Commons Sitting of 21 February 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Sheriffs Courts (Scotland); Metropolitan Improvements (Repayment out of Consolidated Fund); Cambridge Waterworks; Slave Trade (New Granada); Slave Trade (Sohar, in Arabia). 3° Grand Jury Cess (Ireland).

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
MR. DIVETTbrought up the Report of the Select Committee on the petition relating to the election for the borough of Lancaster. The Report stated that Robert Baynes Armstrong was not duly elected; that the last election was a void election; and that the Committee had come to a resolution declaring that the said Robert Baynes Armstrong was by his agents guilty of bribery, and that certain electors had been proved to have received bribes. He would beg to move that the minutes of evidence should be laid on the table of the House. He thought it right the House should fully consider those minutes; and he would now give notice, that to-morrow he should move that no new writ should issue for the borough of Lancaster till ten days' previous notice had been given.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORbrought up the Report of the Select Committee on the petition against the return for the borough of Tavistock. The Report stated that Samuel Carter, not being duly qualified according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, was not duly elected, and that Robert J. Phillimore was duly elected.
MR. KER SEYMERbrought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Canterbury borough election petition. The Report stated that Henry Plumptre Gipps and the Hon. Henry Butler Johnstone were not duly elected at the last election to serve as burgesses in the present Parliament for the borough of Canterbury; that the last election was a void election, and that the Committee had come to the resolution declaring that the said Henry Plumptre Gipps and Henry Butler Johnstone were, by their agents, guilty of bribery at the last election; that several electors had been proved to have received bribes varying from 4l. to 10 s., but that the Committee were not prepared to report that such acts of bribery were committed with the consent of the said Henry Plumptre Gipps and Henry Butler Johnstone;
348
but the Committee reported, that it appeared the elections at Canterbury had been for some time carried on by means of bribery and corruption. He would take that opportunity of giving notice, that as soon as the evidence should be in the hands of hon. Members, he should move a humble Address to Her Majesty that a Commission be appointed to inquire into the practices at the elections for the borough of Canterbury.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought, after the Report which the House had heard, that no new writ ought to be issued for the borough of Canterbury pending the inquiry proposed to be instituted. He should, therefore, move that the writ be suspended.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member must give notice of his Motion.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he would now give notice, as he had intended originally to do, that to-morrow he should move that the issuing of the writ for the borough of Canterbury be suspended.

LIMITED LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC COMPANIES.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the private legislation of the House. He wanted to know whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for the purpose of giving public companies powers with limited liability.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that, in the Session of 1850, and again in that of 1851, Committees of that House had investigated the subject of the law of partnership, particularly with reference to the subject of limited liability. In 1851, the Committee represented that the Crown should issue a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the subject of that law; and the right hon. Gentleman then at the head of the Board of Trade (Mr. Labouchere) had announced his intention of issuing such a Commission. He (Mr. Cardwell) had now to state that it was the intention of the Government that that Commission should issue.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he would now ask what was the intention with respect to those measures which were already before them? The usual course had been that, with some exceptions, limited liability should only be given in cases

349
where private enterprise could not reach the end.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the question put to him by his hon. Friend was divided into two parts: first, with regard to the power vested in the Board of Trade of recommending to the Crown whether a charter should or should not be granted. It was the intention of the Board of Trade to be guided on this question by principle, and, as far as they could, by precedent. What they believed to be the intention of the House when they intrusted the Board of Trade with the power they possessed was, that the charter should be granted in conformity with and in subordination to the general principles of the law. With regard to the proceedings of this House, he could do no more than give his opinion as a single Member of that House with regard to the measures that might have been brought before it from time to time; and in respect to that opinion he would only say, that it was in conformity with the opinion of his hon. Friend, and he did think that while the inquiry was pending on the subject, it would be desirable to be guarded, and not to give a limited liability where the object could be accomplished by private competition.

THE CASE OF EDWARD MURRAY.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to Edward Murray. The House would no doubt recollect that Edward Murray, a British subject, after being confined for nearly three years in prison, was tried by a secret tribunal at Rome, the charge appearing to be that he had aided or connived at a murder; that he was condemned to suffer death, and would have been executed but for the energetic interposition of the British consul, Mr. Freeborn; that the late Government interceded for him, and that his sentence was commuted to imprisonment in the galleys for life, and that the Earl of Malmesbury directed Sir Henry Bulwer to endeavour to obtain for him a further extension of clemency. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether his attention had been directed to the case. Whether he had any hopes of obtaining any further extension of clemency to this unfortunate man? Whether he had received any information of a character to enable him to form an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner in respect to the heinous
350
crime laid to his charge? And whether he would state that opinion or communicate that information to the House?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the Earl of Malmesbury had desired Sir Henry Bulwer to make representations to the Papal Government, with the view of obtaining a commutation of the sentence of Mr. Edward Murray; and he (Lord John Russell) had directed the representions so commenced by his predecessor to be continued, and they were continued while Sir Henry Bulwer was at Florence; but Sir Henry Bulwer had left that city, and he (Lord John Russell) was not exactly aware whether our representations were likely to prove successful. They would, however, be continued by our Minister at Florence. With regard to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Edward Murray, he could only say, that the Roman Government objected to its being asserted that if the case had been tried in an English Court of Justice the evidence that was adduced against him would have procured a different verdict. In fact, the Roman Government considered that the evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he wished to know if it had been ascertained that Mr. Murray was a British subject?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that no evidence had been given to prove he was a British subject; but as he was the son of British parents, it was thought fit to make representations in his behalf, though he did not know if the circumstances would have justified the Government in considering him a British subject.

COMMERCE WITH HOLLAND AND BELGIUM.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had been informed by their representatives in Belgium and Holland that a Treaty of Commerce, dated the 5th day of February, 1852, had been concluded between those Goverments, by which Belgian manufactured goods are admitted into Holland at a much lower rate of duty than similar goods from Great Britain, and if the British Government are aware of the fact, whether any and what steps have been taken to induce Holland to place the British industry on a footing of fair competition with Belgium and other nations; also, whether the above is in con-

351
travention of any existing favoured-nation clause between England and Holland?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the favoured-nation clause, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, did not give us any absolute right to ask Holland to admit British goods upon the same footing as Belgian goods entering Holland. The clause would only enable us to do so upon condition that England made reciprocal concessions to Holland; and if we made concessions to Holland, we would be compelled to make similar concessions to other nations, which might be disadvantageous to this country. Therefore no representations such as the hon. Gentleman alluded to had been made to the Government of Holland.

STAMP DUTY ON NEWSPAPERS.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the subject upon which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) had appealed to the hon. and learned Attorney General, and on which occasion reference was made to the right hon. Gentleman for an answer. The late Government promised to introduce a Bill to amend the Newspaper Stamp Act, and the matter was thought an urgent one, on account of the litigation that might arise upon the knotty point left in doubt by the existing law. He therefore wished to ask whether pending the consideration of the question, the legal proceedings against Mr. Dickens, in the case of the Household Narrative, were to be put a stop to, and whether other persons, acting according to the judgment that was given in that gentleman's case, would be freed from prosecution by the Government?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, that it had not fallen to his lot to conduct the case against Mr. Dickens, and no notice whatever had been taken of this subject in his department, nor had it in any way been brought before him until within the last three or four days, and then it was not with reference to Mr. Dickens. The course that he had taken was to direct a case to be prepared and submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, upon which they would advise the Government with regard to the state of the law. That was the only step that he had the power to take, and he believed it was the one most calculated for the solution of the question. With regard to any legal proceedings having been taken
352
on the subject, he had no information, and was not aware of any.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that this was a question in which parties were liable to very heavy penalties, and all that he meant to ask was, that, pending the inquiry into the matter by the Government, no legal proceedings should be taken against individuals, which might be ruinous to them.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if any regular representation were made to him on behalf of particular individuals, he should be happy to give it his best consideration; but from giving a hypothetical answer at the present moment upon circumstances not under consideration, he hoped that he would be excused.

THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND.
MR. MOOREsaid, he rose in pursuance of notice to put a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London as to the opinions and intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers on that much-vexed subject—but by none more vexed than by the noble Lord himself—the Irish Church Establishment. He trusted the answer would be frank, ample, and explicit—not only free from evasion and official reserve, but containing a full and comprehensive exposition of the views and intentions of the Ministry with respect to this most important subject; and as, under ordinary circumstances, it might be considered that he expected more than he had a right to claim in calling for so complete and comprehensive an avowal, he would venture to show that the circumstances of the case warranted him in demanding such an explanation, and that the noble Lord's position, under those circumstances, called on him to afford it. He thought he would accomplish, his task if he was able to prove—first, that the answer would affect not only the political tranquillity but the social peace and happiness of a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects; and, secondly, what the noble Lord himself might not regard as a secondary consideration, that it would also materially, if not vitally, affect the Government itself. No one could express the strength of his convictions on the question of the Irish Church half as forcibly or as well as the noble Lord had done on a former occasion. The noble Lord had said that he had lost confidence in the people of Ireland. He could assure the noble Lord that

