Commons Sitting of 11 July 1859

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Edinburgh City, Right hon. James Moncreiff; for Cork City, Francis Lyons, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Westminster New Bridge; Pawnbrokers.
2° Poor Law Boards (Payment of Debts); Constabulary Force (Ireland); Westminster New Bridge.
3° Court of Probate, &c, (Acquisition of Site); Clerk of the Council.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY (No. 2) BILL.

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Order for the further consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to some considerations connected with this Bill. He thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had done great public service in pointing attention to the nature of this measure when it was last before the House. He (Sir J. Graham) had since endeavoured to ascertain the facts connected with the introduction of the Bill and the efforts made to pass it, He held in his hand the original prospectus of the Company, issued in August last, in which the substance of the agreement subsequently made by them with the Government was embodied. The Bill containing that agreement was introduced at the commencement of last Session. Private Bills, as the House was aware, were proceeded with either before the public business was entered upon, or at its close; when the rules of the House had been complied with, they passed through very much as a matter of form. The attention of the House was not particularly directed to this Bill, no responsible Member explained the nature of the transaction; the Bill passed, and was carried up to the House of Lords without comment, so far as he was able to ascertain. There it arrived at its last stage immediately before the dissolution, and so drop-
  956
  ped, though an attempt was made on the part of the late Government to pass it, the late Prime Minister declaring that it was desirable that there should be no delay. The Duke of Somerset, however, stated that he saw no reason why this Bill should form an exception from the treatment of other Bills of a similar class. The Bill was re-introduced in the present Parliament, the same forms were gone through in this House without observation, as it appeared, on the part of hon. Members, and it went up to the House of Lords, where it was on the point of passing, when Lord Stanley of Alderley, in its last stage, insisted as an Amendment, that the whole of the contract between the company and the Government should be inserted in the Bill. That Amendment the Lords made, and that Amendment the House of Commons were now called on to consider. He (Sir J. Graham) had a strong opinion that this Bill contained some objectionable clauses. In the first place, it gave a guarantee of 4½ per cent upon all the capital of this company paid up:—and for what period, would the House believe, that guarantee was given? Why, for a period of fifty years from this time. And that guarantee was to extend over the whole of that long interval without reference to the success of the company. It might be said, that they might confidently rely on the success of the undertaking. Why, that was by no means so certain; yet the guaranteed interest was, even if there were no return, for fifty years. There was another circumstance in which he saw the most serious objection—namely, that the Government was to nominate two ex officio directors. One of those ex officio directors, an intimate friend of his own, was a first-class clerk of the Treasury, a gentleman of the highest honour, and for whom he had the greatest respect; and the other was equally a gentleman of high respectability; but what was the temptation to which these gentlemen were exposed? There was no restraining clause whatever in the Bill against those ex officio directors becoming shareholders in the concern. It seemed to him that the Bill stood on the same footing as the Atlantic Telegraph Bill, and that the extent to which these contracts were now carried required the cautious consideration of Parliament. He thought, under the circumstances, the House would do well to suspend the further consideration of the Lords' Amendments of the Bill for a fortnight or three

  957
  weeks to enable the Committee on Contracts, which was to be appointed that night, to inquire into the transaction and report their opinion upon it to the House. That being the view he ventured to take of the matter, he moved as an Amendment that the further consideration of the Lords' Amendments be deferred for one fortnight.
  MR. ELLICEseconded the Amendment, and expressed his obligations to his right hon. Friend for bringing this subject under the consideration of the House. He (Mr. Ellice) came down to the House for the purpose of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intended to nominate his Committee on Contracts, and to raise a discussion with respect to the constitution of that Committee. It was of the utmost importance that the Committee should be composed of independent members. He complained that the Treasury gave their sanction to Bills of this description without the House having before them any of the grounds on which they did so; and he intended to call the attention of the House to that subject, which was altogether contrary to what used to be the practice of the Treasury. By the constitution of the Treasury it was intended to control the expenditure, not to originate it.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the said Amendments be further adjourned till Monday, 25th July."
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMrose to make an explanation. He was in error in stating the Bill had been re-introduced in the present Parliament. It appeared to have been suspended, which, of course, made his case the stronger, as this would be the only opportunity the House would have of fairly considering the arrangement.
  MR. GREGSONsaid, that the only Amendment of the slightest importance, except the schedule, was the omission of the clause giving borrowing powers to the Company. The project was before the public for eighteen months before the guarantee was obtained, a prospectus issued in 1857, promising a 5 per cent conditional guarantee from the East India Company, having failed to induce the public to subscribe. He had received a letter from Mr. Cawthorn, the broker to the company, a gentleman of high respectability, who said:—
  "You will recollect the anxious deliberation bestowed upon the extent of guarantee to be given by the Government to the Red Sea Telegraph
  958
  Company, and the desire felt not to require more than sufficient to float the shares. I can conscientiously declare that I believed at the time, and still believe, that lower terms than those granted to the company would not have been sufficient to raise the capital required for the undertaking. The result of the issue of the shares fully corroborates this opinion, for from the date of the issue of the shares—namely, the 2nd of August last, to the 7th of January, the price ranged from 12 s. 6d. premium per share to 5s. premium, the average being 8s. 9d, premium per share, a profit not too remunerating. Subsequently the shares were done at a premium of 15 s.; but when an obstacle to the passing of the Act of Parliament arose the shares fell to 32 s. 6d. discount. On the passing of the Bill by the Lords, they rose to a premium of ½ to ¾; but without such guarantee by Act of Parliament the price would again fall to a discount, and the shares become unmarketable and great difficulty felt in getting the remaining calls paid."
  The total length of line from Alexandria to Kurrachee was 3,268 miles, with eight stations. The line was now completed from Alexandria to Aden, a distance of 1,590 miles, and the remaining section to India would be completed by the end of this year. The Stations are:—

  Land Line:—

  Miles.

  Alexandria to Suez

  220

  Submarine:—

  Suez to Cosseir

  260

  Cosseir to Suakin

  474

  Suakin to Aden

  636

  Total

  1590

  Aden to Halleani (Koori Moorio)

  730

  Halleani to Muscat

  490

  Muscat to Kurrachee

  458

  Total to India from Alexandria

  3268

  Due securities were taken by the Government. All advances of interest by the Treasury were to be a charge against future profits, and all profits beyond 10 per cent were to be at the disposal of Government for the benefit of the public. The Government had the power to fix the tariff, and all the proceedings of the company were subject to the approval of the Lords of the Treasury, who appointed two ex officio directors. The capital was subscribed entirely on the faith of the contract with the Treasury, one of the conditions being that the Company should proceed at once with the work, and enter into contracts for the completion of the line within a given time. Great inconvenience had been caused by the delay which had already occurred in passing the Bill, which went through both Houses in the usual manner, the money clauses having been passed in Committee of the whole House, on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the

  959
  late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The following particulars connected with the laying of the cable would, he trusted, be interesting to the House: —
  "The cable was laid without any difficulty between Suez and Aden, the greatest depth being 500 fathoms, and the bottom soft throughout. It works admirably (according to the engineer's report, better than any line hitherto laid), and has been continually at work, though not handed over to the Company till thirty days after laying. There has been an interruption at Cosseir, caused by an Egyptian steamer dragging her anchor in a gale of wind. It is probably repaired by this time, being in the harbour, and in shallow water Mr. Lionel Gisborne, the engineer, telegraphed by this line the loss of the Alma from Aden to Cosseir in a long message of seventy or eighty words, and received a reply within an hour. The Company's officers have received a reply within an hour. The Company's officers have received the most cordial assistance from all the Turkish and Egyptian authorities, and a slight disturbance among the Hadjis (pilgrims) at Cosseir, who pulled down the telegraph land-mark, was immediately suppressed by the Governor. At Suakin the Pasha entertained all the telegraph staff at a grand dinner, and rendered them every assistance in his power. This morning's mail brings intelligence of the completion of the land line between Alexandria and Suez."
  Considering the importance of a line of telegraph to India, and that the Bill received the assent of the House in March last, he trusted that the right hon. Baronet would not persevere in his opposition to this Bill.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYthought the hon. Gentleman had entirely missed the real objection to this Bill. The House now for the first time learned the financial hearing of the question through the Lords' Amendments, which were injurious to the rights of that House as the "guardian" of the public purse. He hoped the House would not compromise its rights by assenting to such a course. The House had remained uninformed of the circumstance of an agreement having been come to, and that under certain circumstances the public Exchequer would be subjected to annual payments of £36,000—that was at the rate of 4½ per cent—for fifty years. In the case of £1,000,000 being raised the annual outlay would be £45,000. In every case where financial burden was imposed on the British public the proper formalities for granting public money should be passed through. He thought it might be well to pass a Resolution embodying the duty of observing that principle in every case. He was glad that the right hon. Baronet had called attention to the question, and he was sure that it was not for the honour and
  960
  dignity of the House that the practice complained of should continue.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he would not enter into the question as to whether it was desirable and necessary that they should have an electric line to India, but he thought the terms granted to this Company were such that it would have been better if the Government had made the line themselves. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. FITZROYwished to set his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Willoughby) right on one point. His hon. Friend said the first opportunity they had of knowing the financial bearing of the Bill was by means of the Lords' Amendments. Now on that very point a Resolution was agreed to by a Committee of the whole House, which certainly was not carried sub silentio. In every case the course was pursued which the hon. Gentleman said ought to be pursued—a Resolution was passed in Committee of the whole House before the grant of any public money could be agreed to.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it might be perfectly true that every stage of this Bill had been regularly gone through and all the usual opportunities for discussion afforded; but at the same time this was the first time that the attention of the House had been called to this question. This matter came before the House as a Private Bill; but it was impossible to deny that there were considerations of a public nature connected with it. It was a Bill not merely brought forward by private parties, but a Bill to carry out an arrangement between those private parties and the public, and the House ought to satisfy itself that the measure was a sound one. He was rather surprised to find that the defence of the Bill had been left to the private parties who were promoting it; he should have thought that the Secretary to the Treasury in the late Government would have supported the Bill. He should certainly support the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. He thought it high time that the serious attention of the House should be called, as the attention of the country was called, to these grants of the public money by the Government. He did not deny that it was of great public importance to have telegraphic communication between this country and India, and he was not prepared to say at that moment that Government was not perfectly right in giving their sanction to this Bill; but in order that the House

