said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, What progress has been made in collecting and arranging the information required for the Return ordered in the last Session of Parliament, with reference to Endowed Grammar Schools; and when the Return may be expected to be laid upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that a certain number of Endowed Schools had sent in the required information. That information had been tabulated and arranged, and he hoped the result would be laid upon the table before the end of the Session.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, referring to the fact stated in a Return (Treasury Trove, No. 297, of Session 1864) of portions of the Royal Revenue having in two cases been disposed of according to directions of the Lords of the Treasury, Whether it is not right that so unprecedented a step as the free transfer of the Crown's Revenue to private individuals should not be guarded by the usual constitutional forms?

said, in reply, that the course which had been taken in these two cases was not unprecedented, nor any other than the usual course. The treasure was sent to the British Museum, and having been reported by the authorities there to be of no intrinsic value, was returned by the Treasury to the finders. There was no objection to this course on constitutional grounds, as it was authorized by the Civil List Act, In answer to the observation that was frequently made that the Treasury did not act with sufficient liberality to the finders of treasure, he might remark that the Crown's rights would be of very little value unless that course were pursued.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the second issue of the Dhar Prize Money will take place; what is the cause of the delay of such issue; and what is the total amount now available for distribution?

said, in reply, that he was unable to answer the question, as no information had arrived from India on the subject of the second issue of the Dhar Prize Money; and he was unable to even say whether the amount of the fund would admit of a second distribution.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, Whether the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, under their common seal, was previously obtained for the substitution of the Bishop of St. Asaph for the Bishop of Bangor, as President of the Hospital of Christ at Ruthin, in the county of Denbigh, as ordered by the Board of Charity Commission, on January 24th, 1860, pursuant to Section 2 of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 71, commonly designated "The Bishops' Trust Substitution Act of Session 1858;"whether the like consent for the substitution of the Bishop of Oxford for the Bishop of Lincoln, as trustee of Lady Conyngham's Charities for the benefit of poor Clergymen in county of Bucks, and of certain poor persons in parish of Hitchenden or Hayenden, in same county, by order of such Charity Commission, dated August 7th, I860, as disclosed in the Return ordered to be printed on 1st of March last (No. 84 of present Session); and, whether he considers that these two solitary instances in a period of seven years are sufficient to justify the statement made by the Bishop of Oxford as promoter of this enactment, and of himself when taking up the conduct of this measure, as Her Majesty's Secretary of State, and now publicly recorded on the pages of the Statutes at Large, in the following words:—"Whereas it frequently happens that a Bishop of a diocese, &c,"in the preamble, section 1 of said enactment?

replied, that the object of the Bishops' Trust Substitution Act was simply this: that when a diocese had been altered in which the former Bishop, by virtue of his office was trustee of a charity, then the trust was transferred to the Bishop of the new diocese in which the charity would be from the time when the alteration was made. This was to be done by the Charity Commissioners, except where a right of patronage or any other ecclesiastical matter was involved. Now, the first two questions of his hon. Friend did not relate to cases of ecclesiastical patronage or to anything of the kind, and, therefore, the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was not needed; for then the change was made by order of the Charity Commissioners, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had nothing to do with it. With regard to the third question—whether the Bishop of Oxford, as promoter of the enactment, and of himself when taking up the conduct of this measure, as Her Majesty's Secretary of State, were justified in the use of certain words in the preamble of the Statute? he had only to say, that he knew nothing of any statement made by the Bishop; but he believed that there were other cases besides those to which his hon. Friend had referred, and the word "frequently" would apply to such cases, as well as to the other two, and then the inference would be very different from that which the questor assumed.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Contracts for the maintenance and repair of Highways are liable to the Stamp Duty of one pound fifteen shillings; and, if so, whether, considering the heavy additional expense thereby entailed upon Highway Boards, he will consider the advisability of reducing the amount of Duty payable upon such Contracts?

said, he believed there was some doubt as to the actual state of the law, but the practice had been to assume that these contracts were not liable to a stamp duty of thirty-five shillings. There was no great reason why they should be so liable, and if they were liable the liability arose entirely out of technical considerations. In order that they might be put upon a more favourable footing, he intended, on bringing up the Report of the Inland Revenue Bill, to move the insertion of a clause providing that the stamp duty should not exceed sixpence.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Treaty recently contracted with the German Zollverein, and of the Tariff connected therewith?

in reply, said, the treaty had not yet been ratified, but he believed the ratifications would be exchanged in the course of a very few days. There was no tariff annexed to the treaty.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any Report with regard to the Inquiry into the Land Tenure in Oude, which was now, he understood, approaching its conclusion; and, if so, whether he would state the substance of such Report, and whether the result of that Inquiry went to confirm the Talookdars in all important cases in their holdings?

said, in reply, that up to the present time he had not received any official Report. The inquiry was being conducted by several officials, and their Reports would in the first place be addressed to the Chief Commissioner. They would then go to the Government of India, and of course he (Sir Charles Wood) would not receive complete information until the Reports were transmitted to him. But he had received information of what was going on, and it went entirely to confirm the statement of the noble Lord. The general tendency of the Reports was to the effect that though it was perfectly true that by common custom the occupiers had not been disturbed by the landowners, whether Talookdars or Zemindars, as long as the rent was paid, yet there were but very few cases in which they had been able to establish any right to the land amounting to a legal right. They had themselves shown the greatest indifference on the subject. The result, therefore, on the whole was to confirm the possession of the Talookdars in the estates which they held, and, practically, to do away with anything like legal right on the part of the occupying tenants to the land which they occupied.

