Commons Sitting of 2 August 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Charitable Trusts; Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Act Continuance; Ordnance Board; Public Health Act (1854) Continuance and Amendment; Diseases Prevention.
3° Militia Ballots Suspension; Sale of Beer, &c.; Limited Liability.

MEDICAL OFFICERS IN THE CRIMEA.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he was desirous of making a statement relative to a question that was somewhat personal to himself, and, what was of much more importance, to the medical officers now serving in the Crimea. It would be in the recollection of the House that a letter appeared in The Times newspaper of the 5th of July, containing certain statements with reference to the treatment of our wounded soldiers after the affair of the 18th of June. To that letter he (Mr. Stafford) had recently called the attention of the Under Secretary for War, and that morning there appeared in the same journal an answer to that letter, signed by two civilian surgeons serving in the army, in which the attempt was made to controvert the statements contained in the letter of the 5th of July, though with what success he should leave the House to judge on Tuesday next, when he proposed to enter fully into the whole matter. The letter which appeared in The Times of that morning contained the following passage:—
"Instead, then, of it being 'impossible,' as Mr. Stafford says, 'to exaggerate the eulogies due to such men,' who thus, 'notwithstanding the risk of their own professional advancement, bring under the notice of the country the sufferings of the poor patients committed to their charge,' the public will, we trust, form a different opinion of one who for the sake of notoriety could thus gratuitously harrow the feelings of friends at home by making such unfounded statements and wicked exaggerations as are contained in his letter."
Now, in justice to himself, he must be permitted to observe that there was not one word of truth in the statement there made, that he had pronounced an opinion as to the writer of the letter of the 5th of July. It was entirely through mistake that the two civilian surgeons had attributed to the writer of that letter—of whose name he (Mr. Stafford) was at present ignorant—the eulogies which he had paid, and most deservedly paid, to the class of surgeons

1627
to whom he now referred. On a previous occasion, after inquiring whether the attention of Government had been called to the letter of the 5th of July, whether they had any reason to doubt its authenticity, and if they would be willing to avail themselves of the offer of the writer, and fully investigate the painful subject, he proceeded to say—
"That statements had been made before the Commission, less generally known than those made before the Sebastopol Committee, which, although they caused the hearts of those who read them to chill with horror, were highly honourable to the regimental surgeons who came forward, notwithstanding the risk to their own professional advancement, to bring under the notice of the country the sufferings of the poor patients committed to their charge. It was not possible to exaggerate the eulogies due to these men."
He held in his hand the Report of the evidence which had been taken before the Commission issued by the Duke of Newcastle to inquire into the state of the hospitals of the British Army in the Crimea and at Scutari, and the head of which Commission was Mr. P. Benson Maxwell. Mr. Maxwell proceeded to the Crimea, and proposed to enter into inquiries with regard to the state of our military hospitals there, and to call before the Commission some of the regimental surgeons; and here was the letter which he had found himself obliged to address to the Adjutant General on the subject:—
Camp, Jan. 8, 1855.
"Sir,—In the course of my inspection of the field hospitals this day, in conjunction with my colleague, Dr. Laing, I was informed by one of the medical officers that several surgeons and commanding officers in the second division had been restrained from answering a series of questions addressed to them by me, by the following order, issued, I was told, by Major General Buller:—
"'December 22, 1854.
"'MEMO.—Officers commanding regiments, and medical officers doing duty with them, will be good enough not to furnish answers addressed to them upon the hospital arrangements, &c., by any persons, unless under authority proceeding from his lordship the F. M. Commanding the Forces in the Crimea.
"'The above refers to civilians, and workmen, without such authority.'
"I have to request that you will favour me by submitting this order to F. M., the Commander of the Forces, with the view of his removing this obstacle to the progress of our inquiry.
I have, &c.,
(Signed)"P. BENSON MAXWELL.
"The Adjutant General, &c."
Thus the House would perceive that there existed somewhere or other in the camp an
1628
animus decidedly hostile to those surgeons who were inclined to come before the Commission and give evidence. Of course as soon as the matter was brought under the notice of Lord Raglan the restriction was removed. He (Mr. Stafford) had also stated, and repeated now, that the surgeons who gave evidence as to the deplorable condition of the regiments entrusted to their charge, deserved the highest honour. It could not be said that those statements were made by anonymous writers, for the persons to whom he referred had signed their names in full in the Commissioners' Report; and amongst those who were deserving of the highest eulogies he might mention Surgeons Robert Cooper, 4th Dragoon Guards; J. R. Brush, Scots Greys; J. Paynter, 13th Light Dragoons; H. H. Massey, 17th Lancers; G. E. Blenkins, Grenadier Guards; John Wyatt, Coldstream Guards; J. A. Bostock, Scots Fusilier Guards; C. B. Hearn, 1st Royals; R. V. De Lisle, 4th Foot; and J. Dunlop, 88th Regiment. Between twenty and thirty gentlemen had come forward, whose names had been authoritatively published by the Government, and made a statement of horrors to which the evidence taken before the Sebastopol Committee could hardly bear any comparison. It was to those gentlemen, and to others whom he might name, not to the anonymous writer, that he had attributed the meed of his highest praise, and he only wished that the Report containing their evidence was more generally known. In consequence of what had occurred, he should feel it to be his duty on Tuesday next to read some extracts to the House from the statements made by those gentlemen before the Commission, in order to show how fearlessly and manfully they had spoken out with regard to the condition of the poor soldiers. The two gentlemen who had replied to the letter published on the 5th of July, stated, on the one hand, that the writer was afraid to give his name, and, on the other, that he had written for the sake of gaining notoriety. Those statements appeared to contradict each other, for he could not possibly see how any one who was animated by the desire of notoriety could hope to gain it by writing anonymous letters. That, however, was a proof of how undesirable it was for medical men to attribute to one another motives for the statements they made, when on the truth of the statements, and not on the motives which dictated them, depended the character of

1629
those who made them. The two civilian surgeons also stated that the writer of the letter of the 5th of July knew that no official contradiction could be given to him; but if that were so, then those two gentlemen and Dr. Hall were under no obligation to the writer for having been the means of bringing the matter before the House of Commons. No one could suppose for a moment that a letter could remain secret that was published in The Times, when between 70,000 and 80,000 copies must; necessarily be distributed through all the quarters of the globe. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, in answer to him (Mr. Stafford) the other night, stated that he had seen the letter, and had sent to inquire if its representations were correct, and that as soon as he had received a reply it should be laid upon the table. He considered, therefore, that the medical officers, so far from having any complaint against him, could not have been more fairly treated than they had been at his hands. In the debate on the transport service on Tuesday night, he stated that he had reason to believe that the condition of the wounded and invalided soldiers, who had recently arrived home from the Crimea, was not such as would warrant him in saying that the transport service was not capable of improvement. In reply the First Lord of the Admiralty observed that he was sorry to hear that statement, for no complaints had reached him. Another letter had appeared in the newspaper that morning, and a painful one it was, from the brother of the late Colonel Lowth, in which the writer said—
"The wife of Colonel Lowth and myself, his brother, went on board the Hansa, and found him in an exhausted state, and in a cabin so ill ventilated that the air of it was pestilential. Our natural wish was to remove him from this terrible hole (for I can use no other term), and out of which his servant Hicken, the most devoted of servants, as every officer on board allowed, declared that his master's strongest wish was to be removed. Hicken at the same time stated that his master's only thought, when not turned upon his regiment, through his long illness, was to land in England once more. On our consulting the medical men, they all agreed that the state of Colonel Lowth was so bad that their opinion was that he would die in the act of being removed from his cabin; but, it must be added, that they all equally agreed that if he remained in that horrible atmosphere he could not survive many hours. Under these circumstances it was for us only to decide whether Colonel Lowth should be left in this hole to die in a few hours, or whether we should fulfil his only wish—to land, and, at the same time, to give him that one last chance of the fresh pure air reviving him. If he was to die, better that he should
1630
breathe his last in the pure air he wished so much to breathe again than in that fetid cabin so hateful to him. He did not die in the removal, as the medical men had fully expected, but was much revived by the open air on his way to his lodgings, where he died in half an hour, at least in a better place than in that horrible cabin. Only one word more. The cause of Colonel Lowth's death was not dysentery alone, as your correspondent would lend one to infer. He had been attacked by dysentery at an early part of the voyage, but this was soon checked, as his medical attendant on board himself assured me. No; the causes of his death were the severity of the wound which he received on the 18th of June (which became worse on the voyage), the attack of dysentery, and the exhaustion produced thereby; and, more than all, by the great heat and the extremely bad ventilation of the cabin."
Now, when he (Mr. Stafford) heard of the death of Colonel Lowth, though personally unknown to him, he must say that he felt so shocked and horrified that he made inquiries upon the subject, the result of which he alluded to in the question he put to the First Lord of the Admiralty the other night. He hoped the attention of the Government would be directed to the subject, for it was evident that if the accommodation for officers was so bad the accommodation for men would not be better. He trusted that the loss of that gallant officer and the painful letter of his brother, would have the effect of commanding the attention of Government to the subject, and that whatever department had control of the transport service they would insist upon such arrangements for the transport of our sick troops homewards, that an event so painful to all, and so highly discreditable to the system should not again be suffered to occur. He did not ask for any reply from the Government on the present occasion, for he felt satisfied that they would give the matter their most earnest and careful consideration.

LORD GEORGE PAGETS GOOD-SERVICE PENSION.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to a report that Lord G. Paget had received a good-service pension of 100 l. per annum, with the view of inquiring into the truth of such report, and of ascertaining, if true, what the special services had been for which such pension had been awarded. There existed so much dissatisfaction with reference to the subject that it behoved the Government to give some explanations of the grounds on which they had given the pension, when, no doubt, it would be found that Lord G. Paget had performed

1631
services to the country beyond those which were already known to the public. He (Mr. Dillwyn) knew nothing personally of the matter, but had been made acquainted with it through the reports which had appeared in the public prints; and he assumed that those reports were true, for if they had not been so, it was probable that as they contained charges against some of the Members of the Government they would have been contradicted. Lord G. Paget, as far as he knew, was a gallant and meritorious Officer, but there were many others who were equally so to whom no pensions had been awarded. The noble Lord had bravely led his troops on the occasion of the memorable charge at Balaklava, and had performed his devoir as gallantly as any officer or private who took part in that affair. He believed, however, with that exception the noble Lord had seen very little active service; he certainly was at Alma, but the troops under his command were not under fire. He (Mr. Dillwyn) could not therefore conceive that the Government had given the pension to the noble Lord for his services at Balaklava, or that he had so pre-eminently distinguished himself on that occasion as to warrant his being singled out for such a reward. It was also alleged that the pension was given to the noble Lord on the ground of seniority; but that was certainly an insufficient reason for the preference which had been given, as the noble Lord's position as senior regimental Officer might have arisen from accident. As he had just stated, much dissatisfaction existed, because it was believed that the pension had been given to the noble Lord on insufficient grounds; he thought, therefore, that an explanation was due to all parties—to the country, the House, and the army—all of whom would hail with pleasure a statement which would satisfy them that the pension had not been given to Lord G. Paget on account of his high birth or connections, but that the services rendered by him entitled him to the reward which had been bestowed upon him.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that with Lord Hardinge most properly rested the responsibility of the selection of officers whose distinguished services he might consider entitled them to the good-service pensions. He (Mr. F. Peel) was rather surprised at the animadversions to which the present appointment had given rise, and wondered, also, that the hon. Member did not see the impropriety of bringing a ques-
1632
tion of that kind before the House, which could not possibly be expected to form a just estimate of the relative merits of officers. Unless Lord G. Paget's title rendered him unfit for the appointment, he (Mr. F. Peel) was totally unable to conceive that a better, or, under the circumstances, any other choice could have been made. The sum voted by that House admitted of six or seven good-service pensions being given, and it was thought proper that the cavalry, as well as the line, should be permitted to share in their apportionment, in order to mark the country's approbation of the distinguished conduct of the cavalry on that memorable occasion of the charge at Balaklava. Lord G. Paget was selected to receive his pension because he was the senior regimental Colonel of all the cavalry colonels who were in that action. It was well known that the noble Lord had on that occasion led his regiment in the most gallant manner against the enemy, rallied them on the other side, and brought them back again, behaving throughout the whole affair in the most collected manner. Having such strong claims, and being the senior regimental Colonel, the pension was awarded to the noble Lord; for, had he been passed over, the inference would have been drawn, that he was wanting in his duty, which would have been most unjust. The hon. Member had drawn an invidious comparison between the merits of Lord G. Paget and the other colonels who were engaged at Balaklava. [Mr. DILLWYN: I alluded to all who had taken part in that charge.] Well, whatever might be the merits of the other colonels, they had never been in any previous action any more than Lord G. Paget had, and, therefore, his claim was quite as strong as theirs, on the ground of the active service which he had seen.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of making any comparison between the relative merits of Lord George Paget and other officers who had not received the pension, but with the view of calling the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War to what appeared to him (Colonel Lindsay), and to many others out of doors, to be a somewhat anomalous state of things. The good-service pension was bestowed on officers as a reward for distinguished merit, and also with the view of increasing their pay, and it appeared to him and many others that, while they rewarded with those pensions parties who were nobly serving

1633
their country in the East, they somewhat neglected a generation of officers fast passing away, who had served their country bravely and effectually during the Peninsular war. No one would say that our officers in the East did not deserve everything that a grateful country could bestow, but, at the same time, they ought to reward those who had served our country for a longer period in other wars. He had received letters from many old officers who were engaged in the Peninsular war, urging him to bring their case before the House of Commons, but it was not his intention to make a move in the matter at present, as he hoped that their claims would be appreciated and rewarded by him who was most competent to judge of them—he alluded of course to the Commander in Chief of the army. He had made those observations with regard to the general question, and would, before concluding, mention the claims of one of those officers. He had been in seven general actions—he wore a medal with seven clasps—had obtained a gold cross from the Portuguese Government for services rendered during the Peninsular war—had been promoted to the brevet rank of captain in the Portuguese army, and had also been promoted for other distinguished services. That gallant officer supported his family on his pay, and had made in vain many efforts to obtain a good-service pension. He (Colonel Lindsay) had no doubt that there were others who had superior claims to that officer, but he mentioned his case as being one of a class which had been greatly neglected. He trusted that the military authorities would investigate the subject, and that they would not allow the claims of those who were nobly serving their country in the East to supersede altogether the claims of those who had gone through five or even seven campaigns.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, that many would perhaps consider that his question as to Lord George Paget's pension was a personal matter, but in reality it was not so. It was not a question of whether the noble Lord was justified in accepting the pension, for he (Sir W. Gallwey) thought any other officer who had been placed in the same position would not have refused the pension. There was, therefore, no intention of imputing any blame to the noble Lord for having done so; but the question was, whether there were not many other officers in the Crimea who, not only on account of actions in the field, but
1634
of toil endured in the trenches, which was much more difficult to bear, were more worthy of the pension in question than Lord George Paget? He wished to ask the Under Secretary for War a question, which would go far to determine in his mind whether the Government had acted rightly or wrongly in that appointment. The hon. Gentleman had stated that six or seven good-service pensions had been granted, and he (Sir W. Gallwey) wished to know whether they had been all granted to officers serving in the Crimea? [MR. F. PEEL: Yes.] In that case he thought there was a fair ground for bestowing one of those pensions upon the senior officer of cavalry, although his services might not, perhaps, in point of time or brilliancy, equal those of some other officers in different branches of the army.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I would really put it to the discretion of the House whether this is a kind of discussion which can be carried on with advantage to the public service? The question raised by the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillwyn) is whether the Commander in Chief, in the exercise of that discretion which is vested in him by virtue of his office, has properly or improperly selected a particular officer to receive one of those good-service pensions which the generosity of the country has placed at his disposal. Now, that question involves two considerations—first, as to whether the individual upon whom this reward has been conferred has himself performed services which, in the abstract, entitle him to receive it; and next, whether there are any other officers possessing claims which must be admitted, upon just consideration, to be superior to those of the officer upon whom the pension has been bestowed. I really would put it to the House whether it is possible for them—for the few Members who, by accident, upon a given day find themselves assembled within these walls—to be proper judges of cases of this sort? Is it possible that, even if they have a knowledge of all the facts and details of the particular case they can be competent judges of the conflicting claims of all the parties upon a due consideration of which the Commander in Chief's decision had been arrived at? If this House is to take upon itself not only to determine whether a particular officer upon whom any reward or honour is conferred is in himself deserving of that reward, but is also to pass in review all the other officers serving in a particular force

1635
and to determine whether any of those officers have or have not claims superior to those of the officer selected for reward, then, I say, this House is embarking into considerations with which it is utterly incompetent to deal, and such a course must be productive of most serious consequences to the discipline and efficiency of the military service. No one man can be selected out of a number among whom, perhaps, there is such a near equality of merit that even the person whose duty it is to make the selection may find himself embarrassed in the choice he is compelled to make—without giving rise to comment. The friends of those officers who are unsuccessful will naturally, and, no doubt honestly, believe the selection made to be an improper one, for it is in human nature to overestimate the merits of those to whom our attention is personally directed, and to undervalue, perhaps, the claims of persons towards whom our observation has been less directed. In a case where there are ten or twenty men to choose from, any one of whom may have been selected, nineteen must be passed over, and the friends of those nineteen will immediately address themselves to some Member of this House to induce him to urge the claims of those officers who have been passed over. Now, if any injustice was done, or any public evil arose formerly from the practice of deciding upon disputed elections by a vote of the whole House, which practice the House thought improper, and had very wisely abolished, then, I say, the inconvenience to the public service, to the discipline and efficiency of the army, arising from such decisions as now proposed must be infinitely more prejudicial. The House would be plunging into one of the greatest evils of a pure democratic State; they would be following the precedents of the days of revolution, when legislative assemblies commanded armies. I hope that now this subject will be allowed to drop. The hon. Member who introduced it has stated his views. My hon. Friend (the Under Secretary for War) has said what it was proper he should say upon this occasion, and I think by pursuing the matter further by inquiring as to whether the claims of individuals have been properly eatimated by the department whose duty it was to decide upon them, which was likewise fully acquainted with the nature of those claims, and the whole circumstances upon which the relative merits of officers were founded, we shall be taking out of the hands of the
1636
Commander in Chief that discretion which can only be usefully exercised by him, and the House will, without intending it, inflict a very great injury to the public service.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, the only object of the hon. Member who originated the discussion was to obtain an explanation upon a matter which had been very much discussed out of doors. The noble Lord at the Head of the Government said, that nineteen out of twenty would be dissatisfied with the selection of the twentieth candidate for honours, but that proved the necessity for a scrutiny into those appointments; for if nineteen men out of twenty were necessarily passed over it would be an additional and unnecessary mortification for them to find that their claims had been passed over in favour of any but the best qualified of their competitors. He would also suggest that the services for which a good-service pension was awarded should be announced in the Gazette. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay) that Peninsular officers should not be passed over in distributing those pensions, especially when it was recollected that they were all old men, and, if rewarded with a pension, could not, in the course of nature, retain it long.
MAJOR REEDsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War had described Lord George Paget as the senior cavalry officer in the Crimea.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: I said the senior regimental officer.
MAJOR REEDsaid, he found, from the Army List, that the services of Lord George Paget only extended to twenty years, while those of Colonel Griffiths was twenty-six, Colonel Shewell twenty-eight, and Major De Salis twenty-five years.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the Under Secretary for War had mentioned Lord Paget as the senior officer, and it did not follow that that noble Lord might not be, as an officer, senior to the gallant officers mentioned, although upon the whole he had been less time in the army.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he agreed that it was invidious to institute in that House comparisons between various officers. It had been his fate to have to select officers of the navy to receive good-service pensions, and he found the task a difficult and a delicate one. He thought, from the speech of the hon. Under Secretary for War, that there appeared to be an intention to give good-service pensions solely for services performed