353
the Catholic people of Ireland quite reciprocated the feeling. Still a question of the appropriation of Church Revenues to national and secular purposes could not be affected by any change in the noble Lord's opinion on a question of confidence, and though the First Lord of the Admiralty had, on one very important occasion, separated himself from the Government to which the noble Lord belonged, because the noble Lord went beyond him ill liberality, he had on a more recent occasion shown himself to be as much in advance of his Colleague, so that he (Mr. Moore) ventured to hope that in the game of tric-trac between them, the result might be a victory for religious liberty. In 1835 the noble Lord introduced a clause appropriating the Church Revenues for secular and national purposes, and in doing so referred to the Address of the House in the previous year, in which they promised to remove all just grounds of complaint on the part of the Irish people. The noble Lord said—
"I am come before you to-day to represent to you what I consider 'a just cause of complaint' by the people of Ireland, and to induce you, if I can, to take a step to obtain a 'well-considered measure of improvement.' My complaint is, that nothing of that sort has yet been done or attempted, and I have referred to this discussion, not only on account of its strict connexion with my Motion, but because I think it ought to refute any answer to it founded upon some supposed danger, some distant apprehension, that what we may do to remove a just cause of complaint,' and to adopt a well-considered measure of improvement' with regard to Ireland, may have an injurious effect at some distant and indefinite time on one of the institutions of the country. I say you are not at liberty, after having agreed to this address, to put in that answer, and thus to bar a remedy. One of two things must be admitted—either you are prepared to do justice to Ireland—to consider her grievances, and redress her wrongs—or you are not. But if you tell us that your position is such that any measure of that kind would be injurious to England, and dangerous to her Church Establishment, which prevents the remedy of the abuses of the Church of Ireland, you surely, then, have no right to say that it is fit to enforce the legislative union."
The declaration of the noble Lord sank deep into the minds of the people of Ireland; and when they saw the principle of justice to Ireland discarded—they logically demanded the repeal of the Union. The noble Lord had furnished them with the clue to the penetralia of Whig policy on this subject. In the year 1849, on being taunted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), in connexion with the Appropriation Clause, the noble Lord said—
354
"The history of the Appropriation Clause is well known, and can easily be referred to in the annals of Parliament. I was a party to a Coercion Act in the year 1833—a measure of severe repression—and I did think that in the following year it was the duty of the Government to prepare a measure by which a part of the revenues of the Irish Protestant Church, not needed, in my opinion, by that Church, should be made useful to other communities, such as the Roman Catholics and the Presbyterians."
According to the noble Lord's own theory, English rule in Ireland was not government, but occupation, and rested not upon the strength, but the weakness of the people. Now, he (Mr. Moore) was not about to give the noble Lord the favourable assurance that the Irish people were about to furnish him with riots and outrages, and perhaps a little bloodshed in addition, which, no doubt, would he considered all the better; they would not furnish him with the materials of another Coercion Act, upon which to build up a remedial measure. But this he could assure the noble Lord, that the Irish people, although they did not take up this subject noisily, violently, or riotously, they regarded it in a resolute and determined spirit, which neither bayonets nor bullets could subdue. There was also a formidable body of Irish Members, amounting to something like a fifth or sixth part of the House, who were pledged to oppose any Government which did not declare its intention to legislate with respect to the Established Church of Ireland on the basis of perfect equality between the several denominations into which the people of that country were divided. And here arose a very delicate dilemma. Two of those Members had taken office under the present Government, and it had been said in their defence that it was utterly impossible they could have done so unless they had received secret assurances from Her Majesty's Government that it was their intention not only to legislate upon the question of the Established Church of Ireland upon the basis of religious equality, but also to introduce a measure on the subject of tenant-right fully embodying all the essential provisions of Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill. He (Mr. Moore) was not only prepared to give the Government a fair trial, but he now this evening put the verdict into their own hands. In justice to the Irish representatives in office, and to the Irish party in Parliament—in justice to the people of Ireland, who believed they had long been trifled with by the noble Lord—he hoped that the question he was

355
now about to put, would receive a fair, straightforward, and explicit answer. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to legislate with regard to the Established Church of Ireland on the basis of perfect religious equality between the several denominations into which the people of Ireland were divided; and whether it was the intention of the Government to take a fitting time and reasonable opportunity for introducing such a measure?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not wish on the present occasion to enter into any discussion with the hon. Member with respect to the Established Church of Ireland; but the hon. Gentleman having asked him a question, to which he wished an explicit answer, namely, as to whether the Government were about to introduce any measure in order to establish perfect religious equality between the different sects in Ireland—he had to state explicitly, that the Government had no intention to introduce any measure having reference to the Established Church, with the exception of the Bill relating to Ministers' Money, with regard to which his hon. Friend near him the Secretary for Ireland (Sir J. Young) would be prepared to submit a proposition to the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moore) had referred to certain secret assurances which he supposed had been given to Members who had joined the Government, both with regard to the Established Church and with regard to the question of landlord and tenant in Ireland. For his own part, he believed that no such assurances had been given, and that those hon. Members had taken office from their knowledge of the general principles and policy of the Government, and not upon the faith of any special assurances.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsaid, he believed that Her Majesty's present Government had a very sincere disposition to legislate liberally for the tenant classes of Ireland, and to protect the interest of those classes. With reference to religious equality in that country, he could not yield either to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), or to any other Irish representative, in his sincere and anxious desire to see a just measure of religious equality established in his country. He did not agree, however, in thinking that this was the proper or convenient time for bringing forward that question; and his opinion was, that no more injudicious step than that now taken by the hon. Member for Mayo could have
356
been adopted in that House for the object which the hon. Member had in view. He, for one, should not be induced to join in this Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He did not believe the majority of the people or of the representatives of Ireland thought this was a judicious step; and it was one which had been taken by the hon. Member without consultation, and upon his own responsibility. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman if he had made up his mind to sit on the same benches and act with the same party of which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was a Member? The agitation now would interfere with a more important question—that of the settlement between landlord and tenant in Ireland. Let the hon. Member join in settling the one question, and he (Mr. O'Flaherty) would join in bringing the other to a conclusion. The speech of the hon. Member—with all respect to him—was perfect moonshine upon the present question. It was impossible for the English Government, in the present spirit of the English people, to introduce any such measure as that now asked for.
MR. LUCASsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat clown, had asked his (Mr. Lucas') hon. Friend (Mr. Moore), whether he was prepared to sit on the same benches and act with the same party of which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was a Member. The first branch of the question was answered by the fact that his hon. Friends were constantly sitting on the same side of the House, and what they had begun to do he saw no reason why they should not continue. With respect to the second part of the question, be would only say that both he and his Friends about him were prepared to act in perfect independence of both the English parties in that House, until they could discover some party occupying the seats of office who would do that justice to Ireland which the hon. Gentleman had publicly declared that he was pledged as a man of honour to require. Until that purpose was realised they would act in accordance with the pledge they had given, whoever might be in the Government. The hon. Gentleman had declared that he was bound in honour to give his opposition to a Government which would not consent to act on the principle of religious equality with respect to Irish politics. They had heard the frank, candid, and explicit answer which the noble Lord the Member for London, the representa-

357
tive of the Earl of Aberdeen's Government in that House, had given to the question of his hon. Friend. About the meaning of that answer there could be no mistake. The noble Lord was not prepared to act and legislate for Ireland on principles of religious equality. He therefore most respectfully required of the hon. Gentleman—the very term and condition of opposition which he had laid down having that night arisen—to fulfil the pledge he had given, to act according to his own definition as a man of honour, and to place himself, agreeably to his own declaration, in opposition to that Government which he now, by his presence on that side of the House, appeared to be supporting—seeing that they had now announced their resolution not to do that justice to Ireland which the hon. Member had explicitly declared that the condition of Ireland required. He had nothing further to say on the subject, except that he believed it was utterly impossible that the Members of the two English parties should he brought to see justice or to do justice to the people of Ireland, unless the Irish Members themselves were united on principles of perfect independence of English parties and English politics, and were determined to pursue steadily, without reference to personal considerations, those great and healing measures of reform and redress for which the country had so long sighed.
Subject dropped.

ENLISTMENT FOR THE MILITIA—THE PEACE SOCIETT.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he wished to put the question of which he had given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the Government intended to proceed with the prosecutions which had been commenced against certain parties in Buckinghamshire for distributing placards animadverting on the Militia Bill? Similar placards had been distributed for the last ten years referring to the regular Army, and it was thought that they might be applied to the militia, without subjecting the parties circulating them to prosecution. The moment the Government stated them to be illegal, the Peace Society had ordered them to he withdrawn, and they were withdrawn accordingly. He hoped, therefore, that no further steps would be taken by the Government, as it would scarcely be fair at this time of day to make war upon the circulation of opinion.
MR. FITZROYbegged to say, in the absence of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, that the Government did not intend to proceed with the prosecutions referred to.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he thought that the noble Lord the Home Secretary ought to have been present to answer this question, particularly because when his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) had asked the question before, the noble Lord was not particularly civil, but treated certain persons out of the House, who were quite as respectable as himself, as if they had been guilty of a grave offence. The charge against the persons held to bail was, that they had been guilty of something which went by the name of sedition in advising young men to avoid enlistment in the militia. Now, when they recollected the scandalous means that were used to induce unthinking young men to enlist, of which they had full testimony in the evidence of a distinguished military officer, he thought that in a free country like this, those persons who took a different view should have liberty to give a contrary advice. He would refer to some passages of the evidence of Adjutant General Brown given before the Army and Ordnance Committee of 1851, the purport of which was that the old pensioners residing in their native villages dared not attempt the recruiting service, so unpopular was enlistment with the peasantry, and that the best recruiting sergeants were those who, by being able to sing a good song and tell a merry story, could cajole the young countrymen. The evidence went generally to prove that military service was odious in the country, and that the recruiting sergeants used various means to induce young men to enlist. Now, they had heard a good deal of "gagging" the press, and that operation might apply to the newspaper or the bill-poster. They had it in evidence that irregular means were used to induce young men to enter, and that 5s. were offered to every simpleton; and surely it was open to those who believed that young men were doing badly in abandoning their parents, and leaving their families, to represent to those young men that which was true, and to take other means to induce them to remain at their industrial occupations. The offending placards consisted of a woodcut and an extract from a work called the Autobiography of a Working Man, written by Mr. Somerville, who was at one time most unjustly subjected to

