The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, )NDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 1, 1853

the Government thought it their o o take a deliberate
and comprelkenaive view of the who. subject, to make the
best provisions in their power, and to press it forward with
vigour, in order to place it on the best footing it wax sus-
ceptible of, with reference to the interests of the Scottish
counties, and indeed the country at large. They were con-
sidering, in fact, what improvements could be introduced
in the manner in which the Ordna survey had been

hitherto carried on.
Captain SCOBELL said, no man was more deserving of
the gratitude of the country from his watchfulness in that
house over the public money than his hon. friend, Mr.
Hume. The committee should remember that these esti-
mates were increased in the present year by a sum of from
400,0001. to 500,000/. ; and that it was due to those who
had to supply the money that the fullest explanation should
be furnished upon the subject by. the Government. He
(Captain Scobell) approved of the increase of 5,000 men in
the navy when it was proposed last year, regarding that
branch of the public service as the natural and proper
defence of the country. On the same occasion, however,
he objected to the increase in the number of the artillery.
Among the items in the estimates he observed one for
"levy money on 1,210 recruits, 8,4441.," being at the rate,
of 71. a man ; and in the next line, " travelling, marching
money, cost of conveyance; and other expenses," for the re-
cruits, 3,3551., or about 21. 15s. a man. So that in bounty
money and marching expenses every recruit cost 91. 15s.—
a sum far exceeding what he had ever heard of in any other
branch of the military service. Either this amount was
too high, or the bounty paid to recruits for regiments of
the line too low.
Admiral WALCOTT said that at this moment, in the
fortresses of Gibraltar and Malta, where he believed they
had not a greater number of guns than wore necessary, not
more than one artilleryman would be found to a gun, and
he understood that the same was the case in many other of
our colonies. He was perfectly convinced there was no
military force in this country which ought to be kept in a
more efficient state than the artillery. The principal ques-
tion with him was, how we could best prevent the occur-
rence of an invasion at all ; and he thought that any sum
of money which this house could vote that would effect
that object, would be a cheap sacrifice in the end. (Hear,
hear.) Of the corps of artillery he had been an admirer
from his earliest years. Year after year he had watched
its increasing efficiency with the deepest and intensest in-
terest. He was satisfied it was a most important branch
of our military defences; and there was no assistance which
this house could grant still further to augment its value
that he would not gladly concur in. Upon the whole he
was disposed to give the present Government credit for a
determination to lay out the money which might be voted
for the promotion of the best interests of the country ; and
until he saw that they took any other course he was will-
ing to repose faith in them.
Mr. MONSELL, in reply to the observations of Captain
Scobell, said that the same sum was paid as bounty and
travelling expenses for recruits in the artillery as had been
paid in the case of recruits for the regiments of the line.
Mr. HUME agreed that the corps of artillery was a most
important arm of our military service ; but he begged to
remind the hon. and gallant member (Admiral Walcott)
that in the time of Pitt 4,846 men was the whole number
of the artillery establishment of Great Britain. And after
the war, from 1815 to 1828, the number of men did not
exceed 8,000. In his opinion the artillery had been in-
creased most immoderately since that period.
Mr. LOCKHART, in reference to the ordnance survey
of Scotland, expressed a hope that the question of the cost
of survey for towns would be reconsidered. In a sanitary
point of view he deemed it of much importance.
The vote was then agreed to, as was also the next of
807,5071. to defray the expense of pay, allowances, and
contingencies of the Ordnance military corps.
On the vote of 373,2171., for defraying the expenses of
commissariat and barrack supplies, great coats for the
army, and clothing for the militia, &c., being proposed,
Colonel LINDSAY drew attention to the present system
of lighting barracks, which he considered a most objection-
able one. The practice was for a certain number of candles
to be issued to the men, who then got a couple of candle-
sticks, with sometimes the addition of a ginger-beer bottle,
to burn them in. He should be glad to know if it was the
intention of the Board of Ordnance to carry out the system
of lighting barracks with gas ? The existing mode of
letting canteens, too, was not a good one. They were now
let by tender, the highest bidder being usually accepted.
The result was that the canteen-keepers screwed the
soldiers to the greatest possible extent, and occasionally,
as was the case not many days ago at Portsmouth, resorted
to the use of false weights and measures. He thought a
better system, and one more conducive to the comforts of
the soldier, might be adopted ; and he trusted the atten-
tion of the board would be directed to the subject.
Mr. MONSELL—The Ordnance Department had under
their consideration the question of introducing gas into
barracks ; it appeared, however, that in many cases its use
was more expensive than candles. With regard to the
second point referred to by the hon. and gallant member,
he could assure him that inquiries were always instituted
into the characters of the persons whose tenders for
barrack-canteens were accepted.
Mr. HUME said that Government ought not to make
a profit of one farthing out of a canteen ; and that coffee-
shops in barracks were on every account to be preferred to
spirit shops. He should like to know how much was de-
rived from the various canteens of the Government ?
Mr. MONSELL.-27,0001. 0
Mr. HUME repeated his condemnation of the system of
raising money from such a source; and
The vote was agreed to.
73,9691. for the Ordnance-office.
291,6571. for the establishments at home and abroad.
141,437/. for wages at home and abroad.
Lord MONCK said it was unfair that the Government
property in the borough he represented should not be
taxed for local purposes in the same manner as the other
property. The accumulation of large masses of men,
army and navy, on any point, always produced an increase
of pauperism ; this made it all the heavier upon other pro-
perty subjected to local rates. The Government property
in Portsmouth was rated under the local improvement act
for the borough, and ho (Lord Monck) did not see why it
should not also be rated for the poor, and other local ob-
jects.
Mr. MONSELL said the subject was one of too great
importance to be discussed incidentally in committee. The
Government had, however, shown its willingness to meet
the requirements of the case by submitting to the local
act.