1637
in the Crimea. That, he contended, was not the object for which the money to provide those pensions was voted; it was not voted to reward brilliant services actually being performed, but because, certain commands in the nature of sinecures, and usually given to old and deserving officers, having been abolished, those good-service pensions were to be granted in compensation. The term "good-service pensions" in itself implied that they were to be given to the oldest class of officers. He, therefore, would suggest that, while the rewards of the Bath and of promotion should be bestowed on every active officer whose actions merited them, the good-service pensions should be given only to the most deserving of the older officers.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must protest against the doctrine of the noble Lord the Prime Minister that the House of Commons had no right to criticise the acts of governing authority in the distribution of public money.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had not denied the right; he only put it as a matter of discretion.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid the country had no objection to reward meritorious services, but it did desire that the money voted for that purpose should be applied in the best possible manner. He hoped the House would never abandon its right to discuss the application of every portion of the public funds.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he fully agreed with the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) that good-service pensions should be awarded for good and long service, and he would take that opportunity of adverting to the hard case of sergeants who, on promotion, were called upon to forego their good-conduct pay.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would admit that it was inconvenient to discuss the relative merits of officers in that House, but he must remind the noble Lord that the subject had not been mentioned there until it had been loudly asserted elsewhere that an improper distribution of rewards had been made. He believed Lord George Paget was entitled to his reward, but he thought the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) had correctly stated the intention of Parliament granting those good-service pensions. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War appeared to think that they were to be conferred only upon senior officers, but in the infantry certainly they had not been granted
1638
solely to senior officers, and he deprecated any fixed rule of seniority in their award. He also begged to express his concurrence in the observation of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt) respecting the hardship imposed upon non-commissioned officers to whom promotion was sometimes a pecuniary loss,—an injustice that ought not to be permitted to endure.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee of Supply.
(1.) 3,711 l., Statute Law.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to explain the circumstances which had led to the publication of some observations by Mr. Bellenden Ker on the expurgatory list of Statutes as an appendix to the Report of the Statute Law Commission, and in referring to a notice of Motion given by the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, (Mr. Craufurd), he would mention that there would be no objection to produce copies of the replies of Mr. Anstey and Mr. Coode, to that document.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he begged to express his satisfaction at the explanation that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that fault had been found with the Commissioners for not having done more than they had done with the expurgated list prepared by them, but the answer to that was that the papers published by the Commissioners pointed out that it was necessarily an imperfect list and was merely a preliminary work. He was inclined to give those gentlemen the praise to which they were entitled for diligence, zeal, and knowledge, though as yet their labours were not sufficiently matured to form the basis for legislation.
MR. MASSEYsaid, it had been stated that the Lord Chancellor had received Reports from Mr. Bellenden Ker upon various Bills brought before Parliament, he begged to ask whether there would be any objection to publish those Reports?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the Lord Chancellor had informed him that Mr. Bellenden Ker, besides the attention, which he paid to the business of the Commission, had rendered valuable assistance by furnishing Reports upon various subjects of current legislation. The nature of those Reports was not such as to render their production possible, some of them

1639
being verbal and others in the shape of private notes.
MR. MALINSsaid, he could confirm the statement of the right hon. Baronet respecting the valuable labours in the Commission of Mr. Bellenden Ker, whose remuneration was by no means greater than he was entitled to.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that the great object of Government was the peace and security of society, and the formation of right laws; and not to have an efficient department in existence for carrying out that object satisfactorily to the public was a state of things both anomalous and unjustifiable. He had given notice of a Motion upon the subject of creating such a department, but he did not think that, at that late period of the Session, and with the anxiety that prevailed to carry forward the public business, he should be justified in proceeding with it now. Early in the next Session, however, he should ask the House to affirm a Resolution in favour of establishing a responsible and an efficient department to superintend all our law reforms and the drafting of Bills, and their conduct through Parliament; and he trusted he should receive the support of the House.
Mr. MASSEYsaid, he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would fulfil his pledge, as, from the constitution of the Commission, he had little confidence in any useful result accruing from their labours.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the subject of a special Department of Public Justice was now under the consideration of the Commission, and he thought it would have been better for his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier), being a member of that Commission, to make his suggestion to them instead of to that House.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 3,000,000 l. Vote of Credit.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the financial statement, Sir, which I had the honour to submit to the House in April last I stated that, in addition to the Estimates then prepared for the various military departments, I should propose an additional credit of 3,000,000 l. to be applied to the purposes of the war. That sum is included in the Estimates which have been published, and has been accounted for in those Estimates which have been already submitted to the House. It now becomes my duty to ask the Committee to agree to a general Vote of Credit
1640
in aid of the military operations of the country.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he understood that the former Vote of Credit had not been expended. He wished to know if that were the fact, and, further, he would observe that the number of men voted for the army had not been enlisted, nor had the 120,000 militia paid for by the country been embodied.
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that the increased expenditure of hospitals, increase of pay to the army, and pay of the Foreign Legion, would exhaust the sums voted, but he did not think it would be necessary to take any additional Vote for army purposes.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not exactly say what amount was drawn upon the Vote of last year, but thought that about 1,500,000 l. remained unexhausted.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wanted to know how it was intended to meet an additional expenditure of at least, he apprehended, 5,000,000 l. by an additional Vote of 3,000,000 l.?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not see the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman seemed to apprehend. The whole expenditure had been most carefully calculated, and was, he believed, most accurately stated. There was a certain amount voted for Army, Navy, and Ordnance purposes, and in addition, he now proposed, to take a general Vote of Credit for 3,000,000 l., all of which would be applicable to the service of the war, and upon which it would be competent for the Commissariat Officers abroad to draw. The granting of a Vote of Credit would not increase the expenditure. If additional expenses were not incurred that Vote would not be drawn upon; but it was necessary to enable the Treasury to meet the draughts drawn upon them by the Commissariat Officers.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 2,568,335 l., Commissariat Department.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that, when he proposed the original Commissariat Estimates, he had explained that in former years it had been found sufficient to take a Vote under that head of 600,000 l., which sum represented the expense of the Commissariat in the Colonies, but that for the current year a sum of 2,400,000 l. would be required. Of that amount 600,000 l. continued, as before, to represent the expense of the Commissariat in

1641
the Colonies, another 600,000 l. was required for the new arrangements for the pay and provisioning of the regular army and the embodied militia at home, and the remainder 1,200,000 l. was at that time estimated to be necessary to cover the probable demands of the army in the East. The time that had since elapsed had enabled them to form a more correct and accurate notion of the probable requirements of the army; and they now found that, assuming the expenditure for the whole year to be at the rate at which it was for the months of May and June, the actual sum required would be 3,768,335 l. But as 1,200,000 l. had already been voted, there remained only 2,568,335 l. to be voted, and that was the sum which he now proposed that the Committee should grant. It had been observed by some hon. Members that the circumstance of Government having to ask for so large a Supplementary Vote indicated a want of foresight in the arrangements of the Estimates; but it must be remembered that the nature of the services which were to be provided for out of the proposed Vote was necessarily and unavoidably so uncertain as to render it impossible to make anything more than a conjectural Estimate. The Estimate for the army could be accurately ascertained, the number of men being known, and the charge for each man fixed. But it was quite a different thing with regard to the Commissariat, the bulk of which charge depended upon circumstances which were extremely varying. Since the provisional Vote had been prepared to be submitted to the House there had been an additional charge sent in—namely, the provision for the Sardinian army, consisting of between 16,000 and 20,000 men. It was true that would ultimately be repaid by Sardinia; in the meanwhile, however, it was a charge which increased the Estimates. Then, again, England had to ration 20,000 Turkish troops. It should also be borne in mind that the price of provisions was greatly enhanced in that part of the world in which those provisions were to be obtained. The first item in the Supplementary Vote was 1,000 l. for the pay and contingencies of the Commissariat division of the War Department. That item needed little explanation. Since the original Estimates were prepared, the Supplementary Estimates rendered it necessary to employ two or three additional clerks. Hence the item of 1,000 l. The next item was to the extent of 761,750 l. for land and inland
1642
water transport, including the supply of water provided by the Commissariat Department. The larger portion of that sum was required to pay for the purchase of animals attached to the army under the land transport corps, commanded by Colonel M'Murdo. When he moved the Army Estimates, he was not fully informed as to the amount of the Vote which would be required for the transport corps, but he had since ascertained that that corps would require nearly the whole sum voted in those Estimates. An additional transport corps of 3,000 men had been since raised, 2,000 of whom were Englishmen, and the remainder were to be natives of Turkey. The 2,000 English had been despatched to the Crimea, but there had been found considerable difficulty in enlisting the remaining portion of the force from the native population. He could not account for it, unless it arose from the report of the disasters that had occurred in the Crimea. But, in consequence of that reluctance on the part of the natives of Turkey, it had been necessary to enlarge the proportion of Englishmen in that corps. The sum already voted for that branch of the service was 238,250 l. At the rate of expenditure during the months of May and June, it was estimated that the cost of the corps would be 1,000,000 l., and 238,250 l. having been already granted, there remained to be voted 761,750 l. To show how necessary it was to provide the army with ample means of transport, he might refer to the number of animals now in the Crimea as compared with the number when the transport corps was first formed. Before the month of May there were about 1,500 animals; on the 1st of May there were 2,500 animals; and on the 26th of June there were 7,000 animals. From that time the number had continued very considerably to increase. He believed that at the present time the army was provided with the means of transport, if it should be necessary to take the field, and there was no doubt that their large transport establishments would be furnished with everything that was required. Those horses had been purchased in different countries bordering upon the Mediterranean. There had been purchased and sent from Spain and from Gibraltar about 3,000 animals; there had also been purchased about the same number in the Sardinian States, 500 had been purchased in Sicily, and others in Syria. Colonel M'Murdo undertook the superintendence of the animal force. He was to take charge

1643
of the chairs and ambulances for conveying the wounded to the hospitals. A large supply of those necessary articles had already been furnished. There was an item of 15,000 1. for the freight of specie, including the expense of shipment. That item had reference to the Turkish loan which had been guaranteed by France and England; and that charge was for providing the means of conveying the money to Constantinople. In the original Commissariat Estimate for provisions issued to the army, Ordnance, and Commissariat, at the seat of war, the amount voted was 531,550 l., but a further amount was now required to the extent of 823,785 l. In that sum was included a charge of 274,500 l. for provisions supplied to the Sardinian army, the cost of which the Commissary General had been instructed to obtain repayment of. They had in addition to provide for the provisioning of the Turkish contingent under General Vivian, and for the provisioning of the Foreign Legion. The sum necessary for the support of the Turkish soldier was 6d. a man, but on the Foreign Legion it was necessary to expend 9d. a man. After defraying out of the vote of 823,785 l. the necessary charge for furnishing provisions that were required, the remainder would be found necessary to pay the expences of forming depots of provisions for their own army in the East. For the depot at Constantinople 250,000 l. was required. That Vote was exclusive of stoppages on account of rations from the pay of officers and men. The ordinary ration of a soldier was 1lb. of meat, and 11b. of biscuit, or 1½lb. of bread a day, for which 3½d. a day was deducted from his pay, and then there was 1d. also deducted on account of rum, making a deduction of 4½d. a day. Complaints had been made of the constant issuing of salt meat and biscuit, instead of fresh meat and bread. He was glad to inform the Committee that arrangements had been made, by means of a bakery being sent out, for issuing to the troops fresh bread three times a week, biscuit being issued four times a week; and, for the future, fresh meat would be issued to the troops four days a week. Then, with regard to forage, the amount already voted for that item was 294,000 l.; but a further amount of 786,500 l. was required. That increased charge was owing to the necessity of having very large stores of forage for the great number of animals that were to be supported. The cavalry,
1644
the artillery, and the transport corps, had all been largely increased. It had, in consequence, become necessary to send out very large shipments of hay and corn to the Crimea. There were supplies at that moment in the Crimea sufficient to support 20,000 animals for a period of sixty days, and arrangements had been made to keep up a constant supply. With regard to the item of fuel and light, there had been a considerable increase under that head of expenditure. The amount already voted for those purposes was 22,000 l.; the further amount required was 78,000 l. A great part of the sufferings of our troops during the last winter was owing to their not having a sufficient supply of fuel issued to them. The proposed Vote was intended to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster by providing an ample supply of fuel for the troops. With regard to the cooking, the services of the well-known M. Soyer had been so efficiently applied that kitchens had been established and instructions given to the troops, by means of which every proper supply in that department was secured to the army. The next item to which he had to call the attention of the Committee was one for the payment of the expences of the railway in the Crimea, and for the wages of labourers, &c. The sum required was 24,000 l. He was aware that an objection was made to that charge last year; but it could not be denied that the railway corps had rendered the greatest possible service to the army. The time for which the men were engaged had expired, but a sufficient number was retained in the Crimea to keep the railway in a proper working condition. There were two other items in the Supplementary Estimates—namely, a Vote of 54,000 l. for the payment of the Croatian labourers employed as scavengers, in making roads, &c., and a Vote of 24,000 l. on account of the Heraclea (or Kosloo) coal mines. He had now given all the explanation which he thought the Committee could require respecting the Supplementary Estimates he had brought forward and the ground on which they rested. But, before he resumed his seat, he would for a moment advert to something which had been stated the other evening, when he happened not to be present, respecting the transference of the Commissariat from the Treasury to the War Department. It was very important that the Committee should keep in view the distinction there was be-

1645
tween the financial bearing of the question and its political bearing. It must be obvious that, whatever objection there might be to the duties of the Commissariat being performed under the superintendence of the War Department instead of the Treasury, no advantage could be derived by the War Department from the largeness of the Vote, inasmuch as the Estimates would be the same, and would equally have to pass under the review of the Treasury, whether the money were expended by the immediate authority of the Treasury or by the direction of the War Department. At all events, if it were right to intrust the War Department with the expenditure of 13,000,000 l. sterling, the Committee could hardly object to intrusting it with the expenditure of this smaller sum having relation only to the Commissariat. The bulk of the expenditure would take place at the seat of war, under the responsibility of the chief of the Commissariat. The money would be disbursed either by purchases made on the spot or by contracts, and all that the public could require was to be assured that that expenditure was properly made, and that those contracts were fairly entered into. It would of course be the duty of the Commissariat authorities to see that the contracts were faithfully fulfilled and that the public were secured against any possibility of loss. But, with regard to those large disbursements of money, whether directly by purchase or under contract, no doubt the proper course to be taken was, that the accounts should be duly audited. Persons from the Audit Board would therefore be sent out to Constantinople to examine the accounts and to arrange them under their proper heads. That proceeding would apply, not to the Commissariat Department only, but to the Navy, the Ordnance, and the War Office. A person would be sent from England to assist the Commissary General to examine all vouchers and to transmit the accounts home, and the moment they were received they would be sent to the Audit Office for examination. That, indeed, was the system already acted upon, and he therefore considered that there was no expenditure made by the country over which so strict control was kept as was exercised over the expenditure of the Commissariat service. The accounts of all other departments were audited by their own members; but with regard to the Commissariat there was an
1646
independent authority outside, examining and controlling every shilling of expense. There was one branch of the Commissariat duties which was essentially of a financial character, and which, therefore, was very properly appropriated to the Treasury, he meant the replenishing of the Commissariat chest. It was from that chest that all the supplies were drawn, and it was for the Commissary General to see that there were ample funds to meet the demands for the public service. It was his duty either to draw bills, or write home in order that a remittance of specie might be made. No doubt it was at times a very difficult question to determine, having regard to the state of the money market, whether he should take the one course or the other. But that was not a question of the expenditure of money; it was one simply as to supplying means for defraying any such expenditure. Whatever were the Bills drawn abroad, they must be paid out of the Commissariat chest; therefore, the Commissariat chest was most properly placed under the control of the Treasury, and not under that of the War Department. Under those circumstances he thought there was no ground of apprehension as to a want of proper control over the Commissariat Department.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the statement which had just been made by the hon. Gentleman was one which was not often equalled in interest, if, indeed, in importance, by any statement made in that House. He would not dwell upon the check that was said would be exercised over the Commissariat accounts, because he did not think much could be made out of that; nor did he understand from the conversation which passed the other night that any great objection had been urged against the War Department having the management of the Commissariat. But what was most to be wondered at, in his opinion, was, that the Government should never have looked sufficiently far before them as to thoroughly understand the full extent of the matters they would have to deal with. They must have known in February all that they knew now; and yet in the month of August they were asking for double the amount they asked the House to grant in February. The long explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for war did not in the slightest degree alter the facts. All that, in his opinion, showed a great want of foresight, and of a full comprehension of