359
flogging when in the military service. He should think himself deficient in his public duty did he not take every means towards the abolition of that degrading punishment. The woodcut was more complained of than the letter-press; but it should be recollected that they were appealing to persons, many of whom were unfortunately unable to read, and they were, therefore, compelled to bring thus home to them facts which they could not acquire from the newspapers. The present Emperor of France complained more of the pictures in Punch and the Illustrated News than the articles, because his people understood the one and not the other; but it was monstrous that in this free country, the Monarch of which was so much beloved, and the Government one in which so many persons placed confidence, people, for circulating a few placards such as he had described, should be rendered amenable to a prosecution. He understood that one person was in prison at the present moment; and he had received a letter from Christchurch, in Hampshire, stating that the police had entered a man's house without warrant, and torn down forcibly some of those placards. Now, if we had heard of such conduct in Paris, from the correspondents of the Times or Chronicle, we should have had leading articles denouncing the Government of that country, and proclaiming hostility to all despots. He was glad, however, that the noble Lord had determined upon abandoning this prosecution, a resolution which he believed had been already come to by the preceding Government, and on that belief had recommended the people at Christchurch not to enter upon any expensive preparations for defence. These poor persons had, however, been kept a long time in a state of uncertainty about a charge which, if they had received early and proper intimation of the state of the law, would never have occurred. He was sure the noble Lord would not regret the course he had now taken, and trusted that those persons who were incarcerated would be immediately set at liberty.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON(who had now returned to his seat) said: I have to apologise to my hon. Friend (Mr. Hindley) who asked this question, for having been absent from my place at the moment he put it; but I was called out to look at an Act of Parliament on another subject, and I thought, from the course of the discussion on the Irish Church question, that I
360
should be back in time to give an answer. It is true, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Fitzroy) stated, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with those prosecutions, and the reason is this—that whatever may have been the intentions of the parties who have caused those placards and pictorial descriptions to be printed and circulated, those intentions have wholly failed. The good sense and patriotic spirit and feeling of the English people have induced them to treat those invitations to abandon the cause of their country with the contempt they merit. The attempt to thwart the enlistment of the Militia having failed, I thought it would really have the appearance of vindictiveness to pursue the prosecutions which had been instituted. I have, therefore, given notice that those prosecutions should be entirely and absolutely dropped. I shall not take the trouble of requiring the parties to enter into their recognisances, and therefore of course anybody who is in, prison on this charge—although I am not aware there are any—will be released. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down alluded to the case of Mr. Somerville, which formed the subject of one of the pictorial exhibitions on the placards. He had received a letter from Mr. Somerville on the subject, which he would read to the House. The noble Lord then read the following letter, inclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. Hindley:—
"Militia—Peace Society.
"To the Right Hon. Lord Palmerston.
"36, Lime-street, Liverpool, Feb. 17, 1853.
"My Lord—I observe by the newspapers that Mr. Hindley is to put a question about the antimilitia placards of the Peace Society. I have written by this post a letter to Mr. Hindley, of which I annex a copy. Should that gentleman not read or notice my letter, I trust your Lordship will do so, and set me right with the public. I am more interested in that offensive placard than any other person. I am a literary man, earning bread for self and family by my pen, and eating it only by favour of the public who buy my productions. As your Lordship will perceive, the Peace Society, by placarding me all over the kingdom, have placed me in a false and odious position.—I am, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient servant,
"ALEXANDER SOMERVILLE,
"('One who has Whistled at the Plough,') &c."
Copy of a letter to Mr. Hindley, 17th Feb., 1853.
"Sir—Seeing in the newspapers that you are to put a question to Lord Palmerston on the subject of the anti-militia placards posted throughout the kingdom by the Peace Society, I beg your attention to the following facts and I think you

361
should in fairness read this letter in the House:—The placard in question contains an engraving of a man tied up to be flogged. It contains also a description by me (in a book entitled the Autobiography of a Working Man) of the punishment I received while a soldier in the Scots Greys, on the 29th of May, 1832. I have reason to complain of that offensive placard, and complained of it to the Peace Society as soon as I knew of its existence, and on the following grounds:—

"1. Because my own opinion has been decidedly in favour of the volunteering of recruits to the militia, in preference to a compulsory ballot (or invasion of the domestic circle by a conscription); and because, if the battalions of the militia were not filled by volunteers, the conscription must have been resorted to.

"2. Because I do not believe that militiamen were or are likely to be flogged, unless they commit crimes which they may easily avoid.

"3. Because my book was intended to be, what every page of it proves, a warning to young men entering the Army, and to soldiers already there, not to connect themselves with politics and regimental politicians, as I unfortunately did; also to dissuade civilians from connecting themselves with physical force movements.

"4. Because a quotation is prominently made from my book in the Peace Society's placard without their naming the hook, or explaining why I was flogged, but, on the contrary, leading any one not acquainted with me to infer that I was some malefactor, guilty, probably, of a vile moral crime (which soldiers usually are guilty of before receiving such a punishment).

"5. Because my name was the only one used in the placard as a soldier who had suffered that punishment which was to deter men from volunteering into the militia.

"6. Because I was not asked if I should allow my name to be used for such a purpose.

"And, lastly, if I had, I should have emphatically said 'No.'—I am, &c,
"ALEXANDER SOMEUVILLE.
"Charles Hindley, Esq., M.P."
Well, I think that that letter does great credit to the writer. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I understand, began his remarks by finding fault with me for having said something on a former occasion which he considers to be offensive, or uncivil, or rude, to the Peace Society. Now I then stated what I cannot retract, namely, that I think the course they pursued was a grave offence. Their intention was to obstruct the public service, and to deprive the country of those means of defence which Parliament deliberately thought that the country ought to have. But, Sir, the hon. Gentleman says that the proceedings instituted by the late Government were calculated to gag the press; that this is a free country, and that a man may publish what he likes. Well, he may publish what he likes, provided it is not against the law. But if this country is a free country, and it is free for any man to risk
362
publishing that which he considers not to be against the law, it is also free to the Government, and it is the duty of the Government, if they see any one publishing that which they think and are advised is against the law, and against the interests of the country, to take steps that such an offence may be punished. In the remarks I made the other evening, I did not intend to say anything offensive to the Peace Society. I look upon the Peace Society as a society of very well-intentioned fanatics—much too good to be entrusted with any political functions in this wicked and sinful world; and I would urge and entreat my hon. Friend who asked the question, to use his influence, as a man of good understanding and practically conversant with public affairs, to induce his peace-preaching colleagues in the society to be a little less pugnacious than they have recently shown themselves.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read:—House in Committee; Mr. Wilson Patten in the Chair.
(1.) 137,245 l. Admiralty Office.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, that he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the subject of the infliction of corporal punishment in the Navy. When, on Friday last, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) expressed a hope that the present Government would he able to take such steps for the preservation of discipline in the Navy as would enable them to dispense with the infliction of corporal punishment, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty stated, as a reason for believing that this could not he done, that it appeared, from the report of the Secretary to the Admiralty of the United States, that the substitution of other punishments in the American navy had not been attended with good effects. Now, as he believed that those substituted punishments consisted of attaching a rope to a sailor, and dipping him in the water, tying his knees up against his chin, and making him drag about a cannon ball attached to his leg, he did not wonder that the United States sailors objected to their infliction, and that they were not successful in promoting good discipline. He thought that when the abolition of corporal punishment had been accompanied by the substitution of others so objectionable, the experience thus gained could not be considered conclusive against the abolition of

363
corporal punishment. It was of the greatest importance that the attention of the Government should he earnestly directed to this question, for until the initiative was taken by the Navy, no amelioration could be introduced into the discipline of the merchant service. And he believed that there never was a moment when it was more important that the Government should take into consideration the possibility of finding some mode of enforcing discipline which should he less obnoxious to the feelings of the working class of the country; for the merchant service had now great difficulty in obtaining seamen, even at increased wages. When this species of punishment was first introduced into the Navy, it prevailed in schools, prisons, workhouses, and similar establishments; but in these it had long since been abolished, and, as experience proved, with the most beneficial results. It was now only retained in the two services; and the opinion of many eminent authorities was, that discipline might be preserved without it. The Government dared not enforce the infliction of flogging upon a member of the great middle class of this country, who, having been taken by conscription for the militia, had—in a moment of excitement, perhaps of intoxication—committed an act of insubordination. Were we then to have one law for the poor man entrapped into the Army, in the manner described by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and another for the respectable man upon whom the ballot for the militia fell? This was not a purely military, but a high social question; for this punishment not only degraded those on whom it was inflicted, but all those who were liable to it. It was most important that when we gave the labouring classes a large share of political power, we should not have to deal with a brutalised population. He did not see why discipline could not be preserved on board ship by the punishment of solitary confinement, with bread and water diet. He hoped that the attention of the Government would be earnestly directed to this subject.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would merely call the attention of the Committee to the Vote they were then discussing. He could assure the hon. Member who had just resumed his scat, that he was in favour of any mitigation in the punishments inflicted in the Navy that was possible, consistently with a due regard to the discipline of the service. He earnestly desired that every check that experience
364
showed to be useful, should be imposed on the use of corporal punishment. Persons far more competent than himself, from their professional knowledge, had given their most earnest attention to this subject, and every check to the infliction of this punishment which they could suggest and advise had been introduced, and most rigidly acted upon. Except in cases of mutiny, punishment could not be inflicted in hot blood, it being provided that an interval of twenty-four hours should elapse between the offence and the punishment. Then the amount of punishment was strictly limited, and it was provided that no more than forty-eight lashes should be inflicted in one day or for one offence. A Minute setting forth the circumstances under which it was inflicted must be sent by the commanding officer of the ship to the admiral or senior officer of the station, who transmitted it, with any remarks he might think fit to make, to the Board of Admiralty. It was then revised by one of the officers of the Board; every case which in the opinion of the commanding officer, or of the officer of the Board, demanded their attention, was brought specially before them. The return of the punishments inflicted was also brought periodically before the Admiralty. In considering the merits of any officer, the Admiralty had been for many years very much guided by the amount of the corporal punishment which he appeared to have found it necessary to use, to preserve discipline in his ship, and the preference was always given to the officer who was able to maintain order on board with the smallest number of punishments. No appearance of good order in the ship was thought to compensate for an excessive quantity of it. He must say that the experience of America, where corporal punishment had been entirely abolished, and other punishments—minor in name, but more severe in their effects, had been introduced—was not favourable to the measure recommended by the hon. Member. The punishment of death was more frequently inflicted for mutinous conduct in the French than in our Navy; and with respect to the punishment of solitary confinement, it must be recollected that where the crew was not larger than was necessary for the work to be done, the confinement of men for misconduct would involve an increase of work to those who had not misconducted themselves. All these points deserved most careful consideration, and he could assure

