The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-08 00:00:00

intimation of the course which they intended to pursue
with regard to it.
The motion was then withdrawn.

OUT-PENSIONERS (GREENWICH AND CHEL-
SEA) BILL.
T 1 its bill was read a third time and passed.
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL.
Oz the report of the amendments to this bill,
e Earl of DERBY suggested that, as the occu-
pants of farms frequently changed on Lady-day, the
date c.O which the books containing their names should
be an nually made up should be altered from the tat of
Feb.-it-try to the Ist of May.
STANLEY of ALDERLEY proposed an
amendlment, the effect of which was to render the non-
filling up of the returns punishable by three months'
tinpriscliment ; but, it being opposed by the E‘r!ci of
Derby, ila.rdwicke, and Malmeebury, it was ultimately
withdra r, n.
The report, with amendments, was then agreed to.
Their lordships acjouroed at five minutes before 7
o'clock.

HOUSE OP COMMONS.--(YESTERDAY.)
BLLLETTING THE MILITIA.
On the motion that the house should ge into Commit-
mittee of Supply.
Mr. COWAN rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice—it was that, in the opinion
of this house, the practice of billetting soldiers of the
militia and or the line in Scotland upon private families
woe injurious to the comfort and discipline of the men,as
well as oppressive to the people ; and that it is the duty
of the Governznent to take means permanently to abolish
the grievance.. Tae lion. member then proceeded to
detail the grievances that fell very heavily upon the in•
habitants of that country, and which every class was
anxious to shift to those next below them. The wretched
remuneration which the War-office paid, was three-
halfpence per night for each soldier, and in many in-
stances members of the families on which soldiers and the
militia had been billeted had been obliged to give up their
beds to accommodate them.
Sir A. AGNEW seconded the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he admitted the un-
desirableness, both for the discipline of the troops and
the feelings and morality of the people, that sol-
diers should be billeted on the public, and more
especially on private families. He thought the barrack
accommodation of the United Kingdom should be ex-
tended. At the same time it should be borne in mind
the billetting system complained of was a law that
existed before the Act of Union, and could only
be remedied by an alteration in the Mutiny
Act, which could not be altered until next year,
and therefore be hoped the hon. member would not
press his motion. Her Majesty's Government would
cake the question of billetting into consideration, when
they took into consideration other matters connected
with the army and a state of peace.
Mr. DUNCAN said, that if the sense of the house
were not taken now upon this matter, the grievance
would remain as it was.
Mr. BLACKBURN urged upon the hon. member for
Edinburgh to press his motion.
The LORD-ADVOCATE, admitting the grievances
which existed, could not agree to the resolution which
affirmed that means should be taken to remedy the evil
without suggesting what those means should be. He
did not think that assimilating the law in England to
that of Scotland would meet the grievance complained of.
Mr. LAING said that as the Scotch system of bil-
leting was a clear and undoubted grievance, he hoped
the hon. member for Edinburgh would press the motion
to a division, notwithstanding the opinion of the Lord-
Advocate that it would lead to no practical result. The
assimilatio❑ of the Scotch system to the English, which
was only a consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence,
would be the first result, and that would be followed by
a general review of the whole system.
Mr. CRAUFURD said he considered that a great
and undoubted grievance existed, to which some practi-
cal remedy should be applied, and therefore he trusted
that his hon. friend would press his motion to a division.
Mr. SPOONER said that, as an English member, he
should ♦ote for the motion before the house, for no one
appeared to deny that the system of billetting in private
houses was injurious to the eiscipline of the army and to
the comfort of the people. If ho had had any doubt on
that point, it had been removed by the speech of the
Under Secretary fir War.
Viscount EBRINGTON said that, after the speech
of the noble lord at the head of the Government, he
tiought the house might entertain the hope that this
system would be put an end to.
get G. GREY said he had heard with surprise the
determination of the hon. member for Warwickshire
(Mr. Spooner) to vote for the resolution. His noble
friend at the head of the Government hal said that the
subject would be deliberately considered, and yet the
hon. member had wished to pledge the house to a hasty
vote on the subject in the shape of a mere abstract re-
solution. The noble lard had promised that the ques-
tion should he fully considered, and he thought it would
be better that it should bo lett in the hands of the Go-
vernment.
Col. DUNNE said he hoped it would be understood
that the house was not asked to vote as to the expe-
diency of abolishing billetting altogether, but as to the
expediency of removing a particular grievance.
Mr. A. HASTIE said that his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Edinburgh only wished to pledge the house to
this—that there was a grievance which ought to be re-
medied. As no ae,urance had been given by the Go-
vernment, he should counsel his hon. friend to press his

motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that in reality the question resolved itself into one of
finance. (Hear.) It was admitted that the billetting
system was inconvenient and injurious to the morals
and comforts of the people ; but the question was whe-
ther the house was prepared to take those means which
alone would be sufficient for the removal of the grievance.
Those means could nil be adopted with,ut add,tional ex-
penditure. lie would not express any opinion as to the
propriety of assimilating the Scotch system to the system
which prevailed in England and Ireland, but it seemed
that there were great dout is whether the number of inns
in Scotland would he sufficient for the accommodation of
all the troops. Put if that were not done, the only other
means would be largely to increase the extent of barrack
accommodaticn, which would ent iil a considerable ex
penditure of money. lie trusted after the assurance
which had been given by his noble friend that the subject
would receive the full consideration of the Government,
that the hon. gentleman would not press his in ,lion.
Mr. C. BRUCE said he was astonished to hear the
right hon. gentleman state that this great social grievance
was in reality nothing more than a question of finance.
He should certainly vote for the motion.
Alr. DISRNELI said he could not agree that the hon.
member for Edinburgh ought to have brought forward
this question as a substantive motion. It was a national
grievance, and it appeared to him that the hon. gentle-
man, upon going into committee of supply, had taken a
fair opportunity of bringing the subject before the heuse.
He (sir. Disraeli) had been struck by the objections,
which seemed to him to be inconsistent. The Secretary
of State said that it wee a mere abstract resolution which
would produce no effect, while the Chancellor of the
Exchequer said that it was one essentially prac-
tical, which assumed in reality the shape of a financial
vote. He could not agree with the right hon. gentleman
that, if the house should arrive at that vote that it would
be a mere abstract resolution. But even if it were, he
could not admit that it would be barren of result. It
would be one which would counsel the Government to
take a particular course, leaving to the Government to
decide the best means of carrying that resolution into
tffect. (Hear.) He was persuaded, if the resolution were
carried, that it would not be barren of results, and he must
confess that he could not see how this grievance could be
remedied unless the house expressed some opinion on the
subject. The observations of the bon. gentleman the
Under Secret try for War would induce him (Mr. Disraeli)
as au English member, to urge upon the hon. member to
press his motion, for the hon. gentleman (Ur. Peel) said
that it made no difference whether soldiers were billeted
on priva •te families or on innkeepers. By billetting the
soldier upon the tavern-keeper they committed no social
outrage, and no violation of those feelings which men in
this country
especially respect and reverence ; and there-
fore the arguinentof the Under Secretary for War was not
only fallacious, but if sanctioned would be fraught with
vei y dangerous consequences. When this grievance was
uhiver,ally complained ~f by Scotland, and was acknow-
ledged by the Government in as strong terms as were used
in the resolution, he did not see how they could take any
other course in the present instance than accede to the re-
solution, which did not call upon the hone() to interfere
with the matter of barrack accommodation for soldiers,
or to declare that the system of bide, ting should be sod
denly and completely put an end to, but simply that this
particular great and acknowledged grievance should be
terminated.
Mr. V. SMITH said the remark of the Home Se-
cretary had been mistaken. He did not complain of
this resolution as a grievance, or that it ought not to
have been brought on then, but on the contrary that
it was a fitting time to do so, and that having stated a
grievance he had omitted to propound a remedy, and
which ought to have been the subject of a substantial
motion. If the house agreed to tnis resolution, they
would in effect decide that bill© t n; should he abolilee3.
The statements of the Under Secretary of War bad been
mistaken. He had stated vi bet was considered a griev-
ance in Scotland, was also considered so by the innkeepers
of England, and that if they abolished the system in
Scotland, they would be called upon to do so in England
also ; and by doing that they came to the statement of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the count) y would
be called upon to grant sums of money for providing
barrack accommodation throughout the kingdom.
Mr. ELLIOT said that the house bad been delayed
from going into committee of supply by the speech of the
Under Secretary for War, which had roused the feelings
of the Scotch members, who were generally of a quiet
disposition and rarely troubled the house. He regretted
the hon. gentleman should have made that speech, be-
cause it would compel him to vote against the Govern-
ment on this question. The hon. gentleman, by his inju-
dicious speech, had pulled a hornet's nest about his ears.
Mr. JAS. M`GREGOR pointed out the impropriety
of postponing the application of a remedy to an ad-
mitted grievance in Scotland, because there was another
grievance of a similar kind which ought to be remedied
in England.
Lord PALMERTSTON said the right hon. gentle-
man opposite had considerably misrepresented what fell
from him. What he (the noble lord) stated was this—
he admitted that the grievance in Scotland consisted in
the liability of private houses to have soldiers quartered
upon them, whereas in England that liability was canfined
to public-houses. He stated that a legal liability on this
subject had been entered into by the Mutiny Act, and
that the liability so incurred could only be changed when
the aot came on again next year. He also stated that if
that liability was taken away by the law, it would be
necessary to provide othor. moans and that the Go.

J '