The Sun. — London, England, 1860-07-20 00:00:00

THE SUN,'7:LONDON, FRIDAY f'''EVENING, JULY 120, 1860. came time he thought any legislation between landlord and enant dangerous. Mr. CARDWELL said that the real question was, whe ther they should consolidate the law between landlord and tenant, and his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Deasy) had taken great pains in effecting that consolidation. He (Mr. Cardwell) would not take on himself the responsibility of delaying this bill, which must rest with the committee. He appealed to the house to proceed with the discussion of the clauses of the bill without further delay. After some discussion, The O'DONOGHUE complained that the explanation given by the Attorney-General for Ireland was brief and 'unsatisfactory, and he had received communications from some of his constituents objecting to the bill. The house divided on the motion that the Chairman leave the chair— Ayes Noes Majority —BO The amendment was accordingly negatived. Clauses 1 to 30 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 31, which restricted the right of tenants to cropping or cutting on their land, Mr. M‘M.A.HON suggested that osiers, willows, and galleys should be excepted from the provision. Mr. DEASY said that if the statutable rights of the tenants were not protected by the clause, he would, on the bringing up of the report, make an amendment for the pur pose of reserving to tenants these rights. The amendment was negatived, and the clause, with some verbal alterations, was agreed to. The clauses to 35 were adopted. On the latter clause, Mr. P. URQUHART proposed its omission, and the house divided— For the clause . Against •••••P . 2l Majority On clause 36, some discussion arose, which was inter rupted at 10 minutes to 4. REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENSES (IRELAND) BILL. This bill was referred to the same committee, and the Chairman reported progress, and the house resumed. NEW MEMBER. Lord HAMILTON took the oaths aid his seat ;for Donegal. The sitting was suspended at 4 o'clock. The house resumed at 6 o'clock. WITHDRAWAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY BILL, The order of the day having been read, the house went into committee en this bill—Mr. Sergeant DEASY in the chair. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (who was at times very indistinctly heard) said—The committee will recollect the question before us when this bill was last under discussion was one of the very greatest importance. It was the question whether any person, be he a trader or non trader, shall be subject to the uniform system of administer ing the law of insolvency proposed to be established by this measure. Although this question may have never before been discussed in the House ef Commons, it has been the subject of repeated consideration out of this house during a period, I may say, of 30 years, and whether in the reports of commissioners, in the discussions in the other House of Parliament, or in the speeches of the most learned lords and jurists, there has been but one growing opinion, that it is incumbent on the Legislature, upon grounds both of justice and expediency, to do away with the distinction between the code of bankruptcy and the law relating to insolvent debtors, and to substitute for them one uniform system. (Hear, hear.) I believe in this country alone there prevails this peculiarity, that the man who is not a trader has no opportunity, as a general rule, of surrendering his estate for the purposes of an equal distribution among his creditors until he has been first committed to prison. The anomaly and injustice of this rule are most apparent. For what object should you imprison the honest debtor, who is desi rous of making a cessio bonorum for the benefit of his credi tors ? To what end is it that so many thousand persons are in this country annually committed to prison, only to be discharged again in a few weeks afterwards by the opera tion of the Insolvent Debtors Act ? Some efforts were made:for the amelioration ef this state of the law through the legislation introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, but, generally speaking, the rule I have described still obtains, and ac cordingly the debtor is compelled to submit to incarceration before he can do that which justice and expediency require that every man in a condition of insolvency should have facilities allowed to him for doing—viz., to surrender his property for distribution among his creditors. Now, with that view, I have proposed this enactment, which has been drawn up in very wide terms, because, while it would no doubt have been necessary to surround the provision with proper safeguards, I have felt that it ought to be left open to the discretion of the house. If this discussion had proceeded, it was my intention to have re • commended, in the first place, that the enactment should be entirely prospective—that is to say, that no existing debt (no debt contracted before the bill came into operation) should avail to support an adjudication of bankruptcy against any person who is a non-trader. It was the object of the measure to lay down some simple and unquestionable tests of insolvency which all would admit might have been justly applied to the non-trader. The tests of insolvency pro posed to be established by the bill are absconding from the country and remaining abroad with intent to defeat or delay the remedies of the creditors. I think no gentleman in this house would for a moment contend that an individual guilty of such conduct should not be deprived of his pro perty, and that property should not be taken by process of law for distribution among his creditors. Another test of insolvency proposed by the bill was the debtor's causing his property to be taken in execution, or suffering it to be so taken and disposed of, to the prejudice of the general body of his creditors. Now, no man who is possessed eithet of means or of credit would permit that to be done; and, therefore, I think such an act would be a very satis factory criterion of his insolvency. Another mode of arriv ing at the same result was that if a judgment were obtained against a non-trader, and he were after a certain period summoned and examined as to his means of paying that judgment, provided he did not dispute its validity, and it was proved that he had not sufficient property to satisfy it, then he should be liable to have his estate taken from him and divided among those who had just claims upon him. There is another test proposed by the bill, which has not been generally understood by the house, and which, as it has been the subject of much misrepresentation, the Com mittee will perhaps permit me for a moment to explain. It was intended by the measure to apply to the case of the non-trader those clauses in the existing Bankruptcy Act which are commonly denominated the debtors' clauses— that is to say, clauses which enable the creditors to summon the debtor before the Court of Bankruptcy, and call noon. him either to pay or satisfy the Court that he has the means of doing so. But I have not thought it fair to include them in this bill in the naked shape in which they exist in the bankruptcy statutes ; and accordingly the committee will observe, if they will torn to the bill, that no opportunity to make any demand of this kind against a debtor is given to any creditor who is not in a condition to prove to the Court that the debtor is in in solvent circumstances, and is seeking to evade his credi tors. I should have had no difficulty, if the bill proceeded, in confining this provision to the case of traders, and ex empting non-traders from its operation. If this result had been attained, the measure would have assumed this form, that no person who was not a trader would have been sub ject to its operation unless he was absconding or remaining away from this country, unless he was a judgment debtor without the means of paying his debts, or unless his pro perty was actually being so disposed of as to defraud his creditors. I have no doubt, therefore, that if the discussion had.gone on, the committee would have been satisfied with the guards and precautions introduced, or proposed to be introduced, by this measure. But, sir, reflecting on the anxiety manifested by the house it appeared to be incum bent on me to consider whether, supposing that I suc ceeded in satisfying the committee, and in inducing it to extend the bill to the case of the non-trader, still if the sub sequent provisions of the bill required so much time to be expended in their discussion that I could not carry the measure up to the House of Lords probably until the be ginning of August, it would be inconsistent with ordinary decency at that period of the year to send up a bill contain ing such novel and important provisions to the other house, and expect that assembly then to take them into its con sideration. I, therefore, could not avoid arriving at the conclusion that the House of Lords ought not to be placed in that situation. On the other hand, if I were not fortunate enough to carry with me the opinion of the committee, end these clauses were to be struck out, it would then be necessary to entirely recast the measure; because hon. members will do me the favour to recol lect that I have been encouraged to go on under the conviction that the house was favourable to this extension of the law. For, with the view of raising the ques tion, the second section of the bill proposed the abolition of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and had the committee been adverse to that extension, it might naturally have been sup posed that its feeling would have been expressed during the consideration of that clause. I was the more encouraged to 11 °1 3 0 that this alteration of the law would have met the ap l'r"al et the house because the same provision was con tained in the bill introduced