said, he must ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he was prepared to take into consideration the great disadvantages to the harmonious co-operation of military authority and Constitutional Government which arose under present circumstances from the absence of the Secretary for War from the House of Commons? Earl Russell had pointed out that the Secretary for War ought to possess a seat in the House of Commons and should be a person of vigorous character. That principle was a sound one, and when it was acted on and Mr. Sidney Herbert and Sir Corne-wall Lewis filled the office the business of the Department was satisfactorily conducted. But at present he did not think that the proper constitutional check existed upon the War Office. The noble Earl who was now Secretary for War bad been an ultra-Liberal in military matters, and on several occasions he had supported Motions which, with his present views, the First Lord of the Treasury would probably regard as almost revolutionary. In 1855 the noble Earl, then Lord Goderich, proposed that promotion should take place from the ranks to a much greater degree than had ever been thought desirable by this House. That Motion was negatived by a considerable majority, of which the noble Lord at the head of the Government was one. In 1856 Earl De Grey supported the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir De Lacy Evans) to abolish the system of purchase in the army. Again, in 1858, he acted as teller for a Motion to place the Commander-in-Chief more completely under the responsible direction of the Secretary for War than he now was; and Earl Russell and the present Judge Advocate General supported the same Motion. Was the appointment of Earl De Grey in accordance with what was understood to be the view of the noble Viscount—namely, that the Secretary for War should have very little control over the Horse Guards, which was to he paramount in all military matters? No doubt there was a difficulty in the case, for on the one hand the authority of this House ought to be paramount. Every question of national importance was settled there. Then, on the other side, there was the prerogative of the Crown, which was nothing more than a remnant of that absolute power of the Sovereign which constitutional proceedings for hundreds of years had first checked and then removed; and that remnant rarely made its appearance or was invoked in discordance with the action of that House. That prerogative, however, had now suddenly been called into activity to place all the officers in the service at the arbitrary disposal of the military chief. In the law there were, no doubt, useful fictions — John Doe and Richard Roe had in their time played a very convenient part—and so the prerogative of the Crown, as to making war or agreeing to treaties and matters of that kind, was an extremely convenient, respectable, and loyal fiction; for everybody knew that even in such cases nothing was really done without the intervention of Parliament. The noble Lord was about to go to the country—the existence of the Ministry depended upon the personal popularity of the noble Lord, so much so that it was said the cry of the Liberal party would be, "Palmerston and no Politics," "Palmerston and no Principles." But did the noble Lord wish an addition such as "Palmerston and Martial Law," or "Palmerston and Military Despotism?" He could assure the noble Lord that such additional items to his electioneering programme would be most disadvantageous, as the feeling of society and of the profession was extremely strong upon the subject. There ought to be a responsible Minister of the War Department in that House. He had every respect for the noble Marquess the Under Secretary for the War Department (the Marquess of Hartington), and he did not mean to say that any Gentleman in that House would perform the duties of the office better, but the noble Marquess did not really know what it was he was responsible for. The responsibility of the office had only a Protean existence. The other night the noble Marquess said that he was personally responsible for any statements he made in that House, but they did not affect the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary for War. Such a declaration left the whole matter in abeyance, and made the responsibility something like thimblerig responsibility. Although the Foreign Minister (Earl Russell) was in the other House his place was well supplied there by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), who, of course, was thoroughly acquainted with the foreign policy of his own Government, and who was never taken by surprise; but when they had only a lower authority the House was at once placed in difficulty. Men were now required to invest large sums, amounting in some cases to £8,000, £10,000, and even £15,000, in the purchase of their commissions, and yet they were now for the first time to have hanging over their heads a despotic power which could take away their rights. This was a great constitutional question, and the House ought to see to it. The question was a grave one, for they had a rule which was entirely new, The control of the Crown over the army was to be one of a purely despotic character, without the slightest check. It was to be a control based as much as possible on the Russian system. The prerogative was to be stretched to the utmost, and that which was heretofore in abeyance was to be brought down into actual life, and every officer was to be at the mercy of the military chief and those who surrounded him. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) contended that this was justified by the Commission of 1857, but the Commission of 1857 gave no such authority. There was, however, another aspect. We were said to be a nation of shopkeepers, but whether or not we were so we attached great sacredness to pecuniary rights. If a railway took a man's house, or even obstructed his view, the law required an equivalent. If a public servant held an office for a short time, and that office was abolished, he received compensation for the loss of it. But in the military profession a man might invest his fortune in his profession, and if he became obnoxious to one, two, or three of the authorities above him all his property, it appeared, might be arbitrarily swept away. It was said that there had been previous cases in which officers had been thus put upon half-pay, but those were cases in which either there had been a regular trial, or the verdict of society—namely, of the world at large and of that House— had been first pronounced, and then recognized by the authorities. Now, however, a Court of Inquisition resembling the Star Chamber sat in private with closed doors, and no questions could be put to the accuser except such as were approved by the Court; while no report of the proceeding before the tribunal was suffered to see the light, and if moved for in that House they were refused. The whole of the subject required the careful consideration of the noble Lord. It was exciting very serious attention among various classes out of doors. There was not an officer rising to any rank in the army who did not feel that his position was made insecure and his prospects were injured by a precedent to which the noble Lord appeared to lend his sanction. It was a satisfaction to him to have to refer that subject to a Minister of the noble Lord's high and responsible character, because he felt sure that be would give him a consistent and clear answer. He moved—

"That in the opinion of this House it would be convenient, under present circumstances, that the Secretary of State for War should be a Member of the House of Commons."

Sir, I do not mean to follow the hon. Gentleman through the case of Colonel Dawkins, which has been already sufficiently disposed of, but I shall confine my observations to the Motion which he has made and to that part of his statement which bears upon that Motion. There can be no question that that general principle of human nature, the love of power, affects the Members of this House as much as the rest of the community, and I can quite understand that the hon. Gentleman and others would like to have to exercise that power over every Chief of every Department of the Government sitting in this House. No doubt that might on many occasions be very convenient and satisfactory, but the constitution of the English Government does not admit of it. It is impossible to concentrate all the Heads of Departments in the House of Commons. Some of them must be in the other House, and therefore it must depend in every case upon the particular circumstances which govern the distribution of offices to particular individuals which Heads of Departments should have seats in this House, and which should have seats in the other House. There are certain Members of the Government who must be in this House—for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, There is one Member of the Government who cannot be in this House—namely, the Postmaster General. But, with regard to others, it must depend upon the particular qualifications which Members of the Government have for particular Departments whether they should have seats in this or in the other House of Parliament. But the hon. Member seems to think that unless the Head of a Department has a seat in this House, and is here to answer charges and complaints made against him, his responsibility is diminished, and the constitutional power of this House impaired. Now, in that respect he is entirely mistaken. The constitutional power of this House to investigate, to inculpate, and to judge the conduct of every Member of the Government is exactly the same, whether that Member of the Government happens to have a seat in this or in the other House. It may be more convenient, no doubt, if a serious charge is brought against a Member being the Head of a great Department, that he be here himself to explain and defend himself, rather than that his explanation should be given and his defence made by an Under Secretary. But at all events, in the instance to which the hon. Member at present alludes, I think that those who have the good fortune to hear and see the manner in which my noble Friend the Under Secretary for War acquits himself of his duties, the complete master he makes himself of every subject with which he has to deal, and how fully he understands the whole matter which he has to treat, will agree that he is as good as the Chief of the Department for all purposes of interrogation and explanation as to the conduct of that Department. The hon. Member, if I caught what he said, appeared to suppose that there was some rule by which the Head of the War Department ought to be in this House; but he is entirely in error upon that point—he is in error as to the course of practice. Until the Crimean war the War Department was united with the Colonial Department, and for a long course of time the Minister who was the Head of that combined Department was generally a Member of the House of Lords. Lord Bathurst, who held the office for many years, was in the House of Lords. The Duke of Newcastle also, before the Crimean war; and when the two Departments were separated the Duke of Newcastle remained in the Upper House as War Minister, The Secretary at War was a most limited officer. I know that, because I was for some time Secretary at War myself. The duties of the Secretary at War were to examine the regimental accounts, and he had nothing to do with the general organization or discipline of the army. He had to move the Army Estimates, and was therefore a Member of this House for the same reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also a Member of it. When the Government of which I am a Member was formed, Mr. Sidney Herbert was appointed the head of the War Department on account of his peculiar fitness for the performance of the duties connected with it, and of the attention and study he had bestowed on everything connected with the army during the time that he was Secretary at War. The state of his health unfortunately rendered it necessary to remove him from this House to the House of Lords, in the hope, which unfortunately proved vain, that a change of seat would restore him to health. When we lost Lord Herbert, as he had then become, Sir George Lewis was appointed; we were desirous of bringing back the army to the House of Commons. But a vacancy again happened, and we had to look about and see who was the fittest, in our opinion, to carry on the duty. Lord De Grey had been Under Secretary both to Lord Herbert and to Sir George Lewis, and he had also devoted himself peculiarly to everything connected with the army. It was, consequently, my opinion, and that of my colleagues, that he was the fittest man to take charge of so important a Department, and that his being in the House of Lords formed no valid reason for objecting to the appointment. My noble Friend here is perfectly well able to answer for Lord De Grey, when he says that his statements in this House do not involve any responsibility on the part of his chief; what my noble Friend means is, that, for the accurate statement of facts which have occurred, or transactions that have taken place, the responsibility is upon him, and not on the Head of the Department. But my noble Friend cannot be responsible for the future; for what is to be done the Government are responsible; we all are responsible with the Head of the particular Department, and we are all here to answer for and defend what has been done, and to state our intentions for the future. Therefore, it is a mistake to suppose that because the Head of the Department is in the other House it exempts him or the Government from that full responsibility which attaches to anything which the House of Commons may think it their duty to inquire into and sift in any manner. The hon. Member seemed to think that I proposed a very new and suspicious doctrine the other day when I said that the Crown had the power of dismissing officers from the army without assigning any reason, if it should think fit to do so; and the hon. Member says, "Why, here are officers who have paid money for their commissions, liable to be capriciously sent about their business at the will of the Crown," or rather of the responsible Minister of the Crown, for the Crown we know only acts on the advice of its Ministers, who are responsible to this House and the Crown for the advice which they tender. But I say it is a facility essential to the constitution of this military body that that power should be vested in the Crown, to be exercised by its responsible advisers, at the risk of being condemned if it should appear that they have given their advice improperly and without sufficient grounds. The army could not exist if the Crown were not invested with that power; and every officer who purchases his commission or who goes into the army knows that is the tenure on which he holds the commission that he purchases or receives. And, therefore, no officer can complain that any rule has been applied to him which he had no reason to expect would be applicable when he entered the service. I cannot agree to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, because it would limit most inconveniently the discretion of those who have to form a Government with regard to the distribution of offices. I will say, fairly, that perhaps it is not in itself desirable that those at the head of the great expending Departments—the army and navy—should both happen to be in the House of Lords. That, however, is a circumstance arising from peculiar accidents, and also from the peculiar fitness of the individuals for the offices which they hold. But I maintain that both with regard to the army and the navy, those who represent the Departments in this House, as far as details go, are just as competent to give explanations to the House as the Heads of those Departments; and that the aggregate Government, the Government as a body, are responsible one for the other, just as the Heads of the Departments impugned are responsible for the Departments which they respectively represent. Therefore, as regards any constitutional check essential to the working of our institutions, I maintain that it is perfectly intact and just as effective whether the Head of the Department is in this House or not. For these reasons I hope the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member. If carried, it would be introducing an entirely new principle; it would embarrass the action of those charged from time to time with forming a new Government, and it would not forward any constitutional purpose, while the sense of Parliamentary responsibility is as strong and valuable under the present system as under the one which he proposes to introduce.