Captain SCOBELL thought the present was not a time
for change.
The votes were agreed to.
371,6971. for ordnance stores for land and sea service.
Colonel LINDSAY complained of the defective con-
struction of the small arms of the service. It was an old
story in the army that stores served out by the Ordnance
were not very efficient.
Mr. MONSELL said, the Ordnance had always rectified
any defects in the arms of the service when they were
pointed out to them, and they would continue to do so.
Colonel NORTH suggested that a greater quantity of
practice ammunition should be allowed for the troops.
Mr. MONSELL said the subject would be considered by
the Government.
After a conversation, in which Mr. Henley, Mr. Monsell,
Colonel Sibthorp, General Anson, and Mr. Hume took
part, the vote was agreed to.
695,6551. for works and repairs at home and abroad.
Mr. M. GIBSON adverted to the sum allotted for the
defence of Alderney Harbour, complained of its amount,
and asked for explanation. Only 5,0001. was named for
the defence of London, whereas 1601. was demanded for
this out-of-the-way place.
Mr. MONSELL said, the harbour of Alderney was a
harbour of refuge ' • and it was exceedingly desirable, there•
fore, to protect it in the event of any war. It was the
belief of the most eminent engineer officers of this country
that at a comparatively small expense the Island of Alder-
ney could be made one of the strongest defensible positions
in the Channel.
Mr. M. GIBSON did not consider the explanation satis-
factory, and the general opinion was that the expense of
fortifying Alderney was undertaken without due consider-
ation.