365
the hon. Gentleman that it was the desire, not only of the present Board of Admiralty, but had been of all the Boards of Admiralty in succession for many years past, to diminish as much as possible the infliction of corporal punishment. The infliction of it was guarded by the restrictions he had already described; and if it was possible to impose additional restrictions, without injuring the discipline of the service, no one would be more glad than he should be; but he must entreat the Committee to weigh well the dangers—he believed the fatal effect—of wholly abolishing this punishment.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not urge the right hon. Baronet to abolish this punishment immediately, but he wished that it should only be inflicted in the Navy, as was the case in the Army, upon the sentence of a court-martial. The right hon. Baronet said that successive Boards of Admiralty had laboured to reduce this punishment to a minimum; but had they ever taken an officer's command from him before the expiration of the usual period for which a ship remained in commission, on account of his having made an excessive use of it? He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would afford to the men serving in the Royal Navy every possible protection against the improper infliction of the lash.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that it was quite impossible that courts-martial, as suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), could be held in small vessels, where the number of officers were necessarily limited. The right hon. First Lord of the Admiralty might, he thought, safely be trusted to do all that was possible on this subject, when they recollected the steps he took, during his former administration of the naval affairs of the country, to abolish impressment, and to induce a superior class of men to volunteer in the service. He believed that although officers had not been deprived of their command for an excessive infliction of capital punishment, instances were not wanting during the last ten or twelve years in which this had been considered by the Admiralty a bar to reappointment. He congratulated the House in having the right hon. Gentleman once again at the Admiralty, where he had before conducted the business in so popular a manner; and he (Sir G. Pechell) should be ready to support him in all his reforms. He had often expressed a wish to see a naval officer at
366
the head of the Board at Charing-cross; but he found that he had made a great mistake in thinking that such an arrangement would be desirable. He complained of the mode in which the patronage of the Admiralty had been exercised, and felt quite satisfied that it would appear from the evidence given before the Chatham Election Committee, that the late Secretary of the Admiralty had done what had never been attributed before to any person who had held that high and responsible office. He perceived that there was put down in the Votes a sum of 434 l. for the Vice-Admiral, and 342 l. for the Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom. The officers who now hold these situations were also Admirals of the Fleet, for which the pay was 1,149 l., and he did not think it was fair that those officers should monopolise the salaries of those two civil offices. One of the gallant officers was also Major General of Marines, for which he received 1,000 l. a year, which together with the other payments made to him raised his income to 2,149 l. a year. It might be said that one of the salaries payable to those gallant officers was not received; but on looking to the return of sums repaid, he did not find that any sum of 776 l. from the judicial department had been received into the Exchequer. He had received an assurance from the Secretary of the late Board that the blockade for the prevention of the slave trade on the coasts of Africa, Cuba, and Brazil, would be carried on with efficient vessels; and he was sure his right hon. Friend below did not require any suggestion from him to induce him to employ proper steamers and vessels in that service. Instances had occurred where a slaver, after escaping from the hands of a vessel of the old construction, was captured in two days by one of a more recent and better build.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he would request of the hon. Gentleman opposite the late Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Stafford) not to follow up the subject of the Chatham election, which had been referred to in a portion of the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend behind him, because, if he were not mistaken, the matter to which his hon. and gallant Friend referred was connected with a judicial investigation not yet concluded. The evidence was not yet closed or presented to the House—an inquiry was still pending affecting all concerned—and it would be most inexpedient to have any discussion

367
at present. It was natural that the hon. Gentleman should take the earliest opportunity to repel a charge of that kind; but he hoped he would postpone it to a future occasion. With respect to one of the appointments to which his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir G. Pechell) had referred, the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would remember that the Committee of the House which sat on the Naval and Military Services reported, that whenever the office of Major General of Marines should become vacant—and he Sir J. Graham) hoped the day would he distant—no other officer should be appointed to it. When they recollected the great services of the gallant officer (Sir G. Cockburn) who now filled the office—that he was almost the only surviving companion in arms of Nelson, and had the good fortune to fight a French frigate under his observation, and receive his commendations for his conduct—he trusted they would not pain and grieve him by the way in which they spoke regarding his appointment. His hon. and gallant Friend had also referred to the Vice and Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom; but the Committee considered that those offices bore some analogy to the rank of Field Marshals in the Army, to whom, in point of number, there was no limitation, and considering also the moral effect produced by retaining these proud distinctions for officers who had acquired distinction in the service, the Committee thought it advisable that they should not be abolished.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLthought the right hon. Gentleman had wholly mistaken his observations. The two offices of Vice and Rear Admirals were sinecures, and what he complained of was that they should be given to Admirals of the Fleet. Let the officers of the fleet have any sum the country wished to give them—they were two distinguished officers at the head of the Navy; but those two officers to whom he referred belonged to the judicial department, and were, he believed, under the Judge of the Admiralty. With regard to the gallant officer referred to, he perfectly agreed in all that the right hon. Baronet had said respecting him. There was no occasion, however, to give to those gallant officers situations which should be distributed amongst those who were not so well off.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, as far as he was aware of the circumstances, the Vice and Rear Admirals of the United
368
Kingdom were now, as it were by accident, also Admirals of the Fleet. The appointments of Vice and Rear Admirals of the United Kingdom were made by selection, and made, he believed, almost universally from amongst the officers most distinguished in the service. With regard to the Admirals of the Fleet, they succeeded by seniority to the top of the Admirals' list; and it so happened that the Vice and Rear Admirals of the United Kingdom (SirBryan Martin and Sir George Cockburn) did, by seniority, rise to their present rank. They were aged men, but most superior officers, and such a circumstance was not likely again to occur.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had been kind enough to give him advice as to the mode in which he should act, and it was not the first time that they had on that side received advice from the opposite side of the House. It was rather singular, however, that the right hon. Baronet, who had so perfect a knowledge of the forms and usages of that House, more especially upon the subject of election petitions, had not stopped the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir G. Pechell) on his first introduction of the Chatham Election Committee. But no; while the accusation proceeded, the right hon. Baronet remained silent, and when it had been made, the right hon. Gentleman got up and declared that the proper time for making it had not arrived. It certainly struck him (Mr. Stafford), that if the proper time for making such a charge, or of entering into a defence against it, had not arrived, the right hon. Baronet would have more completely carried out his plan of going through the Estimates in a spirit of kindly forbearance, avoiding all extraneous matters, if he had not permitted such remarks as those of the hon. and gallant Admiral. He must say, that the gallant Officer was as premature in his eulogies upon the present Board, as he was in his censures upon the late Board. At all events, he would have acted much more in a spirit of fairness if he had waited to hear something more than the opening speech of counsel of the Chatham Election Committee, before he produced his allegations. Perhaps, however, he might be permitted to go beyond the advice which had been given by the right hon. Baronet, and to say, that unless the charges against the late Board should assume some palpable—lie ought rather say some less chaotic—form than they at present appeared in,

369
that he could scarcely feel called upon to at all enter into them. The Report of the Chatham Election Committee would shortly be laid upon the table of the House, and it would then of course be open to any hon. Member to make any charge against the late Board which that Report seemed to favour; when the late Board would also be quite prepared to explain the manner in which they had exercised their patronage, as well as the whole of their conduct. He wished, before sitting down, to ask a question upon the subject of Vote No. 3, relating to the appointment of Captain Warden. That gentleman, having been employed by the late Board on the steam department of the Navy, his name had been placed on the books of the Fisgard, at Woolwich, for a particular service. It appeared to him, however, that the public would regard the placing of his name where it was as a sort of delusive arrangement. Here was an officer employed on shore, and his name was still kept on the books of a flag ship at Woolwich. He thought that was a most inconvenient arrangement. He was most anxious that the services of that most meritorious officer should be retained in connexion with the steam executive of the Navy.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the services of the officer referred to were of the most valuable kind, and he did not think they could be obtained in a more effective manner than at present. As at present advised, he was not prepared to alter the arrangement with regard to Captain Warden.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that when the charge was made by the hon. and gallant Admiral behind him, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had observed to him that it was perfectly irregular; but the experience of his hon. Friend opposite must show him that it was more the duty of the Chairman to check the hon. and gallant Admiral than of the First Lord of the Admiralty. So far as the Board of Admiralty was concerned, there was no charge made by them against the conduct of the previous Board.
The CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) was referring to the report of a Committee which had been laid on the table that day; but if he had been aware that he was referring to the proceedings of one which was still sitting, it would have been his duty to check what was clearly irregular.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he begged to express his regret that he had misinterpreted the intentions of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGbegged to explain that it was not easy to obtain the services of an officer for a shore appointment, unless he was put on the books of some ship. Captain Warden, as well as he recollected, was actually in the command of a ship when he took this situation and abandoned that command.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that notwithstanding what he had heard, and with the highest idea of Captain Warden's merits as an officer, he must persist in his opinion that it was most desirable to alter the mode in which the Vote on account of his services was brought before the Committee.
MR. HUMEsaid, that Commodore Lambert had just been appointed to a good-service pension; and he thought that before such a reward was conferred on him it should have been considered whether he had not by his conduct been the author of the Burmese war. He wished to know why this Vote was greater by 2,600 l. than it was last year? He begged to confirm the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, respecting what had taken place in the Committee in reference to the appointments of Vice and Rear Admirals of the United Kingdom. The officers referred to were to retain their sinecure appointments; and as to the other sinecures, the money was to be laid out in good-service pensions. They should see that the money was properly applied, and it was a question whether they had a right to award 150 l. to Captain Warden, the last person who had obtained a portion of that money, for services connected with the Burmese war. He wished to know when an effort would be made to bring the whole Admiralty department under one roof; and he must also complain of the apartments where the charts were kept at present in this country. The charts were kept in a garret, but in Paris they were kept in a saloon. He thought the time was come when his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) ought to turn his mind to the consideration of how far the Admiralty department might be brought under one head. The private apartments occupied by the officers of the Admiralty ought to be given up to the public service. He would remove the First Lord of the Admiralty from his situation. He would pay him