1647
what would be the amount of supplies necessary for carrying on the war. There was one item, no doubt, which might not have been foreseen,—namely, the supply necessary to meet the Sardinian contingency. But, putting that aside, there remained 2,000,000 l., of money to meet demands which it seemed to him might have been easily foreseen in February last. One great item of expense was, that we had formed a depôt for provisions. But was it in the month of August only, or in the month of May, or of June, that it was necessary he should have a depôt? What the hon. Gentleman had stated respecting the formation of a depôt was about as painful a statement as he had ever heard. It showed in what a strange way the army must have been conducted; when it must have been clear to the whole country that the moment the army landed in the Crimea it was absolutely necessary to have a depôt. Every military man, nay, every person who had read history, knew that the first thing clone when an army invaded an enemy's country was to form a depôt. The hon. Gentleman's speech was the most extraordinary exposure of the ignorance of the Government that it had ever been his misfortune to hear. Talk of the Sebastopol Committee giving an answer to the question, why was it that our army suffered?—why, the statement of the hon. Gentleman was a much more conclusive answer than the whole Report of that Committee. [Mr. F. PEEL said that the depôts were for provisions in reserve.] He could understand having food in depôts in reserve, but ought there not to have been depots for the ordinary supplies, so that in cases of emergency the army might have had something to fall back upon? In December last the Foreign Enlistment Bill was passed, and he thought it should have been ascertained by the month of February that foreigners would eat as well as Englishmen, and that it would be necessary to make provision for them.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that there was no certainty at the time referred to, that in the course of the financial year the Foreign Legion would be engaged in a state of war.
MR. HENLEY: But you hoped to raise some, and the charge for them might as well have been foreseen in the month of February as now. It was strange to say that Government should have to ascertain the amount of two months' actual expenditure, before they could state what
1648
the expenditure would be during the future months of the year. That was to him an additional proof of how unfortunate they had been in the conduct of affairs. Then, there were no less than 761,750 l. to be expended on land and inland water transport. Might not that have been foreseen in February? Did not the Press teem day after day with statements, that all the animals in the Crimea were either dying or dead? It must have been perfectly well known in February that a large supply of animals would be wanted, unless, indeed, it was intended to leave the army without the means of transport altogether. He really could not help thinking that a great part of the expense now to be incurred might have been prevented had due foresight and skill been exercised in the matter. The Government had based those estimates on what? They had been obliged, in order to get at the expenditure, to have recourse to the expenditure of May and June. It did seem somewhat strange to him that, with an army in the field, its estimated numbers known, and with the vast establishments of England, the Government should have been driven to have recourse to such an expedient before they could place themselves in a position to tell the House what the expenditure would be in the future months of the year. That was, to him, another convincing proof of the unfortunate way in which affairs had been conducted, and that if they had been placed in abler hands they would not at that the eleventh hour have been called upon for that which he was not prepared to deny was necessary. With regard to the amount of supplies and rations, all respecting them was or ought to have been as well known in February as now, at the same time he thought that the Under Secretary for War had stated grounds enough to show that what was now asked for was necessary for the army. With regard to the transport animals, one statement had struck him as rather extraordinary. The Under Secretary for War said that his calculation was based on the numbers of the two months of May and June, and then he stated that 1,500 were handed over in April, and showed the ratio in which they had afterwards increased. What he (Mr. Henley) wanted to know was, if that calculation had been made on that of the expenditure for two months, would six times as much be required for twelve months? [Mr. F. PEEL intimated assent.] As that was the

1649
case, no doubt they contemplated that a great mortality would take place among those animals; but it was to be hoped that ordinary care would be taken of them, and that they would not suffer as they had last year from want of forage and shelter. He was glad to see that steps had been taken to keep up the number of those animals, and he trusted that the supplies for the army would not again fail from the want of means of transport.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he agreed with almost everything which had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He expected something extra, but was not prepared for the great increase shown in the present Estimates. He was most desirous that the soldier should be properly paid, but he thought it was most extraordinary that the Secretary for War should have determined to increase the soldiers' pay 6d. per day without asking the consent of the House of Commons to such arrangement. The only item in the supplementary Estimates to which he objected was the sum set down for the conveyance of specie to Turkey. He thought they had done quite sufficient in advancing the loan, and ought not to be called on to pay its freightage to Constantinople.
MR. FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he begged to explain, with reference to some statements which had been made, that he (Sir F. Baring) did on a former occasion object to the transfer of the Commissariat expenditure from the Treasury to the War Department; on the contrary, he approved it, but what he did object to was | the Minute making that transfer—as he thought that it had not been sufficiently considered or matured. The Under Secretary for War appeared to think that now everything with regard to the war expenditure would go on smoothly—but if it did, things must be greatly altered from what they were when he (Sir F. Baring) held office in the Treasury. Then he was sorry to say there was such an accumulation of both war and Commissariat accounts that auditing them was out of the question; so by a kind of compromise they were got rid of. He would suggest to the hon. Under Secretary for War that he should make inquiries with regard to the transfer and settlement of the Commissariat accounts, with the view of preventing their accumulation and the difficulties which would otherwise arise. The Under Secretary for War appeared to think that that
1650
had already been done, and he (Sir F. Baring) should be happy to find that such was the case. Judging, however, from the Estimates on the table, he had no great confidence that it had been done; for, if they had the monthly accounts of the expenditure which was going forward he could not understand why the present enormous Supplementary Estimates should be necessary. He was afraid the Under Secretary for War would find that it would have been better to look more carefully into the matter, and that he had been a little too sanguine and had not sufficiently considered the difficulties connected with the subject.
MR. WILSONsaid, that there could be no doubt that the mode of conducting business had been greatly altered since the right hon. Baronet was at the Treasury. There was at that time a large Colonial expenditure by the Imperial Government, which was checked exclusively by the Commissariat officers, but that system had been entirely changed, and the expenditure in the Colonies had been reduced to a very small sum. The Treasury was unable to control all descriptions of expenditure, for the heads of the Admiralty and other departments were responsible to the House for the expenditure of money, and the only check upon the expenditure of the Commissariat Department abroad was the Board of Audit. The control of the purely financial department of the Commissariat chest rested entirely with the Treasury. He could not agree with the right hon. Baronet that any plan had been suggested which was preferable to that laid down in the Treasury Minute with respect to the transfer of the Commissariat from the Treasury to the War Department.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to know what arrangements had been made with respect to the supply of coffee to the troops abroad? He observed that before the Sebastopol Committee the blame for supplying the troops with raw whole coffee was cast by Sir Charles Trevelyan upon the Quarter-master General in the Crimea, an officer who he (Colonel North) believed had done everything in his power to contribute to the wellbeing of the army. Sir Charles Trevelyan, when asked whether applications for roasted coffee were not made before the army left Varna, said, he did not recollect any complaints being made, and added that all pains were taken at home to ascertain whether it would be

1651
better to send out coffee roasted or unroasted. Now, from papers which had been laid upon the table it appeared, that two months after, the authorities of the Treasury would not even take the trouble of sending to London Bridge, where the operations of roasting, grinding, and packing of coffee could be seen in the establishment of Messrs. Collier. Upon the 18th of July, Sir Charles Trevelyan wrote to Mr. Filder to ask what was best to be sent out. Mr. Filder took until the 13th of October to consider, and on that day he wrote to say he could not make up his mind whether it would be better to have roasted or unroasted coffee, and that he was anxious to consult some officers of experience upon the subject. Upon receiving that letter Sir Charles Trevelyan, on the 30th of October, wrote back, saying to Mr. Filder, "You have removed our doubts about the form in which coffee should be sent to the army, and when we have occasion to send out any more we will send it roasted, but not ground." Now, he could not see how the doubts of the Treasury could have been removed by Mr. Filder's letter. In his evidence before the Sebastopol Committee, Sir Charles Trevelyan said, raw coffee was sent because unroasted coffee was served out in the navy, comparing the position of the army in the field with that of sailors on board ship, with fire and every means of roasting the berry. Another reason given was, because raw coffee was issued to the French army; but it was forgotten that that army had a complete establishment for roasting coffee upon the borders of their camp. Sir Charles Trevelyan also said, throughout the Kafir war the troops were supplied with unroasted coffee. He (Colonel North) had spoken to Sir Harry Smith upon the subject, and that gallant officer had told him that he had hundreds of pounds of coffee scattered on the ground, although the troops had means of roasting it, but found it too troublesome to pound. Sir Charles Trevelyan added that, when it was found that there was a difficulty of roasting coffee in the Crimea, orders were given by the Treasury to send it out in a roasted state. It would be recollected that Messrs. Collier on the 15th of December wrote to Sir Charles Trevelyan upon the subject, and received on the 22nd of December anything but a courteous reply from Sir Charles Trevelyan, who concluded by saying, "My Lords are not aware that any additional assistance is required." No one could ima-
1652
gine from that reply that the first order for roasting coffee at the Clarence Yard was given on the 15th of December, and only on the 13th of January, 1855, was an order given to grind 20,0001b. as an experiment, and upon the 22nd of March an order was given that no more ground coffee should be sent out. With respect to the size of packages, Mr. Filder had expressed a desire that they should not exceed 60lb. weight; and if the Treasury had chosen to avail themselves of the information and assistance offered by Messrs. Collier, they would have ascertained how those gentlemen packed their coffee in packages of 25lb. weight, and which bore a voyage to Australia without loss of flavour. He (Colonel North) had had a notice upon the paper for a long time of a Motion for a copy of the correspondence which had taken place between Sir Charles Trevelyan or the Treasury, and any parties here, for the purpose of ascertaining the best form in which coffee should be sent to the East. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had stopped him the other evening, and suggested that he should put his Motion in the shape of a question, as, in fact, there was no correspondence to produce,—when a Gentleman undertook to cast blame upon the Quarter-master General and upon Admiral Boxer, he ought to be perfect, at least in his own office. Several Members of the House had already noticed the improper mode in which the correspondence of the Treasury was carried on, and now Sir Charles Trevelyan declared he had taken every means in his power to procure information, but could produce no correspondence to show it.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, whenever coffee was now issued to the soldiers, it was in a ground state. Tea and coffee were issued on alternate days to the troops.
MR. WILSONsaid, he must complain of the mode in which the subject had been brought before the House by the hon. and gallant Member who had last addressed them. It was true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had had a notice on the paper for a very long time, and he (Mr. Wilson) had come down every night to meet it, but whenever it was called—which necessarily occurred late at night—the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in his place to move it. [Colonel NORTH said, he did not believe there had been a night when he was absent.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman at least did not bring on his Motion, and therefore, for the

1653
convenience of the hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Wilson) suggested that he should put a question on the subject, as the Return, if ordered, would be nil. Sir Charles Trevelyan had told him there was no correspondence, but that he had had personal communications with officers of the navy, who had served in the Kafir war, and it was upon information derived from those personal communications that it was determined at first to send out unroasted coffee. When the green coffee was sent out no one knew whither the army was going. The first roasted coffee was sent out in July, and, as soon as it was known that the army was likely to winter in the Crimea, an intimation arrived in October, which stated that roasted coffee would be preferable, and from that time no green coffee was sent. Early in November a large order was issued from the Commissariat Department of the Treasury to the Admiralty to send out a regular supply of roasted coffee. A quantity of ground coffee was sent out as an experiment, and thus, when Messrs. Collier tendered their assistance in December, the Commissariat Department had already come to the determination to send out no more green coffee.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, Sir Charles Trevelyan declared he had taken all means to ascertain the best mode of sending out coffee. It appeared from a return that coffee was sent on the 7th of November roasted, but not ground. Why had not the Treasury made inquiries of Messrs. Collier?
MR. WILSONsaid, he could not see why Sir Charles Trevelyan should apply to Messrs. Collier. Those Gentlemen only tendered their assistence on the 15th of December, while early in November the Treasury had issued an order for only roasted coffee to be sent out.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he thought it was the duty of the Government to make inquiries of every person who was competent to give them information.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he considered that Parliament ought not to separate until satisfactory assurances were given by the Government that the war should be prosecuted with energy, and that our army would be properly supplied with those necessaries upon which military success depended. Last year the Ministry made liberal promises on that head, and yet very little had been done to realise them even up to the present moment. Now that it was almost certain our
1654
army would have again to winter in the Crimea, they should be adequately provided in time with land transport, provisions, huts, and tents, ammunition, and cannon, to replace the guns already worn out. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) said there were 7,000 baggage animals attached to Colonel M'Murdo's corps; but our army had, nevertheless, been kept stationary from the want of the means of transport, and now that August had arrived there was little time left for movements in the field. During the present season 1,000,000 l. sterling was the estimated expense of those baggage animals, or at the rate of 143 l. per head. Moreover, allowing for the casualties that must be expected, 7,000 would be a very insufficient number. Again, we had only two months' forage now at Balaklava, while the French, according to private letters from the East, had a twelvemonth's supply at Kamiesch. Why, he wished to know, was our Government not as prudent as our ally? As to provisioning the army, the period of the year was rather late for forming depôts for the immense body of troops now in the Crimea. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War had expressed surprise that the Turks would not enlist in the Contingent now being formed under English officers; but our Government had been timely forewarned that Mahomedans would not serve under Giaours.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that no enlistment by us was necessary in the case. The Contingent was to be furnished by the Turkish Government.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that Colonel Beatson, a British officer, who had been lately in command of a corps of Bashibazouks, was reported in the papers of that day to have been murdered by his own men. That was the result of endeavouring to enrol irregular forces, by which also the money of the country was wasted. According to a convention with England, the Turkish Government had separated a portion of its army, and placed it under General Vivian. That corps must prove inefficient under English officers; and it would be much better that the men should be sent to Kars under the control of their own Government. While we were lavishing enormous sums in paying Turkish troops and in levying a Foreign Legion, the services of which would yield no corresponding advantage, our own cavalry was neglected and left inefficient from the want of dismounted men. Private intelligence

1655
showed that the vegetables were not served out to our own army with the regularity which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) described; while the mode of distributing the other rations to commissioned officers, who had nothing but their pay to depend upon, was very unsatisfactory. Injustice was also inflicted on men who were brought from India to the Crimea, and placed as supernumeraries in corps where they were deprived of the rights to which they were entitled. Those were matters to which the attention of every military man in the country was now turned, and. unfortunately, the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) would not allay the alarm felt with regard to them. No proper precaution had yet been taken for hutting and encamping our army during the ensuing winter, and the tents previously sent out were completely decayed. Information ought to be afforded as to our communications, the defective state of which produced great misfortunes in our army last year. A flood lately occurred in the Crimea, which he understood had much injured the railway there. Had the damage thus occasioned been since repaired, and were the other roads in good condition? If they were not, there were enough men and labourers out there to make them so. The amount of actual preparation made did not warrant the confidence with which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) had spoken; but, as the House of Commons had done its duty in voting liberal supplies, it was to be hoped that that negligence in every department of the Government which had led to such disasters would be studiously avoided in future.
MR. PERCYsaid, he felt himself called upon to condemn the regulations of the hospital at Scutari, which had caused the loss of many gallant lives. Among other regulations every soldier was bound to find his own knife and fork when he went into hospital, but at Scutari 500 men were without those articles. That, and other arrangements with regard to fuel, ought to be abolished.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, that with reference to the item of 15,000 l. for freight of specie and expenses of its shipment, he wished to ask whether the charge should not be deducted from the loan to be advanced to Sardinia?
MR. BRAMLEY-MOOREsaid, he would suggest that the cost of freight in all such cases should be taken from the amount of specie shipped.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he could not understand the manner in which the various items of the Vote were lumped together. The Secretary for the Treasury described it as a Commissariat Vote for purely army purposes; but, surely, the expense of conveying specie to Turkey or to Sardinia did not come under that category. With regard to forage for our army, a two months' supply would be very insufficient.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he must beg to explain that that was only the amount of provender in the Crimea for immediate issue. There were also large stores at Constantinople and other places.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that in the general orders issued to the army while at Varna, the officers were urged to provide themselves with baggage animals; and when the troops quitted that place the Commissariat animals were left behind, and afterwards died in large numbers from sheer neglect. A similar casualty would occur again if we did not provide a larger quantity of provender.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he must complain that they had to discuss a very important Vote without having on the table copies of the Order in Council appointing a fourth Secretary of State, and separating the Colonial from the War Department. No answer had been given by the Government to the important questions that had been put to them from both sides of the House, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) as to the increased pay of the troops had been left unnoticed. The Secretary for the Treasury had contradicted the right hon. Member for Portsmouth. (Sir F. Baring), but the official papers bore out the right hon. Baronet's statement. The Committee ought to know what arrangement the Government proposed with respect to the Commissariat officers who felt themselves aggrieved; and it should also be told who was the actual head of that department. Those and other matters had been left without explanation, and he must protest against that mode of dealing with so important a subject.
Vote agreed to; House resumed.

ORDNANCE IMPROVEMENTS— QUESTION.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance with respect to a projectile which had been invented some nine months ago, and which the hon. Gentleman

1657
said had been under consideration the whole of that time. He wished to know why so long a time had been allowed to elapse without any answer being given to the inventor. The questions he had to put in accordance with the notice he had placed upon the paper were—Is it true that some experiments were tried at Shoeburyness last week, under the superintendence of the Colonel in command of the Royal Artillery, with the following important results: That with only about half charges of powder, and from a common gun, with a trifling alteration, the experimental shells acquired, at similar elevations, upwards of 1,000 yards more effective range than the solid shot of the service with a full charge, and that the average deflection of the experimental shell fired was only fourteen yards in this increased distance, while that of the service shot, at the smaller range, was forty-seven yards? Further, is it true that this invention has been nine months before the Government; that at first it was reported to he of no importance; that, on its being pressed upon the notice of the Duke of Newcastle, it was referred to the Select Committee at Woolwich in January last, and experimentally proved successful in March; and that no assistance has been afforded to the inventor for maturing his invention, beyond merely authorising a few experiments to be made at his expense? Further, is there any obstacle to the adoption and use of this great improvement in the effectiveness of our artillery? Considering that our army had now been before Sebastopol almost a year, the above were important questions, to which he hoped a satisfactory answer would be given.
MR. FRENCHsaid, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman could at the same time give some information in regard to the Report of the Commission appointed by Lord Raglan to inquire into the merits of Captain Disney's projectile?
MR. MONSELL,in reply, said, that the result of the experiments made during the last week at Shoeburyness was generally in accordance with the statement contained in the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions, except in regard to the shells being fired from a common gun with a trifling alteration, they having in fact been fired from a rifle gun, while the service shot was fired from a smooth-bored gun. It was true that the invention had been nine months under the consideration of the Government. It was first referred to General Cator, the
1658
Director General of Artillery, who, from the repeated failure of the shells fired, did not think it worth while to continue the experiments. However, subsequently, in the month of March, it was brought before the Duke of Newcastle, who directed public experiments to be made, the result of which was to show that the projectile in question was inferior to the service shot. In May there was another experiment, and with similar results. The projectile experimented upon the other day, of Mr. Brasbley Brittens, which was somewhat different from his former one, and which was in some respects an improvement upon it, was more successful. With regard to the last question, the invention had been referred to the Committee at Woolwich, and if it was considered worthy of adoption, would be recommended to the General Commanding in Chief. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) he had to observe that Captain Disney had wainted upon him (Mr. Monsell) about a fortnight ago, to inquire if any report had been received from the Commission appointed by Lord Raglan to inquire into the merits of his invention, and he told him that no such report had arrived.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not answered his question, whether it was true that the experimental shells acquired, at similar elevations, upwards of 1,000 yards more effective range than the solid shot of the service with a full charge, and that the average deflection of the experimental shell was only fourteen yards in that increased distance, while that of the service shot at the smaller range was forty-seven yards?
MR. MONSELLsaid, he had informed the hon. and learned Member in the first words he spoke that the statement contained in his question was perfectly accurate, except in regard to the guns from which the projectiles were fired.

