The Sun.
London, England, 1855-03-16 00:00:00

LAW OF SUCCESSION.

• Mr.' L. KING moved for leave to introduce a bill for
the better settling of the real estates of intestates. The
Measure which he proposed to provide was that where a
person died possessed of landed property, the law should
make for him a just will precisely in the same way as it
would make it if lie died possessed of personal iintead of
flat property. 'The hon. gentleman cited many cases to
chow the injustie,, of the existing law, and declared that
be had no intention to ag.-Limitate the law with that of
France, or to interfere' with the right of parties to mill
their real property in any manner that they might desire.
Mr. MASSEY strouded the ;notion, übici be said
simply 'proposed to extend to land the statute of distri-
bution, which for more than a century and a hat

according to the other institutions of the country, particu- I
larly with relation to its political institutions. But were
there no social advantages resulting from this institution
which made its retention desirable ? The effect of property
going to the eldest son was, that there was not a profession,
calling, or occupation in the country which did not swarm
with industrious, intelligent, and earnest_ younger sons,
whose industry was stimulated, and whose intellect was
excited, by the knowledge that they must depend on their
own exertions. if the whole constitution of society had
been formed in reference to this institution, he could see
no reason for considering even the propriety of uprooting
foundations and altering principles and rules by which the
whole community had had their views and expectations
regulated. The observations he had now thrown out were
desultory, for he had not considered them before entering
the house ; but he should not be discharging his duty if ho
did not express his opinion that the present motion had
been unaccompanied by any new argument, and tkat as
it was opposed to the majority of those best informed in
and out of the House of Commons, it ought not to be en-
tertaineds _ _ _

Mr. W. 'WILLIAMS moved, "That, in the opinion of
the house, real property and impropriate tithes should be
made to pay the same probate duty as is now payable on
personal property, and that property belonging to corpora-
tions, universities, colleges, bishoprics, and deans and
chapters, should pay a duty equivalent to the probate and
legacy duties levied on personal prtiperty." In submit-
ting this motion, he ought, in the first place, to observe
that, in the year 1796, Mr. Pitt brought in a bill to sub-
ject all descriptions of property to legacy duty, but the
all-powerful landed aristocracy compelled Parliemeat to
divide that bill into two separate measures—one having
application to real property and the other to personal
property. Mr. Fox opposed this division, but his exer-
tions wore unsuccessful. The measure imposing legacy
duty on personal property soon passed, with little or no
opposition ; but the other measure was successfully op-
posed by ihe landed aristocracy. The question remained
in this state for a period of 57 or 58 years ; but a short time
ago the right hon. gen Homan the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) applied a partial , remedy by
the enactment of a measure imposing on real property one-
half of the legacy duty imposed on personal proper ty. He
(Mr. W. Williams) was at a loss to conceive why real pro-
perty should be exempt from the same duty which was levied
on all other descriptions of property. He hoped that his
motion would meet with the support of the present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. Wheu he (Mr. W. Williams)
brought forward a similar motion some years ago, he was
told that real property was subject to heavy stamp duties I
on conveyances and mortgages, but this argument could
low have no force. for five years ago, at is sacrifice of
450,000/. a-year, the stamp duties on conveyances and
mortgages wore reduced. If his proposition were adopted
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without increasing
.. ,
the amount of the national debt, would have 2,500,000/.
additional a-year wherewith to pay the . army and.
navy, and if he resorted to a system of loans with- '
out endeavouring to raise this sum by a legaly duty
on real property he would incur a serious responsibility.
He .could not understand upon what ground such a
motion as the present could be opposed. It had been said
by same lion. gentlemen that laud was more taxed than
any other species of property; but such an argument had
been long since dieposed of. Tho industrious classes paid
much heavier taxes than the rieber classes.
An 1100. GENT LF:MAN moved that the house be counted.
There were only 32 members present at the moment that
the motion was made, and very little more than that num-
ber for an hour previously; but when the bell rang for the
"count," Mr. Murrough rushed in, as on Tuesday night,
for the purpose of being reckoned, and seine few members
afterwards dropping in, the requisite number of 40 was
eked out, and the debate was resumed. M,r. Murrough,
and some other members, retired the instant they were
counted.
Mr. WILLIAMS felt very much obliged to the " whips"
en this occasion, and he hoped he should have an oppor-
tunity of paying them off. He would not detain the house,
but, in conclusion, he must say that no one could oppose
this motion who called himself a just man and a Christian.
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. He thought it
was high time the distinction male by the law between
re al estate and personal estate should be put an end to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER expressed
his regret that the hon. gentleman should have adopted the
course of stating his views in the form of an abstract re-
solution. It was competent for him to have brought for-
ward any plan for maintaining, or continuing, or extend-
ing the probate duty, and it would then have been in the
power of the house to judge as to the exact nature of the
proposition before it, but it was extremely difficult, from
the form selected by the hou. gentleman, fur the house to
form any clear judgment as to the plan he would wish it
to pursue. . The hon. member appeared, in the course of
his speech, in many cases, to have confounded the legacy
duty and the probate duty—he had applied to the pro-
bate duty arguments which applied exclusively to
tire legacy duty. But the honourable gentleman had omit-
ted to state the precise nature of the probate du' y, and
the distinction between real and personal property, upon
which the present probate duty was founded. The prac-
tice of proving wills had grown out of the jurisdiction of
the ecclesiastical courts. From a very ancient period of his-
tory the ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over the per-
sonalty of deceased parties, whether testate or intestate.
That jurisdiction, however, by the nature of those courts,
was limited to personal property. The law of England did
not require that wills by which real property was doeisod
should be proved in the ecclesiastical court, nor had that
court any power of deciding upon questions affecting laud
or realty. The consequence of that state of the law was,
that probate duty was necessarily confined to wills which
affected personal property. If they proceeded to extend pro-
bate duty to real property, it would be necessary not only
to take the course proposed by tho honourable member
fur Lambeth, but also to alter the whole of real property
law which exempted that description of property from
the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court ; and it
would be further necessary to alter the jurisdiction and
lowers of the ecclesiastical court, so as to make them ex-
tend to questions affecting realty. That was the diffi-
culty which mot them at the threshold of the subject. If
the hon. gentleman had, in a committee of ways and
means, submitted a distinct plan for the consideration of
the house, they would have been able to form a judgment
as to the manner in which he (Mr. Williams) proposed to
overcome that obAaele, and to deal practically with the
dither-116es which surrounded this mode of taxation. With
regard to the more general view of the question, he (die
Chancellor of the Exchequer) must be permitted to refer
to the extensive measure affecting the legacy and succes-
sion duties, which was introduced by his right hon. friend
the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone).
lu proposing that measure he went most. extensively into
the question as to the succession to real and personal pro-
perty, and the whole subject was thoroughly exhausted
by the debates of the house, and an adjustment of the
respective claims of those two classes of property was ar-
rived at, which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was
not prepared to advise the house now to reconsider. It
must be borne in mind, if they came to consider the equity
of the case, that the transfer of real property was subject
to many charges to which the transfer of personal prop rty
was not subject in an equal degree. No person could deal
with land to any great extent without being constantly
subject to the payment of stamp and other duties, aud
although there were certain cases in which personal property
was, upon its being transferred, liable to taxation, yet they
were infrequent; anti it might with perfect truth be said
that a great inequality in the practical working of the
laws affecting the transfer of real and personal property
existed in favour of personal property. There were, be-
sides, as it had been often stated in that house, many local
charges affecting land from which, it was true, the Crown
derived no benefit (as they were not Queen's taxes) but
which, nevertheless, were charges that could not, be left
out of consideration in a discussion of this subject. He was,
therefore, not prepared to accede to the first branch of
the motion of his hon. friend in the form in which he
had presented it to the house. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) might, perhaps, congratulate himself on bay-
ing found so able a coadjutor as his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Lambeth, who proposed to pour no less than
2,500,000 i. into the Treasury;- but, notwithstanding the
present state of the public finances, be could not accept the
donation on the terms on which it was offered. His hon.
friend said that lie wished to make wills of real property
subject to probate, bet he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
begged leave to say that ho saw nothing in the resolution
which bore any such meaning. The resolution did not
propose to alter the law with respect to the probates of
wills of real property ; it merely provided to alter the law
with respect to probate duty. His hon. friend had com-
mented upon the inconsistency of wills fur years 'beire
subject to probate duty, and wills for lives being exempted
therefrom. That inconsistency was a necessary conse-
quence of the general law of the country, which said
that leases for years were chattel interests, while Teases
for lives were freehold interests. As long as the
distinction between realty and personalty, with respect to
the probate of wills,'lasted, the distinction of which his
hon. friend had complained must continue to exist. Tho
same remark applied to the inconsistency of which the hon.
member had complained as existing between houses held on
lease and-freehold houses. Freehold houses being real pro-
perty. were necessarily exempted from probate duty,
whereas leasehold houses being a chattel interest were ne-
cessarily subject thereto. His hon. friend made a remark ~
as to the scale of the probate duty. On that subject he 1
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would only say that, if ;
his hon. iridint.had submitted a distinct articulate propo- l
sition for the consideration of the house he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) would have been ready to consider it ;
i honotirab
but when his hon. fticnd's argument upon that subject
was founded on a mere abstract proposition, it was dilli-
cult to meet it. The same remark would apply to. his
1 bate duty 'anl'aerhaPs'
friend's observations as to the evasions of tire
! law, which
might
submitted to the lions: upon that mess practised with respect to pre-
fer the prevention of which precautions
'll, but until
(I definiteuesti
question,
0 riot plo,sai
.ti i at'
uselesss t- e
to discuss it.. With
were frequently 11.4 d.
,iegueet to inapropriated tithes, they
f
hav-
ing become chattel interests
With respect to the werelltter
leases for years ; and thus
that 41-cth
subject to probate
duty.
orfetahtee j)roposi-
tion of his hon. friend—namely,
perty belonging to corporations, universities, cotilel,)4');
bishoprics, Sears, and chapters, &e., be believed that a'bill,
upon the whole of that subject had been already brought
' lerable maturity by his right hon. friend who -- to considerable
ie e -
ceded him in the office which ho hado thethe honour to hold.
E
) He (the Chancellor fExchequer) had
(Hear, hear.
of the details
not had time to make himself maser, .
of that
bill, but Le vainly 4,114;00:1 tl4t it W 46 a aubJett Which