by Lord Derby's Government, and thereforerle expected that it would h ave b een rece i ve d with the more general concurrence . I cannot, however, complain th at the house sh ou ld h ave v i ewe d th i s as a mat ter demandi ng the most careful deliberation, and we are therefore in this difileulty, that even if we succee d ed w i th the bill, we c ou ld not hope to finish it i n ti me f or it to undergo discussio n in theother if we railed there would equals: be On the other hand, insufficient house. time for b r inging the measur e f orward o r ended shape. I have therefore, with the approbation t i l t m Government, come unwillingly to the conclusion that abandon the bill. (Cheers.) I hope, bnwe is v :l r e . ceseary to subject has again to be considered, it will be found 'wh th en at t t h h is e attention already devoted to it has not been thrown away (Cheers from the Opposition.) I have gained considerable. experience from our discussions; and, if the task is not undertaken by more competent hands, I trust I shalt b e able in another sessio n to present this measure in less gi. gantic proportions, and embodying all its principles and objects in a more con( lensed form. (Hear, hear.) I trust it successor, at will be introd uce d, w . nether by myself or my an earlier period of the year, when it can receive the due consideration necessary to enable it to pass, for there is at growing and urgent demand for legislation upon this sub- lect. (Hear, hear.) I have only now to express my regret if, in my earnest anxiety to carry thisbill, I have ever seemed to evince any impatience towards the house. (Cheers.) I had hoped that during this session it would have been pos sible to make some important advance in the improvement of this branch of our law. Circumstances have, however, prevented it; and I trust I can say that nobody will be able to reproach me with having lost any fair opportunity for bringing this great question to a successful termination. (Cheers.) I move, sir, that you do now leave the chair with . , the view of proposing, when the house resumes, that the order of the day be discharged. Sir H. CAIRNS—I have so often ventured to express anxiety with regard to the progress of this bill that I am - _ sure the committee will believe me to be sincere when I say that I entirely concur in the regrets which have been ex• pressed by the Attorney-General at the necessity which has arisen for its postponement till another session. I do not mean to say one word by way of suggestion that the course which has been taken by the hon. and learned gentleman is not a necessary course, is not the most advisable one which he could have adopted. lam sure that the committee will respond entirely to the demand which the Attorney-General has made upon us, and will join with me in expressing the gratitude which is due to him for the pains and labour which he has bestowed upon this measure. (Hear, hear.) I cer tainly hope ihat those pains and that labour have not been thrown away, hut that at some future time the bill will be reintroduced and carried through this house. If I may venture to make a suggestion to the hon. and learned gentle men it is this, that, when the subject of the bankruptcy law again comes before the house, great advantage would be gained if the measure first presented was not a bill for con solidating the entire law of bankruptcy, but was confined to the changes proposed to be made in that law. Such a measure would distinctly raise the question as to the effect and the extent of those changes, and after it had been passed the consolidation of the law would be a matter of very little difficulty, In place a having a bill of 500 or 600 clauses brought before the house, we should in the first instance have one of some 50 or 100 clauses containing all the changes, and the larger measure would afterwards be treated more id a matter of routine than as one of discus sion. As my hon. and learned friend has referred to the bill which was brought in by the late Government, I think I may add that that was the course which was taken by the late Government, and I still think, as I thought then, that great advantage would have resulted from its adoption. The course taken was to lay before and pass through the other house a bill confined to the changes proposed to be made in the law, with the view and upon a statement that when that bill had passed both Houses of Parliament it should be followed by a general measure repealing all pre vious statutes and consolidating the law. Of course, I do not now propose to advert to my hon. and learned friend's proposal as to making non-traders liable to the bankrupt laws. I still think that, if accompanied, by efficient safe guards, it may safely be gone. What those safeguards are I will not now discuss. I must, before I sit down, say that it will be :natter of great regret to every one that the reso lution at which my hon. and learned friend has arrived has not been earlier communicated to this house. We /re here this evening apparently expecting a discussion upon the Bankruptcy Bill, and I greatly fear that a number of mem bers who are very much interested in the questions which are to come on upon going into Committee of Supply are not at all prepared for the change which has been made. I cannot help thinking that the resolution which has been come to must have been known to the Government for some time, and it would have been more convenient if it had been earlier announced what business was actually to be proceeded with to-night. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MALINS deeply regretted that circumstances had not enabled his hen. and learned friend to go on with this very valuable measure. At the same time he thought that his hon. and learned friend had exercised a sound discretion in abandoning it for the present. He had stated more than once in the house, as be had communicated to the Attor ney-General privately, that he was afraid that the time had come when if the measure were passed it would be so mu tilated, and would be deprived of so many of its most value. ble provisions, that it would confer upon the public but little benefit, and upon its author very little lasting reputa tion—very little, indeed, of that reputation to which the days and nights of labour which he had bestowed upon it entitled him. IHear.) By the course he had now taken, and by availing himself of the very valuable suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the debate, the Attorney-General would have an opportunity, if he intro duced the measure early next session, of passing it in such a form as would be advantageous to the public and most ho nourable to himself. The .suggestion which s had been thrown out by his hon. and learned' friend near him (Sir H. Cairns) as to the form in which the .'neasure should be re-intro duced was a most valuable one, and in his opinion the At torney-General would do well to adopt it. If he had the good fortune to be in the house next year he should do his utmost, as he had done this year, to assist in passing a mea sure which should embody the great principles which had been enunciated by his hon. and learned friend. He regretted that the house had not been earlier informed of the change in the business of the evening, but he was sure that if his hon. and learned friend could have communicated the in formation earlier he would have done so. Mr. HADFIELD was sorry that this bill could not be passed into law during the present session, but thought it much better that it should be withdrawn than that any further concession of its principles should be made. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I should have been extremely sorrow to be wanting in courtesy or attention to the house in this matter. The decision which I have an nounced was not arrived at until 2 o'clock to-day, and it was immediately intimated to the gentleman who is the usual organ of communication with hon. members opposite. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—I do not, of course, object to the withdrawal of this kill, but I entirely concur in the great admiration expressed by my hon. and learned friend the member for Belfast for the ability and labour which the Attorney-General has bestowed on the subject, and in the feeling of regret that the extraordinary course of business in the present session should have rendered necessary the abandonment of so valuable and important a measure. (Hear.) Nor can I help pointing out to the noble lord at the head of the Government and to the house the extreme inconvenience which must arise from the withdrawal of a public bill of this importance and magnitude in this sudden and unexpected manner, when the house has assembled with the intention of considering the measure in committee for several hours. The result must inevitably be to defeat the object:for which the order of our business is printed. I observe that the next order on the paper for this evening is the consideration of the navy estimates in committee of sup ply. Upon the motion for going into committee the hon. and gallant admiral the member fsr Southwark has given notice of his intention to call our attention to the subject of Greenwich Hospital, but my hon. and gallant friend is not now in his place, and in all probability he has no idea of the sudden change which has taken place. lam bound to accept the statement which the Attorney-General has made; but, on the other hand, I must remind him that it was mat ter of current rumour in this house on Monday and Tues day that Government had decided, or very nearly so, to withdraw the Bankruptcy Bill. Under these circumstances I would ask the noble lord at the head of the Government —who I must say conducts the business of the house gene rally with great courtesy and fairness—whether it is not desirable that Ministers should make up their minds upon matters of this importance a little sooner, so that the house should not be exposed to the serious inconvenience which must arise from sudden and unexpected changes in the course of business. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—I very much regret the incon venience, if any, to which the house may be put by the an nouncement which the Attorney .General has made. At the same time, I think the house would have been put to still greater inconvenience if we had persisted in asking the house to go into committee on the Bankruptcy Bill after we had resolved to withdraw it for the present session. (Hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—I did not ask you to do that. Lord PALMERSTON—I mean if we had invited the house to give a decision upon a material point of the bill while we were satisfied in our own minds that the measure could not be carried through. I think one statement which the right hon. baronet has made in some degree diminishes his complaint, because he says that, as far back as Monday and Tuesday, it was generally believed in this house that the bill was to be abandoned for the present session. If that be so, the announcement which the Attorney-General has made cannot have taken the right hon. baronet, at least,• wholly by surprise. Sir J. PAKINGTON—But the Bankruptcy Bill is on ;he paper for this even;ng. Lord PALMERSTON—It is. But all I can say is, that we attached so much importance to this measure that we were exceedingly re!uctant to give up the hope of being able to carry it through during the present session. We clung to that hope, perhaps, longer than reason would have justified. There are cases in which hope is said to survive reason; but, be that as it may, we were unwilling to with draw the bill until the conviction forced itself upon our minds that there was no reasonable expecta'ion of our being able to pass it in the present session. We almost came to that opinion yesterday, but our decision was made to depend upon a communication which I was to have with the Attor ney-General this morning. I had that communication ; I found that he entirely concurred in the conviction to which we had come ; and he has taken the earliest opportunity to state it to the house. (Hear, hear.) Those hon. members who are interested in the business of the house this even ing will naturally have looked at the orders. They will have seen that Committee of Supply was appointed to follow the Bankruptcy Bill. Suppose that the labours of the Attorney- General elsewhere had rendered him unable to go on with the bill to-day—not at all an unlikely thing to have happened—we should then have proceeded at once to the consideration of the navy estimates in com- 1 mittee of supply. Hon. members ought to take such con tingencies into account; at any rate nobody can complain that we should now go on with the next order of the day. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BOUVERIE joined in the regrets which had been expressed for the fate of the bill, and in the conviction that. that fate Was unavoidable. He c er t a i n ly thought that it would have been wiser to have divided the scheme into two s or thre e , easures, and te:rsoa , ; . , ..i.t the controverted matter into only one of them ; but he did not think that any time had been wasted in the discussion that had taken place. The great stumbling block in the way of the bill was the pro posed extension of bankruptcy to non-traders—a question which had been much debated by jurists, and for which the great bulk of the people were perhaps not yet prepared. It was the great advantage of our system that important changes could not be made at one jump. They must be dis cussed session after session, until they were settled; and when at length a conviction of their wisdom and necessity had forced itself upon the public mind there was no discon tent at their adoption. He hoped that neat session the hon. and learned gentleman would not only again launch his barque upon its " sea of troubles," but would carry it safe into port ; and that his name would be enrolled in the page of history as the author of one of the greatest improvements which had bees made in the commercial law of this coun- try. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CAYLEY defended the non-legal portion of the home for the opposition they had offered to the extension of the law of bankruptcy to persons not engaged in commerce. Mr. AYRTON hoped that before the hon and learned gentleman reintroduced his bill he would study the bank ruptcy codes of other countries. If he did so he would find there was no civilised nation in the world that did not make a distinction between the trading and the non-trading classes. He regretted to add that he would also find the English law of bankruptcy bare the worst reputation of any in Europe. Mr. HENLEY said he would congratulate the Attorney- General andthe Government upon the conclusion to which they had come, considering the period of the session, and that there were 400 and more clauses still remaining to be passed. The right hon. gentleman complained that the ob jection to the bill was not taken earlier. He (Mr. Henley) would state why he did not take it earlier. He quite agreed that for persons who were to be wound up, whether traders or non-traders, there ought to be but one court. But agreeing to this, he thought it was a very different thing from bringing into the Court of Bankruptcy every man who owed £2O, and who possibly did not want to be wound up. (Hear, hear.) The commercial community no doubt wanted the bankrupt law to be amended, they wanted their commercial arrangements brought under the regula tions of the court, and it was thought very desirable that there should be only one court for bankruptcy and insol vency. Now, these three subjects made a very large hand. ful to deal with at once, leaving out legislation with regard to the non-trading part of the community, and dealing with it at some more leisure time. As to the other parts of the question, irrespective of those he had mentioned, he believed the trading community were wholly neutral and indifferent. At the same time he could not help saying that he thought if any man were capable of getting through a bill of 500 and odd clauses, the hon. and leaiaed Attorney-General was the man. The clauses of the bill were drawn with great distinctness, and whether the house were disposed to assent to them or not, they could feel no doubt as to what the hon. and learned gentleman intended. He repeated that the clauses of the bill were drawn s th great ability and clearness—(hear, hear) —and he thought if any one could have passed such a bill it was the hon. and learned gentleman. But there were things in it so large that no man could have it in b;s power to roll them along. Day by day the difficulties of the hon. and leaLaed gentleman would have increased, until he found them insuperable. He (Mr. Henley) would further observe that the word debt was common to both traders and non-traders. In the two cases it meant very different things. In one case the time of payment was of the very essence of the bargain, whereas in the case of non-traders people boughtgoods, and time was no specific part of the contract, except where men sold for ready money. The Attorney-General would excuse him for saying he hoped he would not inflict, or run the risk of inflicting, upon persons who were nowise insolvent, in case they fell into arrear of payment, or had charges on their estates, possibly through no fault of their om a, the hardship of being dealt with as bankrupts. Mr. BOWYER said that he trusted when this bill was introduced again they should hear no more about the amal gamation of bankruptcy and insolvency, or of the extension of bankruptcy proceedings to persons:who were not traders. He thought a great deal of confusion would arise out of such an attempt. The two systems were founded on very dif ferent principles. The insolvent acts were passed for the re lief of debtors who were languishing in prison —(cries of "Agreed")—and the bankruptcy laws were passed in favour of creditors. The house then resumed. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Upon the motion for going into committee of supply, Mr. DISRAELI said he would take the opportunity of inquiring of the Government as to the probable course of business of the house, whether it was the intention of the noble lord to call the attention of the house to the question of the fortifications of the country to-morrow, or upon what day ? He also begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exche quer, if he was in the house, and if not the noble lord, whe ther and when the expected resolution relating to the paper duty would be laid upon the table ? Lord P ALMERSTON said that the vote for the fortifica tions would not be taken to-morrow, but the first thing on Monday next. The noble lord was also understood to say that it was the intention of his right hon. friend to lay the resolution relating to the paper duties on the table to-mor row (this day). THE TWO NEW INDIA BILLS. Sir M. FARQUHAR begged to ask the right hon. bironet the Secretary of State for India whether it was consistent with the expressed intention of the Government to withdraw from: the orders of the day those bills which they thought there was no prospect of passing, to give notice of two new bills relating to India on the 19th July ? Lord PALMERSTON said he would recommend the house not to discuss the merits of the bill until his right hon. friend had stated its contents. He ventured to hope the house would be satisfied with the large portion of time already consumed before going into committee. THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION REFORM BILL. In reply to an hon. member, Sir G. C. LEWIS said ther=e was still a day appointed for going into committee on the London Corporation Reform Bill ; and upon that occasion he should move that the order for going into committee on the bill be discharged. (Hear.) THE NEW INDIA BILLS. Mr. VANSITTART said that the bills which had been referred to by the hon. member for Hertford were very im portant, and he thought the Secretary of State for India could entertain no reasonable hope of passing them this session. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said that all persons who paid attention to the affairs of India were filled with the greatest alarm at the policy that was being pursued by the Secretary of State for India. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the question of India was settled last year, till the house could see how it could work. But now the Secretary of India was bringing in a set of bills, one relating to the transfer of stock, another to the army, and so forth, whilst as yet no financial statement with regard to India had been made. He should certainly oppose the proposed new measure with all the means in his power. It was flying in the face of a grew settlement ; and he had no confidence whatever in the present administration of India; for the right hon. gentle. man was acting in direct opposition to his council, amongst whom were men of the most eminent position and of the highest integrity. (Hear, hear.) THE EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL. Mr. HORSMAN said he hoped he had not heard cor rectly that it was the intention of the Government to pro cee 1 with the Indian Army Bill the first thing to-morrow (this day). He supposed the right hon. baronet knew that papers had been moved for and ordered, and were now wait ing to be printed. This was the condition,of the house on the subject of Indian legislation. They had heard of the rights of a minority in that house; but the fact was, that they were forced to a division the other night by the right hon. gentleman himself, because the right hon. gentleman said that he had not those papers ; and upon a question of veracity —or, rather, not of intentional veracity, but of fact —he kept them dividing till a late hour in the morning. The right hon. gentleman then told the house over and over again that he had not those papers, and gave them to un derstand that they were ordered to be printed, and that the fault lay entirely with the printer. Between the divisions he repeated the statement, which was re-stated by the Horne Secretary on the right hon. gentleman's authority, and he believed by the Secretary for War also. He believed the Home Secretary stated that it was the fault of the printing committee. Sir G. C. LEWIS said that he had no knowledge what ever of the general circumstances of the case. He merely stated what were the general duties of the printing com mittee. Mr. HORSMAN said that was precisely what he had said. The right hon. baronet the Home Secretary spoke entirely on the authority of the Secretary for India. He had no knowledge, of course, himself, of the circumstances. He believed the Secretary for War followed. Under the impu tation of proc ee di ng f act i ously, however, t h ey persevere d i n asking for the papers. It now turned out to be the fact that these papers had been for months in the office of the Sec retary for India. Three days before, according to his own ' admission in that house, when the papers were asked for by the hon. member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour), it was made known to the Indian department that the papers were in the hands of the Military Secretary, and he was de sired to forward them. That was three days before those divisions took place between which the right hon. gentleman told the house he had no knowledge respecting the papers. Every pains had been taken to expedite their production. As soon as the Act of 1858 passed the Commander-in. Chief proposed that the Indian army should ° be placed under the Horse Guards, and a correspondence ensued. On June 23 the right hon. gentleman told him (Mr. Horsman) that he need not move for the papers, as they did not exist. He (Mr. Herman) told him he knew they were in existence. He pressed the right hon. gentleman, he insisted, he warned him ; he knew they were in his office. The right hon. gentleman told him (Mr. Horsman) he had spoken to the Secretary at War, and asked him whether they were in his office, and he told him they were not. That correepondence consisted of a letter from Gen. Peel, then Secretary at 'War, of Aug. 10, 1858, inclosing a letter of the Duke of Cam bridge, from the Horse Guards, to Lord Stanley, who was then President of the Board of Control. Lord Stanley re plied to those letters on Aug. 23. Gen. Peel wrote again ; and then Lord Stanley submitted the whole question to the law officers of the crown, and their opinion was laid before the Council for India. He was sorry to state that when they had to deal with the Secretary of State for India they were not met—he would not say with courtesy, but with that fairness and plain dealing which they had a right to expect &ors a gentleman and a moister of the crown. Upon those matters members were obliged to get information in an indirect way, fur the purpose of correcting the inform • tion received by them from the Secretary of State for India. He charged the right hon. gentleman with withholding in formation, misleading the house, and endeavouring to press bills through the house at a time when the house was not in possession of sufficient information. The day before yesterday, having ascertained the dates of the letters he had referred to, he asked if there would be any objection to their being given as a return, and being told that there would not, he had yesterday moved for those letters. He had since received the following letter from the right hon. gentleman :—" Sir Charles Wood presents his compliments to Mr. Horsman—(laughter)—and begs to inform him that he has found in his office the correspondence between the Secretary of State for the War Department and the Secre tary of State for India and the other letters for the produc tion of which Mr. Horsman has given notice. Mr. Hors man will recollect asking Sir Charles Wood if he had any rbjection to the production of those letters, when Sir Charles s tated that there was no such correspondence in existence. Sir Charles only became aware of the existence of those papers yesterday, and loses no time in apprising Mr. Hors mart that there w 11 be no objection to their production if moved for as an unopposed return." A week before that he (Mr. Horsman) had furnished the right hon. gentleman with all the dates of the different correspondence ; and crn sidering that the right hon. gentleman had received that information from himself, and that this was the second time a similar mistake had occurred with reference to papers, this was certainly rather a cool letter. (Hear, hear.) He wrote in answer, presenting his compliments to Sir Charles Wood — (a laugh)—and informing him that he had alreadymadethe motion for the papers. He complained of the very careless and inconsiderate manner in which Sir Charles dealt with members of the house with regard to papers that were abso lutely necessary to enable them to discuss the questions coming before them. Had those papers been given when first asked for they would now have been in the hands of members. The bills introduced by the right hon. gentleman at that late period of the session involved the consideration of the position of the Indian Council, which Sir Charles ap peared to have reduced to an insignificance never contem plated by the act of 1858. (Hear, hear.) The Cabinet was sitting when he sent that letter, and he hoped that it had been submitted to the noble lord. He subsequently received a short answer from Sir Charles merely correcting a mis statement on a former occasion, which was not material. He must now appeal to the noble lord and the house whether, having asked for those papers on the 28th of June, and been put off from day to day—having at last convinced the right hon. gentleman of the existence of those papers, and got an order of the house for their production—the noble lord was justified in asking the house to go into com mittee to-morrow on the India Forces Bill ? Two hon. members had declared their intention to oppose the bill by every possible means, and he appealed to the house if that was not a fit occasion ? This was not a question as to the merits of the bill, but whether members should be allowed the opportunity of fairly considering the measures before them. It was now the 19th of July ; Government was set ting aside or dropping those bills which they felt at that period of the session were too important to be passed with out distinction. The very earliest period when the house could rise would be late in August ; but what were the Go vernment new doing? At the vet y time that they were dropping important bills for want of time to discuss them, they were introducing others infinitely more important. One bill placed the administration of the Indian army in the Horse Guards ; but what was to be done with the civil service ? The SPEAKER said it was not competent for the hon. member to discuss other bills which were on the table of the house, on the motion now before them. Mr. HORSMAN said the bill he referred to had not yet been introduced ; but the right hon. gentleman had a notice on the paper to move its introduction that night. But surely when they were discussing what bills should be withdrawn, it was a favourable occasion to remonstrate against the in troduction of new measures. The bills of the right hon. gentleman were the very bills which the house ought to press on the Government the propriety and policy of post poning. Instead of one Secretary of State being allowed to overbear the opinion and outweigh the authority of 15 mem bers of his council, the house would probably think thatone member of council ought to outweigh 15 Secretaries of State, even of the calibre of the right hon. gentleman. (Laughter.) He again charged the right hon. gentleman with having kept back information which the house ought to have had, and which was necessary to enable their to do their duty. Sir G. GREY said there was not the slightest objection to the right hon. gentleman calling the attention of the house to the state of the business; but he ought not to take that opportunity, without any notice to Sir C. Wood, to make an attack upon that right hon. gentleman—having himself come down prepared with documents—an attack which was not a fair criticism on public conduct, but an attack upon the private character and honour of the right hon. gentleman, and couched in terms that the house was not in the habit of hearing a idressed to any of its members. His right hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) had taken the oppor tunity of stating, at the earliest moment, how the facts I stood; and the house was satisfied with the statement he ' then made. He was sorry that the right hon. gentleman had thought it necessary to renew the subject. He had also gone on to bring new charges against Sir C. Wood, of which he (Sir G. Grey) and his colleagues had never heard before. He had thought fit to come down to the house, armed with correspondence and documents, and had endeavoured, but in vain, owing to the good sense of the house, to depreciate the character of Charles Wood. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the question that had been raised as to the progress of those bills, if they were now to do any business at all they had better confine their attention to the business immediately before them, and not anticipate the discussion of other matters. Objection had been made by the hon. member for Hertford against twonew bills being introduced late at night. He (Sir G. Grey) did not know the con tents of those bills, but suggested that it would be prema ture to anticipate the discussion that might arise. When his right hon. friend made the motion which steed in his name he would state the grounds which made those mea sures desirable. An HON. MEMBER—At what hour? (Hear, hear.) Sir G. GREY could not state the hour; but when his right hon. friend had the opportunity of bringing on the bills he would do so ; and, after hearing his reasons, it would be for the house to decide whether the bills should be introduced or not. Even if the bills were not proceeded with, it might be an advantage that they should be intro duced. When the proper time came the house might de termine whether the bill should proceed or not. So with the bill for the amalgamation of the two armies in India ; if the right hon gentleman thought that there were papers which it was essential the house should have before going into committee on the bill he might state his reasons to the house, and the house had power to prevent the further pro gress of the bill. He hoped that the house would not be involved in a discussion as to the relative powers of the Secretary of State for India and his council. He believed that his right hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) had acted strictly in accordance with the law; and had he had the slightest intimation that this matter was to be brought forward, he would have been present to state his own views. Mr. BARING said there was not the slightest wish to withhold any papers or information from the House of Commons. There were papers, he might say, ad nauseam on the subject of India in the library. With regard to the particular papers referred to by the right hon. gen tleman, a mass of papers were ordered to be printed ; the proofs came from time to time to the office for correction ; some delay in that operation took place, but the moment it was discovered the. cause of the delay was removed. The Secretary of State for India had no knowledge of these particular papers, as they were with the military secretary, Colonel Baker. In fact, there was but a small quantity of these proofs in the India Office. It should be borne in mind that this correspondence was bet ween departments and took place when the present Secretary of State for India was notin office. If the house thought these papers so im portant that further time was required, the India Bill would not be proceeded with to-morrow. Sir JAMES FERGUSSON said that the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud was fully justified in the course he had pursued. Lord J. RUSSELL thought that there must be some Fart of the correspondence which the right hon. gentleman omitted to read. He thought for instance that there must have been a letter to this effect : Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Sir C. Wood, and begs to inform him that he intends to bring a personal charge against him on the motion for renewing the discussion on the India Army Bill. (Hear, hear.) He thought there must have been another letter to this effect : Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Mr. S. Herbert, and begs to inform him that he intends to make reference to private conversations which he had with him. (Hear, hear.) It was much to be regretted that the right hon. gentleman did not read these letters because the right hon. gentleman could not have omitted so usual and necessary a formality. (Hear.) The reproaches which had been cast upon his right hon. friend were wholly undeserved. His right hon. friend, when great questions.of Indian policy had to be considered, had not merely to form his own opinion, but to get the opinion of her Majesty's confidential advisers. The right hon. gentleman the member for Huntingdon had very candidly stated that with respect to the organisation of the Indian army the opinion of officers was very much divided on the one side and on the other; and his right hon. friend having to decide on that point, the question was whether he was right in consulting the members of the Cabinet separately, and ultimately placing the matter before the whole Cabinet for decision, or whether he should have only consulted the Indian Council, and having got their opinions he should proceed to carry out their views, no matter what might have been the views of the Cabinet on a question affecting not only India but the general Interests of the empire. (Hear.) Mr. I V ITLNES hoped this important question would not be embarrassed by personal considerations. lie regretted that the members of the Indian Council had been excluded from seats in that house, as questions affecting India could be much better discussed in their presence. (Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN, in reply to the observations of Lord J. Russell, said he saw the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for India in the house shortly before he addressed the house. (Hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said he did not believe that the right hon. gentleman came down to the house to make any ' charge of a personal character on the supposition that the Indian minister would not be in his place. It was true in theory that members of Parliament should be always in their places, but the Ministers of the Crown should be gene rally present in practice. (Hear.) The right hen. gentle man the Secretary for India must have known that the Bankruptcy Bill was to be withdrawn, and as the next notice had reference to India, right hon. gentlemen who were members of the Government should have been in their places. (Hear.) They were not, however, in their places, although they had been in the house shortly before the right hon. gentleman had made his statement. (Hear.) If the right hon. gentleman had postponed his statement till to-morrow, it would have had much less effect than if he made it that day ; because whatever time might have been lost in personal recriminations, the Government would not have considered it consistent with their dig nity to withdraw an order of the day of which they had given notice. He thought the Government had acted wisely in not pressing the measure to •morrow. The state of affairs with regard to Indian administration was not so satisfac tory as could be wished. (Hear, hear.) Since the act of 1858 the responsibility of Parliament in the administration of India had much increased, and it was, therefore, the duty of the Government that India bills should be introduced at an early period of the session, so that they might be amply and sufficiently discussed, and that the discussions should be preceded by ample and adequate information. (Hear.) The Government, therefore, ought not to be surprised that some impatience and jealousy was manifested by persons in terested in Indian affairs when they saw bills of great im- portance relating to India introduced at a late period of the session, when they could not be considered and dealt with in a satisfactory manner. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the statement of the right hon. gentleman, he formed from it no opinion unfavourable to the two right hon. gentlemen referred to, because ho knew how misconceptions might .rio o ..}Lectild tlaorcforo wait for their wrplanations, which he trusted and believed would be quite satisfactory. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON said he did not slate that it was the duty of every member of the house to be present on every occasion. He did not think it would be right to lay such a tax upon them. What he said was, that those who intended to take a part in regard to orders of the day which stood upon the notice paper ought to come down to the house, because they could not be sure that the orders of the preceding night might not go off from the absence of the members who had charge of them, or from some other cause. The conversation then dropped. GREENWICH HOSPITAL. On the motion that the house go into a committee of supply, Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved -" That it wasthe opinion of the house that the recommendation of the Royal Commission respecting Greenwich Hospital should be carried into effect." When it was founded by William 111., at the request of his Queen, a Royal charter was given, and terrain rules for its guidance and government. It provided lodgings, food, and clothing for seamen who had served their country in the navy and the widows of men killed or drowned in the service. It also provided for the wives of seamen, and also their children. In 1705 there were 100 seamen admitted, in 1706 another 100; and of course during the wars that followed their numbers greatly increased. In 1814 a pension of a shilling a day was given to seamen who had served 20 years, and ninepeuce to those of 15 years ; and the funds of Greenwich Hospital were used down to 1829 to pay the charge, amounting to two millions. It was then discovered that the Government had appro priated the money, and, as the act was illegal, an act of Parliament was passed to indemnify them. What proved beyond all doubt that the hospital was badly administered, was the fact that there were now only 1,124 persons there. Would any one say that if it were properly managed that would be the case ? The commissioners said in their report that there was an unwillingness on the part of old seamen to enter the hospital. No attention had been paid to this institution, by various Governments and Boards of Ad miralty for the last 70 or 80 years ; and thus it was that great neglect was the consequence. Seamen were scattered through the country, and they had no moans of coming up to London except by begging; but it was only due to the Government to say that when they did arrive they were taken great care of and sent home if rejected. He thought they were all greatly indebted to the hon. member for Gates head and his brother commissioners for their very able re port. As to the education of the children, it appeared from the report to which he had already referred, that the pen sioners' children had been much neglected. LThe hon. and gallant admiral read extracts from the blare book, to show that this had been the case.] The treatment of pen sioners was a matter worthy of consideration. If a man went into Greenwich Hospital he should enjoy his full pension, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right whatever to interfere. If the whole of the funds of Green wich Hospital were laid hold of, and divided among the men, they would be much better off than at present.. If that institution were properly conducted it would be a blessing to those men who had served their country on the seas and an encouragement to others to do likewise. As to the Hospital Commissioners they were altogether unacquainted with what occurred at the hospital. The female schools had been closed, and the consequence was that the daughters of the men who had fought for their country were left destitute, and thrown upon the streets for a livelihood. Was not that a scandalous and shameful state of things ? The commission, which had carefully examined every portion of the subject, had clearly shown that the reforms they proposed would keep up the whole number of the pensioners, and give them a larger money allowance than at present ; but in addition to that they would enable the women and children of the pensioners also to be admitted into the hospital, and thus remove the cry ing evils to which he had referred, and which were not to be borne. With respect to the boys' school, he would give all of them in the lower school a good plain education, such as was fit for a sailor ; but, among a great number of boys, some must be cleverer than others, and whenever they found a clever lad he world remove him to the upper school, and give him a superior education, so as to give him the chance of serving as an officer. Many of these lads might in that way become captains in the navy. He had felt it to be his duty to bring this subject before the house, because all the plans that had been tried to induce men to enter the navy had failed. That was a disgrace to the country, but it was a still greater disgrace to those who rule us. If the noble lord who was at the head of the Government would stand up in his place and say he had heard with pain and shame of the mismanagement of Green wich Hospital, and that in future he was determined to make that hospital what it was intended to be, a comfortable home for the naval pensioners and their families, he believed that it would do more to encourage the entry of seamen into the navy than anything they had heretcfore done. The hon. and gallant gentleman concluded by moving in terms of his notice. Admiral WALCOTT seconded the motion. He was glad to be able to bear his testimony to the admirable manner in which the commissioners had discharged their duties, and he thought the gallant admiral had performed a most praiseworthy act in bringing the question before the house. It was impossible to condemn too strongly the mismanagement which has existed heretofore, and he trusted the Government would not allow a single hour to pass by unnecessarily without making arrangements to give effect to the recommendations of the commissioners. Lord CLARENCE PAGET said, with reference to the statement that had been made of a sailor having been dis charged without a pension, after the loss of an arm, or with an insufficient pension, he was not surprised that a sailor should be uninformed as to the rules of the Admiralty in such cases ; but he was surprised that an officer of the long standing and great experience of the gallant admiral should be unaware of the fact, that in the first instance the pension was fixed conditionally, in order to ascertain how far the pensioner was able to assist in his own maintenance, and was increased in proportion to his inability to do so. He regretted also to find that fault had been found with the Admiralty for not having themselves introduced changes in the management of Greenwich Hospital without any pre vious inquiry. The hon. and gallant officer must have a very curious idea of the Admiralty if he thought it could undertake to make changes in a large institution like Green wich Hospital without having careful and well-sifted infor mation before them. They thought that the much wiser and practical course was to appoint a commission to investigate all the facts connected with the management, and to sub mit to the Government the improvements that such an in vestigation had suggested to their minds. It was impossi ble for him to allude to the commission without offering his thanks and the thanks of his colleagues to the hon gentle man the member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt), who presided over the commission, and to his colleagues for their very able and valuable report, and for the great pains and care they had shown during the inquiry. (Hear, hear.) With re spect to the motion of the hon. and gallant member he was not prepared to agree to it as it at present stood, and he must say that in th 3 course of his speech the gallant ad miral bad given the best reasons why he should not agree to the motion, because he had himself dissented from and disapproved of several of the recommendations of the commission, and if the motion was agreed to these recom mendations would have to be carried out. He should be happy to agree to a motion the gallant officer put on the paper two days ago as to the school, and if he would alter his motion to the effect that the report should be considered with a view to carry it out, he would agree to it. The school in its details required attention, and various alterations were necessary. The report of the commission gave a too favourable view of the revenues of the hospital, and some recommendations founded upon that supposition must be reconsidered. If they were all carried out, a sum must be annually voted by Parliament. Many of the suggestions were very valuable, but in some of them he could not agree, and they required very careful reconsideration, and some of them eould not be carried out without an act of Parlia ment, During the recess they would take up the question "{I• of the model lodging-houses, and other questions that re quired an act of Parliament. Sir M. SEYMOUR said the report had failed to take care that the suggesti.ns should be in accordance with the real objects for which the hospital was founded. There were grounds therefore for considering and reconsidering the report brought before the house. He approved of the objects of the gallant admiral, and had great pleasure in giving them his cordial support. Mr. BRISCOE could not refrain from offering his humble tribute of thanks to the gallant admiral and to the commissioners who had prepared the report. It was cha racterised by great ability and singleness of purpose, and it should be read and studied by every member of that house and every man out of it in the very critical times in which they were now living. The commissioners said nothing of the great misapplication of the funds, and to which the serious attention of the house should be di rected. The assertion of the noble lord was that it would require an act of Parliament to carry out the recommenda tions of the commissioners, but the intention of the motion was not that they should do so at once, but honestly and fairly do so hereafter. The revenue of the hospital was £156,000 a-, ear, and as there was an actual surplus of £28,000 a-year, there could be no difficulty in improving the condition of the pensioners. He should most cordially give the motion his support, and trusted the house would affirm it. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that the report of the com mission was the act of the Board of Admiralty, for they appointed the commissioners, and it was their intention to consider it with a view of carrying its recommendations into effect. It was not intended that all the details of that report should be carried out, nor did the house require it, and he could therefore see no objection which could be urged against the course taken by the Admiralty. His noble friend the Secretary for the Admiralty stated that an act of Parliament was necessary, and if, as had been urged by his hon. friend who had just sat down, it was not re- quired, then the law officers of the Crown must be con sulted, and their opinion taken, Another objection to the adoption of the report of the commissioners was, that a considerable grant of money would be required to carry out their recommendations, and he did not think the House of Commons would be disposed to vote it at that period of the yesr. His noble friend said he had only just recieived the report ; that he would consider it ; and under th6se circum stances he did not think it would be wise in them to say by their vote that all the recommendations of the commis sioners were to be carried into effect. His noble friend was perfect reasonable, and he hoped his suggestions would be adopted and carried into effect. Alderman SALOMONS thought the proposition of his noble friend a very fair one, because, of course, it would be impossible to adopt all the recommendations of the commissioners. There were, however, some things in the hospital which required some amendments, such, for ex ample, as compelling petty officers to mess with common sailors. Then, again, sailors and marines were classed to gether, which was felt to be a great grievance, and there was great difficulty thrown in the way of persons who en deavoured to obtain an admission. He hoped, however, his hon. and gallant friend would not divide the house, but that he would be content with the assurance given by the noble lord the Secretary for the Admiralty. Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped the hon. and gallant officer would not divide en his motion, though he admitted the condition of the hospital was anything but satisfactory. He thought, however, the assurance given by the noble lord ought to be considered as satisfactory. He promised that the report would be taken into consideration, and that in the course of the next session means would be taken to effect the desired improvements. He hoped they would also consider the question of pensions, and the condition of the wives, many of whom were obliged to go into the work houses. Now, that was a disgraceful state of things, and should not be tolerated any longer. Mr. LINDSAY hoped his hon. and gallant friend would not press his motion to a division, especially as it pledged the Government to all the details of the report made by the commissioners. Mr. HEN LEY thought the report disclosed a most ex traordinary state of things which required instant remedy. He would, however, be sorry to give any vote which would pledge the Government to carry out all the details of the report, but there was no doubt that the funds were misap plied, and that tke expense of management was greater than it should be. It was, in point of fact, out of all proportion, and great injustice was done the poor seamen in the way in whin things were conducted in that establishment. He thought, however, it was better at present to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and upon them be the responsibility. Lord PALMERSTON said the right hon. gentleman who had just addressed the house expressed really good sense on the matter, and therefore ha thought the house ought now to go into committee. The case was not one of the kind described by the gallant admiral, and he thought it was not one in which the house would interpose be tween the Government and the responsibility which rested upon them. Lord LOVAINE quite agreed in - what had fallen from the noble lord. His object in rising in reference to the sug gestions of the gallant admiral was, that the pensions to be given to sailors should be considered pani passe with those to be given to soldiers in the army. Admiral DUNCOM BE considered the motion of the hon. and gallant admiral was one of great importance, but he nevertheless thought it desirable for him not to press it on the present occasion. With regard to the model lodging houses, he hoped the Admiralty would carry them out upon a judicious principle, and if the experiment were to be fur ther carried out, it would be in a limited manner and at a limited expense. Sir CHARLES NAPIER, after a few words from Sir James Elphinstone, consented to withdraw his motion, and subsequently a modified motion, which he was permitted by the house to submit as a substituted motion, was negatived without a division. SUPPLY. The house then wont into committee of supply. RETIREMENT OF NAVAL OFFICERS. On the motion tha a sum of money should be granted to her Majesty to enable Lord Clarence Paget to carry out his proposed scheme for the retirement of naval officers, • Sir CHARLES NAPIER took exception to the scheme of the noble lord. The retired list since the time of Sir Francis Baring had been very much increased. In the first place the list of admirals had been increased upwards of 00. The hon. and gallant member, after entering into some of the details of the plan, said that it seemed to him to be wholly uncalled for. The last plan of retirement, so far, was working very well for the public service. If ever they again arrived at a point when they could not get an admiral under GO years of age, it would be quite proper to devise some new scheme of retirement, but under the pre sent plan they could get plenty of admirals under 40 years of age, and he saw no necessity whatever for any new scheme. There was this additional reason why the scheme should not be persisted in. The whole of the naval profession was totally and entirely dissatisfied with the plan, and he felt it to be his duty to give it his most stre nuous opposition. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said he opposed this new plan of retirement on three grounds. First, he objected to cut tin; off the time served as mates. He could not understand why the time served in that capacity should not count in reckoning the time of an officer's service. It was equiva lent to cutting off the time served as second-lieutenants and adjutants in the army, and he asked if such a proposi tion were made whether it would not be immediately scouted. (Hear.) He had received many letters from commanders and captains in the navy, pointing out the injustice which the plan would lead to if it were adopted in this respect. In the second place he objected to cutting off the time served in the coast •guard. No dicer in that branch of the service ought to have his time cut off. It was the most irksome, and in many cases the most dan gerous to which an officer could be attached. At a time when there was no fighting abroad, many of our officers choose service at what were called the " fighting stations" of the coast-guard, such as Hastings, and at these sta tions skirmishes frequently occurred equal to little battles, in which officers received severe wounds. Besides, in all cases they were liable to fall down pits and subject to nu merous other casualties, and he must, therefore, oppose a plan which took no account of the time thus spent. His third objection was with regard to the officers on the re served•list, who had a bargain with the Admiralty for their succcession to appointments:according to their length of ser vice, and the mode in which they were dealt with in the estimates was a complete breach of that bargain. He had received letters from officers thus affected by the new regu • lation, complaining in strong terms of the treatment to which they were subjected, though the Admiralty had always considered them to be on the active list. The Ad • miralty had, nevertheless, reduced some of those officers to the rank of commander, and refused them the increase of pay to which they were entitled under a solemn bargain, besides forbidding theta from accepting any civil em ployment. Several of these officers had served at Tra• falgar and the Nile, yet, while the Admiralty squandered millions of money in waste every year, they withheld from those deserving men the pittance to which they were en titled, and which for the whole list would not exceed £5 a day. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Droitwich, that the subject ought to be referred to a select committee. At present a great a mount of dis content existed among officers of the service, who felt that they were improperly dealt with, and unless the matter were promptly considered, it must seriously interfere with discipline. Sir M. SEYMOUR said he thought the treatment to which those officers were subjected was of so arbitrary a character as to be positively unjust. He could not see why the Admiralty should bring forward a plan which openly ignored length of service, in opposition to the previous set • tlement of the question under the authority of a royal com mission. He hoped the noblelord would not press his plan on the house, Sir 3. PAKINGTON thought the discussion showed that the plan of the Government was not agreeable to any s ide of the house. The letter s he had received s h owed that t h e plan was unworthy of the Admiralty; the house not sanction it ; then why did the Government persevere in promoting it ? (Hear, hear.) The proposal did not an swer any of the conditions named by the Government, lie it ~~~ thought they should have a well-constituted commission for inquiry into the whole of this subject. Lard C. PAGET said there was no scheme for bettering the condition of the navy which could not be found fault with. There were always cases of hardship just above or below the line that might be drawn. He supposed that that was the real reason why he himself had never brought before the house any scheme of his own. There was no occasion to deal with the admirals, but as to captains, pro motion was almost at a stand-still, but, in the event of war, he would propose that the old admirals should retire. He, however, could not