Mr. HUME would be glad to see a report of the en-
gineer officers who had recommended the fortification of
Alderney.
Sir F. BARING said, officers were sent to the islands to
ascertain the weak and the strong points, and they had
made reports to the Government. It was not, however,
deemed necessary to publish these reports.
Mr. HEALEY inquired if the hon. Clerk of the Ord-
nance could state whether any arrangements were in con-
templation as to the establishment of baths and other con-
veniences for the soldiers, which the country had a right
to expect should be afforded, considering the great sums
expended in the-erection of barracks? (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman alluded also to the accommodation of
married soldiers.
Mr. MONSELL said the complaints as to the accommo-
dation of the soldiers applied rather to the old barracks
than the new ones, in which great improvements had been
effected.
Colonel LINDSAY admitted that there had been con-
siderable improvements in these respects ; but soldiers
were entitled to a greater amount of accommodation than
was afforded to them. At present they only had sleeping
rooms, and when these were cleaned out, they had, of
course, to resort to public-houses. Surely, if possible, this
should be altered, and there ought to be a day-room as well
as a night-room.
Captain BOLDERO said, large sums had been certainly
expended in barrack improvements. Building barracks was
exceedingly expensive, and cost at least 1001. a man. In-
deed, the barracks at Woolwich had cost 140/. a man.
Mr. HENLEY observed that if this were so, and if, as
he believed, 2,000,0001., had been expended in this way
during the last ten years, the soldiers should have greater
accommodation. (Hear, hear.)
Captain SCOBELL observed the enormous estimate of
225,0001. for improvementsin the fortifications of Gibraltar,
which had always been deemed impregnable. (Hear.)
Mr. FRE WEN inquired as to the martello towers on the
eastern coast, which were in a most disgraceful state.
(Hear, and a laugh).
Mr. MONSELL said, directions had been given to put
them in an efficient state.
In answer to a question,
Sir J. GRAHAM said there was already a breakwater
to a considerable extent at Alderney, and the question was
at present pending whether it should be extended further.
The vote was agreed to.
The next vote was 127,2131. for scientific surveys, upon
which
Mr. HUME observed on an increase to which he called
the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty, for this
reason, that the naval surveys had been stopped, although
the access to so many of our ports was not safe. (Hear.)
He was disposed to concur in any expenditure necessary to
carry on and complete our naval surveys.
Sir J. GRAHAM declined to discuss this question, on
which ho had often expressed his opinion. He had no in-
tention to stop the surveys, but was determined to diminish
the cost of the work to be done.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE asked on what scale the Scotch sur-
vey was to be completed ? The Ordnance committee had
recommended that 25,0001. a year for ten years should bo
applied to complete the survey on a certain scale, from
which the present estimate of 35,0001. appeared to be part.
The sheets of the survey would not correspond if upon
different scales. The survey of certain important mining
districts in Scotland or England would create such a demand
for the maps as to go far towards paying the expense.
Mr. MONSELL said the whole question was under con-
sideration.
Colonel ANSON said a committee, composed principally
of Scotchmen, decided that the scale should be one inch,
and that the survey should be completed in ten years at
25,0001. a year. He himself, however, was in favour of a
six-inch scale.
The vote was agreed to.
The next vote was 171,2151. for non-effective service.
Agreed to.
Mr. HUME called attention to the enormous sums of
money wasted in salutes. (Laughter.) The firing of these
salutes was only a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and the
money so wasted would go towards scientific purposes, 94$
the completion of surveys. (Hear.)
Mr. MONSELL agreed as to the necessity for reduction
in this respect.

Mr. HUME suggested the discontinuance of salutes of
bishops. (Laughter.)
The Chairman now reported progress, and the house e-
nulled.

TENANT-RIGHT COMMITTEE.
On the order of the day for nominating the committee
on the Tenant-right Bills,
Mr. DRUMMOND wanted to know what course the
Government intended to pursue upon this subject? The
first of these bills had been introduced by the late Attor-

ney-General for Ireland (Mr. Napier), not as Attorney-
General, but as a private member. Now several members
were received on the committee who did not agree with
the principle of the bill which was agreed to on the second.
reading. There was every prospect, therefore, of the com-
mittee being shut up all the summer, and he objected to
such a specimen of intramural interment, (A laugh.) He
was anxious to know what course the right hon. baronet
intended to pursue.
Mr. CAYLEY rose, but was met with cries of " order."
The hon. gentleman said he rose to complain of the compo-
sitipn of the committee.
The SPEAKER said that the committee was formed.
Mr. CAYLEY asked if it would be in order for him to

add a name to the committee ?
Mr. HUME thought it would be necessary to give notice

of such an intention.

Sir J. YOUNG was quite ready to answer the question
of the hon. member for East Surrey (Mr. Drummond) al-
though he did not think it ought to have been addressed to
the present Government. The hon. member would recol-
lect, that before Christmas the hon. and learned member
for Kilkenny (Mr. Sergeant Shee) brought forward a bill
for the acceptance of the house, and that the hon. and
learned member for Dublin University (Mr. Napier) also
introduced bills, in the preparation of which a great amount
of labour and ability had been extended. Those bills had
been read a second time, and referred to a select committee.
It was the duty of the present Government to carry into
effect the order of the house in this respect, and they ac-
cordingly moved the appointment of the committee. But
he (Sir J. Young) did not in the least degree hold himself
responsible for the bills of the hon. and learned member for
the University of Dublin, or for the bill of Mr. Sergeant
Shoe. Undoubtedly the present Government and himself
(Sir J. Young) had acted with the sanction of her Majesty's
advisers, and he had no doubt that when they got into com-
mittee, the noble lord would state what course would be pur-
sued. In his (Sir J. Young's) opinion, the committee repre-
sented all parts of the house ; and he believed that if they
pursued their investigation earnestly and dispassionately,
great benefit to Ireland would be the result ; as it was ad-
mitted on all hands that some settlement of this question
should be arrived at, or if some settlement was not arrived
at, the statesmen of this country should give some reasons
why. For himself, he would say that he should go into
the committee with an earnest desire to discuss the ques-
tion with a view to a. settlement. Let them look at this
question in a proper way c let them remember that it was
one which had disorganised the public mind of Ireland for
years past—that it was a question from which it was con-
tended most of the grievances of that country had their
rise. It would be the duty of the committee to apply
themselves to the subject, and endeavour, if possible, to
bring the question to some sort of amicable settlement.
Mr. LUCAS did not know whether the right hon. gen-