Mr. EN\ ART denied that the proposal contained in this
motion.was in any degree calculated to shake ourinstitu-
dons. The bill sought to do by peaceful means that which
might hereafter be accomplished by popular impulse.-
While he was opposed to the French and Norwegian sys-
tems of compulsory division of property, he was decidedly
in favour of freedom in the distribution of property by
will. He should support the motion because he thought
it would effect a wise and gradual change in au institution
which required revision. (Divide.)
Mr. WARNER, amidst loud calls for a division, c,,m-
plained that the Solicitor-General hail failed to specify any
one institution which this bill was alleged to be likely to
destroy. It might be right that a man should wish to keep
up his name by a family descent of property, but a more
imperative duty required of him was-that his younger chil-
dren should not be suffered to want.
Mr. L. KING replied, expressing his astonishment that
the Solicitor-General, who stated his desire for a general
amendment of the law, should have opposed the present
motion.
The house then divided, when-there appeared—
For the motion
Againstit
Majority
PROBATE DUTY.

had successfully regulated the successions in the cases
of personal and leasehold property. This law of
succession applied to at least one half of the real
property of the kingdom, and as a practical man
he advocated its extension to the other half, believing
as he did that such a change would in no respect be ad-
verse to the existence of aristocracy in this country.
Amid general calls for a division, • -
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose.—He said there
were some subjects on which it behoved the house to pro-
nounce no hesitating opinion. And this 'somewhat stale
subject of primogeniture was one of them. (Hear, hear.)
He hoped the house would not even allow to be read a first
time a bill which had for its object, or at all events would
hare for its effect, the alteration of one of the most impor-
tant of the established institutions of the country. (Hear,
hear.) He drew a distinction between measures for the
amendment of the law, and measures to destroy or shake
the institutions of the country. (Hear, bear.) To measures
for the amendment of the law the house would always lend
a ready ear, but as to measures whicia would remove land-
marks and root up the foundation-stones of the constitution
he hoped they would always say with their ancestors of old,
NolurnitS Anglice defies mutate. (Hear.) The house had,
indeed, upon the present measure already more than once
declared its opinion; last session by a division of three to
one ; and nothing had been-urged in its favour on this oc-
casion, except a repetition of the arguments before ad-
duced. Appeals had been made to the, feelings of the house
and the public upon certain isolated instances of supposed
hard s'nips for example, cases in which persons purchased
Ind and died without paying the purchase money, which
t 7." paid out of the personal estate distributable among
Lhe or rsam.
mines, the land itself descending to their heirs. But
of the fact member who stated these cases seemed ignorant
prienog„itu'r,t, but had nothing to do with the law of
art
ttrose out of a rule of law that upon
every contract
personal propert
7 wase for the purchase of laud or not, the
ad liable in the hands of the exe-
cutors orministrato
fit to contin That
uched.of the contract before the real
property could he to
might or might not be a
state of the law
ovine' the law of prinaol'eub juttuilto wouldTh not
by rem
member are _ ured in favour
I,teosct, ilia t the subject
ttnt and self-destructive arguments
were
e most inconsis-
etchl:sses w orc laesa mosth of the
of the measure. One hon.
a measure alT'a' fs(o);
was of little importanniceidtdol
If
landed property of the
then it was admitted that this was
by the interests of the community, but only affect
g
aristocracy. (Hear.) On the other hand another ho, a
naetnhie
her said that the property of the aristocracy could, not
1)0.
fee simple and held in tail under
affected, as it was mostly
settlements. But the hon. member forgot that if the law of
primogeniture was done away with, under which all settle-
ments were drawn in favour of the "first and other sons" in
-tail male, the whole system of settlements would be de -
vtroyed—Oearj—wbieh rested entirely on the principle of
primogeniture and that law of descent of which it formed
the foundation. (Hear, hear.) The present state of the law
was associated with the up haling of thegreat properties are I
! =Wee of the kingdom. So intimately connected wereth
with the maintenance of au ancient monarchy like ours, and
if this measure were to pass estates would be indefinitely
divided to the infinite disadvantage and detriment of the
eouitry, not only agriculturally, but politically, socially,
economically, aud morally. (Hear.) A great deal was said ou
this subject about "natural justice," and it was said to be
contrary to natural justice that the elder son should suc-
ceed to all the freehold estates of Isis ancestor. But, in
fact, therewas a fallacy in supposing that considerations of
natural Attlee entered at all into the question ; for the in-
etitution of property, especially as regarded reality, was A
MMUS Qf poeitut Levi end was 1491,1,13Z1 it :eillgate4