said, he wished to say one word in explanation of the reason why the Government could not grant, as an unopposed return, a Motion which the hon. Member had put down for that evening. The hon. Member asked for the names of all those officers who had been removed or placed on half-pay without a fair trial. It would be extremely invidious to give such a return. There was no reason why officers removed or placed on half-pay should have that punishment aggravated by the fact of publicity. Although, as he had before stated, the cases in which officers had been actually removed and placed on half-pay were very rare, cases had occurred much more frequently in which the officer, rather than be exposed to any steps of the kind, thought it right to make a formal application to be placed on half-pay. It would be very unjust to officers that their names should be given, yet in both cases the ground of interference was the same. His noble Friend at the head of the Government had so completely explained the meaning of the answer which he gave the other night as to the responsibility of the Department that he did not feel it necessary to add anything further upon that subject.

said, that what his Motion asked for was the names of officers whose retirement had been compulsory.

who had given Notice to call attention to the state of the Ancient Records of Ireland, and to move—

"That it is the opinion of this House that measures should be taken for their publication as has been for the publication of the Reocrds of England and Scotland,"

said, the subject was of such importance that the Master of the Rolls in England had brought the matter under the notice of the Government. In Ireland the transcription and translation of its ancient documents and Records had been intrusted to Mr. Morrin. His work met with much criticism; he was accused of plagiarism, and an inquiry was, in consequence, set on foot by the Irish Executive. Every one would of course admit that the value of such a work depended on the fulness and accuracy of the translations; but, owing to the small amount of money which had been allowed by the Government for the purpose, Mr. Morrin had been obliged in some cases to make a condensation instead of giving a full translation of the Record. Objection having been taken to this as diminishing the value of the translation, a Commission of Inquiry was appointed, which admitted some inaccuracies and plagiarisms, but declared that the work, as a whole, was very creditable. Under these circumstances, he wished to know what the Government now proposed to do in the matter. It was the bounden duty of the Government to have a perfect set of these works issued, and to do that for Ireland which had been done in the case of England and Scotland. At present the Rolls published came down to Henry VIII., Elizabeth, and Charles, but a gap occurred at the reign of James I., which he need not inform Gentlemen at all acquainted with the subject was a most interesting period of Irish history. There were no less than 1,200 statutes of the Irish Parliament still unpublished, and it would be of great advantage in an historical point of view if they were given to the public in a collected form. In England as much as £22,000 a year for several years, or £600,000 in all, had been voted for purposes similar to those which he now advocated. In Scotland £143,000 had been granted for the like object; but in Ireland only £15,000 had been voted, and even that amount was to be applied mainly to the construction of a building to contain the Records. But it was not merely their custody but their publication that was desirable. He wished to impress on the Government that the time within which it would be possible for them to collect a staff of gentlemen capable of undertaking the work which he indicated was rapidly passing away.

said, he had intended to support the Motion. He complained that no encouragement was given to the study of Irish literature, and that no effort had been made by the Government to supply the places of the late Mr. O'Donovan and Mr. Eugene Curry, the most eminent Irish scholars which the country had produced. Now, whatever selection the Government should be pleased to make they ought to appoint men who could properly examine these documents and make a proper translation of them for publication. The system pursued in the government of Ireland would not be tolerated in England or Scotland. So far as the chief departments were concerned, the rule was that "no Irish need apply," and the Government thus put it out of their power to secure the services of gentlemen who, being acquainted with the country, would be able to advise them in every conjuncture. No other part of the country would submit to the system adopted in Ireland, and allow natives to be excluded from office. Englishman succeeded Englishman, and the only department at the head of which they found an Irishman was that of education. This was manifestly unfair, and no nation whose citizens were thus passed over and excluded from the management and administration of its affairs could be expected to be contented. They possessed the ablest arcæologist in the world in Ireland—he was the man most competent to perform the duties of calendaring and editing these records. If a new office were about to be created in regard to the Irish records, he trusted that, as an Irishman might be found who was highly competent to discharge the duties of the office, he would not be passed over.

said, he believed there were only two archivists in Ireland. He was personally intimate with both of them, and he had asked them who there was to succeed them in the event of anything occurring to render a successor necessary? They both said they knew of no one but Mr. Stokes. But instead of appointing Mr. Stokes, the work of editing the Brehon laws was given to Professor Hard wick, who, like every Member in that House, he (Mr. Scully) included, was profoundly ignorant of Irish. If the publication of these old musty records were good for Scotland and England, as illustrating the ancient history of those countries, it would be equally good for Ireland. He had no candidate to recommend for the appointment of editing these records, but he hoped a competent person would be selected.