tleman rightly understood the question of the hon. Mem-
ber (Mr. Drummond) ; but it did not appear that he had
received a very. precise answer: The question which the
hon. member for East Surrey intended to put was, whether
the Government acceeded to the principle of the bills, or
whether the community were to consider what the princi-
ple should ultimately be. The principle of the bills of the
hon. and learned member for Dublin, and of that of the
hon. and learned member for Kilkeiny, were precisely the
same. There was a great deal of difference, he believed, '
between the practical arrangements of the two bills, but
the principal of each was identical. What the hon. mem-
ber for East Surrey wished to know was, whether the com-
mittee were to determine whether the principle of those
bills was to be adopted, or how that principle should be
carried out. Therefore, he (Mr. Lucas) thought the house
should be informed of the intentions of the Government in
this respect, whether the committee were to commence
de novo, or whether they were to consider that the princi-
ple was agreed upon.
Lord PALMERSTON—The question of the hon. mem-
ber is plain enough. Certain bills were brought into this
house before the adjournment. The house at that time
determined that all the bills should be referred to a select
committee. A change of Government occurred, and it
became the duty of her Majesty's present Government to
name the committee which the house had previously de-
termined to appoint. If the hon, member asks under what
conditions the Government will go into the committee, my
Answer is, that we shall go into it perfectly unfettered.
Mr. MACARTNEY held the right hon. gentleman (Sir
J. Young) responsible for the appointment of this com-
mittee. It would only have been consulting precedent if
the late Government had nominated it. (Order.)
The SPEAKER informed the hon. member that the
house had already determined on the committee. The
question now was, whether five members should form a
quorum ?
The committee was then agreed to, the remaining names
being Lord Naas, Mr. Lucas, Sir Robert Ferguson, Mr.
Kirk, Mr. Henry Herbert, Mrßoche, Mr. John Fitzgerald,
Mr. Fagan, Mr. Robert Phillimore, Mr. Sadleir, Viscount
Monck, Mr. Walpole, Colonel Greville, Mr. Napier, Mr.
Duffy, Mr. Davison, Mr. Bright, Mr. Drummond, Mr.
Mackenzie, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Vernon, Mr. Boverie,
Pollard Urquhart, Mr. Fortescue, Lord Claud Hamilton,
Mr. Whiteside, and Mr. Grogan.
The report on supply was then brought up.
On the vote for Kilmainham Hospital being read,
Mr. VANCE moved the postponement of the vote. Re
said that his constituents inpublin felt very strongly upon
the subject of the abolition of this hospital. It was one of
the few remaining institutions of Ireland ; and the hon.
member quoted from a speech delivered by the late Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer in support of its retention. A few
years ago it was the fashion to think of nothing but centrali-
sation, but a new light had broken in upon the Irish people,
who recognised the necessity of preserving and fostering
their local institutions. He moved, therefore, the post-
ponement of the vote until the Government gave a pledge
of their willingness to place Bilmainham Hospital on the
same footing, with respect to the reception of pensioners,
as Chelsea Hospital.
Mr. F. FRENCH, in seconding the motion, said that
this was not the first time this subject had given rise to
debates in the House of Commons. In 1834, the house
came to the determination that the hospital should not be
abolished, and Sir H. Vivian had declared that Kilmain-
ham was not only beneficial to the country, but could not
be dispensed with without positive injury.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that Lord Panmure had formerly
proposed the coisolidation of Kilmainham and Chelsea
Hospitals with the view to the abolition of the former. In
consequence of the opposition which that proposal met
with, it was abandoned, but it was nevertheless determined
not to make any fresh appointment. In consulting the
views of the pensioners in Kilmaiaham, the committee
found that all the inmates were not Irishmen, and that
therefore the institution could not he upheld solely on the
ground of nationality. Moreover, it was found that a
growing desire was springing up on the part of the pen-
sioners to live with their families, and in this view of the
case it would ultimately have to be considered whether
either hospital should be maintained. The house having
determined that no further appointment should take place
to Kilmainham Hospital, he thought it would bo well to
pursue the existing system of gradually diminishing the
expenses, with a ,view to the ultimate abolition of the in-
stitution. He strongly recommended the hon. member
(Mr. Vane) not to persist in his motion. By doing so,. in-
stead of augmenting the revenue of the hospital, he might
get no vote at all, and the hospital would therefore die of
starvation. (A laugh.)
Mr. GROGAN would remind the right hon. gentleman,
who seemed to take an imperial view of the question,
that there was a strong national feeling in Ireland on this
subject, Decisions of committees were not always ratified
by the house ; and as far as the particular committee to
which this question was referred, he believed that only
one Irish member (the late member for Clare, he believed)
served on it. He trusted that the feelings of the Irish
poople would be considered on the subject, and that the
last vestiges of their nationality would be left to them.
After a few words from Mr. HUME, in support of the
recommendation of the committee,
The house divided—
For the motion 66
Against it 119
Majority against ... •• • --53
SLAVE TRADE (NEW GRANDA AND SOHAR,
IN ARABIA) BILL.