  961
  might have an opportunity of seriously considering the question, he should vote for the Motion for postponement.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he could assure his right hon. Friend that he had no hesitation in rising to address the House on this subject; but he was anxious to hear what course the discussion was taking, because it appeared to him that there were two points, and he did not exactly understand on which of them the Amendment was based. In the first place there was a question raised as to whether the mode in which the Bill had passed through that House was a correct and convenient mode, and whether it brought before the notice of the House the effect of the Bill. Now, no one could feel more strongly than he did that that House should be fully aware of all that it was asked to do in the way of originating or enlarging public expenditure. He was a young Member of the House, and was not very familiar with the practice with regard to Private Bills; but he understood that the usual course had been pursued with regard to this Bill, and that an opportunity had been afforded to any Member if he had been watchful to call the attention of the House to it. He regretted that it had failed to attract attention, and he was quite ready to agree to any such Resolution as was proposed by the hon. Member for Evesham, in order to bring such matters before the House more distinctly. The other point that had been raised was as to the expenditure proposed, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had stated that he regarded the contract entered into by the late Government as very objectionable, and that the late Government had done something quite unusual in entering into that contract. The matter had been arranged before he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had entered upon his duties at the Treasury, but he believed it was based upon the example of similar contracts made by preceding Governments, and especially upon the contract with the Mediterranean Extension Telegraph Company, from Cagliari to Malta and thence to Corfu, in which case the preceding Government gave a guarantee of 6 per cent for twenty-five years, instead of 4½ per cent for fifty years, as in the present instance. The right hon. Baronet thought the Government had done wrong in interfering to float the line; but the object was one of great importance, and if the only mode of successfully floating the line was by a
  962
  guarantee, he thought the Government was wise in giving it. The right hon. Baronet also said that the Government were about to pay the public money for nothing. But the contract was not a one-sided bargain: the Company had bound themselves to certain provisions which would compel them to perform their part of the contract. One condition was that when the line was once laid the Company were bound to work it, and if they did not the Government might take possession of the line. If the line were not made, of course the contract did not take effect. There were other conditions in the contract giving the Government certain advantages, such as the right of priority in sending messages. That was an important matter. Let that be contrasted with the stipulations made by some of the lines in this country. The Submarine Telegraph Company had entered into a stipulation with France, by which the French Government got the priority. What an immense importance it was to this country to maintain communication with its East Indian possessions. Let the House consider the case of the late Indian mutiny, and a thousand other circumstances, in which rapid communication with India was absolutely necessary, and it would agree that any arrangement, however extravagant it might seem, that put this country in communication with our East Indian possessions, without making the country dependent on any foreign Government, was of the utmost importance, The contract was very carefully drawn, and the late Government had improved on the terms entered into by their predecessors in regard to the Mediterranean extension line. Provision was made for a reserve fund, and for a reduction of the charges to the public, and all possible care was taken to provide for the good working of the line. He thought the clause empowering the appointment of ex officio directors, having authority to control the whole proceedings of the Company, and to take care that nothing was done to imperil the security, a good clause, though the right hon. Member for Carlisle had objected to it. [Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, his objection was that there was no prohibition of these ex officio directors from being shareholders.] It was true there was not, and that was an oversight. With respect to the adjournment of the consideration of the Lords' Amendments he expressed no opinion. That was a question for the Government and the promoters of

  963
  the Bill. He thought the agreement made by the late Government a good, proper, and economical agreement; and there was nothing on which he was more ready to encounter scrutiny. Therefore, he did not oppose the Motion for an adjournment of the discussion for a fortnight.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that this being a Private Bill, there were not more than fifteen copies of it printed, and now that he had got a sight of a copy, he found the case infinitely stronger than it was. ["Order."] Did the House desire to know the facts?
  MR. ROEBUCK: I called the right hon. Gentleman to order, not because I did not wish to hear him, for I am always desirous of hearing him, but because no Member can speak twice on the same subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet has only a right to explain.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I was endeavouring to explain that these ex officio directors were not prohibited from holding shares. So far from that, there is a provision in the Bill that they may hold shares.
  MR. KINNAIRDobserved that there was nothing peculiar or irregular in the way in which the Bill had passed through its stages. The principle now laid down with respect to these grants was no doubt very correct: but the House was bound to consider the position of the shareholders in this case. The shareholders of the line were now in this position that, after a Government guarantee had been distinctly given, and after they had on its faith expended three fourths of the capital, the guarantee was now disputed, while at the same time they were not able to complete the line because they could not make a call or borrow money until the present Bill passed. Any delay would be most prejudicial to them, and he must say that the present proceeding savoured very much like repudiation. He must warn the House that it would be most prejudicial to the public service if the commercial classes were to find that the guarantee of the Treasury was worth nothing. It should be borne in mind that this undertaking was projected during a great crisis in the affairs of this country—namely, during the Indian Mutiny, when rapid communication between India and this country was of vital importance.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that his hon. Friend who had just spoken had anticipated
  964
  what he had to say. More than half of the capital of the Company had been raised and expended on the faith of the guarantee, and he wished to know whether it was competent for the House now to consider the Bill otherwise than exclusively in reference to the Lords' Amendments.
  VISCOUNT DUNCANthought that the question before the House was whether they were to sanction a system which gave away the public money by a private Bill of which only about twelve or thirteen copies were printed, and by which the matter was not brought distinctly before the House. Until attention was drawn to the measure he was not aware of its provisions, and now he found that by one of the Lords' Amendments it was proposed to give a guarantee of 4½ per cent for fifty years on a sum of £800,000, which might be raised to £1,000,000. He did not wish to raise any impediment in the way of establishing telegraphic communications with India, but it was a great public question whether that House should bind the country for fifty years to pay the sum of £45,000 for this Red Sea Telegraph. Without adverting to the merits of the matter, he raised his voice against binding this country in such a way to give a guarantee on an undertaking not even now in existence. It would be far better to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the entire power of making these guarantees without referring them to the House at all.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this was a question of very considerable nicety and delicacy; and he thought it his duty, holding the office he did, to state to the House what considerations occurred to him. He must say that he was a little disappointed when the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir S. Northcote) declined to enter into the question of the Motion of the right hon. Member for Carlisle, stating that was an affair for the Government and the parties to consider; for the right hon. Baronet was the official organ of the Government that made this contract.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEexplained that it was made some months before he joined the Treasury.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not mean to state that the right hon. Baronet made the contract, but only that he was the official organ of the Government that did so. He wished simply to state to the House the view he took of the position of the Government

  965
  in regard to the contract, because the matter was one of the extremest delicacy, and public credit was that which not only ought not to be broken, but ought not to be even suspected of being capable of being broken. What he found to be the case, when the present Government assumed office, was that the present Bill was in the House of Lords, and noblemen connected with the Government in that House, as a debate upon it was about to take place, made application to him to know whether it was the intention of the Government to support the Bill as it stood, His answer was, that in his opinion they were pledged to the Bill as it stood, and that it was too late for the Government to raise a question on its merits. The merits therefore were not entered into by the Government in the House of Lords. It was his intention undoubtedly when the plan was brought to issue, to fulfil the contract, which he found written in the agreement between the Executive Government and the parties to the following effect—That an Act of Parliament (according to the last clause of the Bill) should be applied for in the next Session, for the purpose of confirming and giving effect to the agreement; and that the clauses necessary for the purpose should be submitted to, and approved by, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, who were to sanction and further the application by the Company for such Act of Parliament. That was the agreement, and on coming into office and finding those terms in existence laid down, and entirely independent of the discretion of the present Government, no choice was presented to them except to give their support to the Bill. On that agreement he felt bound to act; but with respect to the rights of the House, that undoubtedly was a different matter, and it was not for him to determine, but for the House to decide where its jurisdiction commenced, and what were its duties and obligations, and he had no doubt that it would consider the former and adhere to the latter. He did not understand that the right hon. Member for Carlisle raised any issue as to the merits of the contract; but he merely recommended that as this was a new Parliament, and as the arrangement under which the Bill was brought before them in its present form, and which had prevented the present Parliament from entering into a minute examination of the measure, had been made, not for the convenience of Parliament, but of the parties interested in the Bill, its further considera-
  966
  tion should be postponed for a term of fourteen days, in order that the House might know what they were going to vote. The right hon. Baronet said, —
  "Arrangements of great importance have been made between the Government and the Company; principles of great moment to the public interests arc involved in those arrangements; and as a Committee is about to be appointed to inquire into the general question, let us have an opportunity of ascertaining accurately what we are asked to do."
  In that suggestion he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not see anything tending to impugn or to weaken the force of the contract between the Government and the parties, or to impair the nature of the obligation, whatever it might be, which Parliament had contracted with regard to these parties. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) and other hon. Members would not persist in their objections to the postponement. If they did so it might be supposed out of doors that an issue was raised upon a question of public faith, whereas there was merely a demand for time, with a view to consideration. The concession of such time might he attended with some temporary and limited inconvenience to the parties; but if his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle thought the House ought not to proceed blindfold in a matter of such public importance, as that view was entertained by so many hon. Gentlemen, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would feel bound to support his proposition. He would only add that in the last Parliament, on the 14th of March, a Resolution was reported by the then Chairman of Ways and Means from the Committee on the Red Sea and Indian Telegraph Company, the effect of which was, undoubtedly, to give the sanction of the House of Commons, so far as preliminary proceedings were concerned, to the agreement which had been entered into between the Government and the Red Sea and Indian Telegraph Company, and in such cases the first Resolution of the House was very commonly, if not universally, regarded as a sufficient foundation to warrant the parties in proceeding with their arrangements.
  MR. DISRAELIthought it right to observe that the resolution to support this Company adopted by the late Government was influenced by motives of public policy. The whole question of guarantees was at an early period brought under their con-