SALT DUTIES IN INDIA— QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control a question with regard to the mode of collecting the salt duty in India. He wished to know whether any Report had yet been received from the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the mode of collecting those duties. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that two years ago, when the Indian Government Bill was under consideration, a clause was added to

1659
the Bill making an important change in the mode of collecting the salt tax, with a view to relieve the people of India from the evils to which they were subjected in reference to the supply of salt. That clause was, however, expunged by the Lords; but in consequence of the opinion expressed by the House of Commons, a Commission was appointed in India to inquire into the subject and to report to the Home Government. Two years had passed since that time, and whenever the subject had been alluded to, the reply had always been that no Report from that Commission had been received. He might add, that some suspicion existed that unnecessary delay had arisen, and that there was no great desire on the part of the authorities in India to forward the Report. He wished to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman—first, whether any Report from the Commission in question had been received; and, second, whether, considering the lapse of time that had occurred since the Commission was appointed, the right hon. Gentleman would give a promise that when Parliament re-assembled, that report should be presented, or that the Government would state what course they intended to pursue upon the subject?
MR. VERNON SMITHreplied, that the Report of the Commission alluded to by the right hon. Baronet had not yet been received. With regard to the suspicion which the right hon. Baronet said existed as to the cause of the delay, he presumed that it was not directed against the office over which he (Mr. V. Smith) had the honour to preside, or against the Court of Directors. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: No, no!] All they could do was to issue the order appointing the Commission, and to direct that the Report should be made and forwarded as soon as possible. When he entered upon the office of President of the Board of Control, he wrote to Lord Dalhousie to say that he thought the Report ought to have been sent before that time, and that he believed those who took an interest in the subject were anxiously expecting it. By the last mail he received a private letter from that noble Lord, expressing his regret at the delay which had occurred, and informing him that the Commission were then actively employed in preparing their Report, and he hoped soon to be able to forward it. He did not know that it had arrived by the mail which had just come in, but he feared it had not. With regard to his making any promise
1660
for the next Session, he did not see how it was possible for him to do so. If the right hon. Baronet meant to ask whether he intended to legislate in the absence of the Report, he certainly could not undertake to make any such proposition, for although the House of Commons had agreed to the clause to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, the House of Lords had thrown it out, and it was not likely, therefore, that such a clause, if proposed, would be likely to pass, no Report having been received. He was as anxious to obtain the Report as was the right hon. Baronet, but he thought that the right hon. Baronet would scarcely wish to proceed in the way of legislation without the Report, seeing that the delay could not exceed a few months.

THE FOREIGN LEGION—QUESTION.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister regarding the mode resorted to by the British Government for raising a Foreign Legion, and to ask whether any communication has been received by him from any Foreign Power with reference to that subject? I have seen a letter from Bremen, complaining very much that vessels of war have been placed in the Weser and Elbe, and that they have been made the receptacles for persons who were induced to enlist in the English service. I wish to ask, therefore, whether the Government has received any communication from the Hanse Towns upon that subject; and I beg to express my opinion that, whether it be right or wrong to have a Foreign Legion, we ought not to raise it in any manner which is inconsistent with the municipal laws of other countries, but that we should respect the laws of other nations. There was an article in The Times newspaper that morning, having reference to the United States; and, so far as I can collect, it appears that there has been an endeavour to raise men there for the British Foreign Legion, which is contrary to the law of the United States. I believe that the Government of the United States publicly proclaimed that they would not take part with either of the belligerents in this war, permitting neither the fitting up of Russian privateers nor the recruiting of men for the British army. I do not know what the facts of the case are, having only seen that allusion in The Times, but I beg to ask whether the noble Lord can give the House any information upon, what I must call, this very important sub-

1661
ject? I will only add, that I cannot, for the life of me, see if this war is so popular in England, and all the people are dying to come forward to fight the battles of their country, what reason there can be for having recourse to improper practices in order to raise a Foreign Legion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is well known, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government have established a depôt at Heligoland, where they are ready to enlist any persons who come from Germany; and, whatever laws there may be in some States against enlistment within the territory of those States, there is no law in any of them to prevent the free movement of persons who may choose to quit the territory for any purpose whatsoever. With regard to the question which arose in the United States, I beg to inform the right hon. Gentleman that a similar arrangement was made at Halifax, by which any persons going there from whatever quarter might be enrolled; but it appearing that that had led to questions within the territory of the United States, as to whether or not the law of that country had been violated, Her Majesty's Government, being desirous that no such questions should by possibility arise, has put an end to the enlistment of forces which used to take place at Halifax.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I think, Sir, that the noble Lord has a little misunderstood my question. I asked him whether British men-of-war had been stationed in the Weser and the Elbe for the purpose of being the receptacle for men enlisting in Hamburg or Bremen, and carrying those men away—because that is the point.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: That is no violation whatever of the law of any country. I believe that there are vessels stationed there which receive on board any persons who choose to take a passage to Heligoland.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read,
House in Committee of Supply,
(4.) 109,200 l. Disembodied Militia.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected to the amount of the Vote.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, there were nineteen regiments of militia still disembodied; but who were liable to be called on to serve a certain number of days in the year, and who therefore required a provision for their payment.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 70,716 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Ordnance Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1856."
MR. MONSELLsaid, it would perhaps be in the recollection of the Committee that when he brought forward the Ordnance Estimates in March last, he postponed the Vote for the Ordnance establishment, it being the intention of the Government to make certain alterations in the constitution of the whole of the War Department. The Estimate he now had to propose was for the establishment of the Ordnance Office as changed according to the intentions then expressed. He thought that the present was a convenient time to state the changes which had been made in the organisation of the military departments of the country. In the first place he imagined that it would not be necessary for him to dwell on the necessity of some change, for that was universally admitted. Two Commissions and one Committee of that House had reported within the last two years, expressing opinions in favour of large and important changes, and only last Session many distinguished Members on both sides of the House had expressed the same opinion, and he was happy to think it was no party question, for one of those Gentlemen was the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), who in July last expressed an opinion with regard to the existing constitution of the War Department, and the absolute necessity for some change being made. At the commencement of the present war the administration of the army was divided into five separate departments. The discipline and government of the army were divided between the Commander in Chief and the Master General of the Ordnance, while the Secretary at War had large and important duties to perform, as had also the Master General and the Board of Ordnance, and the Commissariat fed the army; but all the departments were, disconnected, and there was no union among them or central control over them. The results of every system of organisation which must follow divided authority had been felt in those departments, for it was obvious that even without difference of opinion of principle there must be difference of energy in the various departments which was sufficient to frustrate all unity

1663
of action. Suppose that an army was fully equipped in every other respect, and that there was a failure in the supply of boots; or that a field train was complete in every other respect except that there were no fuses, all the rest of the equipment would go for nothing. If anything was clear it was that in military government the value of central organisation could hardly be over-estimated. In addition to the division which existed between the different departments and the military officers who managed them, some of the departments themselves were not so constituted as to promote energy and unity of action in the discharge of their duties. The Board of Ordnance, for instance, was divided into three departments, with an officer of the Board in charge of each separate department; but yet as every order was given in the name of the Board, every member of it was responsible for all the departments; and if anything went wrong in any one of them, the colleagues of the officer at the head of that department must either be responsible for what they did not approve, or interfere with that which, according to the practice of the office, they had no right to do. It was obvious that the first object in the reorganisation of such a system was the establishment of a central control, that one mind should preside over all the departments, with full power to order the execution of their duties rapidly and promptly. It was also obvious that the military departments had failed under the old system, owing to the want of real responsibility in those who managed them. It was almost impossible, till within the last few months, to discover who was responsible for anything. Whether it was a question of fuses or of boots, or anything else, and the question arose as to who was responsible, the difficulty was the same. Again, there was a considerable loss of time by the system of intercommunication between the different departments by regular official letters, and it was found necessary to make a change in that respect. The first change which was made in the military system was the separation of the Secretaryship of War from that of the Colonies. After that the Commissariat was transferred from the Treasury to the War Department, and when his noble Friend (Lord Panmure) came into office, he proceeded to develop and carry further the changes which the Government had for many months under consideration. The first point to be con-
1664
sidered was the division of the command of the scientific corps from that of the rest of the army; and the first step was to place the Artillery and Engineers under the management of the Horse Guards. By that means, not only was unity in the government of the army secured, but it opened to those distinguished corps advantages from which they had hitherto been shut out, but which were open to those corps in every other country in Europe. He did not know whether the Committee was aware that not with standing the distinguished merits of those corps, General Philips, in 1777, was the last Artillery officer who had held the command of a division. It would be recollected how many distinguished commanders in the French army had been officers of Artillery—not to mention the great Napoleon himself, Marmont, Foy, Bosquet, and others, all belonging to that corps. In the Sardinian and Austrian armies the same course was pursued, and he could see no reason for, or any benefit in, those corps remaining in the state of isolation in which they had hitherto stood, and why they should not be allowed to compete for the highest appointments which were open to the most eminent officers. But the change by which those corps were placed under the Commander in Chief, and adding to his duties those of Master General of the Ordnance, involved certain other changes. Till the present time the Commander in Chief had no official knowledge of the defences of the country. By the new organisation, the Secretary of State for War and the Commander in Chief, in conjunction with the Inspector General of Fortifications and the Director General of Artillery, would decide on all questions of fortifications. Hitherto the Commander in Chief had only been responsible for the small arm of the army, now he would be responsible for all the arms of the service, and no alteration could be made in them without his consent and permission. He now came to the civil departments of the army. The head of those departments was the Secretary for War, who had authority and jurisdiction, and direct control over all the departments communicating with them not by official letters, but by means of memoranda or personal interviews with those under him. The heads of each office would have under their control all the subordinates of their departments, and could make returns to the Secretary for War with regard to the progress of the orders he had given. Now,

1665
that was a matter of greater importance than it appeared at first sight to be, for it was found last year that the number of instances in which orders which had been given had not been executed was very great indeed, and it was most important to guard against such a state of things in future. He now came to the subordinate departments under the control and management of the Secretary of State. He begged to remark that an objection he had heard made with reference to the arrangement of subordinate departments was founded on a gross fallacy. It was said that civilians were placed in positions where military duties were to be discharged, but that was by no means the case. In all the subordinate military departments military men were placed. The mere fact of the director general of contracts or stores sitting in a military department did not make it necessary that he should be a military man. Every department which had military duties to perform was under a military man, and every civil department under a civilian. In the first place, the department to which was entrusted all military works and buildings was placed under the Inspector General of Fortifications, under whom were two deputy inspectors, one of whom was charged with the department of fortifications, and the other with the erection and custody of barracks. That was an important change from the old system. The barrack-masters used to be under the control of the Board of Ordnance, but they would now be under the Inspector General of Fortifications, and there had been added to his other duties that of Barrack-master General, including of course the management of the barrack-masters and the whole control of that department. The next change was in the direction of the materiel of the Royal Artillery, which had been placed under the Director General of Artillery. Therefore, as the Ordnance supplied not only the land forces but the navy with arms, the naval department would be under a Naval Director General of Artillery, whose duties, as regarded the navy, would be the same as those performed towards the army by the Director General of the Royal Artillery. Both those officers would be members of the Scientific Committee, and the Director General of the Royal Artillery would be vice-president of the committee, and with the assistance of the able and scientific men on that committee he would
1666
decide on all questions in connection with naval and military artillery. The next department was that of Director General of Contracts, who would have the control of all the contracts connected with the military departments and the conduct of them, under the orders of the Secretary of State, for all purposes. The next department was that of the clothing of the army, which would be under the control of a Director General of Clothing. To him would be entrusted the providing the custody, and the issue of the clothing of the army, and the sealed patterns—all requisitions would be made to him; he would have the inspection and the custody of the clothing, and all complaints relative to the clothing were to be made to him; and he would do all that had hitherto been done by the colonels of regiments, the Board of General Officers, the Adjutant General, and the Secretary at War. The Store Department, which was entrusted with the custody of all other stores except clothing, would be under a Director General of Stores, and the accounts of the whole army would be under the control of an Accountant General. The head of each department would be held responsible for the perfect efficiency of every branch of his administration, and for the conduct of all business relating thereto. There had therefore been entrusted to him the important function of recommending for promotion all clerks, storekeepers, and other officers under him. The recommendations made by him must of course be accompanied by a statement of the reasons upon which they were founded, but it was the intention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State to follow the advice given to him by those gentlemen, where he considered it satisfactory upon this important point. In ordinary matters the heads of departments would act upon their own authority and responsibility, but in matters of importance they would receive directions from the Minister of War or from his representative—the chief of the civil staff. The chief of each department was to cause a journal or day-book to be kept, in which should be entered a correct list of all communications received daily, with a brief description of the particular subjects to which they related, so that it might be at once seen whether the orders that had been given had been executed, and what was the state of the business intrusted to the department. With regard to the manufacturing departments at Woolwich, their

1667
old constitution had not been very much altered, and the department of gun factories, carriages, laboratories, small arms, and powder remained much as they were. The Committee would see that the principle upon which all those changes had been made was, simply, that a central control over the whole of our military administration had been established, and at the same time the principle of individual responsibility had been carried out in the fullest possible manner, for the head of every subordinate department had his duties clearly defined and marked out, and was responsible to the Secretary of State for their efficient execution. It would be utterly impossible for the future that there should be a failure in any part of the equipment or matériel of the army without its being known at once who was responsible, and that responsibility was made real by the head of each department being entrusted with such power that he was enabled in a great degree to select his own instruments and to carry out his arrangements in his own way, and was merely responsible to the Secretary of State for the working of his department. Of course, as that new system had been in operation such a short time it would be useless to enter into any statement as to the improvements effected by the alteration. He could only state that, so far as his own observation had gone, there had been a very considerable change, and he thought that business connected with the military departments was now done much more rapidly than was formerly the case. Their experience, however, of the working of the new system was too short to enable him to bring forward such examples as would be convincing to the Committee at present. It was sufficient to say that the principles upon which the system was founded were those of reason and common sense, and he believed that in the course of a very few months it would be found easy to show that from it the country had derived great and important benefits.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that on the 22nd of May a Bill had been brought into the House and read a first time, entitled the Ordnance Board Bill, and it was proposed to proceed with it immediately; but as the Bill was not printed, he proposed that some delay should take place in proceeding with it. Since the 22nd of May, he had often urged that some statement of the details of the measure, which went to the entire abolition of the Board of Ordnance, might be
1668
given, and that the principles on which the alteration was made should be stated. The House had been occupied with all sorts of subjects—many of them unconnected with the war—and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not found an opportunity for putting the country in possession of the arrangements made in time of war with regard to a most important office. It was now so late in the Session, that after the statement which had been made that night of the changes which had been effected, all hope of any further discussion was at an end, and the benefit of any suggestions which might have been made in that House would be lost, and on the Government must consequently rest the responsibility until next Session, whether the plan failed or succeeded. He had listened with the greatest possible interest, and, at the same time, with some degree of surprise, to the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell). The hon. Gentleman had stated reasons why certain departments of the army had failed; but those failures had been prophesied more than a year ago. On the 31st of January, 1854, Earl Grey in another place said—
"I can say, from my own experience, having for many years held the office of Secretary of War and Secretary of State for the War Department, that the urgency of some reform in the constitution of those departments is much greater than is generally supposed. If this were the proper time I for it, I could lay before your Lordships cases of mismanagement and of evils which have existed for the last fifty years, directly traceable to this vicious organisation of these departments; and I could adduce facts proving those evils, which, I think, would astonish your Lordships and the country. I hope, therefore, this most important subject has already occupied the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that they will be prepared either to propose to Parliament, or to adopt by the authority of the Crown, and communicate to Parliament—for much may, I believe, be done by the authority of the Crown—that in one way or the other they will lose no time in introducing an amended organisation of these departments. If they do not, I venture to predict, from the want of unity in the management of departments closely connected with each other, and the dilatory and cumbrous arrangements for the transaction of business, that before we have been many months engaged in serious war, it will assuredly lead to some calamitous results."—[3 Hansard, cxxx. 62.]
All that the hon. Gentleman had stated, was stated by Earl Grey on that occasion. Afterwards, when the pressure of public feeling was too strong for the Government, they, as he thought, reluctantly separated the War Department from that of the Colonies, and a fourth Secretary of State was created. But even then, the Secretary at