This bill, as amended, passed through committee.
OFFICE OF EXAMINER (COURT OF CHANCERY
BILL.

The house having gone into committee on this bill,
Mr. MULLINGS moved, at the end of clause 2, there
be added, " Provided always that nothing herein contained
shall extend or apply to any special examiner who may be
appointed under the provisions of the said last-recited
act ;" which was agreed to. He then moved, in page 3,
line 11, to omit the word " such ;" and after " examiner,"
to insert " of the said court." In moving this amend-
ment he should observe, that the first act passed to regu-
late pensions for retiring examiners was the sth of Geo.
111., by which they were entitled to 300/. ; but the
Chancery Relief Bill of last session gave a salary of 1,5001.
a year, allowing three-fourths of that sum as a retiring
pension. He now sought that retiring pension should not
be allowed any officer who was in full receipt of salary
from any other position.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said retiring pensions
would not be given such officers as held other appointments.
In the case of Mr. Villiers, when he retired from the office
of Examiner in Chancery, and accepted the office of Judge
Advocate, he very honourably declined to accept the pen-
sion attaching to the position of a retired Chancery Exa-
miner. (Cries of " hear, hear.") " The amendment of the
hon. and learned gentleman would, if carried, interfere
very much with the action of the statute passed last session,
and would introduce the greatest possible confusion. The
objects of the act were entirely prospective, whereas the
proposed amendment attempted to annex to it the provi-
sions of a former one, and thereby give it a retrospective
character.
Mr. HENLEY was very happy to hear from the learned
Solicitor-General that it had never been the intention of the
hon. and learned member for Wolverhampton to receive his
pension and hold an office under Government at the same
time. That had been stated in language so unmistakeable
as to give great satisfaction to both sides of the house ; for
he was sure neither party in that house would wish to see
a gentleman permitted to retire upon a very handsome
salary, and immediately afterwards accept another office
under. Government. The only point then which ought to
be regarded was, whether ' the question ought to remain
determined by the mere declaration of the hon. memberfor
Wolverhampton—(hear, hear)—or, was the house, now that
the opportunity for so doing was before them, to make an
explicit statement upon the point ? The learned Solicitor-
eneral said, that whether the act of Parliament allowed
of the pension being paid or not, that the lion. gentleman
did not intend to demand it. Now, he (Mr. Henley)
ventured to opino that, unless some such alteration as
that suggested by his learned friend the member for
Cirencester were adopted, it would be competent for
him to demand his pension. At all events, he thought
that the Crown ought to be protected by a distinct
provision in the act from any claims which might hereafter
be raised by the executors of the hon. and learned gentle-
man. (Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that the bill
now before them could have nor reference to the hon.
member for Wolverhampton, as he was appointed to his
office 20 years ago, and he was therefore entirely outside
its scope.
Mr. MALINS was quite at a loss to know why the
learned Solicitor-General opposed the insertion of the pro-
posed words, as they would only have the effect of relieving
the minds of hon. members from an apprehension that it
was possible for the learned member for Wolverhampton
to be in the receipt at the same time of the emoluments of
an existing office and of his retiring pension besides.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not believe the
matter was at all understood. Hon. gentlemen opposite
seemed to be under the impression that some benefit was