  967
  sideration, when a variety of propositions of a similar character had been preferred. But the late Government came to this conclusion, that it was not advisable that Her Majesty's Government should enter into any unconditional guarantee. But they felt it their duty to make an exception to that principle; and that was for the purpose of securing a telegraphic communication with India, the question at present under consideration. He would remind the House of the political causes at the time existing which prompted the late Government to enter into such an agreement. The late Ministers felt that it was not only an injury, but a disgrace to this country in the present age of science and of progress, that we should be any longer without the means of telegraphic communication with our Indian empire. Well, then, was it possible to obtain that most desirable object in any other manner than the present? Of course the late Government did not enter into this guarantee until they had exhausted every mode of research by which they could ascertain whether there was any prospect of obtaining such a result by any other means than that in question. It was their deliberate opinion, after considerable delay and prolonged investigation, after consultations with the ablest men, and endeavouring by every means in their power to obtain authentic information—that this was the only means by which a telegraphic communication between this country and India could be accomplished. The late Government under such circumstances shrunk from the responsibility they felt they should have incurred before Parliament if they did not do everything in their power to bring about that result. So much for the great object itself, and the conduct of the Government in respect to it. They had also given a guarantee to secure a similar communication with the United States. Now with respect to the feeling of the present House of Commons. No doubt it was natural for a new Parliament, when called on to sanction such an engagement to view it with some jealousy; but they must not forget that according to the laws and regulations of Parliament, this was not a new House in relation to this measure. Though it might, therefore, be natural for that House to view this arrangement with jealousy, it was not a legal and constitutional feeling. It was not open to this House to say that they heard of this matter now for the first time—that it was in consequence of Amendments in the Bill now
  968
  made by the House of Lords that they ascertained for the first time the important engagements entered into by the previous House of Commons, and which they were now called upon to fulfil. That would not be a fair course of proceeding, nor one consistent with the rules laid down for the guidance of Parliament. They should consider this Bill to have gone through all its stages in the House of Commons now sitting, and he thought it had been shown indisputably that every Parliamentary form to guard against any misapplication of the public money had been observed. With regard to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) he had not had the advantage of hearing what its object was; but if it were to be interpreted in the manner in which it had been by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should not care to oppose it. It was of importance that the public mind should be satisfied on all these transactions; and if no great public injury or inconvenience could occur from this delay, so far from its being disadvantageous, on the contrary, it might be desirable that the matters in question should be referred to a Committee. Of course the Government were better informed as to the proceedings connected with this subject than Her Majesty's late Ministers; whether the line had been carried on to Aden; whether any arrangements necessary to continue and accomplish the line might be injuriously delayed by the postponement of this question he could not at that moment decide. The Government had received, no doubt, the latest information upon those points. All he wished to impress on the House was this: that the work itself was a great national object of the highest importance and magnitude; and the Committee themselves would soon discover that which the late Government had already found out, that it was only by the present mode this great national object could be achieved.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was at a loss to understand what object could be attained by the postponement of the Bill with a view to its consideration by the Select Committee to be appointed to-night. Even if the contract should prove to have been improvident, so far as the public were concerned, the matter had gone so far that the faith of the House of Commons was pledged to the arrangement, and it would now be too late to back out of it. He thought this case showed that the forms of the House were defective, and that this discussion

  969
  might have been avoided if a full statement of the circumstances connected with the contract had been submitted to the last Parliament. The right hon. Baronet asked for delay that they might ascertain if the forms of the House had been complied with; but the Lords had introduced no Amendment into the Bill; they had only appended a schedule containing the terms of the contract, and the real question, a mere technical one, was, would the House approve of that schedule, for the principle of the Bill had been already passed by the House, The Company had made a call, spent their money, and executed a great part of their project, and the case was one in which the public credit required that there should now be no repudiation on the part of Parliament. The bargain might or might not have been an improvident one, but advantage could not honourably be taken of a pure technicality to get rid of it.
  MR. SPEAKERwished, before putting the question, to say a word on a point of form. In the case of this Bill and two other Bills of a similar nature—namely, the Indian and Australian and the Atlantic Telegraph Bills, in which there were guarantees of public money, the clauses containing the guarantees not having been printed in Italics the first copies of the Bills had been by his direction withdrawn, and fresh Bills presented, with the clauses in question printed in italics, and therefore specially inviting the attention of the House to them. The merits of this question did not come within his province. If there had been anything informal or irregular—anything that contravened the rules and privileges of that House in the Amendments made by the Lords—it would have been his duty to bring them under notice. But there was nothing of that nature in those Amendments. With respect to the inquiry addressed to him by the hon. Member for London—namely, what was the exact Question now before the House? the answer was "Whether the House would agree to the Amendments of the Lords." The Question certainly was not whether the House would revise or reconsider parts of the Bill to which it had given its assent, and which the other House had also accepted.
  VISCOUNT DUNCANhoped the Speaker would inform the House how many copies of private Bills were circulated among hon. Members.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) to say that there had been two exceptions in the time of the late Government to the principle of a contingent guarantee— namely, the Red Sea Telegraph and the Atlantic Telegraph. This was the first time he had heard that an absolute guarantee had been given to the Atlantic Telegraph Company, which, he always understood, had received only a contingent guarantee. He must, however, bear his testimony to the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the late Government had exhausted, but in vain, every means in their power to find parties ready to take up the project of a Red Sea Telegraph on the principle of a contingent guarantee.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that copies of private Bills were printed by their promoters, and circulated in considerable numbers among hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that it was in the power of any hon. Member to obtain a printed copy of any private Bill, by applying to the Doorkeepers of the House.
  MR. DISRAELIexplained, that he had been in error in saying that the guarantee to the Atlantic Telegraph Company was an absolute one. He had been misled by the original agreement, which had been cancelled.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 177: Majority 47.
  Lords' Amendments further considered, and agreed to. (Special Entry.)

PATENT OF QUEEN'S PRINTER—BIBLES AND TESTAMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, on the expiration of the patent of the Queen's printer for England and Wales, on the 21st January, 1860, to propose the renewal of that patent, so far as it related to the printing of Bibles and Testaments, or any restriction on the free printing of the Holy Scriptures?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the restraint on printing the Holy Scriptures in the United Kingdom did not, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, and, as indeed, was the general opinion, rest merely on the patent given to the Queen's Printer;

  971
  it rested on the prerogative of the Crown. The Crown had the prerogative of restraining the printing of the authorized version of the Scriptures, and also of the Book of Common Prayer; and that prerogative would subsist until it was abandoned by the Crown, or put an end to by Act of Parliament. Now with regard to the hon. Gentleman's question, he had to reply that the question of continuing the monopoly of printing the Scriptures was under the consideration of the Government, and as it was one that involved a good many points they had not yet come to a decision on it. Perhaps the House would allow him to state that, so far as the matter had been represented to him it could not be said that there was any practical grievance with respect to the Bible or the Prayer Book as to inaccuracy or as to want of cheapness. He was assured that the cheap prices at which the Bible and Prayer Book were printed could not be exceeded; and that copies printed by the Queen's Printer and the two Universities were circulated in the United States and our Colonies, and competed with Bibles and Prayer Books printed in the United States without any restraint or monopoly. With regard to cheapness, therefore, he was not aware that the removal of the present restriction would be of any advantage. As to the accuracy with which the authorized version ought to be printed, he thought that some authentication by a public authority was necessary. He had to state to the House, also, that although in Scotland there was no monopoly with respect to any printer, there was nevertheless a restraint on printers, inasmuch as it was not competent to any printer in Scotland to publish a copy of the Bible without the consent of the Bible Board; and that was just as much a restraint on the liberty of printing as if the privilege of printing were granted to a limited number of persons. Besides, if that system were introduced in England, the House ought to be aware that it would entail a certain expense. The expenses of the Bible Board in Scotland in 1858 were —for secretary, £600; law agents, £240; law charges and other expenses, £250; making a total of £1,090; an amount which the House would be shortly called on to vote again, when the Miscellaneous Estimates were brought up. If that system were extended to England the expense would be much larger; while, according to the system existing in this country, com-
  972
  petition was, he was told, active between the Queen's Printer and the Universities, and the country was put to no expense in ensuring cheapness and accuracy.
  MR. HADFIELDasked if the Government would suspend the renewal of the patent until the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was much mistaken as to the cheapness of the work.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that no legislation was required for the purpose of renewing the patent of the Queen's Printer. It was a grant which was derived from the prerogative; and there was no occasion at all for that House to legislate. The Government had come to no decision on the question. What he said was merely interlocutory, and they had no intention of renewing the patent at the present moment, and other opportunities would occur for bringing the matter under the consideration of the House during the present Session.

ROADS, &c., IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he could give any information as to the proceedings of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the management of Roads in Scotland, and when they were likely to publish their report.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he held in his hand a letter from the Secretary of the Commissioners, in which it was stated that considerable progress had been made in the work—the witnesses from twenty-seven out of the thirty-four counties having already been examined, and there being every reason to believe that the Report would be presented before the close of the present year.

THE WESTMINSTER PALACE CLOCK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYasked the First Commissioner of Works what was the reason why only two faces of the clock in the clock-tower were now made use of? Also, whether there had been any late correspondence between the maker of the clock and the architect of the Houses of Parliament or the Board of Works; and, if so, whether there was any objection to lay such correspondence before the House?
  MR. FITZROYsaid, that the reason why only two dials of the clock were now made use of was that the minute hands, together with the counterpoises which had been ordered for the clock-tower, were subsequently found to be too heavy to be worked. The difficulty had arisen from the divided jurisdiction of the architect of the Palace and the maker of the clock. The weight originally proposed for the minute hand was 2 cwt.; but the material having been altered and gun metal used, the weight was increased to 3 cwt. outside the dial, with the addition of 4 cwt. of counterpoise within the clock-room. The consequence was that the total weight was 7 cwt. instead of 2 cwt. Instructions had been given to Mr. Dent, the maker of the clock, to construct minute hands and counterpoises of a proper weight. Some correspondence had taken place between the architect and the Department on the subject, but it did not throw much light on the subject, and he did not think it would be worth while to read it.

SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Submarine Telegraph Company have been permitted by her Majesty's Government to lay down any additional wires between England and France, and whether the permission had been given to them without requiring a surrender or modification of the monopoly which had recently been granted to that Company by the French Government, and which gave them an exclusive right to lay clown lines of telegraph between the two countries; and whether there would be any objection to lay on the table of the House the correspondence relating to the subject?
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the Submarine Telegraph Company had recently obtained from the French Government a concession which gave them for thirty years a preferential right to lay down telegraphic cables between England and France. Her Majesty's late Government, objecting to that monopoly, used all their interference to prevent its concession; but failing in that with the French Government they resolved to exercise their jurisdiction on these shores by preventing the Company from laying down the cable on this side of the water; and orders were issued by the Admiralty that force should be used, if necessary, to carry out the intention of the Government
  974
  in that respect. That was the state of things when the late Government went out of office. On the present Government coming into power they found a communication from the Company asserting their right to lay down those additional wires under a charter granted to them eight years ago, and which would not expire until 1862. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been immediately taken on the matter, which was a very important one, raising as it did the question of the good faith of the Government, who might, if they had not a good case, be involved in heavy damages for preventing the Company from proceeding with the proposed work. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown was in favour of the Company, and the prohibition to lay the wires was accordingly withdrawn; but the Government had intimated to the Company that it was withdrawn not from any change in the opinion of the Executive as to the monopoly, and had further informed them that as soon as the period for which the charter had been granted expired the Government would feel it their duty to exercise the rights of the Crown in such a manner as the public interests might seem to require. There was no objection to produce the correspondence.

COLLECTION OF THE INCOME TAX.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure during the present Session by which the mode of assessment and collection of the Income Tax by local unpaid commissioners would be altered; and if so, in what manner it would be proposed to make such assessments and collection?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no such intention.