said, that it was not necessary to re-open the controversy with respect to Mr. Morrin. He had been selected by the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Master of the Rolls, to edit and publish the Calendar of the Patent Rolls of the Chancery in Ireland. He published three volumes, which, with the preface, were severely criticized in a certain pamphlet. In fulfilment of a pledge made in that House, the Treasury sent the Rev. Duffus Hardy and Mr. Brewer to examine the work of Mr. Morrin and compare it with the original records of the Calendar. Their report, on the whole, was favourable to Mr. Morrin, and the Government gave their sanction to the completion of the work. After the manner, however, in which the work had been handled, Mr. Morrin thought it better not to proceed with it, and since then no steps had been taken for the completion of the Calendar of the Rolls of Chancery in Ire-laud. The Rolls of James I. had not been calendared by Mr. Morrin, but he believed that work had been already done, and all that was required was that these rolls should be printed uniformly with Mr. Morrill's work. The grants made by Parliament in previous years were intended to apply to Ireland as well as to other parts of the kingdom, and he knew that the Master of the Rolls had secured the publication of important papers illustrative of the history of Ireland. He thought that Irish members had every reason to be satisfied with the measures taken by the Government for the preservation and publication of Irish records. The Estimates of the present year abounded in items of this kind. The sum of £8,000 had been expended upon a commission for transcribing and translating the ancient Celtic laws, called the Brehon laws, and all that remained was to pass the work through the press. For that purpose the Estimates contained an item of £500, and a further provisipn for printing was contained in the stationery vote. There had also been this year an increase of the grant to the Royal Irish Society, specially to enable them to purchase any Celtic manuscripts, and to make copies of any that might be found, either in private collections in this country or on the Continent. With regard to the grant made to the Master of the Rolls in this country, he might say that it was intended to publish the second volume of the work, he believed, by Mr. Hans Hamilton, containing the domestic papers from the time of Henry VIII. to Elizabeth. In other parts of the estimates provision was made with respect to papers in the Lambeth and the Bodleian Library. The President of the College of Maynooth and Mr, Prendergast had been appointed to make the selection in the former case, and Mr. Bullen to prepare a calendar of papers in the Bodleian for the purpose of this work, which would be entirely confined to the illustration of the history of Ireland. All that was enough to show that the question of the publication of the records of Ireland was one which had received the attention of Government. But the most important thing of all was the step which was being taken to erect a Public Record Office in Ireland, in which the various important papers that were now scattered about should be collected. That building was on a scale large enough to receive all those records, it would be completed in the month of October next, and then it would be necessary to form a staff. It would be the business of the clerks to make an index of the papers, and he presumed the officer in charge of the department would take the same care as the Master of the Rolls in this country, to select the most competent persons to make compilations. He knew the interest which was taken in the subject by his hon, and gallant Friend, and be had no doubt the result would be satisfactory.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the House to this subject. It had transpired that the treaty had been already discussed in both the Prussian Chambers, and that though it had not been formally presented the ratification was now on its way. He had received from a traveller a copy, which be believed to be a true one, and it might not be uninteresting to call attention briefly to a few points in connection with it. The treaty might be described in a few words to be an engagement between Prussia and the Zollverein on the one hand, and Great Britain and her colonies on the other, to the effect that the two contract- ing parties should, with reference to trade and traders, he placed upon the footing of the most favoured nation. It was a declaration of reciprocity, and that only. But there was one very remarkable clause, the fifth, which contained this stipulation—

"The two contracting parties engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exportation."

It would be in the recollection of the House that when the French Treaty was discussed there was one clause which met with very serious animadversion, and that was the clause in which the Government of Great Britain undertook for a period of ten years not to prohibit the exportation of coal, and not to levy any duty upon it. That clause was so utterly devoid of any reason to support it that it was assumed on all sides to be the result of an oversight. He could not think, however, that the recurrence of a similar clause in this treaty was the result of an oversight. There were two ways in which this clause might be regarded In the first place, it might be said that the clause was totally unimportant, and therefore might pass without any notice whatever, or else that the conditions to which Great Britain had bound herself were in themselves impracticable, and that, in point of fact, we had promised nothing except what we were really obliged to concur in. He was not prepared to accept that solution, because it would mean that our Government had made a solemn compact on a point either which was really wholly unimportant or that we were practising a delusion on the other contracting parties. But let the House consider whether the point was so unimportant. In certain circumstances nothing could be more legitimate or useful than an export duty, and if they were to look for precedents, what should they find? They found that in almost every instance a new country had begun by levying a duty upon its exports, because they were the first means of raising a revenue through their trade. And what had been the course in Europe? He had been engaged in the Russian trade all his life, and he could perfectly well recollect that Russia had invariably levied an export duty upon her productions. This country had from time to time strongly protested and remonstrated against this as an infringement of the principles of free trade, but the reply always was to mind our own business. Russia had not been able to continue to levy uninterruptedly the same duties in consequence of the competition of other countries. India with its jute competed with her hemp, Australia competed with her in the production of tallow and hides, and thus Russia was forced to diminish her duties, and at present they were hardly noticeable. But we had an example nearer home. In India the late Financial Secretary, Sir Charles Trevelyan, had selected the four important articles of tea, wool, jute, and coffee for the purpose of raising a revenue. That proposal had met with the disapproval of the Secretary of State, and rightly, because in the present position of India there was not one of those articles on which a duty could be levied without some risk of arresting their production and consumption. Turning to the United States, we found that they were proposing to replenish their exhausted Treasury by levying a duty as high as 25 per cent on the export of cotton. Here we had instances in which important countries had taxed articles of annual production, which must, therefore, more or less, come into competition with the productions of the whole world. But there were other products of a different character not reproductive and not exposed to direct competition. There had been an export duty on Sicilian sulphur, but the Italian Government were obliged to diminish it, not owing to the competition of other sulphuric mines, but owing to the rivalry of chemical substitutes. The principle of export duties was by no means a new one, and although they required careful regulation, und that few countries were able to maintain them, yet when circumstances warranted their adoption, they were irreproachable. There were in England two commodities—coal and iron—the exports of which might be taxed without interfering with industry or checking the export of the commodity. In common with many economical writers he contended that they were both legitimate and advantageous subjects of taxation, because whatever duty was imposed on them was so much clear gain to the country, and, if kept within a moderate amount, it was a gain which carried with it not the slightest disturbance of trade, inflicted not the slightest injury upon the producers, and was so much tribute secured from the foreigner in return for our unexampled natural products. Coal and iron were gifts of Providence, and it was the duty of the Government to utilize these commodities for the benefit of the coun- try. From them a revenue of three-quarters of a million sterling might be derived without any countervailing disadvantage. It might be said that this was a selfish policy, and that we ought to allow foreigners to receive freely these products of ours. But did we find that foreigners were as forbearing in the admission of our products as we were in allowing the free export of those products? We were engaging not to tax the export of coal; but Belgium levied a duty of 9d. on the import of coal; France, 1s.; Turkey, 2s. 3d.; the Zollverein, 2s. 6d.; and Spain, 5s. 6d. There was no reciprocity in an arrangement binding us not to tax the export of one of our staple commodities, while the contracting parties taxed it so seriously. He did not wish to advocate a selfish or narrow policy, but coal and iron were essential to the manufacturing industry of the age; they were also essential elements in war, and the country which could command them more readily than her neighbours would be best able to maintain her supremacy. Why, then, should we bind ourselves to cede untaxed these essential elements of commercial, manufacturing, and warlike superiority to other countries without any equivalent consideration in their engagements? In this treaty there was not the slightest consideration for the concession that was made. Much had been said lately of the hardships of the paper manufacturers arising from the fact that foreign countries levied upon the export of rags a very large percentage of duty, amounting, in the case of the Zollverein, to £5 per ton. Now, when we were undertaking to let the Zollverein have our coals free of duty, it would not have been too much to ask that the Zollverein should let us have their rags free of duty. Passing, however, from the commercial and fiscal question involved, he objected to a treaty which placed a continuous and serious embarrassment in the way of the Government of this country for years to come. What right had any Government in a treaty to tie the hands of its successors for twelve years to come in dealing with the important article of coal? If it were necessary to touch the question at all, surely the Government might have been satisfied to extend to the Zollverein the same indulgence as was extended to France. The clause of the French Treaty by which we undertook to put no export duty on coal would terminate in five years, as five had already run, and under the most favoured nation clause the Zollverein would have enjoyed the same privilege; but this treaty was to last for twelve years, and during this time the Government had abdicated the right of regulating our revenue with reference to coal. He should like to know with whom the clause originated. Was it proposed by our Government or by Prussia, or by some of the minor States? Was it Hanover or House or Oldenburg that proposed it? Hanover was a coal-producing country. Now, suppose Hanover could only produce coals at 17s. 6d. per ton, and Prussia could import them from this country at 15s., Prussia might impose an import duty of 2s. 6d., bringing up the cost to the producer to the price at which Hanover could supply them. It was monstrous to let an article go untaxed from here, and be taxed on arriving at the other side of the water for the sake of the local producers of the same commodity. Had any concession been promised in return for the clause? He did not wish to ask for correspondence, which it might be unusual or inconvenient to produce; but he wanted to know how this remarkable fiscal blunder had originated, how these treaties were got up, who was responsible for them, and what was their object. Did they originate with the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office? Was there an itinerant mission going through the Continent making treaties in an arbitrary dilettante manner? The Austrian Treaty was supposed to be on the stocks, and the issue might be a document of a similar nature. It was therefore important to know who was responsible for arrangements which embarrassed the Government, impaired the internal management of the nation, and conferred advantages upon foreign countries without any consideration in their engagements towards us.