to accrue to his right hen. friend the member for Wolver-
hampton under this bill. Now, he would derive none what-
ever, for by the bill of last session the option was given to
the hon. and learned gentleman, as one of the examiners
of the Court of Chancery, to withdraw from his office, as
its functions were materially altered ; and a provisiori was
inserted that h' should be entitled on so doing to a pen-
sion. Now to that provision no condition whatever had
been coupled, that he should be incompetent to hold any
other office concurrently. During the present session,
however, a new act of Parliament was introduced, which
had entirely a prospective scope, and nothing whatever to
do with his right hon. friend, who had resigned under a
former act. It certainly was not altogether consistent
with his (the Attorney General's) notion of justice, thus
by ex post facto legislation to interfere with an arrange-
ment come to during a former session. (No, no, from the
Opposition benches.)
The house then divided, when there appeared :

For the original c1au5e.......
For the amendment ... . .....

Majority against the amendment 66
Mr. MULLINGS then moved that in line 12 for "20",
to insert "25" years as the period when the retiring pen-
sion should become due.
Colonel SIBTHQRP must observe on the division which
had just taken place. Had he beheld the hon. member
for Montrose, the hon. member for Manchester, the hon.
member for Salford, those gentlemen who used to be once
so load-toned in their demands for retrenchment and eco-
nomy, divide in favour of such a scheme as this retiring
pension ? The whole thing reminded him of the old adage,
"Scratch me, and I'll scratch you." (Laughter.)
Mr. HUME said that if that proviso ought to be in-
serted at all it ought to have been inserted in the bill of
last year, and not in the one then before the house.
Mr. MALINS said he could not help thinking that the
whole matter savoured somewhat of a job. He did not be-
lieve any man had a right to a pension for a small office
after he had accepted a higher one ; and that was the posi-
tion in which the hon. gentleman the member for Wol-
verhampton at present stood.
Mr. COBDEN said that in the course of seven hours and
a half they had voted away 15,000,0001. for the army, navy,
and ordnance, being at the rate of 2,000,0001. an hour ;
and although they had had no discussion upon the votes
for that vast sum, a discussion was at present raised on a
point that could not involve the saving of one farthing. He
understood that the hon. member for Cirencester had no in-
tention of depriving his right hon. friend the member for
Wolverhampton of his right to his pension ; and the only
object of the proposal which they were then discussing was
the insertion in the bill of a proviso which had no reference
to the case of his right hon. friend. They only wanted to
compel his right hon. friend, by act of Parliament, to do
that which he had voluntarily done last year.
Sir J. SHELLEY said he was glad to find hon. gentle-
Men opposite so sensitive with respect to the distribution
of the public money. Those hon. gentlemen should re-
member that the Judge Advbcate of the late Government
had held that office at the same time that he had also held
the office of Cursii or Baron of the Exchequer.
Mr. G. BANKES said that no one doubted the good
faith of the right hon. gentleman the member for Wolver-
hampton, but the question then was, whether it was not
right that the law should regulate that matter for the
future, instead of leaving it to the discretion of any indi-
vidual. It was true that he had held two offices at the
same time, as stated by the hon. baronet who had last ad-
dressed the house, but he had now received a year's salary
for each office. The fact was that he had not continued a
year in office, and what he might have done at the end of
the year he need not then attempt to decide. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.)
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS said he could not help thinking
that his right hon. predecessor, who was anxious that they
should lay down a general principle in these matters, must
have had his own course rather than that pursued by him
(Mr. Villiers) in view. He begged leave to say that his
case was quite a peculiar one, and was not likely to occur
again, whereas that of the right honourable gentleman
was very like to recur again. The right honourable
gentleman had held two offices at the same time. But his
(Mr. Villiers') case was a very different one ; and as there
existed some misconception on the subject, and some
anxiety he should say to misconceive on the other side of
the house—(hear)—it would perhaps be convenient that
he should make a very short statement of the facts of
the case. His position was this :—He had held for up-
wards of 19 years the office of examiner of the Court of
Chancery, after having been appointed to that office in the