371
with great pleasure a fit and proper rent, if necessary; but he thought the time had come when his right hon. Friend ought to turn in his mind how to bring the whole Admiralty department under one roof. He (Mr. Hume) greatly admired the French system, where the whole of the revenue department was under one management. The expense was not so much a matter of consideration; efficiency was what they ought to look to. He also strongly objected to the practice of changing the Lords of the Admiralty with every change of Administration. It was a great evil both to the country and to the service. He thought, too, that it was not to the interest of the public service that the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty should have to come down every day to form a House, and in order, as it were, to make an appearance. Reverting to the practice of changing the Lords of the Admiralty with a change of Administration, he thought it fit and proper that the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary to the Admiralty, should be changed on a change of Government, but no other member of that department. The Lords of the Admiralty ought also to be at their offices at ten o'clock every morning. The inconvenience of the present practice had been demonstrated in the case of Lord Derby's Administration. There was no man more calculated to do honour to the service of the Navy, and to promote its interests, than the Duke of Northumberland; but on his appointment to the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, on the accession to power of Lord Derby, he was obliged to have recourse to strangers in conducting the affairs of the department, instead of to the men who had acquired such a considerable amount of experience in that department under the preceding Government. He (Mr. Hume) hoped this question would be taken into consideration at a future period, and that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) would shortly be able to devise some remedy.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he must remind his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that before the Committee on Salaries, he (Sir J. Graham) had stated, not only on his own experience, but from declarations, in which he entirely concurred, made to him by Earl Spencer, who was a most distinguished First Lord of the Admiralty, it was his opinion, considering the duty of that Board and its
372
constitution, that it was indispensable for the public service that there should be resident at the Admiralty at all times a sufficient number of members to constitute a Board; in other words, that there ought to be at all times present there, day and night, at least two Lords of the Admiralty and the Secretary. Communications frequently arrived at the Admiralty from the outports, requiring in some cases an immediate answer, and there was great advantage to the public service in having on the premises at all times, or on the shortest possible notice, some members of the Board. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) thought the interests of the public service demanded that the Lords of the Admiralty should be at their posts before ten o'clock in the morning; but he (Sir J. Graham) would submit that, under the present system of Parliamentary Government, which required that the heads of public departments should be in attendance in that House, where they were frequently detained until one or two o'clock in the morning, it was not reasonable to expect that the Lords of the Admiralty could be at their posts at the Admiralty so early as ten o'clock in the morning if they lived at a distance from their work. Nor did he think it reasonable, considering the vicissitudes and changes of political Government, to call upon distinguished officers holding offices at the Admiralty, to come from the out ports, where many of them resided, and make permanent arrangements for an uncertain residence in town. Again, to say that the Administration was not to have any of their political friends members of the Board of Admiralty, was a condemnation of our Parliamentary representative system. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) that real efficiency was real economy, and the true political principle in the management of a public department. He thought, also, that the concentration of the service of the Board of Admiralty in one edifice would be an advantage to the public, and fulfil the dictum that economy and efficiency were identical. His hon. Friend had referred to the department of the Admiralty in France; but he (Sir J. Graham) would remind him that the Government of France was for the most part carried on in splendid buildings, and by immense establishments. He believed that in the French Board of Admiralty they had a much greater number of clerks than we had. He repeated he was favourable to

373
the idea of having the department of the Admiralty conducted in one edifice; hut before he could give any pledge to carry that into effect, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) must make up his mind to assent to a vote for a very large sum of money.
MR. VERNONbegged to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was the intention of that department to make any further use of preserved meats at all for provisioning the Navy, and whether any contract had been taken for that purpose?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, there was none of Goldner's preserved meats now in store. There was no fresh contract entered into for a further supply; and no preserved meat was now used in the Navy, except very small quantities as comforts for the sick. He might add that the necessary steps bad been taken to proceed against Goldner and his sureties for the penalty.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that in time of peace like the present, under the existing system nine-tenths of the promotions in the naval department took place from Parliamentary or family interest. The Army was represented in that House by one officer only, the Secretary at War; and why should it not be the same with the Navy? So long as the First Lord (who had the disposal of the patronage) held his situation politically, it was impossible for him to act independently altogether of his political character.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he felt it his duty to give distinctly and solemnly to the Committee a complete contradiction to the assertion of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Scobell). He (Sir F. Baring) could assure the Committee most distinctly and solemnly that the promotions in the Navy were not made the means of political patronage, either of rewarding one side, or of gaining the other, during his tenure of office; nor were any promotions made from considerations of a political or family kind at all. SIR GEORGE PECHELL said, he believed that the right hon. Baronet who had just spoken had never used his patronage for purposes of political influence, and that a more honest man never presided at the Admiralty.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he meant nothing personal to any particular Admiralty. He meant the expressions he used to apply to all Admiralties since he was born.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he must defend the "good-service" pension held by Commodore Lambert, than whom, he
374
believed there was no officer in the service who more deserved the consideration of his country.
MR. HUMEsaid, he did not pass an opinion on Commodore Lambert, but he thought Government ought to be cautious not to grant a good-service pension to any one with regard to whom there could be a doubt of his worthiness.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that his hon. Friend was in error with regard to Commodore Lambert. He did not get his good-service pension for his conduct in the Burmese war, for he got it before that war took place.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would remind the Committee that when he was a Member of the Committee on Salaries, he laid on the table of the Committee a plan for forming the ungainly and unsightly buildings in Downing-street into a regular square, so as to comprise the offices of the whole of the public departments; and he now repeated his wish that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) would turn his attention again to some such proposition.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 34,939 l., Scientific Branch.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, it appeared strange to object to a reduction, but there was one in this Vote which he thought was not wise. In the Report on the Navy Expenditure in 1848, there was evidence that the survey of our coasts was in a most disgraceful state. Indeed, the hydrographers said, as regarded the coast of Scotland, they knew more of the coast of Otaheite. There was a diminution in this Vote by about 15,000 l., and was the survey to be postponed to save so paltry a sum as that? That led him to make an observation with reference to the publication of charts. That subject was before the Committee, and it was stated that surveys were completed and sent to the Admiralty, where they remained for six or seven years without being published, and therefore useless. The hydrographer said he was responsible for the correctness of the charts, and he could not bring his mind to let anything go out of the office till he had looked at it, and that his time was taken up with his duties as harbour master; but as a new department, the tidal harbour department, was to be created, he would save three-fourths of the time now devoted to that office. The surveys, however, still remained in the office. Since 1844, thirty-seven charts had been completed and sent to the Admiralty, of which

375
only eighteen had been published. He thought something should be done to remedy this state of things. Some of these charts had been published within a month, while others remained in the office six years.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the latter part of the observations of the hon. Member justified him in the saving he had made. It was said that there was a large accumulation of surveys made some time ago, and not yet published. Now, what was the use of a survey unless it was tested, and if it was not tested they could not publish it, and if they did not publish it it was worthless. He had already explained that this very accumulation of surveys in the hydrographer's office was the reason why he considered that until this accumulation was cleared off, the surveying might be expediently diminished. Another source of saving in this department would be the reduction of allowances to the surveying officers, which had hitherto been much beyond the due claims of the service, He should certainly do his utmost to hasten the publication of charts and the practical completion of surveys. No question, there had been great delay in these important matters. As an illustration he might mention, that when he was in the Admiralty, now, unfortunately for him, twenty-two years ago, there was one particular officer engaged in the survey of the Thames; on his (Sir J. Graham's) return to the Admiralty, after this lapse of twenty-two years, he found the same officer still engaged upon survey within the Thames.
MR. HUMEthought it was a very discreditable circumstance that any of our coasts should still remain unsurveyed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) had alluded to a chart which had been made ton years ago, but which had not yet been published. Now, that chart had very probably cost 10,000 l., and a paltry sum of 500 l. more for engraving would have given it to the public. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do would not be to stop the surveys, but to employ more persons in the hydrographic department.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that if they required Admiral Beaufort, the hydro-grapher, to authenticate a chart which he had not himself verified, he would resign his office. He (Sir J. Graham) had asked for the Vote for only six months, in order that he might have time to see whether any improvements could be introduced into the department.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he was of opinion that, considering the great importance to the commercial and maritime interests of the country, to have an increased supply of charts, additional assistance should be rendered to Admiral Beaufort, the present hydrographer, in order to enable that officer to examine and report upon additional charts. He thought that all questions connected with the harbour department should be taken from the hydrographer, and transferred to the Board of Admiralty.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had drawn the attention of a former Board of Admiralty to the charge made for the Nautical Almanack, and he would suggest that its present price of 5s. or 6s. should be reduced. He understood that the sale of that publication amounted to upwards of 13,000 copies, for which a sum of 3,600 l. was received. He trusted the Admiralty would allow it to be sold at 2s. or 2s. 6d. in future; the additional sale would, he was convinced, amply compensate for the reduction in price.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member that the price of the Nautical Almanack should be as moderate as possible, and he believed a reduction in its price had taken place within the last two years.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 134,230 l. for Naval Establishments at Home.
MR. TUFNELLsaid, he wished to bring before the notice of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty the subject of the wages paid to the shipwrights in Her Majesty's dockyards. Previous to the year 1833 their wages were 5s. a day; but at that time they were reduced to 4s., and at this moment they were considerably less than what was paid by private shipwrights. The advantages attached to the Government dockyards were constant employment, a pension for long services, and medical aid in cases of sickness or accident. With regard to constant employment, he believed no good workman need be under any apprehension of not being always able to command that in this country. As to the pension, he granted that was an advantage; but then it was an advantage which was as nothing when compared with the difference in wages. At forty-five years of age a person might insure to himself an annuity of 20 l. a year, on attaining his sixtieth year, for 8¼d. a week, or 30 l. a year for ll¼d. a week.