  NAVAL PENSIONERS—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLasked the Secretary of the Admiralty, if it was intended to enforce the re-entry into the service of all naval pensioners, or whether special cases would be considered of persons in receipt of very small pensions, or whom under certain circumstances it might be expedient to relieve from such compulsory service?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that about 600 pensioners bad been called out. As a general rule, when the pen-

  975
  sioners were called out no exception was made in reference to the amount of pension; but whenever there was a special case for exemption brought to their notice the Admiralty were disposed to take a favourable view with regard to the application, as far as the public service admitted. At present there were very few, not more than four or five, who had asked for exemption.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—THE ARMISTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: The country heard last Friday with gratification that an armistice had been entered into between the Allies and the Emperor of Austria. I wish now to inquire of Her Majesty's Government whether they have received official intimation of the event from the Government of France, and whether the armistice is a mere military convention, or whether, on the other hand, the Government can hold out to the House any prospect that negotiations for peace will be prosecuted in consequence.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: What I stated was that an official intimation of an armistice had been received by me from the French Ambassador, but that this official information did not go beyond that contained in the Moniteur. I have nothing further to say at present, for on the face of the armistice it appears to be only for military purposes. At the same time the House well knows that the armistice which was signed on the 8th instant, will extend to five weeks. I cannot but hope that this duration of five weeks implies that the belligerent Powers will be ready to receive suggestions, or will of themselves propose some terms, by which hostilities may be put an end to. This is at present, however, mere conjecture, since there is nothing on the face of the armistice which declares that, either on the part of the Emperor of the French or the Emperor of Austria, there is any agreement to enter into any negotiations for peace. There is a meeting today of the two Emperors at Villafranca, and I trust that we shall soon have some intelligence on the subject of their interview.
  MR. DISRAELI: I am afraid I have very imperfectly expressed my meaning. What I wanted to know from Her Majesty's Government was whether any further information, except the formal communication of the armistice which the noble Lord announced on Friday, has been officially
  976
  communicated by the Government of France.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I have no further official information, except a telegram from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris.

  On the Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply,

  ST. JAMES'S PARK—BERKELEY HOUSE.
  MR. KINNAIRDrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the advisability of taking advantage of the present opportunity of Berkeley House having been pulled down to secure a road for the passage of carriages and horses from Charing Cross through Spring Gardens into St. James's Park. Foreigners who visited London were surprised at the little progress made in the improvement of the metropolis, and this was one of the reasons why the House had bestowed so much labour on the measure which created the present Board of Works. It was important that the House should assist rather than impede that Board in matters affecting the public welfare. Two questions now arose. One was, whether the Parks, for which such large sums were annually voted, should be comparatively closed to the public, or whether the recommendations of a Committee of that House, made after due deliberation, should be carried out. The House would remember that great difficulty was experienced in obtaining so simple a change as opening a communication between the district of Belgrave Square, and St. James's Street, through the Park. Not the slightest objection could now be found against that change, except as to the manner in which it had been carried out. The Report of the Committee recommended that the gate near the German Chapel should be made ornamental, and that there should be an iron railing; instead of which, from some incomprehensible jealousy, large and ugly walls had been erected on each side the thoroughfare, which completely shut out the view of the adjoining gardens. In fact, everything appeared to have been done to make the alteration distasteful, and the Government had thus lost an opportunity of beautifying that part of the metropolis. Another opportunity now presented itself of carrying out the views of

  977
  a Committee of that House, who had recommended the Government to take advantage of the pulling down of Berkeley House to make a carriage-way in that district. That Committee was no ordinary Committee, but it comprised several eminent men. Two of its Members had been taken away from them and removed to another House, but whether it was in consequence of their not adopting the recommendations of the Committee he could not tell! Berkeley House had now been pulled down, and he was desirous to know what steps the Government intended to take for widening the opening into the Park at that point. It was no new plan. He believed that in 1844 it was thoroughly understood and intended by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests that Carlton House Terrace should be finished when the lease of Berkeley House, which belonged to the Crown, expired. The occupier of that mansion, however, possessed considerable Parliamentary influence. He could command, it was said, five or six votes, and as he prayed for the renewal of the lease, this great benefit to the metropolis was again withheld. There was also a mass of old stables there, and upon the death of the Queen Dowager it was proposed to pull them down and improve the site. Some other persons obtained possession of them; but the new Board of Works had procured the surrender of the lease. They had pulled down Berkeley House, and they proposed to make a wide gate and carriage-way, in order to lessen the pressure and traffic at that particular point. He pressed the subject upon the notice of his right hon. Friend, with the hope that he would be able to state that he was prepared to take the necessary steps to accomplish be important an improvement. Unless some satisfactory explanation was given, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the matter. The corner of the Park, where it was proposed to make the opening, was at present a perfect disgrace, and Mr. Pennethorne, in his evidence before the Committee, after recommending the removal of the Duke of York's Column and the formation of a road across the Park to the Houses of Parliament, had expressed an opinion favourable to opening the Park near Berkeley House, which he said could be accomplished by the purchase of only two houses, one of which was Berkeley House. That was in 1844, so that fifteen years had been allowed to pass away without that much wanted
  978
  improvement having been made. Now that Berkeley House was pulled down, and the Board of Works was willing to give up twenty feet of space to the public, it was only necessary to pull down the ugly wall and railing at the end of the wall; and the other house, which also belonged to the Crown, being let on a lease, of which only thirteen years had to run, there could be no doubt it could be purchased for a very small sum. Some persons had proposed to make an opening from the Park into Cockspur Street, opposite to Drummond's Bank, and it would be undoubtedly more convenient, but also much more expensive, and there would also be some danger from the traffic from Charing Cross meeting that from the Park in a slanting direction. The evidence before the Committee all tended to show that some opening from the Park to Charing Cross would be a great public benefit, and he was sure that Her Majesty, with that gracious consideration which had ever distinguished Her, would be willing to contribute to the execution of so great an improvement, which would also enable Her to pass from Buckingham Palace direct to the National Gallery. He wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether he had any intention of availing himself of the offer of the Board of Works, and whether he was prepared to take those steps which would be necessary for carrying out the great improvement to which he referred?
  VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that before the Chief Commissioner rose to answer the Question he wished to make one or two observations to the House. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Perth made a mistake which was not uncommon in not distinguishing between the Office of Woods and the Office of Works. In 1848 he was chairman of a Committee which reported in favour of the disconnection of the Offices of Woods and Works, their functions being perfectly distinct—the Woods being an office of revenue, and the Works being an office of expenditure. The duties of the Office of Woods were important, having to manage the property which had been the freehold of the Crown since the Norman Conquest, and he found that the gross receipts of Crown property for the last year was £420,000, while the civil list was only £382,000. The hon. Member for Perth seemed to think that the property of the Crown was the property of the country. That was not the fact. The Crown was the owner, possess-

  979
  ed the title-deeds, and the Offices of Woods were only trustees during the life of Her Majesty to manage the property. He might put a case in point to his hon. Friend, and say, "There is an old house at the corner of the Haymarket belonging to a banking firm, why should that remain for the benefit of individuals when its removal would be convenient to the public at large?" It might indeed be removed, but then there would be compensation to pay, and his hon. Friend had not said a word about compensation in the case of Crown property. He could, however, see that the scheme proposed would cost a great deal of money; but he thought he could point out how it could be got. If property belonging to the Crown was taken, it should be paid for like that of any other individual. But then, who was to pay for it? Was the country? This was a scheme for the decoration and improvement of the metropolis —a vast district, the sixteen parishes of which that were included within the district Board of Works had a rateable property to the extent of £6,000,000. He found that the fact mentioned in a pamphlet by Mr. Leslie, one of the members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who remarked that if the passage to Charing Cross was to be made, the gentlemen who had hitherto dwelt in the unfashionable quarter of Greek Street, instead of spending £15,000 or £20,000 in building a palace in Spring Gardens, should return to Soho, and devote the money thus saved to the completion of the public improvement so warmly advocated by the hon. Member for Perth. It appeared that many parishes had memorialized the Board of Works against the removal of their office from their freehold premises to Berkeley House, and he (Viscount Duncan) believed that, by the expenditure of £4,000, the premises in Soho Square could be made perfectly adequate to the requirements of the Board. If, therefore, they would be patriotic enough to give up their idea of a palace in Spring Gardens, and hand the money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the improvement which was so warmly advocated might be at once proceeded with.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSagreed with all that had fallen from the noble Lord as to the impropriety of taking away Crown property. He did not wish to enter upon the question as to whether the Board of Works should have its offices in Soho or Spring Gardens; but he desired to make
  980
  a remark upon another point. He had heard no one propose that the Metropolitan Board should pay for the destruction of those houses. He concluded, therefore, that what was wanted was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should propose to the House a small Vote to effect this improvement. Great public convenience would, it is said, be the result if a carriage road was made; hut what was meant by a great "public" convenience? He quite admitted that such a road would be for the advantage of those who were able to travel in their own carriage or to pay cab hire; but if the hon. Member meant by the "public" those who did not use carriages, and who could not afford to hire them, and who were accumstomed to take their recreation in the Parks, he (Lord John Manners) thought that, instead of being a public advantage, this would be a public injury, for their enjoyment would be entirely swept away by this so-called improvement. The particular angle which it was proposed to take for the purposes of this improvement was a favourite resort of the poor children who frequented St. James's Park, and there were very few other places to which they could go. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. FitzRoy) would not be led away by the seductive eloquence of the hon. Gentleman into giving a hasty answer on this question, but that he would take the whole matter into serious consideration.
  MR. TITEsaid, that he was not a Member of the Metropolitan Board of Works at the time the arrangement for removing from Greek Street to Berkeley House was agreed to, but he nevertheless thought it a wise one, because the latter office was much too small for the transaction of their business, and being freehold, the land would probably sell to advantage, and produce sufficient to enable them to construct the new buildingson the site of Berkeley House. That which had been removed projected eleven feet beyond the line of the Houses on the West side of New Street, but the Metropolitan Board, in the erection of the new house would build it upon a line with other houses. The passage, which was now 220 feet long by 8 feet broad, would in future he 150 feet long and 21 feet wide, which, though very convenient for foot passengers, would not admit a carriage road. But inasmuch as a new terminus was about to be brought to Chelsea, it was thought that the roadway in Birdcage Walk would be much crowded, and this proposal was