LIU 47i t....

i

- - -

-23

' "'7*

THE SUN, LONDON. FRIDAY _EVENING, MARCH 16, 1855.

which required consideration, and, when the proper season
arrived, he would submit it to the house.

Mr. WILKINSON did not think that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had answered the arguments of Mr. Wil-
liams.

necessity for such interference eheuld be established. But
the hon. gentleman had not found the existence of any such
necessity. They all remembered the intense agitation to
which the ten hours question had given rise in former
years, and the deep interest felt in that question by a large
portion of the people of this country. At present, how-
ever, there was no such agitation, and there was no indi-
cation of the prevalence of any such feeling. The hon.
gentleman himself, in attempting to establish his case, had
gone back to facts which had occurred before the passing
of what was called the Ten Hours Bill. He said, and said
truly as he (Sir G. Grey) believed, that groat benefit had
been derived from the shortening of the hours of labotir in
factories for women, young persons, and children ; but
that benefit had been secured, not merely by the Ton
Hours Act, as it was called, passed in 1847, but by the
operation of that act, combined with and strengthened by
' the act of 1850, which the honourable gentleman then
sought to set aside. Lot him remind the house what
were the facts of the case. By an act of William
IV. the hours of labour in factories were limited, for
young persons, to twelve hours ti day •, and these
twelve hours might be taken between half-past five
o'clock iu the morning and half-past eight o'clock in the
evening.. By the act of 1817 the II hours were limited to
10 ; but the 15 hours between half-past five in the morning
and half-past eight in the evening were still left as the
margin within which the ten hours might bo taken. The
consequence was, that a system of relays had been adopted,
and there was nothing in the act to render that system
illegal. He (Sir G. Grey) had been at the time Secretary
of State for the Homo Department, and he had received
innumerable complaints of the operation of the act of 1817,
in consequence of the mode in which it had been carried
into effect. In the year 1550 the subject hul undergone
long and most anxious consideration ; and with the consent
and concurrence of the acknowledged advocates of the fac-
tory operatives, the act of that year had been adopted as
the best settlement of the question which could he effected.
By the act the hours of labour were reduced to 10,3 during
the first five days of the week, and these 10} hours should
be selected between six iu the morning and six in the even-
ing, while a half holiday was given on the Saturday, so
that the total number of hours of labour during each week
could not amount, for women, young persons, and chil-
dren, to more than 60 hours. Generally speaking, the act
had worked very satisfactorily. anti had been productive of
great harmony among the owners of factories and the peo-
ple in their employment. The hon. gentleman said that it
was evaded, but he (Sir G. Grey) should like to know what
act was not evaded ? The hon. gentleman proposed to
prevent the evasion in question by extending the restric-
tions on the hours of labour from what were known as
the protected classes to the whole of the adult factory
populatien."sHe would shut up the mills altogether except
during 12 hours each day. But was the house prepared,
for the first time, and contrary to the opinion which had
been universally expressed, to say that no adult male ope-
rative should work in a factory after six o'clock in the
evening ? That was a principle they had hitherto refused
to recognise, and he hoped they would continue thafre-
fusel. It would be a dangerous principlefor thena te adopt,
and one which might fetter our manufacturing industry in
a manner perilous to the prosperity of the country. He
trusted that the house would not upset the act of 1850,
which had worked very beneficially, and that they would
not apparently sanction the principle of limiting the hours
of labour for the adult labouring population by allowing the
bill to be brought in, and creating an expectation that it
might be passed at a subsequent period of the session. The
case was fully before the house ; they were as well able to
decide upon it at present as they would be after Easter ;
and he hoped they would agree with him in negativing the
motion for the introduction of the measure.