year 1833 by Sir John Leach, the Master of the Rolls, who
had been of bpinion that as some changes had been made
in the duties of the situation, it ought for the future to be
held by persons who had been called to the bar. He was
the first person appointed to that office under that new
arrangement. The advantage held out was not sufficient
to tempt many to accept of it, for it precluded the holder
from enjoying any other office, or from practising at the
bar. The salary was only 1,000/. a year. On the other
hand, he considered that the office was one for life, and
that while he discharged the duties he had undertaken no
person could remove him. He also felt that the possession
of such an office was not incompatible with a seat in Par-
liament. Under these circumstances, he accepted of the
office, and held it for about 19 years. A bill was then
proposed in Parliament to change the character of that
office, and according to the recital of such bill it abolished
the practice of taking evidence as heretofore, and greatly
enhanced the responsibility of the person holding it.
While that bill was passing through the house his atten-
tion was called to the fact that no allusion was made in it
to the officer himself. He did not suppose that the late
Government had any intention to do an injustice to him
because he was an opponent, or that they intended to act
less liberally to him than to any one else. His late col-
league, therefore, called the attention of the late Secretary
of State for the Home Department to that omission, and
the right hon. gentleman immediately paid that attention
to the matter which he expected he would do. (Hear,
hear.) The right honourable gentleman said that if a
clause were prepared to meet the justice of the case, that he
would offer no opposition. A clause taken from the 50th
Georgo 111. was accordingly proposed, which supplied the
omission complained of. That clause gave an option to the
person whose duties were so very onerous either to retire,
or to resume the duties of the office at a higher salary.
The bill with that clause passed without opposition—not
at twelve o'clock at night, but at twelve o'clock in the day.
If he remembered right, the hon. member for Cirencester
was in the house at the time, and never offered the slightest
objection to the measure. The clause was brought under
the attention of the Lord Chancellor previous to the bill
going up to the other house, and the noble and learned
lord said that he had no objection whatever to its passing.
The hon. member opposite wanted to fix on him something
like an interested object. (" No, no," from the hon. mem-
ber.) Yes, there was an imputation made against him
that he wanted to got more that he ought to have.
The fact was, that though the bill contained a clause
to his advantage, he was not very eager for its passing,
and he said in his place in house that he did not think
the measure had been duly considered, and expressed a
wish that it should be postponed. The bill, however,
passed. His colleague elected to take the increased
salary, and he (Mr. Villiers) the retiring one. He now
came to a misstatement of the hon. and learned member
for Wallingford (Mr. Malins). This was a serious one,
because that hon. and learned gentleman could not but
have known that it was not exactly true. The hon. and
learned gentleman stated, that, from his knowledge of the
fact, the statement he made was true—that charge was
that he (Mr. V.) kept the office, receiving the improved
salary, until he saw the fate of the late Government. (" No,
no," from Mr. Malins.) Why, the argument of the hon.
and learned gentleman was founded upon that assertion,
and he accused him (Mr. V.) of having waited until he was
satisfied upon the present Government coming into office
that he would be remunerated for what part he had taken
in that house. (" No, no," from Mr. Malins.) Now, he
wished to state a fact within his own knowledge, as op-
posed to that statement -as two things could possibly be.
He was in bad health in the course of the summer, and
went into the country. He came back in the month of
November for the sole purpose of claiming the right of re-
tiring from his office. This was before the dissolution of
the late Government and the accession of the present minis-
ters to office. Nor had he then the slightest wish to take
office. Now, what had the hon. member for Cirencester
done ? That hon. gentleman comes down to the house late
at night, and he (Mr. V. must say by insidious means he
proposes not to repeal the act, but by the introduction of
shuffling words in a clause and by the omission of others
virtually to repeal that portion of the act which materially
affected him (Mr. V.). If he had been absent in the coun-
try he might be deprived of that to which he was entitled
by the insidious means adopted by the hon. gentleman.
(No, no.) No man's place or property would be safe if
such a practice were permitted. If it were any satisfac-