  981
  entertained of opening a passage into the Green Park for carriages at Berkeley House. This could be done by the purchase of one house, the ground of which was the freehold of the Crown, rented to a highly respectable firm of solicitors, to whom it would be necessary to make compensation; but the whole expense of the transfer would be very trifling. It must, however, be remembered that if the Metropolitan Board should make the improvement as had been suggested by an hon. Member, it would be utterly useless unless the Crown allowed carriages the liberty of entering the Park that way. But with regard to the expense it should be remembered that the Board of Works was undertaking various large improvements, such as the carrying of a street from the Borough to Stamford Street at an expense of £190,000; others in New Street, Covent Garden, and elsewhere, all at the expense of the ratepayers, and therefore he thought they ought not to be at the expense of making this improvement. He hoped the House understood how the matter stood, and he begged to apologise for having occupied their attention on a matter which he (Mr. Tite) believed to be of no little importance.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, the question was mainly one of finance, and if his hon. Friend could establish that the improvement would be of great public advantage and could be effected at a small cost all difficulty would vanish. But he ventured to join issue with his hon. Friend on those points. His hon. Friend, in the first place, did not seem aware of the steps which wore necessary, and appeared to think that all he had to do was to ask for a small Vote; whereas an Act of Parliament would be required in order to carry out the object wished for. But he was prepared to maintain that instead of being a great public advantage very few persons were interested in the proposed improvement. Reference had been made to the Committee which sat on this subject; but it should be rememberd that many of the arguments then used had ceased to apply now that a new passage had been made by Marlborough House. The advantage gained by opening this new road would be confined to a small portion of the public, who would be benefited to the extent of only a few yards; and was it worth while therefore to throw the expense of effecting it upon the great bulk of the public, depriving the poor, at the same time, of a quiet nook in the Park where they and
  982
  their families might enjoy themselves? With regard to the expense, it would be necessary to take a slice off Sir John Shaw Lefevre's garden, and to pull down a private house, the hotel at the corner, and the pastrycook's shop, and having had the property valued he had ascertained that this improvement could not be carried out at a much less cost than £53,000. Was the House prepared to throw upon the country such a burden for the sake of so small a gain? It was all very well to talk of what was done in Paris, but the octroi there produced £2,000,000 sterling. With such an amount of money at command it was wise to make extensive improvements, but he thought Parliament should pause before it applied the funds of this country in metropolitan improvements which did not concern the bulk of the people, and which would result in so small an amount of public benefit.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had so completely disposed of the proposal which was under the consideration of the House. He must, however, protest against the doctrine to which the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to lend the sanction of his high authority, that one shilling of the Imperial funds should be laid out for the promotion of merely local objects.
  MR. H. HERBERTalluding to the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to what he had termed a "quiet nook," which it was desirable to preserve intact for the benefit of the children of the neighbourhood, said, there was immediately adjoining that spot a triangular piece of land from which that interesting portion of the community were shut out, apparently for no particular reasons, and to which they might be admitted with advantage. It would therefore be well if the right hon. Gentleman would direct his attention to the matter and see whether the ground in question might not be made available for the purposes of recreation.
  MR. SLANEYalso urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of acting, if possible, on the suggestion which had just been made to him. It would further be desirable that he should take into his consideration the expediency of facilitating the communication between Tyburnia and Prince's Gate, by widening the road, taking it by the top of the Serpentine, and thus relieving Park Lane of a portion of its traffic.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERremarked, that if they intended to open a passage from the Strand into the Park they had better take a road that was already made. There was a house occupied as the Coastguard Office, which, if pulled down, would leave a much more sightly entrance than any he had yet heard of.

  BOUNTY TO SEAMEN.—EXPLANATION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished, before the Speaker left the chair, to receive some further explanation from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty with respect to the announcement which he had made on Friday last, to the effect that it was the intention of the present Government to extend the bounty to seamen in the navy, which had been granted by the late Government under conditions which would embrace a large portion of those who had previously served in the fleet. He for one had heard that announcement with great surprise at the time when it was made, and he regretted to be obliged to say that subsequent reflection had not removed those feelings of apprehension—he feared, he must add of disapprobation—with which he had from the very first been disposed to regard the policy which the noble Lord had declared it to be the intention of the Government to adopt. He was also sorry to have to state that he did not think his noble Friend had, in making the statement to which he alluded, treated the House with that candour which he ought to have exhibited when the novelty of the proposal which he indicated was taken into consideration. His noble Friend, in short, had refrained from giving to the House those reasons which had induced the Government to make the great change which he announced, and appeared to fight shy of all explanation upon the subject. It appeared that Her Majesty's Ministers had, on Friday last, advised the Sovereign to issue an Order in Council for the purpose of carrying into effect the alteration in question. The noble Lord had, indeed, stated that such was the case; but that circumstance seemed to prove the more strongly that the views of the Government on the point were fixed, that they had duly weighed the step which they were about to take, and must have known the reasons which had led them to its adoption. Why, then, he would ask, had not the noble Lord availed himself of the opportunity which the announcement of the change afforded to lay
  984
  those reasons before the House? In commenting on the speech in which that announcement was made he (Sir J. Pakington) had felt some hesitation in expressing disapprobation of a policy which the noble Lord had so entirely failed to explain; and he must confess that he could not even now understand why the noble Lord had not taken the legitimate opportunity which had presented itself to him on Friday evening to state the grounds on which that policy was based. But, be that as it might, he should entreat the House to consider whether there were any good reasons for the course which the Government had taken. If there were any such reasons, then let them be laid before the House, and he should be the last person to offer objection to the adoption of such a course. There never was an instance, however, in which it, in his opinion, behoved a Government to prove the necessity of the policy which they pursued more than in the present case, inasmuch as every legitimate prescription was opposed to its expediency, and inasmuch as it was contrary—he, of course, spoke under liability to correction —to every precedent on the subject. In the course which the late Government took in issuing a bounty to seamen they had— as he observed in the debate of Friday last—strictly adhered to precedent. Such a precedent was furnished in the last year of the last century. A similar mode of strengthening the fleet was adopted in 1803, and again in 1807. On the last mentioned occasion the issue of a bounty was, if he recollected rightly, repeated from year to year, and was in operation for a considerable time. In no one instance, however, of which he was aware, had a bounty been made retrospective, and offered to men who had previously served in the fleet. When Her Majesty's late Government, about two months ago, felt it to be their duty to strengthen the naval resources of the country by resorting to a bounty, the question with which he was now dealing was raised and forced very much upon their attention, and in referring to it again he could only repeat that which he stated on Friday last, that he never in his life entertained a more decided opinion on any subject than with respect to that of the issue of a bounty to those who were previously serving. The reasons which were pressed upon him to take such a course were chiefly that if he did not do so, great dissatisfaction would prevail in the navy, and that complaints of unfairness would arise among the men.

  985
  His answer was, that the question was one of public policy, that the possibility of our being hereafter enabled to resort to a bounty was at stake, and that if unreasonable dissatisfaction arose, it must be resisted and put down. And now he would ask whether the apprehensions on which the reasons to which he referred were founded had been realized? On the contrary, two months had since passed away, and no dissatisfaction had displayed itself; no complaints had been heard. His noble Friend, indeed, in making the startling announcement which he made to the House on Friday last informed them that no dissatisfaction had arisen. His noble Friend told the House that one of the reasons which influenced the Government was a wish to deal generously with the sailors. This was a very plausible statement to make, and he then told his noble Friend that no man was more disposed to do so than himself. But this generosity must not be carried to an unreasonable extent, inconsistent with public policy. It was a notorious fact that the British sailor was never treated with more generosity than of late years. Various advantages had lately been extended to him and a great increase of allowances had been given him. At the present moment the difference of pay and allowances given to continuous-service men was so considerable that they might secure to themselves pecuniary advantages much beyond those which ordinary-service men derived, even with the £10 bounty. Therefore, unless the noble Lord could show a paramount reason for making this change in the policy of the country, he could see most obvious reasons against it. It would be admitted that it was undesirable that any fresh impediment should be thrown in the way of resorting to a bounty, yet no impediment could be more formidable than was now laying down for the future, if the present precedent were established—that be the emergency what it might, no Government could hereafter resort to the bounty to induce sailors to join the navy without saddling the country with a heavy contingent expense to the extent that every man then serving should also receive the bounty.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the House permitted great latitude of discussion on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply; but the right hon. Gentleman was even going beyond that latitude, when he replied in the House to a speech made in Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had nearly concluded what he wished to say, and he would endeavour not to infringe the rule laid down by the Speaker. The only tiling he had now to remark on was the financial result which would attend this proposition. It would be seen by a reference to the Navy Estimates that the cost of the bounty proposed by the late Government was £31,000 and odd; but what would be the cost of extending the bounty in the manner proposed by the present Government? He, of course, spoke with uncertainty, but he was strongly disposed to believe that it would constitute an additional charge to the country of not less than £100,000, and that money would be positively thrown away, as the proposed bounty was never asked for, and was not required; while it established an embarrassing precedent for future Administrations. He hoped the noble Lord would no longer decline to tell the House explicity and fairly the reasons for which this course had been taken—a course that might be attended with a momentary fleeting popularity, but which was unsound in principle and most dangerous as a precedent. He should also like to know what would be the pecuniary amount of this additional charge, and in what way it was proposed to ask for the money, as it was not included in any of the Estimates on the table?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I think that the best proof that I can give to the House that I did explain to some extent the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to come to the determination of extending the bounty is, that the right hon. Baronet has been occupied for a length of time in answering the reasons I gave. The right hon. Baronet asks why I did not at at the time enter into more detail with respect to that measure; and I will tell the right hon. Baronet frankly that the reason was that I was not on Friday last in a position to enter into all the details that I could have wished to give on the subject. I was in possession of the decision of the Government, but the Order in Council, which has since been issued, was not in my hands at that time, and I was very anxious, until the Order in Council was actually issued, not to state anything which might by any chance be mistaken. I very much regret that the right hon. Baronet has not taken the advice that I took the liberty to offer him a little while ago, and put off his questions until I bring in the Estimate, which I shall do in a very

  987
  few days, to carry out the arrangement. At the present moment it is impossible that I can tell him the exact amount which will be required, inasmuch as it will depend on the number of men accepting this extension of the bounty; for certain conditions are attached, and some men may accept those conditions and some may refuse them. I trust, then, that as this measure will come before the House soon, and as the right hon. Baronet will have an opportunity of discussing it upon its merits when the Estimate is laid upon the table, and the House is anxious at this advanced period to get on with the Votes, I may be excused from going on with the debate on this occasion.