Mr. PEACOCKE said it was the policy of our free com-
mercial code that personal property should change hands as
freely as possible, whilst the policy of our territorial con-
stitution was, that the land of this country should change
hands as-seldom as possible—should rest in the possession
of certain families, and be identified with certain names.
The late Chancellor of the Exchequer showed, in his finan-
cial statement of 1952, that whilst real property paid a tax
of 9d. in the pound, personal property paid a tax of 7d. in
31. The landed interest hid submitted to free trade, but
they would not quietly submit to the exactions proposed
by the hon. member for Lambeth. (Cheers.) This was not
the time, when we were engaged in a great war, to open
the question
of agricultural burthens ; but when peace
came, it would be the duty if the Legislature to review
the whole of the financial system of the country, and to do
its utmost to relieve the land from that inequality of bur-
thens to which, as compared with personal property, it was
confessedly now subject. (Cheers.)
Sir G. STRICKLAND was not prepared to give a de-
cided opinion upon the resolution moved by the ben.
member for Lambeth, but considering the very candid
manner ia which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
prornieol to treat that part of it which related to ecclesi-
astical corporations, he would advise the hon. member to
rest satisfied with that promise, and not to press his reso-
lution to a division.
Mr. CIIOSSL EY denied that the burthens on land were,
in every instance, greater than those on personal property,
and asserted that, in some cases, the contrary was the fact.
Horses that were employed for commercial purposes were
subject to taxation, hut when used for agricultural pur-
poses they were exempt. Again, insurances of commer-
cial or personal property were subject to taxation, but
insurances of agricultural produce were free from duty.
He was not in favour of the abolition of probate duty on
personal property. He thought that wben a man came
into possession of property, to obtain which he had not
had to lift his little finger, it was a good time for an
officer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to step in and
demand something for the support of the State. He thought,
too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to feel
obliged to the hon. member for Lambeth for having brought
forward this motion. The Government, most probably,
would have been glad enough to have supported it, but,
fearing that they had not sufficient strength to carry it,
they had thought it prudent to withhold their support, in
order that their tenure of office might not be cut short.
(Laughter.)
Mr. MTJNTZ thought that the tax was a bad one, and
the hon. gentleman had made a motion for its total aboli
tion, he should have supported such a proposal.
Mr. WILLIAMS replied.
The house divided—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against
The motion was consequently lost.
FACTORY LABOUR.
Mr. COBBETT, in asking leave to bring in a bill to
limit the hours of work of females and young persons in
the factories of the United Kingdom to ten in the day, and
to provide the means of more perfectly inspecting the said
factories, said that his object was to have the bill printed,
laid before members, and circulated through the country,
and at some convenient opportunity after the recess dis-
cussed on its principles and details in that house. The
factory question was one that had possessed great interest
not only for a large body of the working people of this
country but the Legislature itself. For many years efforts
' were made to reduce the hours of labour of children in
the first place, then young persons, and lastly all females
in factories, to that which he considered was a reason-
able extent of labour—namely, ten hours in the day.
In 1847 Parliament acceded to that principle, and a bill
was passed regulating the hours of labour in lectories, and
enacting that no female or young person should work more
than 10 hours a day in any of those establishments. But
unfortunately there existed a flaw in another act to which
the act of 1847 had a necessary reference, which gave the
manufacturers an opportunity of evading the act of 1817,
and the consequence was that by the adoption of a mode
of working called the shifting system, they kept the people
occupied not only 10 hours aday, but 12, 14, and in some
cases even 15 hours a 'ley. (Hear.) This system had been
acknowledged in this house to be au evasion of the law,
and there could be no doubt whatever that it was. (Hear.)
In point of fact the Ten Hours Bill of 1847 was abrogated
by that flaw. Then came the time for Parliament to re-
medy this wrong; and tile question arose as to whether there
should be a 10 consecutive hours bill or an infringement on
the principle of the act of 18-17. The working people be-
came afraid at this point, and they applied to Lord Ashley
on the subject.. That noble lord asked the right hon. gen-
tleman which was the case ; and in 1848 a letter was re-
ceived from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer stat-
ing that it was not the intention of the Government to
propose any bill infringing on the spirit of the Ten Hours
Bill of 1847. Upon this the workpeople rested quiet, and
thought the principle was secure. On the 3d of May, 1850,
however, the right hon. baronet the present Home
Secretary stated his intention to introduce a bill to
extend the term of labour to 10 hours and a half in
the day, soil to give the workpeople a limitation from six
o'clock in the morning to six 'o'clock in the evening as a
boon. It was, however, no boon, for the working people
had it before; and the manufacturer would necessarily
take his labour in those hours to avail himself of the light
of the day. Tho right hon. baronet explained the advan-
tages to the workpeople of half an hour in the morning,
from half-past five to six, to themselves, as well as the
whole of the evening, and the Saturday from two o'clock,
being,) as he said, a half hour more than was given by the
Ten Hours Bill. At present, however, they were worked
on the Saturdays to three and hal-past three, which was
more than they worked under the Ten Hours Bill. A con-
siderable opposition was raised to the bill of the right hon.
baronet, those who opposed it advocating the principle
of the Ten Hours Bill. Nevertheless, the bill was passed,
the Ten Hours Act was nullified, and the labour of
women and children war extended half an hour each day,
and half an hour added on Saturday. There were only
sixteen petition). in favour of the act, which was net
observed almost from the time of its passing, and the fac-
tory inspectors—principally Mr. Romer—complained
torly of its constant violation, and called for an amended
law on the subject. This was in May, 1852—net half a
year after the passing of the act. There was also a memo-
] i fiord romeifecturen in Yorkshire and Lancashire,
coreplaiiiing of the violation of the act, and calling for a
better node of inspecting facteriee to prevent this viola-
tion. A deputation of these manufacturers even came to
London and mensorialised the ter' of Derby on the sub-
ject. From that time to this there were continuous com-
plaints of the violation of the act. In October, 1852, the
inspectors made a joint report on the violation of the act,
and also other reports to the same effect, down to 1854,
all of which called for an amendment of the existing law,
and more restrictive powers to prevent the infraction
of the act. The question next arose as to what were
the feelings of the workpeople on the subject of these
infractions. Ile (Mr. C) would not confine himself, as
the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary would,
to the factory inspectors ; ho would state facts which
probably the factory inspectors could net ascertain.
Last session 1,083 petitions were presented in favour
of the principle of the Ten Hours Bill, all complaining of
the violation of the existing law. He (Hr. C.) had also pre-
sented a petition front some of the largest manufacturers
of Oldham in the same session, stating that the violations
were notorious and systematic, and that they could only
be met by the bill which he (Hr. C.) then had before the
house. If that bill had been hostile to the interests of the
manufacturers, such a petition would not be presented.
The whole of the petitions in favour of his bill last session
amounted to over 200,000. That was a prcof of the fact
of the violation of the law and the necessity for an amend-
ment of the present act. There had been two elections
since his first bill was introduced, and in the manufactur-
ing boroughs the pledge put tothe candidates was the sup-
port of these bills. Tho hon. member for Blackburn had
been returned on that promise, and he had kept his pro-
mise. In Ciitheroe also, the same question was raised at
the election, and the candidate who promised to support
his bill was returned. These wero proofs that his bills
were acceptable to ;he public in the manufacturing dis-
tricts, and the bill he now wished to bring in was nearly
identical with them in all its provisions. The Ton Hours
Bill was a great advantsee to young people in factories ;
he (Mr. C.) keens it, and that was the reason he was se
strenuous on the subject. Before the Ten Hours Act
was passed the condition of the workpeople was us
bad as it could be. Ono of the effscta of the long hours
wee to unfit the workmen for enlistment in the army.
Sir J. Etley said that the number rejected in the manu-
facturing districts, as compared with those rejected in
the agricultural districts, was something enormous. A
large body of evidence was taken before the Health of
Towns Commission to prove that the factory workers were
for the most part crooked ; and in Rochdale, out of 30 men
offered for the army, only one was fit for service. The
same rule obtained iu France. In 1853 Mr. Redgrave, a
factory inspector, made an examination in Prussia, and it
was found that in 1828 the manufacturing districts could
not supply their contingent. This proved the physical de-
terioration produced by the factory system. He (311.. C.)
had stated, on a former occasion, the astounding mortality
of children under two years of age in the factory districts,
because they were deprived of the care of the !nether.' Dr.
Fletcher stated the ago of death in our factory district at
eight years. The ratio of deaths of children under two
years of age in factory ).nil in agricultural districts was as
63 to 33. At a late meeting of the British Association for
the Advancement of Science, a Mr. Ashworth made refer-
ence to the strike which lasted fur six winter months—a
rigorous winter, during which the workpeople en strike
were stated to have undergone great privation. Mr. Clay,
however, the chaplain to the Preston gaol, stated that
about 1,000 of the women on strike were mothers, and that
the number of infant deaths was 497 iu the six months,
while in the six preceding months the number was 594.
The inference therefore was, that by the care which these
women were enabled to bestow on their children these 100
lives were saved in six months—months also of privation
and suffering. Was it not, consequently, in the face
of these facts, too had when called upon to redeem these
blunders, that Parliament should iufliet an additional half
hour, at the least, upon these poor people? He (Mr. C.)
proposed to restore the ten hours; to give the factory in-
spectors some chance of enabling them to enforce the law
by placing a restriction on the motive power after a certain
period. He knew that was the rock on which ho would
split on this matter. But a large nnmber of manufacturers
themselves admitted that that was the only effectual mode
of securing an adherence to a fixed limitation of hours of
labour. In other portions of the bill there were causes for
carrying out the suggestions of factory inspectors ; such,
for instance, as a clause for increasing the penalties of a
violation of the act. The only other important provision
which it contained was one which would enable a person
to proceed tor penalties under the law before a county
court judge, in the shape of a qui tam action, after having
given the inspectors three days' notice of his intention.
These were the provisions of the bill, and he hop_d that
the house would assent to its introduction, and allow
themselves a future opportunity of considering its details
and of doing justice is a large and an increasing class—a
class increasing, it would appear, at the rate of about 25,0e0
a year. The evils of the present system were undeniable,
and he believed that those evils could only be removed by
the interference of the Legislature. (Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY said he rose for the purpose of briefly
stating the reasons which induced him to °passes the intro-
duction of the bill. If there were any ambiguity in the
measure, and if any advantage could be gained by their not
immediately coining to a decision upon its merits, he could
not object to the proposal that it sisonld be brought in, and
that it should become the subject of their future considera-
tion. But there was no ambiguity whatever in the case.
Tho hon. gentleman himself had distinctly stated the pro-
visions of the bill, and he had ftirther told them it was
identical, or nearly identical, with one which he had be-
fore brought under the notice of the house. Under those
circumstances it appeared to him (Sir G. Grey) that they
ought not allow the measure to be introduced unless they
were prepared to assent to its principle. He considered
that any interference on their parts in such a matter as that
would be eatmuely aiplusvous u,4leie jjigligpaglalt,