said, he was afraid that if his hon. Friend were to propose an export duty on coal he would find much greater difficulty than he imagined in getting the consent of Parliament to such a proposal. Years ago an export duty on coal was deliberately given up by Parliament as an impolitic tax, as a failure in point of revenue, and as an impost that pressed injuriously upon a great branch of industry. Coal was only won by human industry; and if the colliers were prevented from selling the produce of their industry in the best market by the imposition of an export duty you would be inflicting upon large bodies of persons a very great injustice. The propriety of such a course was fully discussed when the French Treaty was before the House, and the special clause relating to the free exportation of coal was then approved by large majorities in both Houses of Parliament, though speeches against it might have been made at the time. It was well known at the time of making the French Treaty, as it was well known at the present time, that this country had no intention either of prohibiting the duty on coal or of putting an export duty upon it, and there could be no objection whatever to our giving an undertaking not to do that which we never intended doing. The commercial world would have greatly blamed the Government had they, for the sake of some pedantic doctrine with respect to the export of coal, refused a treaty which would confer such valuable privileges upon our commerce. By the most favoured nation clause in the Zollverein Treaty this country fully participated in all the benefits conceded by the Zollverein in recent treaties to France, Belgium, and Austria, advantages gained by them after years of negotiation and after yielding large tariff equivalents. The advantages we gained by the most favoured nation clause, which without the trifling concession of the export of coals we should never have obtained, were, first, a reduction on the German tariff on cotton goods from 50 thalers per ceutner, to a range from 12 to 34; on tissues of wool from 20 and 50 to 15 and 34; on silk, from 110 to 50; on linen, from 20 to 12; and on earthenware, from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, and some minor articles formerly subject to duties were now to be admitted free. The hon. Gentleman was, therefore, wrong in saying that the Zollverein had made us no equivalent concession in return for the insertion of this clause, which gave that country the assurance that for a limited time we should not place an export duty upon coal. With reference to the question the hon. Gentleman raised as to this clause being an interference with the belligerent rights of the Crown, on the ground that it would tie the hands of the Government by depriving them of the power of prohibiting the export of coal in time of war, he stated, upon the highest authority, that no commercial treaty could affect the belligerent rights of the Crown. When this point was raised in the House of Lords, on the insertion of the clause in the French Treaty, the Lord Chancellor said—

"The article would not in any way interfere with the belligerent rights of the Crown. The Treaty was exclusively a Commercial Treaty, and, like all other treaties, was to be interpreted according to the true intent of the parties."—[3 Hansard, clvii. 635.]

And that intention, as recorded in the preamble in the light of which the treaty must be read, was to extend the relations of commerce between the two countries. The power of the Crown to prohibit coal as a munition of war was inherent, and was in no way affected by this engagement to permit the export of coal for the purposes of trade. Seeing that the clause in question was identical with the one contained in the French Treaty, which received the deliberate sanction of both Houses of Parliament, and what important commercial advantages this country would derive from the operation of the treaty, he thought the view taken by the hon. Member on the subject was quite wrong, and that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had acted most judiciously in making the treaty in question. When the treaty was ratified Government would have no objection to lay the correspondence asked for by the hon. Gentleman upon the table, but at present it would not be advisable to do so.

said, he had an Amendment to propose in Clause 13, which he believed took precedence of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington). In 1862 Sir Richard Bromley, now one of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, held the office of Accountant General of the Navy, with a salary of £1,000 a year, and an allowance of £300 a year for a house, making £1,300. He also held the important office of Auditor of Prize Accounts, with a salary of £300 a year, which brought his official income up to £1,600. His health having become somewhat impaired from the labours of his office in which he had conducted himself to the satisfaction of all who had been officially connected with him, in the early part of 1863 he accepted the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, at a salary of £600 a year, with allowances of different kinds, amounting to something more than £200 a year. On his thus vacating the office of Accountant General of the Navy he received a special retiring allowance of £1,000 a year, being about £300 a year more than he was strictly entitled to, and it was declared that the Commissioner ship of Greenwich Hospital must be treated as a public office within the meaning of the Act. His salary as Commissioner, with his superannuation allowance, amounted accordingly to £1,300 a year, and he still continued by leave of the First Lord of the Admiralty to enjoy the emolument of £300 a year as Auditor of Prize Accounts. Under this Bill it was proposed that the Commissionership should cease, and the effect would be, as the clause stood, that Sir Richard Bromley would continue to receive £1,600 a year so long as he held his office of auditor of Prize Accounts. That appeared to the Government to be a fair arrangement; but it had been stated that he was entitled to receive more— namely, £715 in respect of his former appointment of Accountant General, and £800 in respect of the Commissionership, or between £l,500 or £1,600 a year, besides his salary of £300 a year as Auditor of Prize Money. This idea was founded on a supposed illegality in the condition, in the grant of pension, as to the Commissionership being an office within the Act. In order, therefore, to prevent Clause 13 from having a retrospective effect in respect of the superannuation allowance, he was now about to propose certain verbal Amendments. The clause provided—

"That if any Commissioner or any officer who is removed from office as aforesaid is at the commencement of this Act in receipt of any superannuation allowance in respect of any former employment in the civil service of the Crown, he shall be entitled to continue to receive, in addition to such annuity as aforesaid, the amount of superannuation allowance of which he is at the commencement of this Act in receipt, and no more."