THE ARMY—THE HOME FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DICKSONrose to ask the late Secretary of State for War whether he had noticed a letter in The Times of the 8th instant, signed "An Officer commanding a Regiment," and dated Portsmouth; and whether, in the statement which he made of our forces at home on the evening of the 5th instant, he included marines ashore, recruits in readiness for India, enrolled pensioners, and Irish police? The letter he alluded to was headed "General Peel and our Army."
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERrose to order. He believed that the House was going into Committee on the Navy Estimates, and not on the Army Estimates.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. and gallant Colonel was not out of order, as the Question was that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
  COLONEL DICKSONproceeded to read the following extract from the letter in question:—
  "General Peel is reported to have stated last night that we have in these islands a force of 110,000 men. I should like to know where this force is located. We hear of 20,000 men at Aldershot and of 10,000 at the Curragh of Kildare. Where are the rest? Does General Peel include marines ashore, recruits in readiness for India, enrolled pensioners, and Irish police? I rather think he does, and, as the French Emperor, and, indeed, all foreign Governments, know those matters better than we do ourselves, I may as well mention that such exaggerated statements are but calculated to throw dust in the eyes of the people of this country, who, heavily taxed, expect a respectable and well-trained army for the large sums ungrudgingly voted."
  He would not trouble the House with the rest of the letter, but commanding, as he
  988
  did, a regiment at Portsmouth, and having an intimate acquaintance with every branch of the British army, he was competent to form a tolerable judgment as to its condition, and he did not hesitate to say that the letter he had quoted from was a tissue of most unmitigated nonsense. He did not pretend to say that our military organization was perfect, or that reforms were not required, nor would he quarrel with the liberty of the press, to which the army owed so great a debt of gratitude, and he was ready to admit that even when the newspapers published trash under the signatures of "Commanding Officers," "Jacob Omniums," and "Civilians," they caused the subject itself to be thoroughly ventilated, and the cause of truth at length prevailed. But when an officer of rank, described to be actually commanding, stamped with his seeming authority such a document as the one he had referred to, the proceeding was calculated to affect our position in the present critical state of European politics, and the writer of it was guilty of a breach of military discipline. He thought, then, that the military authorities ought to endeavour to discover who the writer was, and to take his conduct into serious consideration.
  GENERAL PEELregretted that the time of the House should be occupied so much in asking and answering questions arising out of anonymous letters in the newspapers. For his own part he always treated these personal accusations with the greatest possible contempt. However, as the question put by his hon. and gallant Friend was a proper one, and as it was important that the House should know the exact number of troops that were in the country, he would, without hesitation, reply to it. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Briscoe) stated the other night that there were only from 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers in the country, and in noticing his observations, he (General Peel) stated that he was mistaken— that the number of troops in the country amounted to nearly 110,000. He at the same time stated that this number included the embodied militia. It did not, however, include that fine body of men, the marines ashore, the enrolled pensioners, who were certainly fit for better service than the writer of this letter attributed to them; neither did it include the constabulary force of Ireland. He held in his hand the last return made to him before he left office, dated 1st of

  989
  June, 1859, and in that return he found that the army at homo consisted of: —Cavalry, 11,698; Foot Guards, 6,184; Infantry, 50,032; Horse Artillery, 1,749; Foot ditto, 12,669; Engineers, 1,854: Military Train, 1,861; Medical staff, 375; total regular forces, 86,422. Embodied Militia, 23,218. Total, 109,640. This officer, who described himself as commanding a regiment, said the Artillery was almost in a disgraceful condition. Now, it appeared from the return to which he had referred, that there were about 14,500 Royal Artillery; and besides these there were 5,000 Militia Artillery, and he had the authority of the Commander-in-Chief for saying that the Artillery Force was in a most efficient state. About 180 guns could be turned out to-morrow, if it were necessary, and there were 110 guns in store; and he repeated what he had said on a former evening, that at no time had the Artillery of this country been in a more effective condition.

  THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
  MR. WILLIAMSsaid, that having devoted some time to the consideration of the Navy Estimates he was anxious to offer a few observations on them. They were above those of any year of peace for the last forty years. He would not compare them with those for 1835 or any year about that time; he would take as a comparison those of 1852, the year before we commenced preparations for the Russian war. In 1852 the Navy Estimates amounted to £5,668,000; this year they were £12,862,000, being an increase of £7,200,000. They were told that the increase of the Navy Estimates was owing to the introduction of a new element into naval warfare by the invention of the screw. The screw was introduced in 1851. In 1852 we had five screw line-of-battle ships. Franco had two for that year. From the close of 1852 the Government of this country and that of France had run a race in building screw-line-of-battle ships. What was the result? It appeared that this country and France were, as regarded line-of-battle ships, at the present time on an equality, each country having twenty-nine; whilst France, as regarded frigates, had eight more. They were informed by the late First Lord and by the present Secretary to the Admiralty that next year this country would have fifty line-of-battle ships, and France only forty: but as she
  990
  would have four iron-cased vessels, and this country only two, and France would have nine more screw frigates, there would in reality be scarcely any difference. But France had got her screw navy at a much smaller cost than we had. The cost to England of her screw navy was, the last eight years, £86,746,000; while that of France cost only £46,306,000. Last year we expended on our navy £9,962,000, being £800,000 more than had been voted for the purpose. France in the same period expended only £4,607,000. Our estimated expenditure for the navy for this year was £12,862,000, while that of France was only £4,920,000. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. S. Lindsay) had stated a fact which would in some degree account for this excessive expenditure. He stated that the Russian Government had ordered some men-of-war to be built by private builders in the Thames, the estimated expenditure on them for wages was £2 12 s. per ton, whereas the expenditure on wages in one of the Government yards was £8 13 s. 11 d. a ton. The most curious feature was the difference between the various yards. In one dockyard the cost in proportion to the work done was double what it was in another. This difference required explanation, as the men received the same rate. If the Estimates were properly examined by a Committee of the House this could not occur. The number of men voted this year was 72,000, whilst the highest number during the Russian war was only 70,000. He did not complain of this increase of the navy. He would repeat what he had often stated, that he had the deepest desire to see the navy placed in a position which would enable the country to meet any hostile combination which could possibly be made against her. But unless some change took place in the administration of the Department that result could never be secured. What he complained of was that the vast amount of public money voted by the House was not applied judiciously, economically, and carefully, to the objects for which it was granted. On referring to the last report of the Audit Commissioners, he found that last year the expenditure exceeded the amount voted by £800,000, and that by a system of transfer the money voted for one purpose was expended on another. Among other strange items he found "Transferred out of the Vote on account of the extraordinary expenses of the Russian war £100,000." "Trans-

  991
  ferred out of the Vote of £400,000 for the extraordinary expenses, naval and military) of the war in China, £556,000," rather a curious transfer. Now, with regard to manning the navy, the bounty of £10 for able seamen had been now offered for three or four months, but only 1,400 men had joined, although the hon. Member for Sunderland had informed them that owing to the depression in the mercantile marine crowds of these men were wandering about the streets: why did they not enter the navy? The cause, he believed, was to be found in the existence of the degrading system of flogging which existed in the navy. This system was a disgrace to the nation as well as to humanity, for, while in the army a soldier could only be subjected to corporal punishment by the sentence of a court martial, in the navy this punishment might be inflicted at the will of one man. He found that on board one ship, the Princess Royal, during the year before last, fifty-three men were flogged, who received 2,141 lashes; while he was proud to say that some ships were mentioned in the return on board which punishments of this nature had been very few, and others in which no flogging had taken place. This difference could not be produced by any difference in the character of the men, but it must be owing to the difference in the character of the captains; some were humane beings, others were heartless tyrants. Such a man as the captain of the Princess Royal would not get his ship manned in a lifetime, if his character was known: such were not men of first-rate pluck; humanity and courage always went together. The Admiralty ought to keep their eye upon such officers. From the army returns it appeared in one year 112 men were flogged, and the number of lashes inflicted 5,200; but in the navy in 1854 the number was 1214, and the number of lashes 35,000—of these only 196 were inflicted by sentence of a court martial: in 1855 the number of lashes inflicted was 42,000, of which only 406 were by order of court martial; in 1856 the number was 44,000, of which only 618 were by sentence of a court; in 1857, the last year for which there was a return, the number was 35,800, of which 334 were ordered by courts-martial. He was convinced this was the great impediment to the entry of men; if it were necessary to maintain the system of flogging, let the army rule be introduced, that the punishment can only be inflicted
  992
  by the sentence of a court-martial. It was stated that the crew of the American frigate Constitution, which took the Java, the first capture made in the war of 1814, was composed of men who had been in the British navy, and every one of whom had been flogged. He had seen Commodore Stewart, the commander of the Constitution, at Philadelphia, and he told him that he had been so informed. To get men for the navy of this country it would be absolutely necessary to alter the system of punishment. He was anxious to see the navy in such a state as would remove the apprehension of even the most nervous person in this country, and therefore would not oppose any of the proposed Votes.

  MUTINY OF EUROPEAN TROOPS IN INDIA.
  COLONEL DUNNE, who had given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the mutiny of European troops in the Indian army, and a demand for a bounty upon re-enlistment, said, that he had understood from the Secretary of State for India that it would not be for the interest of the public service that any discussion upon this subject should take place at the present moment, and therefore he was willing to defer the remarks which he had to make upon it.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the House must appreciate the course which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had taken in this matter. The question was in the hands of the Indian Government, in communication with the Commander-in-Chief in India; and he was of opinion that the interest of the public service required that until their decision had been given no opinion should be pronounced upon it in that House.

  BOUNTY TO SEAMEN.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he entered the Service in 1800, and served afloat till 1818, and during all that period the bounty was in existence—£5 to able seamen, £3 or £2 10s. to others. The bounty, therefore, was no new thing in Her Majesty's service; and having been one of the first to recommend the late First Lord of the Admiralty to offer a bounty of £10 for able seamen entering the navy, expressed his approval of the course pursued by the late Government in