Mr. W. J. FOX supported the bill as a means of securing
to the labouring classes a boon which this house professed
to give them eight years ago, but which they had failed to
enjoy, through no fault of their own, but from the mistakes
of Parliament. He argued that the present was a favour.
able period for trying the experiment, as the cotton trade
was not brisk at any rate; and could not be injured by
the proposed further restriction. He denied that the work-
ing classes were bound by Lord Ashley's consent to the pre-
sent law, for they had withdrawn their confidence from
him as socn as that consent was given. He hoped the
house would not refuse the introduction of this bill.
Mr. NE WDEGATE was surprised at the course taken

INTRAMURAL INTERMENT.

The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a
bill to regulat a intramural interments in Seollaud.

THE ARMY IN THE CRIMEA.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, who had given notice to move for
the production of correspondence between Lord Raglan and
the Government as to the wants of the army in the Crimea,
said he had been requested to postpone it ; but did not
know why he should do so, as he might, if he did, fail to
obtain another opportunity. The other night he had asked
a question as to its production, and the answer he had
received was extremely unsatisfactory. He was told that
it was not right that detached portions of the corres-
pondence should be produced, and that the house must
wait until the Government could produce the whole.
But when would they be prepared to produce it ? (Hear,
hear.) Who might be the Government on any future
day was quite uncertain. (Hear.) He asked only for
such portions of the correspondence as related to the wants
of the army, which formed a separate subject. He did not
want all the cerreepeudence which might have passed be-
tween the Commander-in-chief in the Crimea, and the Go-
vernment, but only those parts which related to the wants
of the army and the causes of the disasters which had
occurred. (Hear.) His reason for asking for the produc-
tion of that portion of the correspondence was this—that
the greatest interest and anxiety existed on the subject,
not ouly in this country, brit in the Crimea. (Hear, hear.)
He knew that complaints and representations had been
made to Lord Raglan there as to the wants of the army ;
as to clothing, food, medicine, end the ambulance depart-
ment. And some persons supposed that these representa-
tions had not reached the authorities at home. Now. he
did net believe that Lord Raglan was wanting in sympathy
or humanity, and he knew the noble lord bore a very dif-
ferent character, and had hoard it from those who had
served with his lordship in the Peninsular war. (Hear.)
He believed Lord Raglan bad made representations to the
Government at home. Lord Raglan must have known
that when the Duke of Wellington wrote home filen the
Peninsula fer certain comforts for the army, aed when
they were not supplied as expeditiously as they ought to
have been, that the duke wreto that if the Government
did not send out R but ho wanted he would conic home
immediately. He believed Lord Raglan had mede repre-
sentations, and he did not believe that the Duke of New-
castle had not attended to them. In justice, therefore, to
the character of Lord Raglan and the Duke of Newcastle
the papers be asked for should be produced. He be-
lieved that the papers would show that the commissariat,
the quartermaster-general, and the adjutaut-general
were to blame in many particulars. He wished to know
whether Lord Raglan had reported to the Government at
home the obligations which he had incurred to the French
for the supply of great coats and ambulances, and the facts
connected with the loss of the Prince and its stores. He
knew for a fact, that when that vesesel lay for four or five
days at single anchor off Balaklava with stores, the men
on shore were living on half rations of rum and biscuit.
If he had been a member of the committee now sitting on
the state of the army before Sebastopol, those papers were
among the first he should have moved for. If the Govern-
ment would consent to lay them before the house, their
first step would be to refer them to the committee. He
begged to move for copies of any despatches or correspon-
, deuce that had passed between Field-Marshal Lord Raglan
and the Minister for War, relative to the wants of the army
in the Crimea.
Lord PALMERSTON said that when the Government
coeseuted to the appointment of the committee it of course
had no intention to withhold from Parliament any Monne-
tion that might be necessary for investigating the mAters
referred to that committee. But the house would see that
it could not be useful to carry on two inquiries parallel to
to each other, If the house were to adopt the course sug-
gested by his hon. friend -- viz., to take the inquiry into
its own hands, each member would have to move for such
documents as were thought desirable touching the matters
to be inquired into. But the house had determined to
appoint a conmaittee, and to delegate to it all the powers
possessed by the house in this inquiry. The committee had
full power to call for these or any other documents, and he
should submit, therefore, that it would be better to leave
the committee to judge what information was necessary.
They should only be getting into two conflicting inquiries
if the house called for these documents on the one hand,
and the committee pursued its inquiry on the other. It
was competent for the committee to call for these papers,
and whatever papers were called for the Government would
of course furnish, if they did not involve matters incon-
venient to the public service. The substance of the papers
moved for by his hon. friend being extracts, would, of
course, be given when called-for.
Mr. M. MILNES demurred to the doctine of the noble
lord, and protested against the supposision that the house
were to take no proceedings in this matter so long as the
committee were sitting. The correspondence ought to be
produced in justice to Lord Raglan and the Duke of New-
castle. He hopes the noble lord would reconsider the
matter. _ _ _ _ _