He proposed to leave out the words "in receipt," where it first occurred, and insert "entitled to receive in addition to the salary of his office," to leave out the word "of" after "allowance," and in the last part of the clause to leave out "in receipt," and insert "so entitled to receive." So that whatever amount of superannuation allowances Sir Richard Bromley was entitled to in addition to the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital he would still be entitled to receive after the vacation of that office. He begged to move the first of these Amendments.

said, he rose to move that the clause be struck out, and submitted that the Treasury had deprived Sir Richard Bromley—a most able and distinguished public servant—of £233 a year, to which he had an absolute legal claim. He asked the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether this was not so. He could not help remarking upon the extraordinary and unexpected course which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had just taken. He was sorry to see that the Government had inserted in a Bill placed before that House a clause which he could describe in no other terms than as a shameful clause. The Bill was introduced many weeks ago, and the omission of this clause was moved by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto). The Government resisted the Motion, and had persistently adhered to the clause. The clause in the Bill, as it originally stood, had for its object to debar a meritorious and distinguished public servant from seeking a remedy in the Courts of Law. The Government must have introduced this clause under an erroneous impression, for the House would not have tolerated such treatment of any subject of Her Majesty. However, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had seen right to change his course, and this change must be attributed to a conversation which he (Sir John Pakington) had with the Attorney General on Thursday last. He felt so clearly the nature and mischief of the clause that he drew the attention of the Attorney General to it, and asked him if he were conversant with the facts of the case, as he could not believe the House would tolerate such an injustice as was sought to be effected by this clause. After this conversation the clause which had stood for weeks in the unjust shape was changed so as to leave Sir Richard Bromley open to sue the Government in a Court of Justice. It was evident that the Attorney General saw the unreasonableness of the original clause. But the House had a right to be informed of the nature of Sir Richard Bromley's case. A Minute of the Treasury was passed in 1854 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when Sir Richard Bromley was appointed to the office of Accountant General of the Navy, in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognized the services of Sir Richard Bromley during the Irish famine, and mentioned eleven instances in which that gentleman had performed essential service to the country, apart from his official duties, and gratuitously. The Minute went on to say that those services ought to establish his claim to a special reward, and ought to be taken into consideration when the amount of his retiring allowance came to he settled. He (Sir John Pakington) in 1858 found Sir Richard Bromley as Accountant General of the Navy, and about this time his health gave way, and it became so impaired that it was necessary to give him a long leave of absence. On that occasion a Minute was drawn up at the Admiralty in which he (Sir John Pakington) thought it due to Sir Richard Bromley to express his sense of the manner in which this able officer had discharged his duties, and that such a series of special services established a claim to special acknowledgment and reward and the highest superannuation allowance consistent with the existing regulations. Sir Richard Bromley was then allowed a long leave of absence, and his health was restored; he returned to his duties and continued to act for two or three years as Accountant General until his health again broke down from the multifarious duties which for a long series of years he had performed. In 1862 he asked the Duke of Somerset to increase his salary by £500 a year for additional duties placed upon him, and the Duke of Somerset replied that he wished him to go to Greenwich Hospital with a view to reform it, and that this would be his reward. In October, 1862, Sir Richard Bromley expressed to the Duke of Somerset that if it was his Grace's pleasure to appoint him a Civil Commissioner of the Hospital he should be happy to accept it, as he could hold it with his pension. In December, 1862, Mr. Whitbread, the Lord of the Admiralty, by the direction of the Duke of Somerset, again asked Sir Richard Bromley if he would go to Greenwich Hospital, and Sir Richard Bromley, on the 9th December, replied that he was willing, as he felt the work of his present office too harrassing to go on with after thirty-three years of service, and he could hold the Commissionership, with his pension, as others had done. In this he alluded to Lord Auckland and Sir Thomas Thompson, both of whom held the office with an untouched pension. In February, 1863, Captain Drummond and Lord Clarence Paget spoke to him on the subject, and on the 19th of March, Captain Ryder, the Private Secretary of the Duke of Somerset, wrote that he was directed to inform him that it was the pleasure of the Queen to approve of his being appointed to a Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital. Thus this office was offered to Sir Richard Bromley without conditions, and was accepted by him on the principle that he was entitled to hold his full pension. In April, 1863, Sir Richard Bromley wrote to the Secretary of the Admiralty resigning his office of Accountant General, applying for his pension to be granted him, and the Board of Admiralty passed a Minute recommending his pension to be fixed at the largest amount consistent with the law, which would be £1,300 a year. At the moment the Board of Admiralty recommended the highest amount of pension to Sir Richard Bromley he was in possession of his appointment at Greenwich Hospital, In their Minute of July, 1863, the Treasury said that under the Superannuation Act he was entitled to £715 a year, but added that with a view to mark the sense entertained of Sir Richard Bromley's eminent and special services, and with the understanding that the Superannuation Act applied to his appointment in Greenwich Hospital, his allowance would be fixed at £1,000 per annum. Now, was Greenwich Hospital under the Superannuation Act? He (Sir John Pakington) did not think any Member of the Treasury Bench would say it was. The Government had unjustly and illegally endeavoured to override the Act of Parliament by introducing a condition of this kind, and to set up their own decision in opposition to the Superannuation Act. Professing to give Sir Richard Bromley £1,000 a year they had practically reduced his pension to £481, although he had a positive legal right under the Superannuation Act to £715 a year. He admitted that Sir Richard Bromley had no absolute right to the £1,000 promised him, and that to give him that sum would be an act of grace and favour on the part of the Treasury for which he would be grateful; but if he applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus the Treasury might be compelled to pay him the £715 a year, to which he was entitled under the Superannuation Act. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Childers) had consented to alter the clause so as no longer to preclude Sir Richard Bromley from asserting his right in a court of law; and he therefore appealed to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, whether it was not better that a claim of that kind, on the part of a distinguished public servant, should be met by the generosity and good feeling of the Government rather than that he should be driven to establish it against them in a Court of Justice. The clause applied to Sir Richard Bromley and to him only, and its sole effect had been to keep him out of a court of law. The words having that effect being, however, now abandoned, he asked what was the object of retaining the clause at all? He hoped the House would support him in his endeavour to have the clause struck out altogether, as a record against an attempt to deprive a distinguished officer of his rights. He moved the rejection of the clause.