tion for the hon. gentleman to know this fact, he (Mr. V.)
would inform him that it was on the day he accepted his
present office he placed a document in the hands of the
solicitor of the fund upon which his claim was charged,
which precluded him from receiving it. (Ministerial
cheese.)
Mr. MALINS, in explanation, said that nothing was
more distant from his mind than to say anything personally
offensive of the right hon. gentleman. (Ironical cheers from
the ministerial side). And he could assure him that the
idea of the right hon. gentleman receiving two salaries at
the same time was one which never entered his (Mr. M.'s)
head. (Oh). He thought the house would do him the
justice to admit that the position for which he contended
was one which was influenced by the impression that since
the death of the former officer, and since the right hon.
gentleman's promotion to the office of Judge Advocate,
there was but one examiner, and that the successor of the
right honourable gentleman had been hanging, as it were,
between heaven and earth. (Cries of " oh, oh," in the
midst of which the hon. and learned gentleman resumed
his seat.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that inorder to meet
the objections that were urged, he would propose this proviso
—namely, " That no pension or superannuation allowed is
to be granted to any examiner under 65 years of age, unless
in case of permanent ill-health."
Mr. MULLINGS, having withdrawn his amendment,
stated that he had not intended the slightest offence to the
right hon. gentleman in making the proposition. The fact
was, that, having met the right hon. gentleman in the lobby
of the house, he asked him to say whether he was really
entitled to a reliring pension ? when the right hon.
in reply, said, " Leave it to my own discreti?n. then
told him that he would not sanction the principle of grant-
ing to any gentleman a retiring pension at the same time
he was receiving a salary as Judge Advocate.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, that as soon as it was stated
that the right hon. gentleman had declined to draw h'
isre-
tiring salary while he filled the officeo of
course Judge-Advocate
General, they all felt that such _ t washighly
honourable to him. He (Mr. Nowdega e) never for one
moment doubted that right hon. gentlepian's word ; but
the party with whom he acted thought it was a very un-
sound principle to admit that a matter
__. of so serious a cha-
racter should be left simply to the discretion of any hon.
or right hon. gentleman who happened to be placed in the
situation of the right hon. member for Wolverhampton.
(Hear, hear.)
The Solicitor-General's proviso was then agreed to, and
the bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday.
The Slave Trade (New Granada) Bill, the Slave Trade
(Sohara, in Arabia) Bill, and the Commons Enclosure (No.
2) Bill, wore severally read .a second time.
The Inland Revenue Office Bill passed through coin
mi tteo.
Mr. DEEDES then proposed to nominate the select
committee on the Parish Constables Bill.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that as the hon. member for
Dover had given notice of the appointment of a com-
mittee to take into consideration the general question in
reference to the constabulary force in England, and as a
bill had been brought in, proposing to make a change in
the parochial constables' force, he (Lord Palmerston)
thought that, inasmuch as it was hardly possible to con-
sider one of those subjects without the other, it would be
advisable to refer the whole of them to the same committee.
Mr. DEEDES said that he looked upon the proposal of
the noble lord as nothing more or less than a shelving of
his bill. The hon. member foi Dover had agreed to defer
the appointment of the committee in his own case, indefi-
nitely ; and it was not improbable that no committee

would sit at all to consider his measure. He hoped, there-
fore, the noble lord would not persevere in opposing the
nomination of the committee for which he (Mr. Deedes)
had moied. . _ .

The following members were then nominated to serve
upon the committee :—Mr. Deedes, Mr. Lascelles, Colonel
Clifford, Lord Lovaine, M.W4dward Egerton, Mr. Wright-
son, Lord Hotham, Mr. Fitzroy, Mr. Langston, Mr.
Henley; Sir John Duckworth, Mr. Robert Palmer, Mr.
Moody, and the Earl of March.

DIVORCE BILLS.
The following members were, on the motion of Mr.
FITZROY, appointed to sit on the select committee on
Divorce Bills :—Mr. Sotheron, Sir John Yarde Buller, Sir
John Pakington, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Headlam, Mr. Bonham
Carter, Mr. Phillimore, and Mr. Vernon Smith—the hon.
gentleman having given notice that he would to-morrow
(this day) ask leave to substitute the name of Mr. Fresh-
field for that of the Judge-Advocate, which originally
stood upon the list.
The remaining business having been disposed of,
The house adjourned at a quarter past twelve.