1669
War maintained that, in consequence of the diminution of the business connected with the Colonies, the Colonial Minister could have continued to perform the duties of the War Department, an opinion which was controverted by the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), who had himself been Secretary for the Colonies. Of the value of the change which stopped at the creation of a fourth Secretary of State, and left the departments as they were with their responsibilities undefined, the experience of the last nine months, and the evidence of the ex-Ministers before the Sebastopol Committee, there was abundant proof. The noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) in November, wrote to Lord Aberdeen, and said—
"I am of opinion that the House of Commons would expect, after six or seven months of deliberation, a final arrangement of the War Department."
But the Sebastopol Committee remark—
"Your Committee can find no trace of these deliberations, and any evils that may have resulted from delay in such arrangements are therefore very properly laid to the charge of the Cabinet."
The late Government went out of office without submitting any plan to the House for the proper constitution of the War Department, and yet the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), who, having held office under the late Government and under the present, spoke with some authority, referred to the failure of the War Department, gave his reasons why that failure had taken place, and called upon the House and the country to agree with him that, under any system half modelled and unsettled, disasters could not have been avoided, and must have been expected by any man who laid claim to the character of a statesman. So far as he (Mr. Stafford) was concerned, having witnessed abroad and ascertained at home the causes and effects of a confusion of departments, he thought that at a much earlier period many beneficial changes might have been introduced into the constitution of the War Departments, and it was not the fault of the Opposition side of the House that the opportunity had been neglected, and the period allowed to pass by when such changes might have been effected. He trusted that the sanguine anticipations at present entertained by his hon. Friend would be realised, and though the merit
1670
might be less now than it would have been at an earlier period, he hoped the result would be fortunate, and that the War Office as at present constituted would do more towards saving the lives, ameliorating the sufferings, and increasing the comforts of our soldiers, than the unhappy arrangements which existed previous to the entrance into office of the present Government. At the same time there was one department to which he wished particular attention to be directed. In the evidence given by the right hon. Member for South, Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), before the Sebastopol Committee, the following definition was given of the relations of the Secretary at War with the Secretary of State for War:—
"The relation of the Secretary at War with the Commander in Chief is really that of control or check upon the expenditure of the army. At present the Secretary-ship at War is not abolished, but it is held simultaneously with the Secretaryship of State by Lord Panmure; and in many Acts of Parliament duties are imposed upon the Secretary at War which, unless those Acts are repealed, could not be performed at all."
Subsequently in answer to a question from the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman stated—
"If any extravagant expenditure was incurred by the order of the Secretary of State, it would be the duty of the Secretary at War to appeal to the Treasury to decide between them."
He (Mr. Stafford) therefore understood that Lord Panmure was now Secretary for War and Secretary at War; and if, as Secretary for War, he was guilty of any extravagance, he would appeal to himself as Secretary at War to correct any such excess of duty! It was important that the financial position of Lord Panmure, with reference to himself or to some one else, should be defined, for he (Mr. Stafford) found that the noble Lord had not very well considered his business. On the 28th June, Lord Panmure stated that—
"We propose, therefore, to try another mode which, though entirely novel in the British army, is one from which we anticipate considerable success. The plan is this, that to all soldiers who shall be engaged in the field of action before the enemy—and this will, of course, apply at once to the army in the Crimea—double pay shall be given. I propose that 1s. a day shall be added to the pay of all men who are now before the enemy, and this addition will take place from the day when they landed in the Crimea. I do not propose that this addition shall go immediately into the pockets of the soldier. … I propose, therefore, that this additional pay shall be invested in the savings-banks in the country. If the soldier survives and returns to this country it will

1671
accumulate into a fund, which he will receive on his discharge; if he is pensioned he will have it in addition to his pension; and, if he unfortunately falls, it will be given to his representatives." [3 Hansard, cxxxix. 275.]
That plan produced a great sensation in the army, and was received with great satisfaction. But a noble Lord having suggested that the sum required for carrying out such a plan would amount to something like 750,000 l., Lord Panmure, on the 5th of July, stated that
"it was one of the great features of this plan that the promised addition to the soldier's pay was to be given only to those engaged in actual war, or to those at present serving in the Crimea. Since he made that announcement, he had been informed by a great many military officers, to whose opinions he felt bound to listen, that unless the soldier got the pay into his own hands, the plan would not be likely to succeed. In the face of these representations, he did not think it would be right or proper for him to ask the nation to risk entering upon so great an expenditure, for the purpose of trying a plan which he was told by experienced officers, would perhaps fail to produce the result intended. But, on the other hand, putting at once into the soldier's hands an amount of pay increased to the extent which he had named, would, in his opinion, go far to affect the soldier's discipline; if he had too much money, he might find it pleasing, and perhaps convenient, to incur a breach of discipline. He (Lord Panmure) had, therefore, so far altered the scheme that, instead of investing a shilling a day for the soldier's benefit at a distant period, he now proposed immediately to put the additional sum of sixpence a day into the hands of the soldier as an extraordinary field allowance, precisely in the same way in which extraordinary field allowances were now paid to the officers. He proposed, instead of putting it into the savings-bank, to give the soldier the benefit of an arrangement which existed in the navy, and which was voluntary on the part of the men themselves, but encouraged by their officers; and to enable the soldier to allot any part of that sixpence to his family, instead of receiving it himself." [3 Hansard, cxxxix. 438.]
Now, he confessed, he could not quite understand why Lord Panmure, before he promulgated his plan, did not honour with a consultation those Gentlemen who were found after its promulgation to be best acquainted with the subject. But, inasmuch as on the 28th of June, Lord Panmure proposed 1s., and on the 5th of July only 6d., it was only right that the House of Commons should know how far 50 per cent was to be struck off that expenditure at the mere suggestion of Lord Panmure. If the statement of the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire was correct, the only appeal in the case was from Lord Panmure as Secretary for War to Lord Panmure as Secretary at War. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) would explain the
1672
financial position of the Secretary for War, and whether that functionary could sit in the House of Commons or not, a fact which had not been mentioned by his hon. Friend. If the Secretary for War was to have the whole financial control of the army, the Crown should be advised to let him be a Member of the House of Commons; but if he was necessarily to be a peer, and the whole of the financial details of the army rested with the two Gentlemen who represented the War Department in that House, he was not yet aware which of them was to have charge of the Estimates. But it would be recollected that the noble Lord the Member for London, in his correspondence with Lord Aberdeen, spoke of the gravity and importance of the position of any person who might be intrusted with that duty. During the last few months several gentlemen had stated at meetings connected with financial reform, that they had been offered, and had refused, the position which his hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) now filled; and he could hardly imagine, from the manner in which those offers had been made and refused, that it had been the intention of the Government to place the whole financial department of the army in the hands of the Clerk of the Ordnance. The hon. Gentleman had not explained what would be the relative positions of the Clerk of the Ordnance and the Under Secretary for War, neither had the Committee been informed what would be the relative positions of the accountants of the Ordnance and of the army, or in what position the Deputy Secretary at War would be placed with regard to the Ordnance Department. Although great and radical changes had been introduced, he thought the Clerk of the Ordnance had not defined with sufficient distinctness the new functions which each department was to be called upon to discharge. He (Mr. Stafford) thought it desirable that more than one discussion should take place on such a very important subject. Lord Grey had declared, in another place, that it was impossible to criticise the plan proposed by Lord Panmure, which had to-night been submitted to that House by the Clerk of the Ordnance, without being in full possession of its details. Lord Panmure promised, on that occasion, to lay before the other House a memorandum explaining all the changes proposed; but the promise which, according to the ordinary channels of information, was then made by Lord Panmure, remained yet unredeemed. He

1673
considered it most desirable that the position of the Commander in Chief, with regard to the Secretary of State for War, should be clearly defined. Lord Hardinge protested, before the Committee of 1836, against the transfer of the Commissariat from the Treasury to the Department of the Secretary of State for War, but the noble Lord took no part in the recent discussions on that subject in the House of Lords. He thought, however, that the Committee ought to be informed whether, with regard to pensions, to the movements of troops, and to the recommendation of promotions, the position of the Commander in Chief would remain precisely as it was before those changes were introduced. The opinion of Lord Hardinge would have great weight with the country, for the most valuable improvements recently introduced in our military departments—the adoption of the Minié rifle, and the improvement and increase of the artillery force—were attributable to that noble Lord. He (Mr. Stafford) had not the least wish to oppose the Ordnance Estimates, or to embarrass the Government by any questions which they might feel reluctant to answer. The Government had chosen to postpone the statement of those matters until so late a period of the Session that there was no time for their discussion, and upon the Government, therefore, must the responsibility of those changes rest. He only hoped that the war would be carried on, during the recess, with statesmanlike foresight and prudence, and beyond the degree in which the Government had yet given any proof of their possessing those qualities.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, there was one point in which he thought our management had been very deficient, and that was in the application of the mechanical genius of the country to the conduct of the war. The method of contributing to the effect of warlike operations was peculiarly adapted, as he thought, to the English nation, with its great command of capital, its scientific knowledge and skilled labour, and its abundant stores of coal and iron. He had never yet understood the reason why the great gun of Mr. Nasmyth, which had been described as a most effective engine of warfare, had not been completed and brought into action. He had been told that at first the Government desired Mr. Nasmyth to proceed as quickly as possible with the construction of it; that he was then ordered to stop, and afterwards to go on again with
1674
it. He (Mr. Ewart) wished very much to be informed how the matter stood; but if it were considered that it would be impolitic to publish the intentions of Government with regard to it, he would only say that he hoped it was not left out of sight. Not only as a means of promoting our success in the present war, but even as a friend of peace, he was very anxious to see the full development of scientific agencies in war, for he believed nothing would be more likely to secure a long duration of peace than perfecting the destructive efficacy of the instruments of warfare. He believed that the employment of such means by England was what Russia had dreaded more than anything else, and the ablest chemists and mechanicians in the service of Russia had been devoting their efforts to furnish her with such weapons. Now, in that direction, surely, it was fitting that Great Britain should take the lead, and it was more than probable she might command success in it.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he was glad to learn that an officer was now to be appointed in connection with the Ordnance Department, as Director General of Naval Artillery. In the Order in Council the commander of the Royal Artillery was styled Director General of the Royal Artillery, while the commander of the Naval Artillery was merely termed the Naval Director of Artillery. [Mr. MONSELL: The title of the officer in question was to be Naval Director of Artillery.] He had misunderstood the matter, then; but he could not see why a naval officer, as a scientific man, having very considerable responsibilities to sustain, and having to be in constant communication with the Admiralty, should not rank as equal with the military Director General of Artillery. He saw, however, that it was proposed to fix the salary of the Naval Director of Artillery at only 500 l. a year. An officer of rank, high character, and scientific acquirements, would feel degraded in such a position. Lord Hardinge and other witnesses before the Sebastopol Committee had borne testimony to the importance and efficiency of the work done by Sir Thomas Hastings and other naval men in the Ordnance; and it appeared that three-fifths of the stores in that department belonged to the navy. The Government might depend upon it that unless they put the right men into the various departments they would never give satisfaction to the country.
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, the military and civil services were so mixed—he had almost said fused together—in the Orders in Council as to render it all but unintelligible, and it was very evident that the framer of the Order was utterly ignorant of the nature of many of the duties to which it referred. It appeared to him that at the very outset the framer had fallen into an error when he represented the Clerk of the Ordnance as if he had only civil duties to perform, whereas he had important military duties to discharge. The next office was that of Inspector General of Fortifications, held by Sir John Burgoyne, and among the duties which he had to perform were those of the preservation and maintenance of the fabric of all existing fortresses and military buildings, the examination of all plans and projects for fortifications, barracks, and other military works, and the preparation of specifications and estimates of all works connected with fortifications or military buildings. Yet those were called civil duties. Why, the duties performed by Sir J. Burgoyne before Sebastopol might as well be called civil duties. And here he begged permission to make an observation with reference to Sir John Burgoyne's services at Sebastopol. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. S. Adair) the other evening stated that Sir John Burgoyne had been deceived as to the strength of Sebastopol; but he had it from that gallant Officer himself that that observation of the hon. Member's was not a correct statement of his opinion. What he said in his evidence was, that he found the place stronger than he had from previous impressions been led to believe, and that he was not of opinion it would have resisted so strongly had the course been adopted which he wished to see pursued, but still he had no doubts but that it would be taken. It might become his (Captain Vernon's) duty at some future period to show the House that that Officer had acted in the most energetic and enterprising manner. On that matter the press had for a time been misled, but it now fully admitted the great and important services rendered by Sir John Burgoyne. The next office laid down in the Order in Council was that of the Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications. Then there were two Assistant Deputy Inspector Generals, at 500 l. a year each, and who, it was said, were to perform such duties as it might hereafter be found necessary to devolve upon them. If anything could prove that
1676
the framer of the Order in Council was very inadequately informed as to the nature of the task he had undertaken that particular passage did, for here an office and a salary were named before the duties to be discharged could be defined. The Director General of Contracts, which was a civil office, was held by a gentleman of the name of Howell, and he was bound to say that that gentleman was a perfect man of business, who knew his duties and performed them well. Turning to the military departments, he found, under the head of establishments at Woolwich, a Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factories and a Superintendent of the Royal Carriage Department. Two such offices had been held by Colonel Wilford and Colonel Gambier, but they had been superseded and placed in inferior situations, and other men, but not better men, had been put in their places. He did not find fault with the officers so appointed, but it was of the system that he complained. The next subject to which he should call the attention of the Committee was the office of Superintendent of the Royal Laboratories. That was an appointment which, under a very slight variation of title, had been held by Colonel Wilson, than whom, according to general admission, there was not a better man in the service. Yet he had been superseded by Captain Boxer. He did not wish to detract from the merits of the latter officer, who was undoubtedly a man of great intelligence; yet he thought it hard that Colonel Wilson, who had served his country in various parts of the world, fighting against its enemies, should be superseded by Captain Boxer, who, however excellent as a scientific man, had almost entirely confined his military service abroad to eleven months at Malta. Captain Boxer had been put in the room of Colonel Wilson at an increased rate of salary; and Colonel Wilson, he understood, had received a gratuity of 200 l. Giving such a sum to Colonel Wilson was like adding insult to injury. If Colonel Wilson deserved a gratuity, he ought not to have been removed; and if he merited removal, he should not have received a gratuity. He wished to know who made those appointments? He thought it was not the Commander in Chief, nor the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance, nor Major General Cator, the Director General of Artillery. Of course it could not be the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, nor did he (Captain Vernon) believe it was the Secretary for War who had made these

1677
appointments. Then, was there some other person or influence behind all those authorities by whom such things were done? Upon the whole, he did not see clearly the way in which the new administration of the department was going to work, and he was not very well satisfied with such an account of it as he had received.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must confess that, even after the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), he was very much at a loss to understand what were the real intentions of the Government. The proposed changes, he believed, were quite contrary to the opinions of the highest military authorities, and it was known that the late Lord Raglan entirely disapproved of them. He (Colonel Dunne) wished to know whether the accounts of the regiment of artillery were to be transferred to the War Department in the same way as the accounts of the rest of the army? Were the arming and clothing of the troops to be placed on the same footing as the rest of the army? He saw that the hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance had relieved himself of many of his duties, and that he had placed himself as a general superintendent over all the departments which he called civil, but which he (Colonel Dunne) said in reality were purely military in their natures. That was a most erroneous and inconvenient course, because now there would be a man at the head of those departments who would be totally ignorant of all the details. The duties of that officer were to prepare annually the estimates for Parliament, and generally to superintend and control all the money arrangements connected with the department. Those duties were now transferred to the Inspector of Fortifications. To that officer was also transferred the care of the barracks—a thing with which he had nothing to do. Changes equally questionable were made in reference to the department of contracts, and also in reference to the clothing. There was now no Board at all, but only a director of clothing; and to whomsoever the blame was to be attached, he (Colonel Dunne) had never seen worse clothing than that now furnished to our soldiers. He thought that there ought to be some board to decide upon that clothing with which the soldier could go comfortably into the field. But was the director solely to decide? He was glad that a most gallant officer, who had distinguished himself at Alma, had received that appointment; but was he alone to decide? [Mr.
1678
MONSELL: He would decide on the patterns.] But no substitute for a Board was provided.
MR. MONSELL: There could be no alteration made in the clothing of the army without the sanction of the Commander in Chief.
COLONEL DUNNE: Improvements were every day suggested, and he wished the soldier to obtain the benefit of those improvements. There should, therefore, be some general system of inspection; but that had altogether been left out. He did not think that they could get a proper Director of Stores for 500 l. a year.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he must beg to explain that that sum had been originally fixed on the supposition that the officer appointed could also retain his full pay; but that not being the case, it was proposed that the salary should be 900 l. a year.
COLONEL DUNNE: he must also complain of the mischievous disposition of civilians who were not capable of forming a judgment on professional matters. The Government had taken great credit for the separation of the management of the laboratory from the manufacture of gunpowder. He (Colonel Dunne) could not approve of that arrangement. He was perfectly certain that no change had been proposed which would be for the better. The assistants in the different departments were, he supposed, to be abolished, and thus many young officers would be deprived of appointments which they had held with benefit to the service. There was also to be an alteration in the composition of the scientific Committee at Woolwich, by the introduction of a great number of gentlemen distinguished in science, but whom the country could not sufficiently reward to induce them to give exclusive attention to the different branches of the artillery service. He was afraid that the system about to be established would be pernicious and inconvenient. He had always heard that in 1803, the Ordnance Department was in as bad a state as that to which it had now been brought by the hon. Member for Limerick; but that in 1815, so efficiently was that department managed that our military weapons and equipments were the most perfect in Europe. And how was that improvement effected? Not by placing civilians over the department, but by entrusting its management to military men. By placing properly qualified military men, and not civilians or mere political friends over the Ordnance Depart-

1679
ment, England reached a pitch of military glory far higher than had been attained by any other European nation. But the state of that department was far different now. He did not believe that our army before Sebastopol was furnished with good arms, guns, powder or shells. Of course, the subject was a delicate one, and he did not wish to reveal anything which it would be injudicious to publish; but he warned hon. Gentlemen that some failure might occur in the operations of our army, in consequence of the bad weapons and materials with which they were furnished. That was not merely his own opinion. Men of much greater military experience, and who were better qualified to pronounce an opinion upon the subject, entertained a similar apprehension.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he could only express a hope that the new system would work as well as the old, and that it would produce results equally creditable to the service.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished for an explanation of the increase in the charge for advertisements, stamps, travelling expenses, gazettes, and other contingencies, which, from 2,810 l., had risen in the present year to 5,210 l. All those items ought to be submitted separately, instead of being taken together in one sum. Many complaints had been made of the difficulties which were thrown in the way of persons who had new inventions to submit to the Government, but he hoped that those difficulties were only the temporary consequences of the changes which had been going on, and that for the future no such difficulties would be met with. He regretted exceedingly to find that the Changes which had been made had not been productive of a greater saving of expense.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that the real question was not with regard to the saving of expenditure in the management of the departments, but would the plan of consolidation, or would it not, give efficiency to the public service. That could only be tested by experience, but he rejoiced to see that no hon. Gentleman had found fault with the main principle of central control and individual responsibility. Under the old military system those principles, he believed, were entirely set aside. He could not doubt that the new plan would produce most satisfactory results—indeed, he believed that during the six weeks during which it had been in opera-
1680
tion, it had already produced most important results. He now observed in all the military departments much greater efficiency and energy than were seen there before the introduction of the new plan. His hon. Friend the member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), had blamed the noble Lord at the head of the Government because the plan had not been earlier submitted to the House; but it was not the fault of his noble Friend that it had not been laid before the House till now. Six weeks ago, he (Mr. Monsell) was ready to submit it to the House, but he was prevented from doing so by the many Motions which had been made by hon. Members, which occupied a great deal of the time of the House without leading to any results. The hon. Member for North Northamptonshire had also asked what would be the financial position of the Secretary at War under the new arrangement. Under the old system, said the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for War was a check in financial matters, upon the Secretary at War; but that now, when there was only one War Secretary, there would be no such check. The Secretary at War, under the new arrangement, would be submitted to the same checks as every other head of a Government department was subject to. The Secretary at War would not have the power to expend a single farthing more than a Committee of Supply of the whole House might permit him to expend. He would be bound by the Votes granted by the House of Commons. Under the new arrangement the whole of the Military Estimates of every description would be submitted to the House at one and the same time by the gentleman who might have the honour to hold the position now held by himself (Mr. Monsell). The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) had asked what would be the position of the Commander in Chief under the new arrangement. The Commander in Chief's position would be in no way changed, except with regard to some additional duties which the new plan would devolve upon him, in consequence of the abolition of the office of Master General of the Ordnance. The Commander in Chief would be no more nor no less connected with the Secretary for War after, than before the new arrangement. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) had asked why the Government had not proceeded to manufacture guns upon the plan suggested by Mr. Nasmyth. The