377
For a small increase of these weekly payments some of the insurance offices would return the whole of the premiums paid, in the event of the person dying before he had reached the age mentioned. Then, as to the advantage derived in the shape of medical aid, why the same benefit might be secured from sick clubs, which gave their members not only medical aid, but an allowance per week during the existence of their illness. At the present moment, owing to the extensive emigration which was going on, and the various means of employment that were perpetually opening up, a considerable rise in the wages both of skilled and unskilled labour had taken place. He (Mr. Tufnell) was as anxious as any one to promote efficiency with economy; but if an inquiry were instituted in the private yards, it would be found that there was scarcely one of them which could retain its shipwrights at the wages of 4s. a day. Thinking, therefore, that in Her Majesty's dockyards, above all others, they ought to have the most able and skilled workmen, he trusted his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) would take this question into his consideration; and he (Mr. Tufnell) was certain that, whatever decision his right hon. Friend came to, he would do that which he deemed to be best for the public service.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he believed that a permanent increase in the rate of wages was now taking place throughout the country, and it was most desirable that the Royal dockyards should be supplied with skilled labour fully equal to that employed in private yards. He concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Member who preceded him, that it was necessary to raise the rate of wages, in order to secure the necessary supply of skilled labour.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMcould assure his right hon. Friend (Mr. Tufnell), and the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), that, in the performance of their duty, the Board of Admiralty had given the most favourable consideration to this question; and although he was willing to admit that it would not be right that the persons employed in the Government dockyards should be paid less than in private yards, yet, on the other hand, it must be remembered, on the part of the public, that not one farthing more should be given than the real market rate of remuneration for labour might require Now he did not believe that there was a single vacancy in any of Her Majesty's dockyards at this moment for ship-
378
wrights; and more than that, if there were a vacancy, he was satisfied it would be immediately supplied. Were they not right then in regulating the wages by the market rate of labour? With regard to the comparative advantages: when he (Sir J. Graham) was last at the Board of Admiralty, the rate of wages was reduced from 5s. to 4s. a day; but then the shipwrights worked only five days out of six. They were now working six days in the week, and in addition to 4s. a day they were enabled to increase their wages by means of task-work; and further, in case of accident, they were allowed half wages and medical attendance, and after the lapse of twenty years were permitted to retire on a pension. And more than that, if the dockyards were justly administered, without consideration of political influence, and with reference to meritonly, promotion was open to every man in the dockyard; and from the humblest position he might rise to the highest. That advantage was one which was certainly not to he disregarded. He was therefore in favour of a firm adherence to the present system. He and his Colleagues had given their best attention to the question, but they were not prepared, under present circumstances, to add in the least degree to the existing rate of wages.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that the subject was one which must be regulated by the ordinary rules of supply and demand, and he could assure the Committee that he was at present actually inundated with applications for situations.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he ventured to submit that there was some mistake with regard to the rate of remuneration paid to the shipwrights and working men in Her Majesty's dockyards, and the market price of labour given to parties in the situation of artisans in the dockyards of private individuals. There were three classes of persons for whom he spoke, namely, the shipwrights, the joiners, and the sawyers. He had ascertained that in the Government yards the shipwrights were nominally paid 26 s. a week; but from that nominal sum were deducted 1s. a week to form a superannuation fund, and 1s. a week as a contribution towards the cost of medical attendance when they met with accidents in the dockyards. With regard to the superannuation fund, it should be recollected that when they got the pension they had paid for it themselves; it was, in fact, just the same as if they had formed a benefit society and paid into it 1s. a week, or

379
2l. 12 s. a year. They were, therefore, entitled to their superannuation pension in consequence of the contributions they had made to that fund. In like manner the men contributed to the cost of medical attendance; hut it was well known that unless they lived within sound of the bell at the Royal dockyards they were not allowed though they met with an accident in the yards, to have the attendance of the surgeons. So far, then, as these advantages were concerned, he apprehended they were privileges which the men had themselves paid for. As to the wages given in private dockyards, he had been informed that in the river yards of private shipbuilders they ranged from 36 s. to 40 s. a week, and that sometimes 42 s. a week could be earned by the shipwrights in those yards. If that were so, surely it could not be said that the market price of labour was paid to the shipwrights in the Royal dockyards. Now, he thought that this was a great national question, and so thinking, it was with pain that he heard on Friday night, as well as when the late Government brought forward their Estimates, attacks made upon the sort of vessels which were sent out from the Government yards. A suggestion had been made that the ships should be built by private contract, and that suggestion had been received with cheers from some parts of the House. He begged to say, however, that he believed the Royal dockyards could turn out as good vessels as any private yard, assuming that they were well managed. He did not mean to say that they were well managed—he was now merely speaking for the artisans. The way to ensure good work was to have good workmen; and to secure good workmen, they should be fairly paid for their services. Even if we did not lose the men who were at present in the national dockyards, we might rely upon it that the more skilful workmen would be very cautious how they offered themselves to work in those yards in preference to the private yards. The consequence of such a state of things as that would be, that we should have more unskilful than skilled workmen, and instead of remedying the evil complained of—that of turning out improper work—we should have worse vessels because we had worse workmen. He begged to submit to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, then, whether it was not most desirable that they should ascertain whether his statement was correct or not. As to the ship-joiners, they were a superior
380
class of workmen. In private yards they earned as much as from 30 s. to 36 s. a week. They finished the work, but did a great deal of hard labour besides. But in the Royal dockyards they received 21s. a week only. The third class of men to which he had referred, were sawyers. They worked in pairs, and in the Royal dockyards they received 35s. a week the pair, or 17 s. 6d. each. Whereas if they went into a common carpenter's yard, or any private timber yard, to saw deal or other soft wood, they earned as much as 30s. a week each. Recently meetings of the artisans in the Government shipyards had been held to consider the propriety of emigrating to the Colonies: and this was a spirit likely to be fostered unless fair inducements were held out for them to continue in this country. It might be said that few or none had left the yards; but the reason of that was, that after having contributed for a considerable time to the superannuation fund, the most prudent and provident were unwilling to forego the advantages to which they would hereafter be entitled from that fund. Many of them had wives and families. With regard to their pay, it might be said that they were comparatively better paid than workmen in the country; but then they were very heavily taxed at Woolwich and Deptford—they were obliged to pay high rent and local rates—living, as they were compelled to do, within the sound of the dockyard bell, in order that they might be ready in case of fire; and, generally, they were more heavily burdened than workmen at Plymouth or Milford. As a reformer, he had been exceedingly surprised at a suggestion made by a reform Government that these men should be deprived of the elective franchise. Such a measure could not be justified on any ground of policy. Besides, if it were adopted, the best men would be lost to the public, for they certainly could not be expected to remain in a service where their rights and privileges were taken away. These men knew the value of these rights and privileges; moreover, they knew how to use them. He (Mr. M. Chambers) was an instance of their privileges having been used independently of Government influence. Under all the circumstances, he sincerely hoped that the case of the dockyard artificers would be seriously considered before the project was entertained of depriving them of the franchise; for he was certain that the best class of men would not enter if they found they were to be liable to the penalty of disfranchisement.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must admire the candour of the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he said he was an instance of the way in which the dockyard artificers exercised their right of franchise. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee what had been the expenses of his election? He (Mr. Hume) had never, during the whole of his political life, had the patronage of the appointment of a single dockyard carpenter, nor had he ever sat for a dockyard; hut he knew that the principle upon which such establishments should he conducted was that of supply and demand. He contended that the efficiency of the dockyards could only be restored by the franchise being taken away. As to the objections which had been made to building ships by contract, he feared the hon. and learned Member had not enjoyed many opportunities of seeing what was going on in the large private building yards. There he would not find ships cut in two, and made to undergo all sorts of metamorphoses, regardless of cost.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, that this was the first time he had ever heard a First Lord of the Admiralty condemned because the Estimates were not sufficiently high. There were men in the public dockyards such as wore not to be found in other dockyards; but there was not one of the dockyards which did not require reorganisation. If any one were able to perforin that task it was the present First Lord of the Admiralty, with whom he had no political connexion, but of whom he said so from the high admiration he had of the right hon. Baronet's administrative powers. A great deal had been done by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) to put. a stop to mismanagement in the dockyards, and waste arising from want of skill. There were, however, workmen in the public dockyards who did not do more than two-thirds of the work done by the same class in private dockyards.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, there was a strong feeling among the artisans in the dockyards that they were not overpaid, but underpaid; and he was sure that no more injudicious proposition could be made than to disfranchise them.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the House of Commons was not the proper place to regulate the rate of wages; but, if it were, the Members for the dockyard? were certainly not the persons to regulate the scale. He did not believe that the system of jobbing would ever be put an
382
end to as long as the men had the franchise. The whole of the extravagance in the dockyards arose from the men being promoted, not by merit, but by parliamentary influence.
MR. PHINNsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty to the fact, that when persons were called from the dockyards to serve for an hour or two as jurymen, a proportionate sum was deducted from their pay.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had not been aware of the fact before. He would make inquiry as to the practice in private yards, and be guided accordingly.
SIR F. BARINGsaid, he was aware he was open to the objection that he sat for a dockyard; but he might be allowed to say what he thought to be the right principle in the case. The wages of public departments could not rise and fall like those paid in private concerns; hut, at the fame time, if there was a permanent rise, or a permanent fall, in the wages of private establishments, those of the public yards must follow. As to disfranchisement, if attempts were made to deprive the men employed in the dockyards of their electoral privileges, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty would find him (Sir F. Baring) joining the chorus of the Members for the dockyards. Disfranchisement, in his opinion, was perfectly unnecessary, because the taking away of the right of voting would not destroy the system of patronage.
COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he felt it his duty again to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the assistant-surgeons in the Royal Navy. In the year 1850 the House, upon his Motion, adopted a Resolution declaring that the accommodation provided for these valuable officers was insufficient to secure the full benefit of their services. This Resolution was carried in hostility to the views of the Board of Admiralty, whose feelings were displayed in the memorandum or order of the 17th July, 1850, which was issued in consequence of the Resolution of the House. On one or two occasions he had given notice of a Motion to bring the question again under the notice of the House; but he received from the light hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), then at the head of the Admiralty, an assurance that he was disposed to carry out the Resolution of the House in a fair spirit. But he had since learned that the assistant-surgeons had been refused ac-