in time of peace propose to put such officers as Lord Dundonald on the retired list. Nature would clear the flag list. Those officers had served them in war, and it would be cruel, unjust, and unnecessary to remove them. (Hear.) He could not consent to put Coast Guard officers upon the same footing as sea-going officers. He was perfectly willing to admit that some difficulty existed, but there was no truth in the statement that any officer's pay was cut down. The scheme proposed that any man arriving at the age of 60, and who had not served for a certain number of years, should retire on half pay. He be lieved the effect of the whole plan would be to place young men in active service, which was a most important consi deration. The pay of the surgeons was increased by the right hon. gentleman, but other officers felt themselves ag grieved by that proceeding, and the present Government had to apply a remedy. Sir J. PAKINGTON denied that he referred in his ob servations to his own scheme, for he had not said a vord en the subject. While he was in office he had to devote the greater part of his attention to making up the deficien cies of the preceding Government. A good Reform Bill was, however, required last year, in consequence of which he bad to leave the Admiralty, and had not therefore time to carry out a scheme he had prepared. Sir F. T. BARING thought the scheme proposed by the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty a good one, and of which he approved. To his mind the scheme touched that which was required, and he did not think that any commission could find a scheme that would work well, whether in war or peace ; and, more important still, in the transition from a state of war to peace. It was said it would be.well to reduce the number of captains down to 350, but they had now got them down to 350, and therefore the shoe no longer pinched in that respect. Generally speaking, he thought the scheme was a goodune, although, of course, he could pick holes in it. Sir C. NAPIER said no good reason whatever had been given why full justice should not be done to the mates. The hon. and gallant admiral then adverted to that part of the noble lord's scheme relating to post captains. Mr. WARRE said he should be very glad to hear why the memorial of the officers on the reserved list had not received the attention to which it, was entitled by the Ad miralty. Mr. CONINGHAM was of opinion that the claims of the officers of the navy ought to receive all the considera tion to which they were entitled. With regard to the ser vice of officers of the Coast Guard, less was known than was desirable. He was no advocate for lavish expenditure. (Divide, divide.) lion. members were impatient, and it was ever the case in that house when a gross job was to be done. (Oh, oh.) He must say that the officers were deprived most unfairly of the advantages to which they were entitled for their services; and, with regard to the lieutenants, to the shame of the Admiralty be it said, they were worn out by disappointment and unrequited services. Lord C. PAGET explained that only those officers were intended to retire who had attained the age of 60 without serving in their then rank. With regard to what the hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth had said concerning re served captains, that they had as good a claim as captains on the active list, he could only say that if he had heard his right hon. colleague's speech on the subject, he must be impressed with the view that they were not entitled to rise pari passu with captains on the active list. If they could show length of service they should certainly be compen sated. Sir J. ELPHINSTONE remarked that the officers he referred to had been juggled out of their fair rights. The vote was then agreed to. The next was a vote of £33,000 for officers, seamen, and marines serving in China. Mr. B. COCHRANE expressed his opinion that the allowance was illiberal, and moved that the chairman report pr ogress. Lord C. PAGET said that the army employed in China enjoyed advantages over those employed elsewhere, not in pay, however, but in the reduction of stoppages. The allowance of provisions was also more liberal, and equal, he understood, to 2d. a day. They proposed to give to the sailors and marines an allowance equal to that for a year. He admitted that it was not equal to the soldier's allowance for the 18 months consumed in the operations at Canton; but it should be remembered that the privations of soldiers in a campaign were greater than those of the navy. The navy could not be considered to have an equal claim. The allowance already granted was exclusive of the Canton booty. He could not state with distinctness the sums that would be granted to the navy, but all he could undertake to say on the part of the Government was, that the allowance should be liberally and generously made. Sir C. NAPIER gave notice that on the bringing up of the report he should divide the house on the vote relating to the reserved list, as he considered that an unfair proce dure had taken place when the question was put. He cer tainly said " No," and mean it. Sir J. PAKINGTON could not agree that there was any unfair procedure in the case, so far as the chairman was concerned, but he thought at the same time, that when the question had been once put, and an answer given implying that a division should take place, it ought not to be put again. Lord PALMERSTON said the point was a purely tech nical one, and the rules of the house ought to be adhered to. The fact was, that it was not sufficient for a member to say " No," to call for a division, without pressing his opposi- tion. The CHAIRMAN said the object of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees was to ascertain the opinion of the house, and the question was always put in such a manner as to elicit that opinion. The vote was then agreed to, and the resolutions were reported to the house. The house then resumed. In answer to a question from Lord J. MANNERS, Lord PALMERSTON said that no civil service estimates would be taken to-morrow evening. PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered. The London Corporation Bill was postponed. The Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, as amended, was considered. The Militia Ballot Bill was read a second time. The Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill was read a third time. The Heritable Securities (Scotland) Bill passed through committee. GUNPOWDER BILL. This bill was read a second time, The house then went into committee on the Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight Bill. The bill passed through committee. Tho Local Government Act (1858) Amendment Bill passed through committee. The Railways Act (Ireland 1851) Amendment Bill passed through committee. The Volunteer Ride Corps Bill was read a second time. The other orders were disposed of, paid the house ad journed at a quarter past two o'clock. - - - INVENTION IN DENTAL ART I—The patent of Mr. Eskeil, surgeon-dentist, 8, Lower Grosvenor-street, is an admirable contrivance for remedying the defects of nature wahout necessitating new sets of teeth, or being unplea santly detained without them. The expense is no greater than for the ordinary kinds, and it is worthy the attention of every one, but more especially of those persona going abroad or who live at a distance from the dentist. [ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills.—Biliousness. — Diseases of the Liver.—After the long continued wet weather, the hot summer's sun will cause the atmosphere to be surcharged with deliterious exhalations, which will produce fevers and irritation of the bowels. To check the undue action of the liver, usually the first indication of fibule complaints, the Pills invented by Professor Hollo way stand unrivalled. These Pills are so cheaply and easily purchased that none need suffer either from n ausea , indigestion, disordered liver, dizziness, or torpid bowels, or, in a word, from an y f unc tional irregularity. Th ese Pills produce a happier effect on the digestive org ans th an any other medicin a l com p o und, whether mine ra l or vege table. By their means any person can easily secure robust health. 1311tTH8. GIFFARD. On at The Elms, Hampton wick,de L. Giffard, Esq., of a son. —On the 18th inst ., at 30, 9 dal villas , cars e- , MERRIFIELD. the wife of Charles W. Merrifield, of the Kensington, .lOffice, of a son, Council Middleset t et h l eB t w hif oi n o s ft .j J. W. WISE. --On the 18th inst., at Coombe-road, Croydon, the w ife of Charles of a daughter. FULLE R— FRINNEBY.—O n th e 19 t h i nst., at St. Leonard ' s N: i is:, tt Esq „i A G E s . Church, Streatham, Charles E Fuller, Esq., of Basing hall-street, to Abigail Catherine, second daughter of F. Su It. rre Fri nneby, Esq., Guildersfield, Lower Streatham, y. HATNES—BEEBE.—On the 18th inst., at Mitcham, George Watson, third son of Henry Haines, Esq., of The Firs Beulah-hill, Norwood, to Louisa, eldest daughter of W. Beebe, Esq., of Wandle-grove, Mitcham. Uk A H. S. ELP HINSTONE.—On the 19th inst., at 29, King-street, St. James's, the Right Hon. Lord phinstone, G.C.B. and G C.H., aged 53. EYRES.—On the 17th inst., at 13, Dorset-square, Captain Harry Eyres, C. 8., of Knoukwood-park, Tenterden, Kent. HAMMERSLEY —On the 17th inst., at 4, St. Alban's-place, Major Frederick Hammersley, late of the King's Dra goon Guards. JAMESON.—On the Ist ult., at Calcutta, James Wardrope Jameson, Esq., C.E., manager of the Oriental Inland Steam Company, aged 37. PATE soN.---On the 26th May, at Delhi, Major Francis Stuart Paterson, late 54th Bengal N. 1., eldest surviving son of the late Captain 'William Paterson, R.N., C.B. uNDuN . Primeo Anct Vuotuned by KURD() YOUNG at Nu. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 1 12 Strand, in the Precinot of flu) Savoy, in the count/ Istiddken, Friday, duly 20, 7A1360.