1681
Government were about to test the value of Mr. Nasmyth's gun in a few days. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Capt. Vernon), had asked in whose hands was the appointment of the officers who had been nominated in the Order in Council. Their appointment rested with the Secretary at War, who consulted with the Commander in Chief. The clothing of the army could not be altered without the consent of the Commander in Chief, who would consult the Director General of Clothing with respect to the clothing of the army. That he believed was the course that had been pursued with respect to the cavalry equipments which had been issued within the last few days. With regard to those gentlemen who had been appointed by the Secretary at War to very responsible situations in the military department, all he would say was, that however well qualified to act in ordinary times, those gentlemen were not so well qualified as their successors to discharge their duties in a time of war.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he shared the regrets of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), in reference to the results of the recent arrangements. The clothing he was certain could be done much cheaper than it was now done. The clothing supplied to the soldiers of the French army was not only cheaper, but it was much better. If there was any profession in the world in which central control and individual responsibility were desirable, it was the military profession. It was most injurious to the service to put civilians into the military offices; and he had no hesitation in saying that in the recent changes the best men had not been put into the best places. They were not at all acquainted with the subordination of the army, and they were really not the beat men for the performance of the duties that were to be performed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that nothing could be worse than the old clothing system. The clothing of the Marines, which was done by the Admiralty, was 17 per cent lower than that supplied to the line by the colonel. The present clothing of the militia was absolutely discreditable, and that was done by the colonels. ["No, no!"]
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the militia were clothed by the Ordnance; and certainly he had never seen such abominable red baize as that of which the men's uniforms were made.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must take exception to a Vote of 300 l. for a private secretary to the Clerk of the Ordnance. It had not been customary to allow salaries for private secretaries except to those Officers of State who were usually Members of the Cabinet. Even the First Commissioner of Works in Lord Aberdeen's Government, who was a Member of the Cabinet, was only allowed 150 l. a year for a private secretary, though that sum was afterwards increased to 300 l.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he should certainly consider it a great advantage if he were allowed the Vote, inasmuch as it would enable him to procure the services of a military man as private secretary.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would admit that that might, perhaps, be a sufficient justification of the Vote, but he hoped that the subject would be a little more considered next year.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford in his observations on the Vote in question. They had never yet pretended to allow any adequate remuneration for the services of private secretaries; and the proposed Vote might form a precedent for a large increase in the salaries of those gentlemen.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he would consent to reduce the Vote by 150 l.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 70,566 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Ordnance Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1856."
put, and agreed to.
(6.) 74,506 l. Wages of Artificers and Labourers.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, that the foremen at Woolwich had been put under stoppage, which had had the effect of reducing their wages below those received by ordinary workmen. Those stoppages had not been enforced, and the men were now anxious to obtain their back pay. He had also to complain of the reduction, without notice, of the wages of the workmen employed by night in the Lancaster shell factory. Such sudden reductions might lead to very serious consequences. He was informed that the wages given in the Royal Arsenal were beneath those in private establishments. He thought it extremely important that those matters should be made the subject of investigation.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) 766,632 l. Ordnance Stores.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he had been told that there were a number of iron plates in the Arsenal which had been intended for Lancaster shells, and which had cost 7,000 l. or 8,000 l., but which were quite useless. The wheels of the waggons supplied for the Land Transport Corps bad also been spoken of in terms that would imply that they had not been very carefully inspected.
MR.MONSELLsaid, that that was the last department respecting which he should have expected to hear complaints, but he would make inquiries. The iron plates had been put aside in consequence of improvements which had been discovered in the fabrication of the Lancaster shell since its first invention.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(8.) 300 l. Dr. Southwood Smith.
(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 15,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, for the purpose of erecting, in the year ending on the 31st day of March 1856, a Building of corrugated iron as a Museum, on the land at Kensington-gore acquired by the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851."
MR. SPOONERsaid, it was his intention to take the sense of the Committee on the Vote. When the House, in 1852, voted the sum of 150,000 l., in order, with the 150,000 l. remaining in the hands of the Commissioners, to purchase the land, they were told that nothing would be done until the whole plan had been submitted to Parliament. Last year, again, when 25,000 l. was granted to purchase a piece of land adjoining, the pledge which had thus been given by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) was repeated by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell); and he (Mr. Spooner) warned the Committee against entering upon an expenditure of which they could not foresee the end. In his opinion, the distance from London at which it was proposed to erect the museum was too great for the mass of the inhabitants of the metropolis to avail themselves of its advantages. The object for which the Vote was asked might be a proper and a desirable one in time of peace, but, considering the burdens imposed upon the country, he thought the Committee ought to pause before they agreed to an expenditure of which the present was but an instalment, and with respect to which no detailed plan had been laid before them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, entirely misconceived the object of the Vote. He appeared to think that the Vote was to be applied to the beginning of a vast building, which would take a great deal of time to erect, which would cost a large sum of money, and which would proceed upon a plan which ought to be submitted to Parliament. In fine, he appeared to think that the Vote was to be the commencement of a great building for the accommodation of the scientific associations of the metropolis. That, however, was not the case, and the expense would be limited to the amount of the present Vote. The facts of the case were these—The public had already purchased a great number of specimens connected with science, arts, manufactures, and the education of the people, and those things were put away in places where they were practically inaccessible to the persons for whose advantage they had been collected. They were somewhat in the position of the library of Mr. Heber, which was packed away in cases and trunks in different warehouses, where it was inaccessible even to the persons to whom it belonged. The object of the Vote was to avoid a similar inconvenience, by the construction of a cheap and durable iron building at a comparatively small cost by means of which the Government would be enabled to arrange those different collections in such a way as to be useful for the purposes for which they were created. It was very well to say "We are engaged in the prosecution of a great war, and we can only afford to pay for the war," and that argument might apply with considerable force if the proposed Vote was on account of a large building which might require great additional expenditure to complete it. That, however, was not the case, and the Government were only asking for 15,000 l., which had nothing whatever to do with the extensive buildings which might hereafter be erected on the ground, but which would he devoted to the purpose of utilising and rendering available the expenses which had already been incurred. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote, which, he believed, would accomplish a very useful purpose, and tend in an essential degree to the encouragement of art and the improvement of the public taste.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he looked upon the Vote as the commencement of an expenditure which some persons calculated at hundreds of thousands, and others at

1685
millions. He thought, before agreeing to such a Vote, the Committee ought to have some idea of the ultimate cost of the building with which it was intended to cover the large piece of land at Kensington-gore—a building, too, which was universally complained of as likely to be at too great a distance from the metropolis for the people to make a proper use of it. He would suggest that the Vote should be withdrawn for the present, in order that the Committee might know what the scheme was, and what the probable cost of carrying out would be.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was quite sure that neither of his hon. Friends was aware of the real object and character of the Vote. He would not advert now to the distance of the property from the metropolis, because that was a point which they must assume had been disposed of satisfactorily at the time when the land was purchased. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had alluded to the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and repeated by the Government of Lord Aberdeen, that the House of Commons should be made fully cognisant of the intentions of the Government, and should have an opportunity of passing its judgment upon the plans proposed before any expenditure was entered into; and he appeared to think that the Vote now proposed was more or less a departure from that pledge. To him (Mr. Gladstone), on the contrary, it seemed that the Vote was proposed in perfect consistency with, and, even he would add, in fulfilment of that pledge. It was in contemplation to cover the land at Kensington-gore (the extent of which had been considerably understated at sixty acres) with buildings devoted to purposes for which the land was originally bought. How much would it cost to erect such buildings? Undoubtedly an enormous sum of money. The utmost liberality on the part of the House of Commons would not supply sufficient funds to accomplish the whole design within a considerable number of years, and he ventured to say that very few of those present would live to see that site fully covered, and the great design of the Commission entirely accomplished. So strongly did he feel on the subject that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had urged upon the Commission that it would be exceedingly wise to devise some means for the profitable occupation of a portion of the ground during the long interval which must elapse before the whole could be covered.
1686
Here was a capital of something like 350,000 l.—a sum of money which was very economically laid out, and which it would be easy to realize with a profit if they were willing to dispose of the land; here was a capital of 350,000 l. lying almost entirely dead. Now, it certainly was not desirable that it should so lie dead; but would it have been wise on the part of the Government, in the present position of the nation, to bring forth a magnificent scheme for covering that ground with permanent buildings, and to come down to the House of Commons with a Vote for the commencement of those buildings, which could not have amounted to much less than 150,000 l. to 200,000 l., though that would not have carried them forward any sensible distance in working out the design? If that course had been followed, his hon. Friends might, indeed, have found fault with Her Majesty's Government for departing from their pledge, and they might fairly have doubted whether, at that moment, it was wise to commence a large expenditure of that kind, which must necessarily entail a progressive annual grant of very large sums. Under present circumstances, however, no blame could attach to the Government for not having set in motion that machinery which they had promised, with a view to the accomplishment of that great scheme. What was it that the Government had done? Having in their possession many valuable and interesting objects of art, which they were unable to exhibit because they had no place in which to exhibit them, and having also in their possession a valuable site with nothing standing upon it, they had come forward with a simple and rational plan for the erection of a temporary building in which they proposed to provide accommodation for those objects. 15,000 l. was no doubt a considerable sum to expend for such a purpose; but if they were to hire apartments capable of containing those works of art, not only the interest of 15,000 l., but a much larger sum would soon be expended. It was purely a provisional arrangement that the Committee were called upon to sanction. The building, when erected, would be worth a great part of the money expended upon it as old iron, and the Commissioners themselves stated in their letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,—
"Irrespective of its simplicity and cheapness, and the remarkable facility with which it can be constructed, it enjoys the great advantage, in a pecuniary point of view, of being designed of a

1687
material which possesses a permanent pecuniary value, to which the cost of the labour employed in its construction bears only a small proportion. While, therefore, it could, on the one hand, be at any time taken down and re-erected, if necessary, on another site, or in another form, at a very trifling expense, it could, on the other, be resold, should circumstances render it hereafter desirable, at no great deterioration of value; while, should it be found necessary, on the contrary, to enlarge it, in consequence of additional accommodation being required, the cost of so doing would be considerably less in proportion to the original cost, inasmuch as only two of the four sides would have to be extended."
If they were about to lay the foundation-stone of some structure that would be useless hereafter unless great additions were made to it, the objections of his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) would apply; but, on the contrary, they were about to make an outlay complete in itself, though for a certain specific purpose, of a temporary character. The Committee would incur no risk whatever in giving their assent to the Vote, and it appeared to him eminently rational that they should cover in portions of the ground from time to time according to the wants of existing establishments.
MR. BELLsaid, he was prepared to assent to the Vote on the clear understanding that by so doing he would not be bound to further proceedings hereafter. He had heard a rumour that a plan had been prepared for the permanent occupation of the ground in question, and he was anxious to know whether, before any permanent building was erected, full and ample notice would be given the House?
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that as a Member of the Government that originally proposed the purchase of the property, he felt that there was not the slightest foundation for the rumours referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner). He referred to his (Mr. Disraeli) having described the investment as a desirable purchase and he could assure his hon. Friend that if a desirable purchase was the purchase of an article that you could sell for more than you gave for it, that was a definition which applied to the Kensington-gore estate. If it were the desire to sell the estate they could obtain a much more considerable sum than they originally gave for it. His hon. Friend had stated that there was an engagement that no commencement of building should take place without the matter being fully before the House; and he could assure his hon. Friend that that engagement had been rigidly kept. His hon. Friend and also the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wil-
1688
liams) were mistaken when they confounded the present proposition with the scheme that was previously brought before Parliament, for there was really no connection between the Vote that was now proposed and the scheme that was then brought before Parliament. A necessity had arisen that some arrangement should be made for the reception of certain collections, and the only place where, in fact, the arrangement could be brought about, was this very estate. Now, what was the origin of the Vote? They had had, for a long series of years, the offer of Collections for the possession and advantage of the country, which had been accepted, and the articles had been stowed in cellars, or placed in warehouses; and others had been refused in consequence of not having power to receive them; until at last the Society of Arts, which was in possession of a valuable collection of a scientific character, offered to present it to the nation, on the condition that it should be not only received, but exhibited for the advantage of the country. They were then obliged either to refuse to take that collection, on the plea that they really had no means of exhibiting it for the advantage of the people to whom it was presented, or they might come to Parliament and ask them to take that step that for the honour and advantage of the country they should adopt. Having at that moment a large quantity of pictures of an interesting character at Marlborough House, where they could not remain for long, and where they were now in a position which was not, he might say, decent, and having also a collection in reference to arts and sciences which could not be preserved there long, and which was not accessible to the country; it was necessary to take some steps to provide a suitable building for their accommodation. An estimate was offered for raising a building of glass and iron for 12,000 l., which building would, he believed, cover more than an acre of land, and would give ample opportunity of exhibiting those treasures to the country. They had entered most minutely into all the details of the building, and had added 3,000 l. for fitting it up, which made the total of 15,000 l. for the building. He begged the Committee not to suppose that there was any intention to commence the great structures referred to in the first instance. It was in the power of the country to obtain, in a comparatively short space of time, a magnificent museum of art and science

1689
without any cost to itself beyond that of raising a structure which would be worthy of the reception of such treasures. His hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) should remember that the temporary building which was now contemplated had nothing to do with the original plan to which he had referred—a plan which he hoped one day would be adequately carried out.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he did not rise to object to the Vote, as he looked upon it as an experiment. The only objection to the site was its position, and if that did not prevent people from resorting to it, that objection would be answered.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that had the case been a clear one neither the right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Gladstone) nor the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would have been obliged to expend so many words upon it. The Committee were about to be led into a trap from which there would afterwards be no escape. He understood that the land which cost 350,000 l. might now be sold for a sum exceeding that amount. Therefore, in reality, the question was a new one. The House of Commons was not yet absolutely committed to any expenditure from which it might not escape; and it was really worth while for them to consider what they were asked to do, before they gave the proposition their sanction. They were told that what was wanted was a temporary building—a sort of railway shed—to hold models, patent inventions and so forth. Well, but after it had been erected, half a dozen gentlemen, a small clique connected with Marlborough House and the Society of Arts, would pull the strings again, and the House would be told that the building was wholly insufficient for the objects accumulated, and that it was not creditable to the country that a large collection of valuable objects should remain in a building which was only fit to be a warehouse or a railway terminus. Thus they might be launched on an expenditure which would extend over a period of fifty years. They had been told by an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had devoted great attention to matters of that kind, that if they once sanctioned the plan now proposed, it was probable that the youngest member of the House would not see an end to the expenditure it would involve. He (Mr. Bright) remembered the time when that House was asked to consent to a Vote of 400,000 l. for the establishment of docks at Keyham, and
1690
the result was that some 700,000 l. or 800,000 l. had already been expended upon that undertaking. A Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject and they reported that the scheme was a blunder, and that, if it had not been carried out so far, they would not have recommended the expenditure of another sixpence upon it. He thought when the country was spending large sums of money for objects certainly a great deal worse than that now under discussion, that the House was not justified in commencing a plan which might land them in an expenditure of 1,000,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. He did not know what the object of the plan was, but they were all aware that there were a number of very shrewd and clever Gentlemen, who, ostensibly studying the public good, paid great regard to
"Number One," and found themselves comfortably settled with salaries of 1,000 l., or 2,000 l. a-year. His own opinion was, that it was only the beginning of a huge job.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester would prove a true prophet—that other collections would be offered to the public, and that other buildings would be required to place them in; and that the House of Commons would, for the honour of the nation, provide the requisite accommodation. The proposed expenditure would, however, be complete in itself; it would be an outlay of 15,000 l. for a definite, distinct, and useful purpose, and nothing more.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he doubted whether the spot chosen was not too far west. He was sorry, however, that the Government did not intend to commence the scheme on a much more extensive scale.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he was opposed to the whole plan of the building at Kensington gore, and therefore should put every obstacle in the way of beginning the proposed scheme. He was ready to divide the Committee on the Vote.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he should oppose the Vote, on the ground that a pledge had been given that before any step was taken for the erection of buildings, the House would have a full opportunity of considering the matter. He believed, also, that Kensington-gore was too distant from town for the objects intended. Professional men and the various societies with which they were connected would never be induced to go so far in that direction.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the proposal

1691
before the Committee had nothing to do with the great scheme for locating all the scientific societies under one building to which he had referred.
MR. CUBITTsaid, the question was whether the Committee would consent to the erection of a temporary building for the reception of many valuable collections which it was desirable the country should have the advantage of? Though we were in a state of war there were thousands of people whose minds were directed towards the study of science and art; and those collections, many of them of an educational character, would be of great assistance to such persons in their inquiries. At present much time and money were spent in making and reinventing things already done, but not generally known. Things were lying concealed which, if placed in a public building, accessible to all, would be of great value, both in saving time and expense, and in leading to important improvements. For such an object 15,000 l. was a sum very trifling indeed.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that the pledge he had given had reference to the erection of a permanent building, and what he wished to convey to the Committee was, that he would never sanction the erection of a permanent building without the whole scheme being laid before Parliament; but that pledge did not refer to a proposition for a temporary building like the one under consideration.
Question put.
The Committee divided; Ayes 85; Noes 33; Majority 52.
Vote agreed to. House resumed.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as the House was anxious to go into a Committee of Ways and Means, he trusted that the second reading of the Bill now before them, would be agreed to without discussion, on the understanding that the debate on the principle and details of the measure would be taken upon the Motion to go into Committee. Though there were parts of the Bill to which many hon. Gentlemen entertained serious objection, there were other parts which, it was important for the continuance and well working of the Commission, should be passed that Session.
MR. WINN KNIGHTsaid, he objected to the Bill being read a second time that night. The Bill established a cen-
1692
tralizing power highly objectionable, and the House ought not to pass the second reading without discussion.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman now assented to the second reading, it would still be open to him to object in Committee to such parts of the Bill as he thought should be omitted from it.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, there were objections affecting the principle of the Bill which ought to be discussed before it was read a second time.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the real object of the Bill was to vest the Commissioners with certain powers of administration, which would prevent the necessity for long, expensive, and multiplied Chancery suits; and, therefore, the discussion of objections to particular provisions might fairly be reserved to a future stage.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he admitted that legislation on the subject was essential, but he considered that to hurry the Bill through Parliament during the present Session would only complicate the existing evils.
Bill read 2°.

NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE.
Order for Committee of Ways and Means read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MAJOR REEDsaid, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. He had hoped that some hon. Member of greater weight with the House than himself would have moved in the matter, but as they were about to prorogue in a fortnight, and no one else had indicated an intention to take up the subject, he had felt bound, as a last resource, to endeavour to extract from Her Majesty's Government some assurance that, if during the recess terms of peace should be offered, Parliament should be called together and allowed to express its opinion upon those terms before they were finally accepted. His Resolution might be considered to be of too mild a character, and certainly he had previously drawn up one couched in. somewhat stronger language; but, wishing to avoid infringing on the Royal prerogative, he had subsequently been induced to modify its phraseology. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government did not feel it to be altogether his duty to give a pledge on the subject, it would, nevertheless, only

1693
be a graceful act of condescension on his part to take Parliament into his counsels, before the terms of peace were definitively arranged; while on the other hand, should Parliament adopt a course of which the Government could not approve, he would still have the prerogative of the Crown to fall back upon, and would be free to act as he thought best for the country. The Resolution might not be popular in the House, but the greatest anxiety prevailed throughout the country on the subject of Parliament being prorogued for as long a period as usual. He might now have confidence in the noble Lord, and so might the House and the country, but he maintained that the noble Lord was but human. [Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but it was no laughing matter. He viewed it in a most serious light; he wished he had ability, power, and position to do justice to it, and then hon. Gentlemen would not laugh. [Laughter]. He could imagine that hon. Gentlemen would treat with derision anything he might say, but he warned them that when they appeared before their constituencies, as might shortly be the case, they would be called to account for their conduct. He said again, the noble Lord was but human, and the Government was but human, and they knew that to err was human. He did not demand, but he appealed to the noble Lord in the name of the people of England—to whom the noble Lord owed his position—to give an assurance, which would allay misgivings in the public mind, that no peace should be ratified without paying the Representatives of the people the compliment of calling them together—not to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, but to ventilate the question. It was no party question; it was a question of great magnitude which he submitted to the House with the solitary observation, that if the House did not deal rightly with the country, he should leave the country to deal with the House.
MR. OLIVEIRAseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
"this House, participating in the national anxiety that no pacific arrangement should be concluded with Russia which does not appear best calculated to secure an honourable, just, and lasting peace, wishes to impress upon Her Majesty's Government how great a satisfaction it would be to the House and the Country to receive an assurance that no Treaty or Condition of Peace would be
1694
finally settled without having Parliament previously called together," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Although, Sir, I cannot agree to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am ready to admit that I entirely acquiesce in the principle upon which the Motion is founded—that is to say, the principle that no peace should be concluded which was not honourable to the country and consistent with the objects for which the war was undertaken. All I can say is, that if the House does not so far place confidence in the Ministry as to believe that they will never conclude a peace which does not accomplish this purpose, and fulfil these conditions, the Motion of those who entertain such suspicions ought to be very differently worded from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think, in matters of this sort, there is no middle course. If the House distrusts the Government of the day—if they think that it is capable of concluding a peace betraying the interests and sacrificing the honour of the country, they ought at once to propose a Motion, the tendency of which would be to place in other hands the trust which they consider to be improperly performed. But, on the other hand, so long as Parliament is willing to leave to those who hold office that discretionary power which, by the constitution, belongs to the responsible advisers of the Crown, I think that this particular Motion is one which this House would not be disposed to listen to. Of course, in the first place, the hon. Gentleman admits that the power of entering into treaties and negotiations, and concluding terms with foreign Powers, is a function which, by the constitution, belongs to the Crown, and not to Parliament. It is for Parliament to judge afterwards of the conduct of the advisers of the Crown, who may be supporters of engagements between this country and foreign Powers, whether for peace or war; but it is not possible, according to the working and principle of our constitution, that Parliament should co-operate with the Crown in the conduct of negotiations and the conclusion of treaties resulting out of those negotiations. It is well known that when Parliament is prorogued, the period of prorogation is limited in duration, and it is moreover in the power of the Crown, if it should think that it requires the assistance

1695
of Parliament, to summon it at a very short notice, and to have recourse to its advice or its aid. If, in the course of the autumn, or early in the winter, circumstances should arise requiring that Parliament should be assembled, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member and the House that the Government will feel it their duty, and not merely feel it their duty, but it would be glad to have recourse to the assistance of Parliament in any matter upon which its assistance and co-operation may be necessary. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member, having expressed, I won't say distrust of Her Majesty's Government—for I do not think that what he said implied, on his part, distrust, but a certain amount of fear lest a dishonourable peace should be concluded—and having called the attention of the House to the honour of the country, and having given a warning, if I may say so, to the Government to take care how they betray the interests of the country, and enter into negotiations inconsistent with its honour and future safety—I hope that, having done this, he will content himself with the warning so given, and permit the House to proceed with the other business.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he rose simply for the purpose of noticing the noble Lord's suggestion that possibly Parliament would be called together earlier than the usual period. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for A bingdon was not quite correct, as he had passed the line of power which the House possessed. The division of the different privileges of the Crown, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords, ought invariably to be preserved. If the House passed beyond their line of division, they relieved the Ministers from most important responsibilities. He was glad to hear the noble Lord express himself as he had done, because he had given to all who desired to discharge their duties efficiently the plan by which they ought to be guided. The prerogative of the Crown was a great prerogative in the making of war or peace, and the responsibilities of the Ministers were great. He, for one, was not inclined to relieve them from those responsibilities, by assisting in those councils, upon the question whether they should advise the Crown to conclude peace or prosecute war; but the country was exceedingly anxious that Parliament should be assembled at an earlier period than usual. [Cries of "No!"] He did not
1696
wonder at the murmurs of hon. Gentlemen, because it was not very palatable or agreeable, but it was the fact that the country was exceedingly anxious to be assured that in the event of any emergency, such as occurred during the last recess, Her Majesty should be advised to call her Parliament together. If that assurance were given, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would probably withdraw his Motion.
MAJOR REEDwas about to reply, but was called to order by Mr. SPEAKER, who said the rules of the House did not allow a reply in such a case. The hon. and gallant Member then said he would divide the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: He must explain, that what he intended to say was, that it would not be consistent with the duty of Ministers to make any pledge as to what they would do under different circumstances, whether they would or not advise the Crown to assemble Parliament earlier than usual. If any occasion should arise in which, in the opinion of the Government, they should require the assistance of Parliament, then, undoubtedly, it would be called together.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be unfair in the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Reed) to go to a division. The Motion as it stood was really a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and it was not fair at the end of the Session that the great Conservative party should be entrapped into a vote of want of confidence by him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was inclined to make concessions to the noble Lord, and seemed satisfied with the declaration of the noble Lord that he intended to do that which, under the peculiar circumstances, he thought best for the nation. Really the hon. and gallant Gentleman was too much excited by his success in that House. But a little time ago he brought forward a Motion pledging the Government of the noble Lord to a reform of Parliament. Now, that would seem to have been enough for one Session. And, therefore, it was too much to ask the Government of the noble Lord that Parliament should be called precipitately together. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, had tonight made an admission which proved to him (Mr. Disraeli) that the Government was falling more rapidly into decay than even was generally imagined, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman had acknowledged that the Government were but human.

1697
But now let him ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, was that his language a few weeks back? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he was the youngest Member in the House, a fact of which he (Mr. Disraeli) was not before aware. Well, but supposing he was, would he not have some regard for consistency? Why, it was only a few weeks ago that the hon. and gallant Gentleman described the Government of the noble Lord as "demoniacal," and, rising in his place, he addressed the noble Lord as a fallen angel, saying to him —
"Arise! awake! or be for ever fallen."
Hence he (Mr. Disraeli) wished that the country should be made aware, at that the last hour of the Session, of what were now the opinion of an hon. and gallant Gentleman of Her Majesty's Government, which only a few weeks ago he described as being in possession of qualities almost infernal. He could only warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that if he should press his Motion to a division, he (Mr. Disraeli) would be placed in the awkward position of supporting Her Majesty's Government on a vote of want of confidence, the circumstances of which he wished his constituents and the country to be made aware.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS—ISSUE OF EXCHE QUER BILLS AND BONDS.
House in Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Fitzroy, not with standing the advanced hour of the night, I trust the Committee will allow me to explain the Resolutions which I am about to put into your hands, seeing that to-morrow will be occupied with a debate on another subject. It would not be convenient that the Resolutions should be brought under the notice of the House on Saturday, and if they were postponed until Monday the Session would be lengthened more than we wish to see it. If the Committee will allow me to proceed, I hope to be able, in a short time, to conclude the statement that I have now to make. In the financial statement of the year made in April last I estimated the entire receipts of the revenue for the year ending April next at 86,339,000 l. That amount was made up of the estimated revenue for the ensuing year, of a loan of 16,000,000 l., and a Vote of
1698
3,000,000 l. for the prospective issue of Exchequer bills. [Mr. DISRAELI: That does not make 86,000,000 l.] The estimated revenue from taxation from the ensuing year, the loan of 16,000,000 l., and the issue of 3,000,000 l. Exchequer bills made together a total amount of 86,339,000 l. That calculation holds good at the present time, with the exception that I estimated the amount of 200,000 l. as likely to be produced from a stamp duty on bankers' checks, which I afterwards I abandoned; and, therefore, the expected receipts of the year, as set forth in the Budget of the 20th of April, may now be taken at the reduced amount of 86,139,000 l. The expenditure, including the loan to Sardinia, was stated at the same time at 80,899,000 l. To this sum I added 1,000,000 l. for the repayment of advances made on Exchequer bills for Ways and Means of the present year: these sums, making together 81,899,000 l., deducted from the present corrected estimate of the receipts (86,139,000 l.), leave a margin of 4,240,000 l. That is the margin of revenue over expenditure according to the estimate of receipts and expenditure as I stated it to the House in; the month of April last. At that time, as the Committee are aware, this calculation was founded upon the estimates for military purposes which had been partially voted. The Vote for the Civil Service was not then taken. The Estimates for Civil Services, which had been partially prepared, I estimated at 6,500,000 l. That branch of the expenditure has now received the sanction of the House, and the total sum voted for the Civil Services is 6,506,062 l., which agrees very nearly with the estimate I then made. But it has been necessary, as the Committee are aware, to submit an increased Estimate for the Military Services, in addition to those which had been agreed to by the House when I made the estimate of expenditure and revenue in April. The reasons for these increased Estimates have been explained to the House when the Votes were taken. It is an ancient observation that war does not consume according to rule and measure, and these Estimates which we proposed at the commencement of the year, after six months' experience of the war, have proved insufficient, and it has been necessary, therefore, to bring forward additional Estimates to meet the increased expenditure, as tested by the actual expenditure of the first four months

1699
of the year which have expired, and the amount of which has been ascertained. To the Estimates for military purposes originally voted, I have to add the Supplemental Estimates since agreed to, and I will now state the actual expenditure for military purposes during the four months including April, May, June, and July last. The amount of the original Estimates for the three purposes of the army, the Commissariat, and the Militia, were 16,221,197 l. There has since been a Supplemental Estimate for the Commissariat, amounting to 2,568,335 l. The total estimate for the Army, the Commissariat, and the Militia now stands at 18,789,532 l. The actual expenditure which has taken place since the beginning of the present financial year under these three heads, in the four months to the 31st of July, 1855, was 4,850,000 l. That sum has been actually disbursed, and that will give an estimated expenditure for the year of 14,550,000 l. So that there is every reason to hope that the estimated sum will exceed rather than fall short of the actual expenditure of the year. The original Estimate for the Navy and the Transport and Packet Services was 16,653,042 l.; the Supplemental Estimate was 2,725,971 l.; making together 19,379,013 l. The actual expenditure for these services since the beginning of April, has been 7,649,603 l. If, as in the former case, we multiply this actual expenditure by three, we have a total of nearly 23,000,000 l., which is higher than the amount that had been estimated as necessary for the naval service of the year. It is hoped, however, that the expenditure during these four months is not to be regarded as any guide to the total expenditure of the year, but that the expenditure during the next eight months may fall short of the scale of expenditure for naval purposes during the earlier months of the financial year. The original Estimate for the Ordnance was 7,803,154 l., and there was a Supplemental Estimate of 841,138 l., making altogether 8,644,292 l. The expenditure for the Ordnance during the last four months has been 2,812,961 l., and that amount, multiplied by three, gives a sum of 8,437,883 l., or something below the total Estimate formed of the expenditure of this department for the year. Then, under the head of "Vote of Credit" there is an expenditure of 1,200,000 l., the result being that the original Estimates for the year were 43,677,393 l., and the Sup-
1700
plemental Estimates 6,135,444 l., making a total of 49,812,837 l. The total expenditure for military purposes during the last four months has been 16,512,564 l., and if we multiply that sum by three we have an amount of 49,537,692 l., which nearly agrees with the total Estimate for the year—49,812,837 l. Having informed the Committee of the result of this comparison between the estimated and the actual expenditure, it now becomes my duty to propose the means of meeting that additional expenditure which has been sanctioned by the House since I made my financial statement early in the year. I then said that I should propose an additional Vote of 3,000,000 l. of Exchequer Bills. I now propose to increase the amount of that Vote to 7,000,000 l., taking at the same time the option, in case it should be found advisable, of raising some portion of that amount by Exchequer bonds, instead of Exchequer bills. The margin which was allowed, according to my previous Estimate, was, as I have already stated, 4,240,000 l. That margin assumed that there would be a Vote of 3,000,000 l. of Exchequer Bills, to which I now propose to add 4,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills; so that these amounts together will provide an excess of receipts over expenditure of 8,240,000 l. Deducting from that excess of revenue over expenditure the additional Estimates for military expenditure to the amount of 6,135,000 l., there will remain an unappropriated margin of Ways and Means of 2,105,000 l. If, therefore, the expenditure should amount to the sum already voted by the House, and if it should be necessary to resort to the entire grant of Ways and Means which I am now proposing, there will remain an unappropriated margin of rather more than 2,000,000 l. sterling. It is always necessary that some margin should be left for unforeseen expenses, but in this case I think the Committee will be justified in not requiring the Government to provide any unreasonable amount of margin for such unanticipated expenses. We know the actual expenditure for the last four months—one third of the entire year, and the portion of the year, probably, which includes those warlike operations that are attended with the greatest expense. With this experience, we are able to estimate with greater correctness the probable demands of the war during the remaining eight months of the year, and there is, therefore, the less necessity for providing

1701
a large margin of unappropriated Ways and Means in order to meet unforeseen contingencies. I may also state that, though I have provided a margin of 2,000,000 l. sterling, it was necessary, at the beginning of the financial year, and before the first instalments of the loan were received, to issue a sum of money in Ways and Means bills amounting to about 1,700,000 l., which must be provided for out of the revenue of the year; and, therefore, although according to the calculation I have submitted to the Committee, we have an apparent margin of 2,000,000 l., nearly the whole of that amount may be regarded as already practically absorbed, and the plan I propose will in fact exhibit nearly an exact balance of receipts and expenditure. I should also add, as an additional reason for not providing any considerable excess of margin, that one object of making such provision is to meet the contingency of a deficient revenue. I am, however, happy to be able to state to the Committee that the receipts of the revenue during the first four months of the year have been on the whole satisfactory, and that, so far as a judgment can be formed from the amount of taxes actually received, it may be reasonably expected that the Estimate of their produce, which I submitted to Parliament in April last, will be fully realised. I have now merely to trouble the Committee with a short statement as to the amount of Exchequer bills at present outstanding. The proposition I have to submit to the Committee is that, instead—as I originally proposed—of taking a Vote of 3,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills intended to cover the Vote of Credit of 3,000,000 l. to which the House agreed this morning, that Vote shall be increased to 7,000,000 l., and that a power shall be given to the Executive Government of increasing to that extent the unfunded debt of the country. The amount of Exchequer bills outstanding on the 31st of July was 17,099,400 l. There are also outstanding Exchequer bonds to the amount of 6,000,000 l. at 3½ per cent, 2,000,000 l. of which are payable in 1857, and the same amount in 1858 and 1859. Now, although that amount of unfunded debt may seem considerable, it is by no means large as compared with the amount of the unfunded debt during the late war, and even subsequently to the conclusion of the war. In 1812 the total amount of Exchequer bills in circulation was 41,000,000 l.; in 1813 it was 43,000,000 l.; in 1814
1702
45,000,000 l.; and in 1815—the last year of the war—it had risen to 57,000,000 l. Even in the year 1818 the amount of Exchequer bills in circulation was 50,000,000 l.; in 1819 it was 43,000,000 l.; and up to 1839 the amount outstanding was never under 24,000,000 l. Therefore, if the Committee should agree to add 7,000,000 l. to the present amount of Exchequer bills, and if it should be necessary for the Government, in order to meet the exigencies of the public service, to increase the issue of Exchequer bills to that extent, the amount of Exchequer bills in circulation will not equal what it was for many years subsequently to the termination of the last war. I believe means can be found of replacing Exchequer bills to a considerable amount, without affecting the general market or influencing the rate of interest. Exchequer bills are now at a considerable premium, even those the interest upon which was slightly lowered at the beginning of the quarter, the premium has risen since the time when the reduction of interest took place. Under these circumstances, seeing that scarcely any other option is left to the Government, especially at this late period of the Session, as to the mode of raising additional Ways and Means, I hope the Resolutions I have to submit to the Committee will meet with their approbation, and that they will confer upon the Executive Government the power of increasing the unfunded debt to the amount proposed in order to meet the exigencies of the public service. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolutions—

1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to raise any sum of money, not exceeding Seven Millions sterling, by the issue of Exchequer Bills."

2. "That in case the said Exchequer Bills be not issued for the full sum of 7,000,000 l., then the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to issue Exchequer Bonds, bearing Interest at any rate not exceeding 4l. per centum per annum, to such an amount as with the total amount for which Exchequer Bills shall be issued will make up a sum not exceeding the whole sum of 7,000,000 l. authorised to be raised by these Resolutions."

3. "That such Exchequer Bonds, if issued, shall be paid off at par at the expiration of any period not exceeding six years from the date of such Bonds."

4. "That the Interest of all such Exchequer Bonds shall be payable half yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof."