383
commodation, even when they were eligible for it, according to the terms of the memorandum. He knew, further, of some cases where, superior authorities having stepped in, these gentlemen had cabins provided for them. He had not had an opportunity of testing the late Board of Admiralty, but he was anxious to ascertain the views of the present Board in carrying out the Resolution of the House. The terms of the memorandum he conceived to be rather offensive; for it said the assistant-surgeons were only "to be allowed cabins when the accommodation on board will admit." He had received a return from the ships on the Mediterranean station relative to twelve assistant-surgeons, all of whom had passed for the higher rank of surgeon. But of the twelve only five had received cabins; and out of the five, only two had received the little advantages, such as servants, &c, enjoyed by the officers in the ward room. The treatment of these gentlemen was producing its natural fruits, for the êlite of the candidates from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin, and London shunned the service. In one or two of the colleges, he believed, they had come to a resolution that they would not enter the naval service until this, which they considered a moral degradation, was removed. At the present time he believed there were very few candidates for assistant surgeoncies in the Navy. A short period back there were only five, he was told; and he doubted whether they at the present time amounted to ten. At all events, in the Army the candidates were reckoned by hundreds, whilst in the Navy they could only be counted by units. Under these circumstances, he would ask the House whether it was desirable to continue a system which was unjust to the men, and injurious to the efficiency of Her Majesty's service? If the present treatment was persisted in, the result would be that the Navy would not have a single properly-qualified candidate to fill any vacancy as assistant-surgeon in the Royal Navy. In the event of a sudden war, where would the Government obtain assistant-surgeons when such was their treatment? How could Government expect candidates for medical situations in the Navy when for three years they must remain in the cockpit, where study was next to impossible? He believed the state of things would be similar to that which existed in 1809, as described in a lecture lately delivered by Sir George Ballingall at Edinburgh. In
384
the evidence of Mr. Guthrie, which was quoted by the lecturer, it was stated, that at that period qualified assistant-surgeons could not be obtained, and that, instead of raising the price, the Admiralty deteriorated the article, and took medical officers of an inferior description, who acted solely under a warrant similar to that of a boatswain. As an illustration of the working of this system, Mr. Guthrie mentioned that a man who was violently drunk having been fastened down while lying on his back, had an emetic administered to him in that position, and the surgeon, not knowing, or not remembering, that the position of his patient ought to be changed, death took place within two hours. Was it desirable to risk a repetition of such scenes by disgusting young men with the service? He had further to complain of the injustice of dividing the assistant-sugeons into two sections, and would like to know by what authority it was done. The question was also a seaman's question. Jack was a fighting man—he would fight to the last for his Queen and country—he would shake hands with the enemy when the contest was over. But then he naturally said, if he was wounded in defending his Queen and his country, he had a right to have the services of the best qualified medical men that the country could supply.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, he was one of the Board of Admiralty in 1850, when the hon. and gallant officer (Colonel Boldero) thought fit to bring before the House the case of the assistant-surgeons, and he thought upon mature consideration he would almost regret having done so. [Colonel BOLDERO: Not at all.] How would the hon. and gallant Member like, if he were colonel of a regiment, to have the discipline of that regiment regulated by a naval officer? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Board of Admiralty had evaded the question, and not carried the Resolution which the House had agreed to. But when that Resolution was affirmed, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, said that in consequence of the majority being so small, and every naval officer voting with the minority, he should bow to the decision of the House only to this extent, that where cabins could be formed, not trenching on the comforts of the men, and not interfering with the efficiency of the ships, in such vessels a cabin should be built for the assistant-surgeons. Such was the direction which the right hon. Baronet

385
gave to the Surveyor of the Navy, and a cabin had been built in every ship fitting out since, where accommodation for the men was amply provided. By the course which the hon. and gallant Officer was taking, he was endeavouring to cause the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the Navy, by endeavouring to place the assistant-surgeons above their superior officers, the mates. Those men were obliged to study quite as much as the assistant-surgeons to obtain certificates of merit, and they desired to keep quiet in the gunroom. He believed the gun-room was quite as quiet as the ward-room In the ward-room every young officer was a fiddler or a fluter; but they could not practise in the gunroom, because when they were there they had to study navigation. As to the youngsters, they could not interfere with the studies of the assistant-surgeons, because they only used the gunroom to take their meals, and were in the school-room the rest of their time. He was sorry to say that the assistant-surgeons' cabin had been a source of great mischief in many ships, being turned to purposes of conviviality rather than to purposes of study. The assistant-surgeons were remarkably well off, wore well paid, and, as to not having any candidates, fifty four had entered the service within the last few months.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was not aware before that every naval officer in the House voted in the minority on a former occasion, and he regretted they should have shown so little consideration for the service. The question was, ought they, or not, to obtain as able and efficient medical men for the Navy as for other branches of the service? At present it was the last place they went to. They came to the Navy if they could find employment nowhere else. In the Army and in the Indian service they were treated as gentlemen; but in the Navy the steam-officers had cabins allotted to them, whilst it was denied to the assistant-surgeons, and the best men were thus driven from entering it. He appealed to the right hon Baronet the present First Lord of the Admiralty whether men brought up as gentlemen, and not admitted under twenty-two years of age, ought to be placed with young men very often much inferior in age, and, as the gallant Admiral said, addicted to the fiddle or flu flute, and having no place to retire to? He approved highly of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Col. Boldero) had said.
386
and he hoped he would persevere until justice was done to this important class.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, no Board of Admiralty could be more disposed to promote the comfort of every rank in the service than the present Board. If his recollection was right, the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Boldero) carried his Resolution, in 1850, by surprise; the division was taken first, and the discussion afterwards; in a thin House, forty-eight voted for and forty against it; and that was at a time when the Navy Estimates were not so popular as they were now. He was sorry the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had taken a course now different to what he took on that occasion. The hon. Member said then it was a question of details which should be left to the consideration of the Admiralty. In fact, the whole question was a question for the Board of Admiralty. It was a question of space, with which naval men were alone competent to deal. Since 1809 he was confident there was no class of men whose comforts were more attended to than assistant-surgeons. He found that in 1840 a Commission sat and inquired into this very circumstance, and the Commissioners included men whose opinion, he was sure, would be received with deference by the hon and gallant Member (Col. Boldero)—the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Richmond, Lord Melbourne, Lord Hill, Sir George Cockburn, Lord Hardinge, and Sir Hussey Vivian. They considered the possibility of removing the medical officers from the cock-pit to mess with the lieutenants, and they said in their report—
"On full consideration we find practical difficulties in the way of making any arrangements to accomplish this in a satisfactory and uniform manner in all classes of ships. The accommodation afforded of late years to this class of officers is so improved as to render the removal less essential, and we are, therefore, not prepared to make any representation in this respect."
In 1846, orders were given that every ship above a sixth-rate should have a cabin fitted up, in which, if they preferred, the mates, assistant-surgeons, second masters, and passed clerks might mess together, instead of messing with the midshipmen. The hon and gallant Member said nothing had been done on the Resolution of 1850, and that the order for giving those cabins, when the accommodation and space on board would admit, was an insult. He thought, when the hon. and gallant Member looked at it dispassionately, he would see that was the language of compliment,

387
and not the language of insult. By a return in May, 1851, it appeared the greater number of assistant-surgeons had these cabins, and the order was carried out whenever space would admit of erecting them. He was the last man to offer an insult to a profession in which were many distinguished and scientific men; and, to sum up in the words of the hon. Member for Montrose, this was a question of detail which must be left to the Admiralty.
COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he must beg to explain, in reply to the charge of the hon and gallant Member for Gloucester (Adm. Berkeley), that nothing was further from his thoughts than to endeavour to create dissatisfaction in the Navy; he had taken up the question solely as a matter of public duty.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he was astonished how the Board of Admiralty had found it practicable to find cabins for so many assistant-surgeons as they had done. Cabins were impediments to clearing for action, and the more there were the greater would be the difficulty. There were other classes—such as the mates, who would be our future admirals—struggling upwards, who had claims for cabins as well as the assistant-surgeons, who were, no doubt, a very respectable class of men; but it must be considered that a ship was like that House—if all were to have seats, there would be no room for them.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(4.) 22,764 l. Naval Establishments Abroad.
(5.) 683,648 l., Wages to Artificers at Home.
MR. HUMEwished to ask whether the dockyard battalions, the raising of which had cost 70,000 l., were capable of working great guns? It had been stated that they could not do anything of the kind.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, that was quite a mistake. They had been trained to work great guns, and could manage them very well.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(6.) 35,566 l., Wages to Artificers Abroad.
(7.) 1,023,011 l., Naval Stores, &c.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must call attention to the waste which had been occasioned by entering into contracts for a greater quantity of stores than were wanted, particularly timber, and to abuses which prevailed in the measurement and delivery of coals.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the reduction of the stores had been made the
388
subject of an accusation against his former administration of the Admiralty; but On returning to office he found that the standard of the principal articles remained as he had fixed it. There had been a great increase in the price of stores; and in the single article of copper the additional expense was 60,000 l. Iron, also, had risen 70 or 80 per cent within the last two years, and timber was much dearer. The increase in the estimates upon these three articles was 140,000.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(8.) 256,948 l. New Works, Improvements, &c.
(9.) 26,000 l. Medicines and Medical Stores.
(10.) 57,427 l. Miscellaneous Services.
(11.) 687,575 l. Half-Pay.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must again express a hope that steps would be taken to limit promotion. Nothing could be more farcical than the way in which we went on promoting admirals. We had in the Army men sent out as commanders-in-chief who were of no use; and in India, out of three commanders-in-chief, not one had gone to the seat of war.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that a limit had already been fixed to the number of admirals in active service, and that, whatever might be the case in the Army, an admiral could not help being at the seat of war when his ship was engaged with the enemy.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that 95 cadets had entered the service last year, instead of 75, the number prescribed by the Admiralty regulation. The number of cadets admitted into the service during the last eleven years had amounted to 1,433, while there had been only 595 mates promoted to lieutenancies; and the number of cadets admitted this year exceeded that of any former year, and amounted to more than 100. The consequence of this was that there were between 300 and 400 mates, who had passed their examination for lieutenancies waiting for promotion, whereas there had been only 52 vacant lieutenancies during the past year. He thought, therefore, that it would be absolutely necessary to reduce the number of cadets admitted into the Navy.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer that it was necessary to check the number of those admitted into the service; but the evil complained of had been, to a