said, he was at a loss to understand what object the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) could have in objecting to a clause which he himself acknowledged afforded sufficient security for perfect justice being done to the gentleman whose name he had mentioned. It was not at any time the intention of the Government to interfere with any legal right which Sir Richard Bromley might be able to establish, and he did not believe that the original words of the clause would have been construed in a court as having that effect; but the moment they found that those words were thought to be in the least degree ambiguous they had endeavoured to amend them, so as to obviate the possibility of any such construction being put upon them, and to leave Sir Richard Bromley with all his legal rights entirely untouched. If that gentleman was able to satisfy the Government that he had the lights which he claimed without having recourse to a Court of Law, they would admit them; but if he was unable to satisfy them on that point, or to establish his claim in a Court of Law, surely the House would not go out of its way to give him that to which, upon that hypothesis, he was not legally entitled. The whole circumstances of the arrangement had not, he believed, been fully stated by the right hon. Gentleman. As far as his (the Attorney General's) information went, he believed that the arrangement forgiving the appointment of Greenwich Hospital, and the pension, were parts of the same transaction. With regard to the question of law, having done his best to make himself master of it, he must say he thought that question was by no means so clear as it appeared to be to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Putting aside all questions of form, the question was whether the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital was an office in a Public Department within the meaning of the 20th section of the Superannuation Act. He had looked into that Act, but did not feel competent, without further consideration, to pronounce a decided opinion. If he looked at the list of Public Departments mentioned in the Act, he agreed that Greenwich Hospital was not one of those Public Departments, but it would be erroneous to decide upon the meaning of the words "public department" with reference to that clause only. No doubt Greenwich Hospital was not mentioned in the Act. No doubt the 14th section said that superannuation allowances were to extend to all civil offices and Departments of State set forth and enumerated in the schedule. But it did not stop there, for the same section gave power to the Lords of the Treasury to add to the list of Departments any others which then existed or should thereafter exist, and to place them under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, those enumerated in the Act did not exhaust the list of Public Departments. The question required examination whether Greenwich Hospital had or had not been treated as a Public Department. He was not prepared to say decidedly whether the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital had been treated as a public office. Seeing that the payment on account of the office was not voted by Parliament, nor did it come out of the Consolidated Fund, he thought those were, at first sight, arguments in favour of the view of the right hon. Gentleman. But he did not think that these arguments were of necessity conclusive, and the House would be ill-advised if it were to come to a vote upon an assumption of the question when the rights of Sir Richard Bromley had been strictly preserved to him by the clause in the Bill.

said, he was sure that the Government had acted under some misapprehension in this matter. He agreed that they ought not there to discuss a question of law; but he was also sure that when the hon. and learned gentleman (the Attorney General) had considered the terms of the statute of William IV. he would at once see that the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital was not within that Act. He would state shortly the facts. When Sir Richard Bromley, after thirty-two years' service, was desirous of retiring from the office of Accountant General of the Navy, his services had been recorded in successive Minutes of the Admiralty and of the Treasury, and it was said that those services entitled him to the highest pension consistent with existing regulations whenever he should retire. He had performed many gratuitous services, and the Government had expressed a desire to reward him for them, and it was a question whether he should receive a considerable increase of salary; but instead of this course being acted on, he, at the suggestion of the Duke of Somerset, accepted the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital. Sir Richard Bromley had accepted the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital on the understanding that he was to receive £1,000 a year, or £285 more than he was legally entitled to as retiring Accountant General. On 1st April, 1863, when Sir Richard Bromley resigned the office of Accountant General, he was entitled by law to a permanent retiring pension of £715 a year; and, upon accepting the office of Commissioner, he became legally entitled to £818 a year more, making his total income £1,533 a year. This was undisputed. But the Government had offered him £1,000 a year, or £285 more than the £715 to which he was legally entitled. Such were his legal rights on the 1st April, 1863, when he resigned his office. He applied for his pension, and he hoped in addition to receive something from the grace and favour of the Government for his meritorious services. He applied, and then the Treasury made tills Minute. It recited his services, and the records of those services by the Treasury and the Admiralty, and then it recited that his permanent retiring allowance had been fixed at the highest amount. It went on —

"My Lords therefore feel that the case is eminently one to be dealt with under the 9th section of the Superannuation Act of 1859."

The question he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government was, whether or not they intended to give Sir Richard Bromley £285 per annum, according to the recommendation of the Admiralty, beyond what he was strictly entitled to? Unfortunately, the Government had annexed the condition that the office was to be deemed to be within the Act of William IV., and by so doing, instead of giving Sir Richard Bromley the £285 per annum, for his extraordinary services, in addition to the £1,533 to which he was legally entitled, they had actually despoiled him of £235 per annum, out of the £1,533 per annum to which he was legally entitled. As the office was not within the Act of William IV., let the Government grant him a pension of £1,000 a year according to the statute, without more, and Sir Richard Bromley would receive the reward they professed to give him of £285 a year in addition to that to which he was legally entitled. If the office was within the Act, which cannot be seriously contended, the Minute was superfluous, and unnecessary.

said, he would explain why the clause had boon inserted, It was the principle of the Superannuation Act that an officer receiving superannuation and appointed to another office, should not draw more of his superannuation allowance than would make up the salary of his new office to his former salary. But it was necessary to provide that, on being a second time removed from office, the annuity should stand in the same position as the second salary. If the clause was not inserted in the Bill, Sir Richard Bromley would, apparently, be able to claim to have no deduction made from his superannuation, whatever deduction was legally made from it while he held office. Thus he would, receive more for doing nothing, than while in office; a state of things which he felt the House would be indisposed to tolerate. Sir Richard Bromley was at present in receipt of a total sum of £1,600, and that income, so long as he is Auditor of Prize Accounts, he would still retain. With respect to the supposed hardship of the Treasury decision, he was obliged to explain to the House that at Sir Richard Bromley's request, the Duke of Somerset had already made up to him all he could claim. On the 12th of June, 1863, and subsequently to his acceptance of the office of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital, Sir Richard Bromley wrote to the Duke of Somerset stating that he understood that a pension had been granted to him of £1,000 a year, calculated upon his salary of £1,300 a year. Sir Richard Bromley complained of the condition which was insisted on—that his salary as Commissioner of the Hospital and his pension together should not exceed the £1,300 a year which he had previously enjoyed as Accountant General of the Navy. He then requested to be allowed to retain his £300 as Auditor of Prize Accounts, an office which he regarded as having been conferred upon him personally, and not in his capacity of Accountant General. In accordance with this request he was allowed to retain the office of Auditor, which till then had been combined with that of Accountant General, and it enabled him to receive the £1,600 which he had before received. He (Mr. Childers) asked whether that proposal of Sir Richard Bromley—in consequence of the decision of the Treasury—and the acceptance of the proposal by the Duke of Somerset to allow him to receive £1,600 per annum up to this time, as provided in the Bill, did not do justice to that officer.

said, he wished to say a few words, as the justice of Her Majesty's Government had been called into question. With regard to the liberality of the Government, he might state that if Sir Richard Bromley had retired from the office of Accountant General of the Navy on his superannuation allowance, and had afterwards been appointed to the Commissionership of Greenwich Hospital and superannuated or pensioned on the abolition of that office, he would be in a better position than if the Minute which had been referred to had not been made. The Minute intended to make a liberal arrangement for Sir Richard Bromley, but it was rather an injury to him than a favour. He hoped, after what had fallen from the Attorney General and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), the case would be fairly considered by the Government, and that the House would be spared the necessity of dividing on the clause, on the understanding that Sir Richard Bromley's legal rights, whatever they were, would be preserved to him.

said, he hoped after what had fallen from the Attorney General, who had dealt very fairly with the case, that the Government would concede to Sir Richard Bromley whatever was due to him in point of law.

said, he was not prepared to enter into any condition.

said, he opposed the Motion. If it were really necessary at this late period of the Session to pass a measure on the subject it ought only to be a continuance Bill for a single year. Let a Bill for the registration of arms be separately introduced; and let them no longer be compelled, as they had been at the Tipperary assizes, to convict lads simply for having percussion caps or bullets in their pocket.

said, he opposed this Bill, as he had constantly done for years, believing that it degraded the people of Ireland. Originally this had been called a Crime and Outrage Bill. The necessity for it had long passed away, and the only effect of it was to irritate the people and to perpetuate the oppression of which they justly complained. There were trials going on under it in Ireland that would disgrace any part of the world.

said, he opposed the Bill, on the ground that it was an instance of exceptional legislation for which no necessity whatever had been shown.