5. "That, towards making good the Supply

1703
granted to Her Majesty, there be issued and applied, to the service of the year 1855, the sum of 5,599,112 l. 6s. 8d., being the Surplus of Ways and Means granted for the Service of preceding years."

6. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of 26,006,352 l. 12 s. 9d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have followed the statement of my right hon. Friend with much interest, and there is nothing in that statement to which I feel it my duty to object. Undoubtedly the variations between the Estimate and the expenditure upon the different branches of the military service are very considerable, but they are on the whole variations which we had every reason to anticipate. The result as regards the army is more satisfactory than as regards the navy and Ordnance, owing, however, to causes which are not perhaps altogether satisfactory. On the whole, I do not see that we have any right to complain of the calculations of my right hon. Friend with regard to expenditure. With regard to the mode in which he proposes to provide for that expenditure, I quite agree with him that the Committee may well feel disheartened at the great and sudden extension of the unfunded debt. Considering that debt as made up of Exchequer bills and Exchequer bonds, the change which has been effected in it has been very rapid, for only two years ago it stood at 13,000,000 l., and only fifteen months ago at 16,000,000 l., while after the Vote now proposed has been taken it will stand at a maximum sum of 30,000,000 l. That is a very large sum, and although we may be referred to the much higher sum at which it stood in former years, we must bear in mind that the description of unfunded securities of which the debt consists is now subject to a great deal of competition in the market from circumstances which were unknown, or little known, during the last war; and, therefore, we have not the same broad field upon which to operate as those who preceded us. But I do not believe any great inconvenience will follow from carrying the unfunded debt to the amount proposed by my right hon. Friend, in case of need; and I do not see any other mode of providing for the present exigency, which, under the circumstances of the moment, it would be more desirable to adopt. There is one point to which my right hon. Friend did not advert, upon which I feel some
1704
anxiety, and although I do not intend to make any proposal with respect to it, I think it ought to be passed over in silence, My right hon. Friend proposed, almost as a matter of course, that the additional expenditure which he believes to be necessary should be provided for entirely by an addition to our debt, without raising any question as to an increase of the taxation of the country. It is necessary to bear this in mind, because the House set out at he beginning of the war with the full and firm intention of making great efforts to supply, as far as possible, the expenditure of the war by addional taxation. It would, of course, be impossible to carry this principle to extremes, but at the time my right hon. Friend brought forward his budget we had in view a certain proposition between that share of expenditure which was to be raised by loans and that share which was to be raised by taxes. My right hon. Friend then proposed that he should be enabled to impose taxes to the extent of about 5,000,000 l., and that he should be invested with a borrowing power to the maximum extent of 19,000,000 l. Four months have elapsed since my right hon. Friend's proposal, and the balance then established has been rather seriously disturbed. First, there are certain deductions to be made from the proportion intended to be raised by taxes. My right hon. Friend has been obliged to abandon his proposal to lay a tax on bankers' checks from which he anticipated a revenue of 200,000 l. A change which had previously been under our consideration has taken place with respect to the stamp duty on newspapers, and the House has made a further, although slight alteration, in my right hon. Friend's arrangement by making it necessary for him to propose a reduction of the duty on stage carriages. So far the four months that have elapsed have tended to diminish the proportion of the extra revenue which it was intended to derive from taxes, and although my right hon. Friend has told us that the receipts from the revenue are, on the whole, satisfactory, I apprehend that the receipts he so describes are the receipts from that portion of revenue which consists of direct taxes. The yield from the income-tax especially has been progressively, from year to year, passing beyond the estimates. But, as far as regards the new indirect taxation levied on imports and on articles of consumption, I am afraid that the receipts are not altogether so satisfactory as

1705
my right hon. Friend anticipated, but, on the contrary, that you may trace in the disposition to decline manifest in these two branches of revenue the effects of some diminution in your trade and in the consumption of your people. With regard to the money derived from taxes the tendency is to diminish, while with regard to the money derived from loans the tendency is upwards, for without any addition to our taxes we are now about to add 4,000,000 l. to the expenditure required for the service of the year. This illustrates the necessity of making absolute and strong efforts if we really mean to effect any practical improvement in the policy pursued during the last war. That war was commenced with a system the most improvident—that of trusting entirely to loans, and making no provision by means of taxes, except for payment of the interest of those loans; but when our predecessors became aware of the consequences of their improvidence, even under increasing pressure of the war, they increased their efforts to meet their expenditure by taxation. We began pretty well, and I hope that we do not intend altogether to forget our good intentions, but are still convinced that the expenditure of the war, as far as is reasonable, ought to be met by taxation, and that we will not, therefore, as a matter of course allow additions to be made to our borrowed money without considering what is the proportion between such borrowed money and the money raised by taxation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these observations in mind, and that when he next proposes a comprehensive arrangement for the service of the year he will remind us of the great additions we have made to his power of borrowing money, and enlarge his proposals for additional taxation. There is an extremely trivial source of additional revenue to which I wish to call my right hon. Friend's attention. I think it is desirable that he should lose as little time as possible in giving effect to the extension of the succession duty to corporations. In 1853 this subject was postponed on account of the pressure of business; in 1854 it was again postponed, because the working of the law had not sufficiently advanced to enable us to judge whether this Amendment would be required; but I had hoped it would have been in the power of the Government to bring the measure into operation during the present Session, and I trust my right hon. Friend will give us
1706
reason to expect that it will be carried into effect at the opening of next Session.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I did not undertake, upon the occasion of a Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), to look into the question to which my right hon. Friend has just adverted. I can assure him that I have not lost sight of the subject, but I am afraid, although it may be desirable on grounds of equity and justice to extend the same rule to corporations as to the owners of other property, that I cannot reasonably expect any large amount of revenue from this source. With reference to the subject of taxation, I can only say that the balance between taxation and loans had not, of course, escaped my attention when I submitted these Resolutions to the Committee, but the reason which principally guided me in making these propositions, and in not imposing any additional taxation, was the difficulty I should have had in realizing such new taxation within a limited period. Certain taxes are meant to be collected at the time when the Resolution respecting them is passed, but the period of collection of many others is postponed for six months, and it was important in making the propositions which I have laid before the Committee with respect to the remaining eight months of the year to provide Ways and Means which could be realised without delay. With reference to my hon. Friend's statements as to the unproductiveness of our indirect taxation, I must say that his apprehension appears from the figures which have been supplied to me not to be altogether well founded. The produce of the Customs during the last four months has been 7,599,000 l.; the estimate of that produce which I submitted to the House last April for the current year was 22,400,000 l.; and if the produce of the last four months be multiplied by three it gives 22,797,000 l., or about 300,000 l., more than my estimate.
MR.GLADSTONE: My observations applied quite as much to the Excise duties as to the Customs. I am afraid, however, that my right hon. Friend forgets that during the last fortnight—even since these Supplementary Estimates were laid on the table—people have had before them the prospect of the imposition of new import duties, and that, consequently, with a view of anticipating these as far as possible, a large amount of import duties has been

1707
entered which does not properly belong to the last four months.
MR. DISRAELI: It is not my intention, Sir, on the present occasion, to make any remarks on the discrepancy between the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) Estimates and the actual expenditure, nor do I think it convenient now to enter into any discussion as to the principles on which his financial system should be based. We have seen enough already to show us that the idea of being able to meet the expenses of the year, in a time of war, out of the revenue of the year, without borrowing, is rather a delusion. Besides a loan of 16,000,000 l. we have already, in this brief space, increased our unfounded debt to the amount of 30,000,000 l., and in the face of these results, although I should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he felt sure of being able to meet the expenses of the year with the resources at his command, still what has occurred does not impress me favourably in that respect. I do not clearly understand how far the right hon. Gentleman's present position is compatible and consistent with the engagement which I believe he entered into when the loan of 16,000,000 l., was negotiated, not to borrow any more money in the course of the present year. When the right hon. Gentleman asked for that Vote of Credit of 3,000,000 l., which is now to be followed by an additional Vote of 4,000,000 l., he told us that he did not expect to have to avail himself of that resource until the end of the month of December, and I am sure it would be satisfactory to the Committee to hear from him an assurance, now that he sees his way clearly, with the resources at his command, to the end of this year, so as to be able to fulfil the engagement into which he entered with the contractors, without, at the same time, trenching upon the resources afforded to him by this Vote of Credit.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The precise promise made to the contractors was, that no additional loan of the same nature as the loan then made—by an addition to the funded debt—should be contracted until the end of the present year. An express reservation was made with regard to any foreign loans which might be brought into the market. It was also stated that Exchequer Bills would be issued, and I believe the precise amount
1708
was mentioned, but at the same time, an intimation was held out that it would not be necessary to bring any large amount of Exchequer Bills into the market before the end of the present year. That hope I still entertain. I do not anticipate that there will be any necessity, either with respect to the 3,000,000 l., before voted, or the 4,000,000 l., additional which we now ask for, to bring any great number of Exchequer Bills into the open market until the month of December. I must not, however, be understood as distinctly engaging myself that, in case of necessity, the Government will not resort to that method of raising money. I only express my opinion that it probably will not be necessary.
MR. DISRAELIIf the Government are satisfied that they have kept their engagements with the contractors I shall be the last person in this House to raise any objection. I must say, however, that nothing can be more impolitic than that the organ of the Government should hold out these loose anticipations, and should enter into engagements which he cannot be sure of strictly fulfilling. It would in my opinion have been much better that he should have negotiated the loan without any conditions of this sort—without attempting to make a better bargain by holding out vague promises which are liable to misinterpretation. Though I am perfectly willing to believe that the right hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his engagement, still he must admit that there has been an idea entertained, and with considerable foundation too, that he had entered into a contract such as I have stated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish, Sir, to guard myself against the supposition that I entered into any loose or vague engagement. The answer I gave was carefully considered beforehand, after as precise a calculation of the wants of the Government and the means of borrowing money as the nature of the war would permit. It has always been the custom for those who engage to furnish a loan to ask the Government what are their intentions with respect to contracting any future loans, while the instalments of the loan then under discussion remain unpaid; and there has generally been an understanding of some sort entered into on the subject. I gave the most distinct answer I could consistently with the circumstances

1709
in which the Government was placed. I believe I have adhered most strictly to the understanding, and that I shall be able to observe it to the end of the year. It was distinctly intimated, however, that a case of necessity might arise which would make it impossible for the Government to abstain from this mode of raising money, but that that case of necessity would not be allowed to affect the funded debt.
MR. GLYNsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to take power to issue Exchequer bonds, which were become a more favourite species of security than the Exchequer bills, especially since the latter had lost the great advantage of being receivable in payment of Government duties. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman, when he raised his loan of 16,000,000 l., had not boldly asked for 20,000,000 l. That sum would not have been too large, and it would have been a much better mode of raising the money than by issuing Exchequer bills. No one could blame the right hon. Gentleman for not attempting to impose new taxes, for the disturbance of commercial relations and the interference with the general operations of the country which such a proposition must have caused would have more than counterbalanced any advantages offered by that mode of raising money.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he felt bound to give in his adherence to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to his engagement with the contractors for the loan. No doubt it would be very desirable, if possible, to avoid giving any sort of pledge tending to tie the hands of the Government; but if such a refusal involved the necessity of giving a higher price for the loan, then the doctrine of convenience must prevail, and that course adopted which was plainly most advantageous to the public.
Resolutions agreed to; House resumed.

LIMITED LIABILITY BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. ARCHIBALD HASTIEsaid, he rose to oppose the measure, which he looked upon as one of the worst that had been brought under the notice of the House of Commons for many years. He denied that the measure was based upon the principle of free trade. It was as its title declared, a Bill for limited liability, and anything that was limited could not be
1710
free. Under the Bill every tradesman in a country town might be ruined by capitalists, who would oppose them on the faith of limited liability. The effect would be to establish a monopoly of capital by which the small tradesmen would be driven out of the market. In London too there would be Italians, Jews, and Greeks who were all looking for such a measure, speculating against the ordinary traders.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that he must congratulate his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) upon the success of his measure. He hoped that it would pass during the present Session, because he was persuaded that the mercantile community would derive great benefit from it. It was most creditable to the Government that they had relieved the Board of Trade from all discretion as to the grant of charters of limited liability.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he should oppose the Bill, and, as an instance of the inconvenience which occasionally arose from the application of limited liability, he would adduce the case of what are known as "scrip" mines in Cornwall.
MR. CARD WELLsaid, he did not believe that the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Hastie) intended to divide the House; and, after the determination to pass the Bill which had been expressed, he thought the hon. Member exercised a wise discretion. He only wished that he could concur with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. T. Hankey) in thinking that the Bill would be a valuable contribution to our system of commercial law. But, on the contrary, he believed it would tend to multiply a class of Companies in which the shareholders were always to be found when there were dividends to receive, but who, when things went wrong, would disappear, and nothing be heard of them. Under the Bill as it now stood there was no safeguard against that state of things, which might, ad libitum, be carried into effect—namely, that Companies might be established to any amount, who would call up all their capital, and, having thus fulfilled the requirements of the Act, then redistribute the capital among the shareholders in the shape of dividends or otherwise; and then you would have a body endowed with corporate powers with no assets and no legal liabilities, which could enter the market and get any credit it could by any means obtain. He considered that it was eminently dangerous to create bodies without assets or legal liabilities to entrap

1711
persons into granting them any amount of credit. Again, the measure having been brought in, it was essential that it should have been accompanied by a general reform and consolidation of the law relating to Joint-stock Companies, which was in a very unsatisfactory state, and which reform and consolidation he had intended to introduce when he proposed a measure of the nature now before the House. He also regretted that a subject so important as the present Bill should have been discussed at a period of the Session, when, although the preponderance of opinion had been expressed in its favour, yet when the whole number of Members assembled was inadequate to a fair and full representation of the commercial interests, and did not afford sufficient opportunity for such suggestions and amendments of the measure as would have made a good and useful law, for that there should be a change in the present law he always admitted, especially as regarded the present powers of the Board of Trade; but it was an operation which required the most serious care and deliberation on the part of the House, and he regretted that the Bill should have progressed thus far, believing as he did that it would be an instrument for the promotion of fraud, and believing also that it would not be long before other measures would have to be introduced to redress the evils which it would cause.
MR. GLYNsaid, when the Bill was first committed, there were some restrictions which mitigated the evils incidental to such a Bill, but those restrictions had since been removed. A Company could now start without capital. The amount of the shares was reduced, and the clause was rejected by which additional liability was to attach to contributors and shareholders. The machinery for winding up was also removed from the Bill. The subject, he considered, was of such importance to the commercial body—affecting as it did such important changes, and being likely to produce such pernicious effects—that he trusted the question would have full attention when it reached the other House.
MR. MASTERMANsaid, if three or four people put a few pounds together they became a Company under the proposed Bill, and were in a situation to do incalculable mischief to the fair trader. He sincerely regretted the threats held out by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He hoped the subject would
1712
receive proper attention when it reached the other House of Parliament.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was surprised at the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Card-well), because he thought the right hon. Gentleman was favourable to the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no safeguard provided against a fraud such as he had indicated. But, in reply, he would say such a Company as that described was not likely to get a great deal of credit in the country. He denied the assertion that there were no safeguards in the Bill. If the Act was properly complied with, and Joint-stock Companies compelled to make proper returns, that class of frauds referred to would be done away with. Other hon. Members had expressed a hope that the Bill would receive another kind of attention from the other House; but he would express his thanks for the general support on both sides that bad been given to the Bill, and he had no doubt with that support the Bill would go through the House and meet with a favourable reception in another place.
MR. MALINSsaid, that he was very much surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell). The right hon. Gentleman would have the British public to believe that the people were such idiots that they would not know what the credit of these Companies was, when every name, every note, and every letter would have marked on it limited liability. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Masterman) opposed to the Bill, on the ground that the whole system of business in the City would be changed by the measure. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the matter with an unprejudiced eye, he could not suppose that commercial affairs could be carried on, on a general system of fraud. He (Mr. Malins) was persuaded that the members of the legal profession supported the Bill because they believed its operation would tend to the protection of individuals, and not to the increase of litigation.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
MR. BOWYERsaid, that he must ob-

1713
ject to proceeding further with the measure, which was of a most penal and stringent character, and involved to a great extent the suspension of those safeguards which the constitution had provided for the liberty of the subject. It was a Bill to be justified only by considerations of a very grave and urgent character, and such he believed did not exist in the present instance. There was no more "crime and outrage" in Ireland at the present moment than there was in England, and the title of the Bill was therefore most offensive. Besides that the measure had been brought in with no sort of explanation or justification on the part of the Government; and, feeling that that ought not to be a mere Motion of course, and ought not to be acceded to unless an urgent necessity could be shown, he should certainly divide the House in opposition to the measure.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he fully agreed that nothing but a strong necessity justified the passing of a Bill of that nature. On looking over the calendars at the assizes, he found that the number of prisoners for trial was extremely small, and that the offences were not of a character to call for a Bill only applicable to a country in a chronic state of outrage. Neither was it, he thought, respectful to the House that a Bill of such a class should be proposed without any statement by the Government.
MR.HORSMANsaid, he had intended to make a statement with respect to the measure. He very gladly and heartily bore his testimony to the tranquil state of Ireland. He believed no country in the world had made a greater progress in the last few years; but the Government were in this position, that there were less troops in Ireland than at any former period, and that they had been advised that, under all the circumstances of the case, this exceptional kind of legislation might be preserved in a modified form. With that view they proposed to withdraw the proclamation from all districts in which tranquillity prevailed, and he hoped that, by next Session, the Bill would be withdrawn altogether.
MR. DEVEREsaid, that although the right hon. Secretary for Ireland admitted the general tranquillity of Ireland, the preamble of the Bill distinctly stated that the prevalence of crime and outrage in Ireland called for strong measures of repression. He (Mr. De Vere) contended that the country was not in a state to call for the continuation of such a stigma upon
1714
the character of the people, and therefore he would oppose the further progress of the Bill.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, there was no shadow of an excuse for the continuance of the Act. He should, therefore, move that the second reading be postponed for three months.
Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. COGANsaid, he thought that, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for Ireland), it was very inconsistent to continue such a penal measure.
MR. BRADYsaid, that it was a very unconstitutional course to adopt such a measure, seeing that the people of Ireland were most loyal, he should therefore vote for the postponement of the second reading. It would create a feeling of discontent which did not now exist, and a grave responsibility rested upon the Government in pressing the Bill upon the House at the present time.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he should support the Bill. It was a protection to the lower class of farmers, and they would be extremely sorry to find that it was not re-enacted. The better course would have been to have made it perpetual at first, instead of it being necessary to continue it from year to year.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 19: Majority 23.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.