389
great extaet, cured by recent regulations. The Admiralty regulation limited the number of cadets admitted; but there had been what he considered a very proper indulgence extended to captains, on their first appointment, of nominating cadets, and the excess alluded to had arisen from this cause. As far as the Admiralty, however, was concerned, the regulation was enforced that the number should not exceed 75. The number of mates who had passed their examination and were waiting for promotion was 210, and not 300, as stated by the hon. and gallant Officer.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(12.) 483,134 l. Military Pensions and Allowances.
(13.) 148,394 l. Civil Pensions Allowances.
(14.) 152,950 l. Army and Ordnance Department.
In reply to questions by Sir FRANCIS BARING and Mr. HUME,
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that in framing the Votes he had endeavoured to leave an ample margin, so as fully to cover the expenses of the year. He wished to explain the cause of the increase in this Vote, which, strictly speaking, ought to have been included in the Army and Ordnance Estimates. One-fifth part of the British Army was on shipboard, at sea, every year, and it was right to consider what was due to the health and comfort of the soldiers under those circumstances. Hitherto there had been provision made of berths under hatches for only two-thirds of the entire number on board, while one-third were obliged to remain on deck at all times, without reference to climate or weather. That was an arrangement so unjust, and he might say so cruel to the soldier, that it commanded the attention of the Government. The question had been referred to a commission of officers, who decided that due provision should be made for the accommodation under hatches of every soldier on board, and hence arose some increase on this Vote for the present year. He (Sir J. Graham) greatly misunderstood the feeling of that House and of the country if any sum was ever voted with more satisfaction than the charge for this provision would be.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIPFEsaid, he begged to express his great gratification at the statement of the right hon. Baronet. A crying evil had existed, which he hoped would now be cured. It was also a matter
390
of some complaint on the part of the officers, that sailors received one-third more provision on shipboard than soldiers, and that the latter had not enough to eat. He wished to ask whether any increase had taken place in the provisions allowed to soldiers at sea?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, it had been decided that the allowances of each sailor should be increased from ¾ to 1lb. of meat per day, and that a corresponding addition should be made to the rations of the soldier. The soldier, however, did not undergo the same amount of labour as the sailor, and it was therefore right that the latter should receive a larger allowance.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

OFFICE OF EXAMINERS (COURT OF CHANCERY) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. PHINNsaid, he wished to call the hon. and learned Solicitor General's attention to this Bill, and to the operation of the Bill of last Session. Before that period there were no means of obtaining oral evidence of any fact before the Court. The Act of last Session introduced a very remarkable change in that particular, and had afforded facilities as contrasted with the former state of things; but there were many questions which would spring out of this Act, and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would, on some future measure, adopt such suggestions as the operation of that Act gave rise to. It was well known now that when parties came before the Examiner, there were no particular facts to which the attention of the Examiner was confined, and there were also no limits within which the examination was conducted. The Act of last Session also provided that the Examiner should have no power to decide upon what facts were material or irrelevant to the inquiry, and parties were thus involved in a very considerable expense, and a very great accumulation of evidence was the result. Again, it was necessary, under the present system, to bring witnesses from various parts of the country at considerable expense; and he maintained that there were functionaries in the country—for instance, the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, who at present enjoyed a life, of comparative idleness—upon whom this duty might devolve. The position of the Examiner at present was purely a Ministerial one; he had no opportunity of regu-

391
lating the proceedings of his own tribunal, and of reducing the proceedings to that state to which it was so necessary to reduce them in order to bring them to a termination. There were various matters connected with this Act to which he would call attention—but one prominent vice seemed to him to pervade the whole system. The great advantage of cross examination, which consists in the person who has to decide observing the conduct and demeanour of the witnesses, was entirely dispensed with according to the present system; and, though there was a great change as compared with the previous state of things, there appeared no prospect that it was one which would endure for any length of time. Gentlemen who undertook these offices ought to be apprised that if additional duties were placed upon them, or if a change took place in the nature of their offices—if, for instance, it was determined that they should assume rather judicial than ministerial functions—they would not thereby be entitled to retire, or entitled to any compensation whatever. In this way no Bill would be introduced like that with respect to the Masters in Chancery last year, when the public thought that, although a great change was effected, it was brought about at a considerable expenditure of public money. There were various details connected with the clauses of this Bill, which deserved attention, and particularly that regarding retirement. The whole matter was in a state of transition, and they ought not to limit themselves and create impediments in the way of future legislation by appointing officers who might hereafter claim compensation.
MR. WALPOLEwould suggest that they should now merely go into Committee pro formâ. The third clause of the Bill required very considerable alteration, as the wording of it was very defective. As the clause now stood, the annual sum to be paid to the Examiner under this Bill was to be made payable, not from the time of his appointment, but from the date of the resignation or death of his predecessor, so that he would receive a salary possibly for a considerable period between the time when the former Examiner left his office or died, and he was appointed. Words ought, therefore, to be introduced to something like this effect:—"Such annual sum to be payable from the day or date of the appointment of the new Examiner." The Bill now gave a retiring pension to the Examiner after fifteen years' service,
392
so that if a gentleman were appointed at thirty years of age, it would be at his own option to retire by the time he was forty-five or fifty, receiving three-fourths of his salary. At the end of this third clause, the proviso, as it was drawn, did not carry into effect his own object. For these reasons the hon. and learned Solicitor General would, he trusted, consider the amendments of his hon. Friend (Mr. Mullings), and any other amendments which it might be thought right to insert in the Bill.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that with respect to the wording of the last clause, the right hon. Gentleman would be somewhat surprised when he told him that that clause had been literally copied from the Masters' Abolition Act of last Session. He hoped the House would consent to go into Committee, on the understanding that the amendments would be embodied in the bringing up of the Bill, and considered on the report.
House in Committee. Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Any person to be hereafter appointed to the office of Examiner of the High Court of Chancery, shall be a practising Barrister in some or one of the Courts of Law or Equity of not less than seven years' standing in the profession).
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he objected to the clause on the ground that it would establish an entirely new principle with regard to the appointment of the Examiners. He considered that persons who had heretofore been eligible for that office—namely, solicitors of good standing, were at least as competent to take the examinations to which the Bill referred, as barristers of seven years' standing. He would therefore move that the clause he omitted; the right of appointment would then be left to the Lord Chancellor, who might appoint barristers if he thought fit.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he begged to express his concurrence in the views of his hon. Friend. When he considered the present state of the profession of which he was a member—when he considered that there were to be found in that profession men of education unsurpassed, of talents undeniable, of integrity unimpeachable, he thought they had a right to complain when they found that the tendency of modern legislation was to strip them of those resting-places which they had been accustomed to enjoy when they retired from active life. It appeared that nearly all those appointments for which solicitors had hitherto

393
been eligible, were now to be given to those paragons of judicial wisdom and discretion, barristers of seven years' standing.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 30: Majority 42.
House resumed. Committee report progress.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS.
MR. BROTHERTON MR. BROTHERTON moved for a Return of the number of Newspaper Stamps, at one penny, issued to Newspapers in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales for 1851 and 1852, specifying each Newspaper by name, and the number of Stamps issued in each of the above years to each Newspaper (in continuation of Parliamentary paper No. 12 of Session 1852). He did not see why the Government should object to grant this return. The newspapers having a small circulation might object to it, but he thought it useful on public grounds.
MR. J. WILSONhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion. The return bad been granted for a great number of years, but was dropped at the solicitations of a large number of newspaper editors and proprietors, who complained that this was not a revenue return, but a publication of the individual transactions of each newspaper proprietor. The Committee on Newspaper Stamps, sitting two years ago, called for a return of the stamps supplied to each newspaper; but he objected, on the part of the Government, to a continuation of the return.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he should support the Motion for the production of the Return. In no other form could such satisfactory information of the circulation of the newspaper press be furnished. The Return contained nothing but the plain truth, and advertisers had a sort of claim, before they paid the Government taxes on advertisements, to have an opportunity of judging where they could advertise with the best advantage.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he willingly admitted that this Return was read with great interest, but the House would, he hoped, pause before they called for a Return which had been deliberately abandoned by the House in the year 1837, and never since resumed. The publication of the Return by the Newspaper Stamp Committee took the proprietors of
394
newspapers by surprise. They complained, with some justice, of the exposure of their concerns; and it had never been the practice of the Government to disclose the private affairs of any class of persons engaged in business. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) said that the Return called for would disclose the truth. So would the Returns of income under Schedules D and E of the property tax. They would show the profits of traders, and gratify a considerable amount of curiosity, and would besides furnish information which might be useful respecting the solvency of various firms. Why were these Returns not. moved for? If there was a stamp in the ease of newspapers, there was a tax paid for incomes. The cases were parallel. His reason for objecting to the Return was, that it subjected a particular class of traders to a hardship which did not apply to traders generally. He could not, however, subscribe to the doctrine that the Return would elicit nothing but the truth. If the law required an annual publication of the affairs of newspapers, it might be possible in a scries of years to arrive at the truth; but the proprietor of a newspaper who happened to have a supply of ready cash might take advantage of a Motion like the present, made upon short notice, to lay in a stock of extra stamps, and thus give a fictitious appearance of prosperity to the undertaking with which he was connected. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that the House would not depart from the rule which it had observed for so many years with reference to this subject.
MR. HUMEthought the public was entitled to know which papers were the best for them to advertise in.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.