, it was obvious that a very great change of opinion had taken place on the subject since the period referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had given a cordial vote in favour of the Bill, believing that the time had passed when the dreadful things once attributed to the Roman Catholics were to be apprehended, and also that no real security was obtained for the Established Church by the oath. But as a Protestant he would be placed in a disadvantageous position, as compared with the Roman Catholics, if he were asked to swear to more than they were required to swear to. All denominations should be placed upon one footing in that matter, and he thought that no more fitting opportunity was likely to occur than the present for the Government bringing forward such a measure.

said, that if this Bill were passed Protestant Members could then bring in a Bill to alter their oath in a similar way. He thought that the Government should give an early Government day to discuss the present Bill.

had thought it remarkable that the Government should have been so ready to report Progress at half past eleven; but the reason was evident now. It was only fair that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who was prevented by indisposition from being present, should have an opportunity of expressing his opinions on that question.

said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had ample opportunity for speaking when the Bill was introduced, and he might also have addressed the House on Wednesday before the debate closed, if he had thought proper.

said, that any attempt by the Government to bring in a new Bill this Session would only result in the question being postponed perhaps for another six years.

said, he wished to put it to the House, whether they ought not to show some little consideration for the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) who might have retarded the Bill if he had risen to speak upon the second reading, and who really had had no sufficient opportunity of expressing his opinion upon I it. The question was, in what manner the oath was to be altered, leaving out words which to the ordinary understanding were not intelligible. Before the House went into Committee the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) should inform the House on what authority he was prepared to justify the change he sought to introduce.

said, that it was undesirable to pass this measure at the present moment, because its adoption would necessarily be associated by the public with the recent attacks upon the Irish Church and the approaching elections.

said, he was one who attached very little importance to oaths of this kind. They were too easily taken, and too often forgotten; but, holding these opinions, he must say that it was inexpedient at the present time to propose the change which was sought, and this for two reasons. First, on account of the repeated attacks made in this House upon the Irish Church; secondly, on account of the near approach of the general election. It would he said that this Bill was brought in for the purpose of influencing votes then. Though it might be of some advantage to the Government, care should be taken lest the course which was adopted might arouse the Protestant feelings of the nation.

said, this was a cowardly and unworthy argument. Because it might be said that they were doing something which they knew to be just under the pressure of the approaching election, therefore they were to perpetuate what they knew to be unjust. If this was a just Bill hon. Members ought to support it, and not care what the people might say out of doors with respect to the motives which actuated its supporters. To use the words of the right hon. the Member for the University of Cambridge, "the oath was offensive, and contained insulting statements." If this was so they ought to get rid of it.

As the hon. and learned Member has alluded to me I may say a few words, especially as the argument I used was hardly that which he has attributed to me. The argument I used was this—and the more I have thought upon it the more I am prepared to adhere to it—that when you make a deliberate compact—tacitly it may be, not in words, perhaps—when you come to a deliberate agreement or understanding that upon certain conditions a great change is to be made in your law, you ought not to disturb the conditions unless you see some great practical grievance pressing upon some persons, and the grievance ought to be made out to the satisfaction of the House. I adhere to the view that if it were made out to the satisfaction of the House that there are circumstances which require an alteration in the oath such a change ought only to be made after the gravest consideration, and to be recommended on the responsibility of the Advisers of the Crown. And further, that if we see a change necessary we ought to consider whether we can frame the oath in such a form of words as that all Members of the House may take it. If Her Majesty's Government will take the matter in hand I will do my best to see what form of oath is to he framed, But unless the Government do so, after thirty years during which this oath has been taken, and which was confirmed in 1858, it is hardly fair at this advanced period of the Session to expect Members to assent to change without more discussion, upon the subject, and especially at this hour of the night. This is a course which ought not to be pursued, and until a proper opportunity is offorded it is not reasonable at this hour to press the measure.

said, as some hon. Members spoke in favour of a uniform oath they ought to bear in mind that there was a class (the Jews) which had been recently admitted by Resolution to seats in this House, and that the admission was a kind of by-play. It would be fairer to consider how the oath could be framed to meet this class.