  993
  that respect, and reminded the House that during the great war a bounty was always offered to pressed men who were willing to enter the navy. He thought it just, generous, and politic, that some bounty should also be given to men who were actually in the ships, but regretted that the Secretary of the Admiralty had not informed the House of the terms upon which it was to be granted. Sailors disliked uncertainty, and it was therefore desirable that such a statement should be made as soon as possible. Even with this bounty they had only got 5,000 men in three months, which proved that the bounty was not even now high enough. He was himself astonished that the men had not entered the navy in greater numbers. Since he moved for the Commission to inquire into the state of the navy something had been done, and when the recommendations of the Commissioners were thoroughly carried out and known in the service the navy would become a great deal more popular. The Secretary for the Admiralty said that we had twenty-six sail of the line ready for sea, fourteen of which, with several frigates, were in the Mediterranean. He hoped the ships in the Mediterranean were fully manned with good seamen, which had not been the case for some time past. The ships of the line at home were not manned, only four of them, with two frigates, being sent out to exercise and acquire a knowledge of discipline. The Government knew that France had thirty sail of the line in commission; and a gentleman who had been at Cronstadt a short time ago on commercial business had informed him, that while there he was in the habit of rowing past eleven Russian screw line-of-battle ships every morning, and that six or seven of them had their sails bent and their top-gallant-yards crossed, while the rest were getting on as expeditiously as possible. He was for having our fleet manned as expeditiously as possible: no one could say what might happen. He had derived great satisfaction from the speeches delivered in "another place" by Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Hardwicke, and Lord Ellenborough, with every word of which he perfectly agreed, and he only wished that they could hear such speeches made in the House of Commons. They knew the marvellous celerity with which the French army had been brought, chiefly by way of Marseilles, into the field in Italy, where the Emperor had gained some of the greatest victories ever achieved, chiefly
  994
  by the rapidity with which he had forestalled Austria; and if peace were now to be signed between the two Emperors, it was doubtful whether such a result would be advantageous to this country. It would release the French army from the contest in which they had so lately been employed. They well knew the feelings of the French people in this country and their fondness for war; they all suspected the ambition of the Emperor, and no one could tell what might happen in a short period. He should be sorry to say anything to create bad feeling between the two nations, but as a naval officer, knowing what ships and men could do, knowing that the French force used to be much inferior to ours, and hearing that it was now equal, and in some respects even considerably superior to ours, he could not look at such a state of things with a calm heart. He was sure our ships, if well manned and properly disciplined, would be what they were in former days; hut he saw with grief that our men did not come forward with the spirit they ought to evince, and put us in a position in which we might defy the whole world. The Secretary to the Admiralty had told them what was the strength of our fleet; but why did he not distinctly let them know what was the strength of the French fleet at present in commission and manned and ready for service, and what likewise was the strength of the Russian fleet in the same condition? There was no use in concealing from this country what the force of those countries was. If there was danger we ought to face it. Great Britain ought to be equal, as regarded her navy, to all other maritime nations together. France in former days was hardly reckoned as a maritime nation at all. Now she was about equal to ourselves. To fall in with a French ship and capture her used to be as certain as the day. When, however, we were able to do that the French navy was not in order. The Revolution drove out of the service all the officers of note and experience, their places being supplied by men unaccustomed to ships of war, and whose knowledge had been gained entirely in the merchant service. That was one of the causes why we then won all our actions so easily. But in the later years of the war, when the French Emperor sent single ships to sea to acquire discipline and efficiency, all the frigate actions were well fought, and we even had three or four drawn battles, which were quite new to us

  995
  and caused us some surprise. Again, when we went to war with America, we found that our fleet was not in the state in which it ought to have been, and that we had rivals to contend with whose knowledge of seamanship had taught us a lesson which he had hoped would not have been forgotten. He had seen the navy of this country in great danger. During the war in Syria the French had a Mediterranean fleet of twenty ships of the line, while ours never consisted of more than seventeen, and even those insufficiently manned. Again, in the case of Tahiti, this country was in the greatest danger, because at that time we could produce only two sail of the line. During the Russian war we had a splendid fleet, but as soon as hostilities ceased it was paid off, which disgusted the men and rendered them averse to the service. We were now in a quandary again. The late Government were entitled to great credit for their exertions to man the fleet, and he trusted that the House of Commons would never again insist upon reducing the navy, whether in peace or in war. With respect to flogging, he was astonished at the list of punishments which the hon. Member for Lambeth had read that evening, and hoped that it was founded upon some mistake. There was no such thing as severity in the squadrons which he commanded in the Atlantic and the Baltic, and he never saw any necessity for it. He did not mean to say that corporal punishment could be entirely done away with in the navy, but he thought a great change ought to take place in the method of inflicting them, and saw no reason why courts-martial should not be introduced into the fleet. Such an alteration, he was convinced, would not injure discipline, while it would relieve captains of ships from a heavy responsibility. In conclusion the hon. and gallant Admiral repeated what he had formerly stated, that England ought not to be contented with fewer than fifty sail of the line afloat and perfectly manned —a force which, though small enough for her security, would enable her to defy the world.
  MR. LINDSAYthought the speech of the hon. and gallant Admiral was calculated to excite unnecessary alarm, which the Report of the Commission appointed by the late Government to inquire into the relative strength of the English and French navies afforded no ground for. He had a copy of their Report which bore date December, 1858, according to which
  996
  England had 50 sail of the line afloat and building, and France 43 of the same class of vessels built and building; while England had 34 frigates built and building, and France 46. With subsequent additions England would have nearly 65 sail of the line; as 6 ships were now being converted in this country, 10 were building, and besides these we had 9 blockships, all screw, making a total of 65. As regarded ships of the line therefore we were superior to France, though inferior as to frigates. The total number of our steam vessels, comprising all kinds of fighting ships, was 464, whilst France had only 264. The number of our sailing ships of a fighting character was 296, against 136 possessed by France, or more than double. He could not understand what could induce France to engage in war with us, inasmuch as she could gain nothing by it. It would be a ruinous policy on her part for her own interest to attempt anything of the kind. Though it might be somewhat difficult to man our vessels in ordinary times, or to settle some paltry question at the antipodes, in the case of invasion did the hon. and gallant Admiral suppose that the 160,000 or 170,000 seamen in our merchant ships would not rise at once to man our ships? Why, there could be no difficulty whatever in procuring seamen for the purpose. Whilst there was no occasion whatsoever of alarm on the head of war, at the same time he should not wish to see the defences of the country in the state in which they were a few years ago. Even commercially speaking the country suffered seriously by those idle rumours of war. It was, therefore, a false economy not to maintain the navy in an efficient state. He thought that the £10 bounty given in a time of peace was a gross error; and though the bounty now promised might be considered a natural consequence, he considered it as grave a mistake as the original bounty that created it. This half bounty would never satisfy the men, and they would be forced to go a step further, and saddle upon the country an additional burden of £250,000. In his opinion it would be so much money thrown away.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY.—THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

  CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £3,000, for additional Clerks.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, as the forms of the House prevented him from replying at once to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, he now desired to do so in reference to the gallant Gentleman's observations regarding the execution of the Bounty.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONrose to order. He himself had been called to order by the Speaker at an earlier period of the evening, although he confessed he was not quite clear that he was at the time at all out of order: but the noble Lord was now clearly out of order in raising a discussion upon a subject that was not at all before the Committee. When he (Sir John Pakington) was interrupted he was asking a legitimate question at the right moment of the noble Lord—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought that the right hon. Baronet was now himself out of order.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: With great submission, I am speaking upon a point of order. If the noble Lord raises such a question as he was about to do, I shall have the right of reply.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he merely wished to explain some matters in | deference to his hon. and gallant Friend, whom he wished to set right.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERwas at a loss to know where the necessity existed for so many additional clerks. If communications were addressed to the principal officers at Somerset House, instead of going through the present roundabout course, a great many clerks might be saved. Many more letters were written now than there was any occasion for. When he was appointed to command the Baltic fleet it took about ten letters to inform him of it.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was prepared to defend these Estimates, which were prepared by the late Government. He believed that the short experience of the present Government was sufficient to show them the insufficiency of the present establishment of clerks. Whatever might be the experience of the hon. and gallant Officer opposite as to the manning of the fleet, he (Sir John Pakington) did not think his experience was equally good as to the manning of the Admiralty. The work to be done was enormous, and was still increasing most rapidly. He was afraid that many more clerks would be required.
  MR. LINDSAYobjected to the employment of so many clerks. He thought
  998
  that the business of the country could be much better done by a smaller number of clerks and by paying good men higher salaries.
  MR. BENTINCKalso deprecated the system of employing such a number of clerks in those offices. The fact was that we had four or five Boards of Admiralty at work at once. There was in the first instance a First Lord of the Admiralty, who generally on his appointment knew nothing about the navy, and a great deal of time was consumed in his endeavours to learn his business. They had then a number of Lords, who had no confidence in their head nor in each other, and issued their own orders in contradiction to their colleagues. Every sort of practical absurdity was going on from day to day. He did not, however, think that this was a moment for reducing the number of the clerks or of tampering with the Navy Estimates.
  MR. A. SMITHcalled attention to an item of £8,000 for messengers. He wished to know how those messengers were to be selected.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTasked whether those additional clerks were taken into the Government establishments upon the understanding that when their services were no longer required they would be discharged.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreminded the Committee that this Vote comprised not only the clerks in the Admiralty, but those in Somerset House. The whole number was about 300.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETwas not prepared to give a precise answer to the question. He believed there would be a redistribution of clerks.
  MR. CORRYsaid, those additional clerks were merely employed as temporary clerks.
  MR. JACKSONthought that a great portion of the expenditure under this Vote arose from want of concentration in the offices.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £100,000, Volunteer Force.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he would not enter into the question of volunteers, because the Secretary to the Admiralty had promised to introduce a Bill before this sum was expended, which would enable the House to discuss fully the important question of the manning of the navy. He wished to know when the Secretary to the Admiralty would introduce that Bill?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETwas anxious to introduce it as soon as the subject had been discussed at the Admiralty.
  MR. HENLEYhoped when the Bill came before the House they would have the whole question of the bounty discuss ed, as it bore most materially upon the new scheme for creating a reserve for the navy.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the bounty before that time, inasmuch as it would be raised in the shape of a simple estimate.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, when they discussed the question of bounty they ought to remember the improvements that had recently been made in the condition of seamen.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought the Committee ought clearly to understand that the only question that remained to be discussed was the recent extension of bounty by the present Government to seamen previously serving in the fleet. The Committee had nothing to do with the item for the bounty granted by the late Government, for that item had been already voted. That bounty, which he should be prepared at any time to defend, had been very successful.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he intended not to express any opinion at present, but merely to reserve his right to do so upon the question of how far the bounty already given, and that proposed to be given, would prove a successful plan of forming a reserve for the navy.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEintimated his intention to move, when the question came under consideration, that no bounty be paid to any men serving in any of Her Majesty's ships until the whole of the recommendations of the Commission for Manning the Navy had been carried out.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the only reserve we had at present consisted of the coast volunteers and the coastguard. The coastguard were composed of seamen who had served a certain number of years in the navy and who were enjoying a sort of retirement, subject to be called into active service in the event of an emergency. In that retirement they naturally acquired shore habits, to some extent adverse to their efficiency. The coast volunteers were mixed up with them in the vote under consideration. Those coast volunteers, if properly managed, would be a very
  1000
  efficient body of men at some future day; but they did not constitute such a reserve force as the country ought to have. The coastguard and the coast volunteers could only be regarded as the sea militia of the country, and for many reasons it was not possible with the same ease to bring them into equal efficiency with the militia force of the army. He had invariably set his face against having a reserve to man twelve sail of the line, without having twelve sail of the line to put them into. We ought to have ships ready for sea at each of the ports, and the coastguard men and coast volunteers ought to be encouraged to go on board them as much as possible. He would give them a dinner on Sundays after service, to which they might bring their wives, which would be a great inducement to them to go on board. He thought, too, that there ought to be an efficient gunboat attached to each of these ships. He reminded the Committee that during the last war we had a capital corps of Sea Fencibles, who were a very formidable body on the coast. It was an extraordinary thing, that in this great naval country the Admiralty had never had a registry of every seafaring man. He recommended that such a registry should be kept, and that recourse should be had to the system of Sea Fencibles.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTregretted that the whole tenor of the discussion, instead of allaying the feverish agitation of the public mind should tend to excite it. Time we had to mature our preparations antecedent to the pressure of an emergency, and he trusted that the capacity of our resistance to an enemy might soon cease to be matter of debate: he had no fear that England would not be found ready in the event of an attempted invasion, although he did not think invasion at all probable. When they were told that by April 1860, they would have no less a number than sixty of the finest and largest screw line-of-battle ships, and already had thirty efficiently manned or in progress of being so, he asked hon. Members what cause was there for apprehension. With from 160,000 to 180,000 seamen and lads in the Mercantile Marine, it was clear they could send these sixty sail of the line to sea, in the course of two or three months, because there would be no employment for them in commerce, other than in confined extent; and they might rely upon it there was not one of the 160,000, who would not respond to the exigencies of the service in the event of war. If thirty sail