by the Government in refusing to allow this bill even to be
introduced. It asked no more than the house had already
promised to give, and he hoped the house would take the
matter into its own hands and give the measure a calm and
deliberate consideration.
Mr. ELLIOTT, Mr. CROSSLEY, and Mr.WILKINsoN seve-
rally opposed the bill, the tendency and result of which
they considered would be most injurious.
Mr. BRIGHT said that he regretted to find that the
hon. member for Oldham had, in the cows, of the obser-
vations which he had offered to the house, made a proposi-
tion upon a question which he hoped had been settled for
ever. The hon. gentleman sought to diminish the amount
of labour in the factories hy two hours in the week; thus
making the number of hours 58 instead of 60. New, in the
year 1850 the whole question had been understood to be
settled, and he for one should regret to see the excitement
and the disturbance, which had existed upon the subject
previous to the, passing of the measure of 1850, again re-
vived throughout the country. One of the parties to the
compromise of 1850 had been Lord Ashley, while, upon the
other side, there had been a considerable number connected
with the manufacturing interests ; and notwithstanding
what had been stated to the contrary by the lien. member
for Oldham, ho believed that the best-educated portion of
the factory population were by no means discontented with
the settlement which had been made upon the occasion to
which he referred. None of the manufacturers had en-
deavoured to disturb the bill of 1850, or to interfere with
its operation iu any respect whatsoever. And now he
would ask if it were not better to leave in Operation the
bill fixing the period of working at 60 hours a week, than
to endeavour to obtain a measure fixing that time at 58
hours, and by that endeavour, which might or might not
be successful, to disturb all that harmony
.which at the
present moment happily existed upon the question between
the capitalists and the employed? In his opinion, any per-
son who looked upon the subject devoid of the feelings of a
partisan, must feel that it was infinitely better to leave the
question as it stood than again to light up the fire of dis-
cord in the manufacturing districts. But the hon. gentle-
man the member for Oldham had put forward another pro-
position, to the effect that the steam-engines should be
stopped at a certain hour in the evening, so that not even
a grown man should be enabled to work heyond that hour.
Now, there were many cases in which different trades were
carried on in the same manufactory, and many instances
in which the machinery in a particular portion of such
manufactory was worked entirely by adult mon, and, so far
as he could see, the hon. member for Oldham had made
out no case why they should fix a certain hour beyond
which a class which embraced thousands should not be per-
mitted to work. (Hear.) There wero many cases in which, in
consequence of the decrease of demand in the Australian,
the American, and the home markets, the adults in those
factories did not work longer than six hours in the day,
and it certainly could not be deemed an act of paternal
legislation to prevent those men from contributing, as far
as possible, to the support of their families. (Hear, hear.)
For his own part, he regarded both the propositions of the
hon. member for Oldham as highly objectionable. He was
himself prepared to assert that, so far as the employers were
concerned, they were disposed to pay the utir net obedience
to the law as it stood, and hey did not think that the
slightest service could be done by re-opening the question.
Mr. E. BALL said the house ought not to hesitate to
.

take into its consideration a question which intimately:
concerned the well-being of numbers of the poorer classes
in the community. To do so would be an insult to the
poor, a disgrace to the country, and would east a stigma
upon the house itself. (Hear, boar.)
Lord PALMERSTON said that one of the many grounds
upon which the house was asked to accede to the motion of
the hon. member for Oldham was, that the law relating to
labour in factories, as it at present stood, was grossly vio-
lated. It had been his duty when Secretary of State for
the Home Department to watch the enforcement of that
law, and he was bound to say, that although many trifling
infractions of it took place, yet those infractions were but
trifling, and that its observance was strictly looked after
by the inspectors. Now, in what did the violations of the
law of which hon. members complained consist ? In the
circumstance that the steam-engines were set to work five
minutes too soon in the morning, or were kept at work
five minutes too long in the evening, and that in that
manner little odds and ends of time were illegally
gained by the employers. Now, he did not mean to say
that those minutes did not constitute time unduly gained
by those parties, but he maintained that the infractions
referred to did not involve such a violation of the
existing law as to render it necessary that the proposed
alteration in that law should take place. In his opinion
there was a very wide distinction between restricting the
hours of labour in the case of young women and children,
and restricting the time during which adult men should be
employed. The principle upon which the Legislature bad
acted was, that it was desirable to step in to the aid of
those who, in consequence of their age or condition, could
not be regarded as entirely free agents, and to restrict their
hours of labour. But in the ease of adult men, who were
perfectly competent to judge for themselves, there could
be no more vicious principle adopted than that which pro-
posed that Parliament should Interfere between the la-
bourer and the capitalist—between the employer and the
employed. (Hear.) When Parliament had come to a
settlement of a great question, involving the interests and
feelings of large classes, and a system had become estab-
lished, foundej upon such arrangement, it was unwise to
disturb it, unless on stronger grounds than existed in this
case. He therefore should vote against the introduction
of the bill, objecting to it as he did, not in its detail only,
but upon principle.
Mr. COBBETT utterly denied the allegation of any
" compromise" or " settlement"of the question by the mea-
sure of 1850, to which the working classes not only did net
assent, but actually and positively objected. The hon.
member here read a minute of the committee) of working
men; May 8, 1850, repudiating Lord Ashley's bill. (Hear,
hear.) It was the masters, not the mar, who had accepted
that measure as a " compromise" or "settlement," and
even they had presented a petition to the house against it
at the time, so that it had never been adopted on either
side. There had been a memorial to the Home-office
against the bill from all classes of society—clergy and laity,
gentry and artisans—strongly objecting to the addition of
the two hours to the week's work. The workmen never
could find out who had entered into the " compromise"
with the Government, and Lord Derby had in the other
house asked the question as to the parties who had pro-
fessed to enter into it—(hear)—but could get no reply.
(Hear, hear.) It was curious that on the 12th of June,
1852, the hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), at a
meeting of his constituents, stated that he had entered into
the compromise with Lord Ashley. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT desired to explain. He never meant to
eased that any express compromise had been entered into.
He had merely meant to say that he had acquiesced in the
arrangement.
Mr. COBBETT—The hon. member spoke so positively
as to a " compromise," that it was strange ho should now
repudiate all knowledge of it—(hear)—bat as the hon.
member seemed now to shrink from the statement that
there had been a compromise on the part of the workpeopie
be (Mr. Cobbett) ventured distinctly to state that there
had been none. (Hear, hear.) As to the restriction on the
motive power, it had been the opinion of many persons
competent to judge, that no measure could be effective
without it; but he would accept a ten hours bill without
it—(hear)—and it was purely matter of detail. (Hear,
hear.) The hon, member for _Manchester had ale aye con-
tended that to restrict the hours of labour for ohild.en and
women would be to stop the mills as to adults. If that
were so then there could be no harm in doing so directly.
(Hear.) As to the renewal of agitation and animosity be
saw no occasion for it, and if the hon. member for Man-
chester would abstain from such a course as tended to ex-
cite it—(hear)—no such result would arise. (Hear.) With
these observations he ventured to trust that the house
would allow of the introduction of the bill. (Hear.)
The house divided—
Ayes ~.. 101
Noes ... 109
Majority —8
The result was received with loud oriel, of hear, hear,
from tin Opposition,

Mr. PACKE said he bad voted for the committee. The
count) adopted by the noble lord was most fair aid
straightforward.
Mr. DUNCOMBE would not trouble the house by di-
♦iding if any member of the committee would say that the
papers would bo sent for by the committee.
Mr. PHILLIMORE thought they had no right to as-
sume that the committee would not ask for the papers.
The motion was then negatived without a division.
The Purchasers' Protection against Judgment Bill and
the Lunacy Regulation Act Amendment Bill were read a
third time and passed.
Adjourned at twelve o'clock.