said, that at half past ten o'clock a Motion was made to report Progress, but the Government nevertheless went on with the Estimates until twenty minutes to twelve o'clock. The House had by the division expressed a decided opinion that the Bill ought to be proceeded with; but as at that hour it would be impossible to make much progress with the Bill, he suggested that the Bill should now be allowed to go into Committee, with the understanding that Progress would be immediately afterwards reported.

said, he feared that if that course were pursued it would be afterwards impossible for any one to move an Instruction to the Committee to frame a uniform oath to be taken by all Members.

said, he thought the conduct of some hon. Members very inconsistent. They complained that the Government did not make the Bill a Government measure, and when the Government did the next best thing, by allowing the Bill to come on for discussion at half-past eleven o'clock, they still objected to that course.

said, he believed that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) was under a mistake in supposing that if the Bill went into Committee and Progress were reported, it would not afterwards be competent for an hon. Member to move an Instruction to the Committee.

said, he thought that if the course suggested by the Secretary for the Home Department was followed there would be every opportunity for the further discussion of the subject.

said, that if the Government thought the Bill of such importance as to induce them to give up proceeding with the Estimates at so early an hour as they had done, with a view to its being brought on, they ought to take the subject into their own hands.

said, that hon. Members were entitled to have a full opportunity of discussing whether the House should or should not go into Committee on the Bill.

said, that if the Government were in earnest in their support of the Bill, and were desirous that it should not be a shuttlecock between opposing parties, they ought to lend his right hon. Colleague all the facility and assistance in their power in pressing it forward.

said, that the Bill, if it were to pass that House, would have to go before another Assembly, composed of lawyers and statesmen, who would give it a calm and conscientious consideration, and that if it were sent up to that Assembly in a crude shape it might be very summarily rejected. He would, therefore, suggest that the best chance for its success would be to allow it to be discussed fairly, with the view to the introduction into it of such Amendments as were desirable, and as hon. Members on his side of the House were prepared to propose. For his own part, nothing would ever induce him to consent to depart from the vital principle of the constitution as established at the Reformation, and which he conceived to be embodied in the oath as it now stood.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman was determined to adhere to the principle of the constitution as he supposed it to be embodied in the Roman Catholic oath—

explained that he referred to the oath taken by Protestants, in which they denied not only the tern- poral, but the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction of foreign Powers.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had given good reason why they should only do one thing at a time. He would leave those who did not hold the pernicious doctrine to which he objected to say they did not, and those who did hold it should not be required to renounce it. That being so, what great bulwark of the constitution was to be found in the circumstance that those who did not believe in the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope expressed their non-belief—however great the satisfaction they derived from it—while they had no fear of the non-renunciation of the contrary belief in the case of Roman Catholics who held those pernicious doctrines.

said, he was answering what the Home Secretary had said with respect to altering the oath by striking out the words which contained the principle which he (Mr. Whiteside) advocated.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had called a distinction between the Church and its temporalities a flimsy one, but he would remind him that it was a distinction made by that eminent statesman, Edmund Burke. In his speech on Wednesday the right hon. Gentleman went as far, in order to insult the Roman Catholics, as the form of the House allowed him.

said, he should make another Motion of adjournment, as a matter of form, to enable him to state that the learned Attorney General would never have ventured on the address he had delivered a few minutes previously at an hour when the House was in a frame of mind to understand it.

said, he rose to order. As the right hon. Gentleman having the conduct of the Bill was understood to be willing to accede to the Motion, perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) would not object to shorten his speech.

said, that when the Attorney General chose to raise upon a proper occasion the question that it was of no importance that there was a denial—a constitutional legal denial—of that which he sneered at—namely, the jurisdiction of any foreign Power in our law, he was willing to discuss it fairly with him.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had left out the words which alone raised the matter between them. The denial of the jurisdiction of any foreign power in our law was in the present oath. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Spiritual.] The right hon. Gentleman put in the word "spiritual" now. With regard to that, those who did not believe—and all who were Protestant did not believe—in the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope professed that in the oath taken in the House. But if the holding a different tenet were dangerous to the constitution it would follow that those who held it would be asked to take the same oath. They were informed that all our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects held that tenet, and it was not considered so dangerous as to induce us to ask them to renounce it.

said, he would agree to the Motion for the adjournment.