said, he thought it highly satisfactory that the Bill had been opposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), a resident proprietor in Tipperary, who would have been the first to support the Bill had there been any real necessity for it. When the Bill was brought in the Chief Secretary admitted the peaceable state of the country, and therefore the right hon. Baronet ought at least to make the concession suggested by the hon. Member for Clonmel.

said, he had voted for the Bill on a former evening, but hoped now the right hon. Baronet would be content to pass it for one year.

said, that the Bill was proposed to be passed for the smallest possible period, that was to the end of the next Session. As to the general state of the country, everybody would admit that it was most peaceable. For instance, in 1853, there were a thousand prisoners in gaol in Clonmel, but in the present year there were only sixty-three. That showed conclusively the great improvement which had taken place in the county of Tipperary. This Bill was proposed to be reserved only by way of precaution. There were certain baronies in Mayo, Galway, and Monaghan, and after communicating with the magistrates the Lord Lieutenant in Council would be prepared to take away the proclamations from those baronies. He trusted the House would consent to pass the Bill.

said, he wished to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet would consent to withdraw the proclamation from the county of Tipperary, which he had stated to be so peaceable?

said, the magistrates of Tipperary had made no representation on the subject.

said, the right hon. Baronet had given a most admirable description of the state of Ireland, and it was well that the fact should go forth to the English people, because it was said that capital was kept away as there was no security in Ireland. The peaceable state of Ireland, however, was no justification for a coercion Bill. The existence of former Governments depended on the introduction of such a Bill, but now the Chief Secretary rose and proposed a coercion Bill as easily as he performed the very homely personal function described the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). Persons engaged in an illegal marching at Ballincollig had some time since been brought before Mr. Justice Keogh, and the common law of the country was found sufficient for their punishment. It would be wise policy of the Government to show their increased confidence in the people of Ireland by not again passing this measure, as there was no necessity for it. If the Government could show no necessity for the Bill, hon. Gentlemen were justified in opposing it. As the right hon. Baronet had not consented to limit the operation of the Bill he should move that it be read a second time on that day three months.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) in the earlier part of the Session had made a statement that there was great disaffection in Ireland, and that being so, it was a sufficient justification of the Bill.

said, that he had waited with the greatest anxiety to hear what grounds the Chief Secretary for Ireland would allege in defence of a Bill which he could not help denominating a very exceptional and unconstitutional one, and the only reason which he had heard him assign for adopting this measure was that it had been in force before, and, therefore, it might as well be continued. He had paid some attention to the judicial statistics of Ireland, and they certainly afforded no justification for passing such a Bill as this. When a district was proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, any man who had in his possession any part of a gun or an ounce of powder was liable to twelve months' imprisonment; any body who met another body upon the road with such a thing might take it from him, and any policeman might search any man, woman, or child, turn them up, and see whether they had anything of the kind about them. The Government could, by means of these proclamations, put a perpetual blister upon any part of Ireland in the shape of an extra police force to be paid by the district. He was surprised to hear the Chief Secretary say the other night that the noble Lord the Member for the county of Mayo had told him that the gentlemen of that county thought that a proclamation now in force there might be removed, and that, therefore, he should write to the Lord Lieutenant on the following day to ask him to recall it.

said, that what he had said was, that he had communicated with the noble Lord, who said that he would make inquiries of the magistrates, and let him know whether they thought the proclamation might be withdrawn.

said, that the words of the right hon. Baronet, as he understood them, and as they were reported in The Times, which generally pretty accurately reported the debates in that House, were that he—

"Had been in communication with his noble Friend the Member for the county of Mayo upon the subject of the proclamation, which had been in force since 1861, and he intended to inform the Lord Lieutenant that in the opinion of the gentlemen of that county there was no reason why it should not be revoked."

If this was the way that proclamations were recalled, perhaps they were sometimes issued under parallel circumstances. During the five years preceding 1851 the number of criminals indicted in Ireland was 130,000; during the five years ending 1863 the numbers had dwindled down to about 29,000. This was a most remarkable change. The people were flying from the land as if it was a pesthouse, and was that to be wondered at when such laws as this were in force? In Ireland there was a policeman to every 420 people, while in England the proportion was only one to every 880 or 890. Surely with such a force of police and the powers given to them by the ordinary laws the Government could preserve the peace of the country. As he had heard no reason for the passing of this Bill, he should vote against the second reading.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had not correctly apprehended the argument of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary What his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) said was that it was the intention of the Lord Lieutenant, in communication with the lieutenants and magistrates of counties, to see how many of the proclamations now in force could be safely withdrawn; but that was a very different thing from allowing them all to lapse by the expiration of the Act of Parliament which this Bill was intended to renew. Such neglect might be attended with the most disastrous consequences. All that was now asked was that time might be allowed for the further consideration of the state of Ireland with a view to see whether it would be necessary to retain that Act. The Government hoped that it would not, but that must depend upon the state of the country. In the meantime the continuance was only sought for a year, and till the end of the then next Session of Parliament, the shortest period for which it was the practice to take annual continuance Bills.

said, that under this Bill the Act would remain in force during the whole of] 866 and until the end of the Session of 1867—that was, till August, 1867. The proposal which would satisfy everyone was that it should be renewed only till the end of 1866.

said, he had formerly drawn attention to the memorial of Sir Francis Head, asking that his claims should be considered; but it now appeared that the Government were unwilling to make any special provision in his favour. Under these circumstances he had received the following letter from Sir Francis, asking that his case should not be pressed:—

"Croydon, June 6, 1865.

"My dear Sir William Jolliffe, — In cheerful submission to the adverse decision of Her Majesty's Government with respect to my services in Canada, which has just been privately communicated to me, I lose no time in expressing to you my earnest desire that you will kindly abstain from uttering in the House of Commons another word in my behalf. For, as my case is now hopeless, you will, I am sure, concur with me that it would ill become me to allow—if I can possibly prevent it—any Member of Parliament uselessly to interrupt, for a single moment, the unanimity with which the Colonial Governors Pension Bill will, I hope, without any further reference to my services, now pass into a law.

"Believe me to remain

"Yours faithfully and gratefully, "F. B. HEAD."

said, he wished to ask what rule had been adopted with regard to these pensions, and upon what principle the claims of Sir Francis Head had been rejected.

said, this Bill was based upon length of services, and the period of Sir Francis Head's service was extremely short. Last year he had given a pledge that the subject should be fully considered; so that, if they were unable to admit the claims of Sir Francis Head, the right hon. Gentleman opposite should have the opportunity of taking what course he felt inclined to take upon this Bill. Since then the case had been fully considered, and the Government thought it impossible to insert a clause providing for that particular case.

said, that Sir Francis Head's letter did that distinguished public servant great honour. He expressed his deep regret at the decision come to by the Government.

moved the insertion of words limiting the grant of these pensions out of the British Treasury to cases in which the salaries were a charge on the British Treasury. It was an act of absolute folly to charge the Imperial Revenue with pensions in cases where the salaries were payable by the colonies. The Bill was a continuation of the old vicious system by which the interests of the Crown and of the colonies were regarded as being separate.

said, the objections taken to the Bill were the same as those which were made on the second reading, and they had therefore already been disposed of by the House.

said, he wished to remind the House that it was already nearly a quarter to two o'clock, and that they had to meet again at twelve o'clock.

said, it would only take twenty minutes to go through the Bill.