PAIRS ON MR. LOCKE KING'S MOTION.
FOR. AGAINST.
Mr. J. Pilkington. Lord (..hel,:ea.
Sir J. Shelley. Sir F. Baring.
Mr. Moffatt. Mr. R.,bertion.

Mr. Stanley. Mr. Curry.
Mr. Bass. Sir G. Berkeley.
Lord R. Grosvenor. Lord W. Graham.

PAIRS ON MR. WILLIAMS'S MOTION.
FOE. AGAINST.
Mr. C. ForAter, from 7 till 9. Colonel Harcourt.
Mr. Jackson, till N. Sir It. Bulkeley.
Mr. Pilkington. Lord Chelsea.
Mr. H. Russell, till 9i. Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Moffatt. Mr. Robertson.
Mr. Stanley, all night. Mr. Corry.

Erratum.—Sir Joseph Bailey paired with Mr. Osman
Ricardo on I*.r. Heywood's motion, and not Mr. Bail io.
Mr. Locke King paired in favour of Mr. Heywood's motion
with Colonel Howard Vyse against.

ARMY lIEFORE SEBASTOPOL COM-

MITTEE.

[A portion of the following appeared in our first edi-
tion of yesterday.]
Tile inquiry was resumes this morning at the usual
hour.

The public were as usual numerous ;,but a great and
much needed improvement has been made in their ad.
mission ; the doors being thrown open some time pre-
viously to the hour. Much inconvenience has been
thereby remedied, and the fearful crush into the room at

the last moment avoided. The confusion occasioned by
the former practice of not throwing open the doors until
the proceedings were about to commence rendered it
very difficult for the members of the press to catch what
was said for several minutes.

Tho Earl of Luean was the first witness called, and

was examined by the Chairman. He stated that he
commandel the cavalry division, and arrived at Scutari
in May last. There was great facility for landing horses
at Kululee, so that no preparation in particular for their
disembarkation was needed. The horses were supplied
with plenty of forage, except hay, whilst there. The
Commissary was frequently changed. The Commissa' ies
were very inexperienced, and two of them were young
gentlemen from the Treasury.
The Chairman—When did you s,art from Varna ?
Lord Lucan—The cavalry were only partially em-
barked at Kululee—those which were not were kept on
board, and the others were re-embarked. He arrived at
Varna in June. A t Varna there was always great diffi-
culty in getting their forage supply. They were en-
camped about two miles from the town. He
thought his men had fresh meat the whole time.
The men suffered from cholera to a fearful ex-
tent. On the 22d of July they changed their
position, and moved three miles further up the country,
where the cholera became very virulent indeed. To all
appearance it ought to have been the healthiest spot in
the country. The 4th Dragoons lost ten per cent. of
their men.

The Chairman—When did you embark for the Crimea

Lord Lucan—The embarkation of the Light Brigade
commenced on the 31st for the Crimea. About the 18th
he bad written to Lord Raglan, asking him to send
borne for reinforcements, as he had kit at that time.
nearly 150 men. In reply, Lord Raglan informed him
that he would apply for the men, but not for
the horses. The troops disembarked at Old Fort
on the 16th September. The weather bad changed
very much about this time, and a heavy surf was break-
ing on the shore, and it became a question whether the
cavalry could land there admirably—and be received
orders to proceed to Eupatoria to land. In an hour
after this determination was come to, the weather calmed
and the disembarkation was commenced. There were,
however, several casualties in consequence of the boats
being very unfitted for the operation.

Chairman,—When you arrived at Balaklava where did
you take up your first encampment ?
Lord Lucan—We took up our position in front of
the town.

Chairman—What was the strength of your division
then 3

Lord Lucan--About 1,100 horses. During the
passage fearful sickness broke out amongst the men,
and he could nut state the number of dismounted hones
on his arrival. Under his immediate command 4 regi-
ments ; and at the battle of the Alma he ha l something
under 600 sabres and lances. Lost no men in that engage .
ment. Though there wereplenty of forage store-4 he could
never get a supply of more than was necessary for one day
—so that they lived from baud to mouth. There was not
sufficient barley on shore, and he did not recollect on t
occasion when any hay was served until very late in
October. He had frequently to send his own dragoons
to the ships to fetch barley—because the Commissary
did not send it up. The horses deteriorated in condi-
tion from the time theYleft Constantinople until within a
month of his leaving. He had great difficulty in keep-
ing the horses in condition at all during the heat of
summer and the cold of winter, but he was quite srtitsfied
they suffered from want of forage. He was highly dis-
satisfied with his commissaries, who:were totally incom-
pottst to tuck duties, gg kal 4 ;ette.F i,44 bis pogsmiou

aildresed to the Qua; ternia lel • Goilent I, a I t!V er
dated the 29th of Septcreb: r, cootp!a, a 114 it he
eetrimi..,sary &pigment. That officer w:is the rope
person to complain to, and he presu:ned he could iay the
matter before 60 Commissary-General and urge him to
a better performance of his duty.

His lordship here read the letter referred to, in which
he very strongly complained of the short supply of food
and forage to his division, and stated that he had re-
monstrated in vain with the Commissary-General
Filder. •

Mr. Ellice—Had your lordship occasion to repeat
those complaints ? .

Lord Luc an—Constantly. His letter-book was full of

hem.

Chairman--Was the evil remedied ?
Lord Lucan—Oh dear no ! He did not recollect
whether he received any reply to that letter; if be did it
was in his letter-book. Indeed he scarcely ever got a
reply to any of his communications.
By Sir John Pallington—Daring all the winter
months be never received any forue in advance from
the ships.
At the desire of the chairman the noble lord here read
another letter addressed to the gianerna,t-r-General
referring to the pressing want of rations, and especially
forage. _ _

Chairman—What Nal thetenour of the reples you re•
ceived. Did they admit the just:ce of your complaints'-
Lord Lucan—Undoubtedly. They could nut tieoy
that ; but the inconvenience was never altered.
Examination continued by the Chair.nan— Ile had
had to complain of the supply of provisions to his 0
division, it was true— but as far as the army generally
was concerned, no army, he believed, was ever, on the
whole, better fed. That remark, however, applied to
Bulgaria. The supply was not so regular in the
Crimea. They had fresh meat up to the sth of
November, but subsequently to that date it was nearly
always salt. In the Crimea his men suffered very much
in their feet for the wa►,t of boots and shoes, and their
clothing got thin and scanty ; but in the middle of Dec.
fresh clothing began to be served out. Amongst other
articles was a jacket which was very warm and comfort-
able. On the 18th October he requested Lord Raglan's
permission to send some of his non-commissioned officers
for certain articles which the men required ; but they
did not get any, in consequence of Captain Christie
being unable to find them a passage until after the
storm. They then proceeded and fulfilled their mis-
sion, but then they found that Admiral Boxer
could not send them back, and consequently they did
not return for a month. This occasioned the men much
unnecessary suffering and hardship.
The Chairman—Did you complain respecting this ?
Lord Lucan replied that he did not, fur he thought
there would be no use in it.
By Mr. Layard—He had inspected the French cava7ry.
They had depots of forage until lately, when they ha .I
to go to Kamiesh Bay fur it. They were short of forage
at the end of January.
Mr. Layard---Did you hear what was the reason of
that ?

Lora Lucan—They complained that it arose from the
fact that the English Commissary-General did not
his engagement in repaying theta the forage they ha•l
lent to us. When he first went to Balaklava there were
stacks of hay there, which were made use of.
Mr. Layard—Were nose bags, clothing, and similar
conveniences supplied to the cavalry for the use of the

horses ?
Lord Lucan replied that in these respects the difficul-
ties he had te encounter were continua), as nothing of
the kind could be got. A vast quantity of forage was
wasted from the fact of there being no nose bass, and the
horses), of course, materially suffered from the want of
clothing and exposure. He did not think the cavalry
ought to be dependent upon their own exertions for for-
age when beyond three miles of the stores. When en-
camped on the heights from the 14th day of Novem-
ber, the heavy brigade drew the whole of their
forage. The horses suffered much from that kind of
work, and especially from being kept waiting at Bala-
klava, in consequence of the men being unable to find
forage. The town was three miles and a half from their
position. The division horses were only empleyed at
first in fetching up ammunition and forage —but at one
time every available horse was called int requisition to
carry provisions te the front of the camp.
Mr. Lay:tied—Can you tell the committee what was
the effective strength of your division in men and horses
about the beginning of October.
Lord Liman—The heavy brigade had on the Bth Oc-
tober, 884 horses fit fur duty, and 23 sick or lame. The
Light Bri.tade lad about 1,000 horses ; but that
brigade was very sickly.
Mr. Lays ,rd—Can you inform the committee what
effective force you had on the Ist January ?
Lord Lucan—l had 1,153 horses, including both bri-
gades. He lost 1,100 horses between those periods. A
number were killed in the action at Balaklava, and
others he considered were sacrificed to overwork and
short forage. Ho represented to Lord Raglan the pre-
priety of obtainieg baggage mules from Asia Minor.
In reply to Mr. Layard, his lordship said he had ad-
dressed a letter to the Adjutant-General on the subject,
and, at the request of the same gentleman, he proceed( d
to read it. In this communication the noble lord com-
plained of the great loss of cavalry horses by being sub-
jected to commissariat transport duty ; and suggested
that baggage-ponies might be obtained in Asia Minor at
51. per head, as a more economical as well as proper
and more efficient arrangement. He conclude:_: by ex-
pressing a hope that his division would be relieved front
this onerous and destructive duty.
Mr. Layard—Was any reply returned to that letter
Lord Lucan—No; none whatever. Before be left
Varna the whole of the depot bad been broken up, and
there was not a baggage-horse to be found ; but where
they were sent to he had nut the slightest idea. If any
arrived in the Crimea they soon died or were stolen.
He could not say whether the baggage horses and
mules which did come from time to time were marked
with the commissariat mark or not.
Mr. Layard—Under whose supervision was this por-
tion of the transport train ?
Lord Lucien— He believed they were under the di-
rection of a Mr. Smith, one of the comtnissaries.
The batch of mules which arrived were consigned to his
(Lord Loran's) care by Lord Raglan, and he bad them
all marked. He also represented to Lord Raglan the
desirability of forming a complete transport train with
them, which should be entirely out of the control of the
carnmissariat. Nothing came of it.
Mr. Layard—Did you see any difficulty, considering
the resources of the country and the supply of mules sent
out, why an efficient transport corps might not have been
formed which should have relieved the cavalry horses
from any such duty as land transport ?
Lord Lucan replied that he would cheerfully have
undertaken to have formed one ; as it was, however, he
lost a large number of horses entirely on ace runt ef this
work, as the roads were in a frightfully bad condition.
He could not say he lost any number of men from this
kind of work.
At this period of the proceedings the room was cleared
for nearly half an hour for discussion relative to a letter
from Lord Raglan, which Lord Lucan wished to put in
and to the reading of which some objection was raised.
On the reainniasion of the public no further reference
was made to the subject.
In reply to Mr. Layard, Lord Lucent then went on to
state that a great number of horses were lost on the pas-
sage between Varna and the Crimea by over-crowdine ;
and the removal of the partitions by which they were
separated. When the vessel rolled those partitions
which remained gave way, and the whole mass of
horses fell about and crushed each other to
death. After the clothing was issued to the
horses the condition of the animals somewhat im-
proved. It was quite unusual to have clothing for horses
during a campaign ; at least he never knew it to be the
case. He did not think waterproof clothing would have
been of any particular utility as far as the horses were
concerned ; it would have kept the wet off them, but
there was no warmth in them.
• Mr. Layard—What class of horse stood the weather
the best
Lord Lucan—The horses of the Chasseurs d'Afrique
undoubtedly stood it by far the beat—but next to taese
our own troop horses went through the weather and work
exceedingly well. In this respect they were far superin r
to the French cavalry horses. The Russian horses which
were sent into the camp were in good condition and were
very good horses. They were not used fur the cavalry
in consequence of an order from Lord Raglan to appro-
priate them te the artillery. He banded over 65 horses
to that portion of the army. No offer of tarpaulin fir
the purpose of covering horses was made to him person-
ally ; he had heard such an offer was made by some
captain, but, he did not know to whom. The fiat huts
raised for the horses were by bins-elf. He fetched his
planking with a few baggage horses attached to his divi-
sion—but his greatest difficulty at first was a want of
nails. When he caine away the mortality amongst the
horses ceased. They were all tinder cover.
Mr. Layard—What provision was made for the re-
moval of your sick and wounded ?
Lord Lucan—There were ambulance trains of course,
but he must say a worse organised corps he never en-
countered, and the wounded were removed by there. He
did not consider the ambulance carriages were well
adapted for the purposes to which they were applied.
Indeed when the roads became bad they becsme quite
149 Wvniv uPotl the French
uN1V744(1 tip