  1001
  of the line were efficiently manned it would be easy to man thirty more by putting one half new hands and one half trained hands in the ships, and there would then be a fleet equal to any emergency. He deprecated observations which led the country to believe that the service was sadly inefficient and could not be made efficient at a short notice. On board the Arethusa, in the late war of forty years since, which was called "the saucy Arethusa," they had a song, (it was composed by Dibdin) which said:—
  "They swear they'll invade us, these terrible foes, To frighten our children, our women, our beaux, But if e'er their flat bottoms in darkness get o'er, They Britons shall find to receive them on shore."
  The gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) had shown himself a most meritorious officer throughout his whole career, and the House was justified in listening to his observations with respect, but he thought that a feeling had of late animated the gallant Admiral which he could not comprehend. The gallant Admiral must know that they had most splendid ships, and that the navy of England would preserve the same eminence and glory which had in past times been won. He admitted that ships were useless unless manned by efficient officers, and it was therefore their primary duty to encourage the officers and deal honourably and fairly with the seamen, as the Manning Committee proposed, in increased advantages of many kinds. He wished to revert before he sat down to a statement made by the hon. Member for Lambeth respecting punishments in the service, as he should be sorry if that speech appeared in The Times to-morrow without an answer.
  THE CHAIRMANinterposed, and said the hon. and gallant Member was out of order.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he would take another opportunity.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: Good God, Sir! Does the gallant Admiral suppose that these 160,000 men are in the Thames, or at Bristol, or Liverpool? They are scattered all over the world.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: But you could get 50,000.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: If there were a certainty of invasion to-morrow could he get 20,000.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I would lay my life I could.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: The merchant service is not so well manned as is
  1002
  supposed. There are foreigners in it and men not fit for a man-of-war. Does the gallant Admiral mean to tell me that the moment a man is put on board a ship he would be fit to fight?
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Yes he would.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: I fought an action not long ago and half the crews were undisciplined men, and I saw that those men did not do their duty. I tell the gallant Admiral that if he wants men and sailors to fight and defend these ships they must be regularly disciplined and well-trained. All the gallantry and courage and determination to fight to their very stumps will not enable undisciplined men to meet disciplined men, any more than an undisciplined army can meet a disciplined army.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I do not want them all efficient; I calculate there would be 30,000 men versed in gunnery, and I should only want men to work the guns and use the ropes of the ship.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, it was presumed that one-third of the seamen in the merchant service were always in this country. In such a dreadful emergency as invasion there would be no difficulty whatever in finding sufficient men at a moment's notice to man the fleet. With regard to the Vote before the Committee, he wished the noble Lord would fix a day when the important question of manning the navy could be fully discussed.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he doubted that men would be found in an emergency so readily as was presumed by the hon. Member for Sunderland. In the Russian war seamen in the merchant service did not come forward in any numbers. From October, 1853, to December, 1854, only 153, and in the year 1855 only 258 men entered. He had been abused for speaking the truth, but he would maintain that there never was a British fleet sent to sea so infamously manned as the fleet he commanded in the Baltic. There were men in it who had never been aloft in their lives. He gave the word to anchor in a not very heavy gale of wind and the sails were not furled until four in the morning. If it had come on to blow they would not have been furled at all. He hoped the Admiralty, in case of another war, would not man the navy as they manned his fleet, with all the tinkers, tailors, butcher-boys, and cabmen they could pick up out of the streets of London. He was accused of alarming the country. He admitted that

  1003
  he wanted to alarm the country. Let the Admiralty give their Admirals men to command, and not men they were ashamed of.
  Vote agreed to; as were also—
  (3.) £41,358, Scientific Departments.
  (4.) £103,089, Naval Establishments at Home.
  (5.) £20,083, Naval Establishments Abroad.
  (6.) £1,077,782, Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others, Naval Establishments at Home.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he believed that the Committee on Dockyard Expenditure had completed their Report, in which, with one exception they had been unanimous. He wished to ask the noble Lord when that Report would be presented to the House, and what was the reason it had not been laid upon the table as soon as it had been made to the Admiralty. He believed it had been signed and sent in some time ago.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was as anxious to lay this Report upon the table as the hon. Member could be to see it. True it was the Report was given in, but it was not yet printed, or, to speak more accurately, it was not yet corrected. It was usual to give these Reports to the Members of the Committees in order that they might make the necessary corrections. This process was not yet completed, but when the Report was so corrected it would be brought to the Admiralty. His impression was that the Board of Admiralty would consider it fair to allow the heads of some of the principal departments who might be desirous to make some remarks upon the Report to do so. He believed that the Surveyor of the Navy and one or two other officers of departments wished to offer some observations on some of the details of that Report. The same thing was done on the report upon steam engines, when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) gave an opportunity to the heads of departments to add some observations to the Report. As soon as these reports were made the Report of the Dockyard Commission would be laid upon the table.
  MR. LINDSAYwas afraid it would be the object of certain parties to keep this Report back as long as possible, so that the House might not have it this Session. He trusted the noble Lord would see that there was no unnecessary delay in presenting the Report. It was very desirable the House should see it at once.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to have some explanation relative to the increase of £100,000 on this Vote over the Estimate of the late Government. He announced that the late Government determined to add from 1,300 to 1,400 shipwrights to the Royal dockyards, and they took a sufficient grant of money to employ them for six months—namely, until next October. That was done upon the recommendation of the Surveyor of the Navy, who thought in the month of May that if these additional hands were employed for six months all the paddlewheel frigates might be repaired, and the steam reserve might be brought into that state in which the vessels might be put into commission. In addition to these repairs he had hoped that by adding these 1,300 men to the dockyards they would be able to convert two more line-of-battle ships, making 17 line-of-battle ships, instead of the 15 he had promised. He trusted that in deciding to double the Vote for these men the Government had consulted the Surveyor of the Navy. He hoped, also, that the noble Lord had himself looked into the matter, and had satisfied himself that the public service required the additional outlay. It was well to be on the safe side, and if the matter were even doubtful he would not oppose the grant.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETthought there must have been a misunderstanding between the right hon. Baronet and the Surveyor of the Navy on this point. The explanation given by the Surveyor of the Navy—and he was sure he would not state what he did not believe—was, that when the right hon. Baronet proposed an increase in the dockyards, and in the beginning of May last asked him what number of men should be taken on in order to carry out certain works, he did not contemplate that these men would be discharged at the end of six months. There might have been a misunderstanding, but the Surveyor of the Navy stated that from the first moment the subject was mentioned to him he thought it was absolutely necessary that the men should be taken on until the end of the financial year. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would think that the Admiralty had looked narrowly into the matter before they proposed the Vote.
  MR. CORRYsaid, his recollection was that the Surveyor was asked what number of men would be necessary to complete certain works in six months, and his an-

  1005
  swer was given in reference to that question. He was glad, however, that these men were to be kept on, for he thought no exertions should be spared to place the navy in a state of efficiency. There was, however, considerable difficulty in procuring the necessary timber, and he regretted that this want of timber imposed a limit to the efforts which could be made in the yards. At the commencement of the year there were 70,000 loads in store; while the quantity which it was estimated would be used was 60,000, instead of 35,000 loads in the previous year. After drawing upon every market in the world, all the supply they could look for was 53,000 loads; so that the shipwrights whom the late Admiralty proposed to enter for the year would have used 7,000 more loads of timber than could be obtained for the supply of the dockyards. He wished to know how this difficulty was to be met?
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, this was a very serious question. Having had something to do with the supply of timber for Indian railways, he knew there was very great difficulty in obtaining timber for any purpose where scantling was required; and he would recommend that some of the unemployed artificers in the navy should be sent to the different ports on the African and Australian coasts, where vast and unexplored forests existed, for the purpose of procuring a supply. Every year the quantity of suitable timber was becoming less and less, and the subject was one which the Admiralty would do well to grapple with at once.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that although with all the predilections of an old soldier, he looked upon the navy as the natural defence of this country, and was willing to contribute what was necessary towards rendering it equal, not to the navy of one Power alone, but of all other Powers combined. He thought, however, that the results ought to be commensurate with the means employed—that was, to the money voted by the House—but when he looked at the enormous sums of money expended in our dockyards this did not seem to be the case. Since 1835 the Estimates had increased 200 per cent, having risen from £4,200,000 to £12,600,000 in the present year, and it might therefore be supposed that since that time we had three times the number of ships and of men. Nothing of the sort. Last year in the dockyards 10,850 workmen were employed, and among them 4,000 shipwrights. The noble Lord
  1006
  had stated that 1,000 shipwrights could build eight ships of 1,000 tons per annum; and according to this calculation, therefore, thirty-two such ships should have been built; whereas only 19,159 tons of shipping had really been built, the cost of which he calculated to be £50 9s. per ton, supposing all the men to be employed on new work. Allowing, however, that three-fourths of the men had been employed in repairs, the vessels turned out would still have cost £12 7s. 3d. per ton. Now, the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) had pointed out that ships built in private yards cost only £2 10 s. or £2 15 s. per ton, and if such magnificent vessels as those of Mr. Green, who had a navy of his own, could be constructed at this rate, there must surely be something lamentably wrong in our dockyard expenditure. The noble Lord thought we should next year produce 46,284 tons of shipping, but even that amount of tonnage, according to the increased Estimates, would cost £33 a ton, or, with only one fourth of the hands in the yards employed on building, about £8 5s. per ton—an expenditure infinitely greater than that incurred in the most extravagant private yards. Under these circumstances, he could not but congratulate the country upon the thorough reform in our dockyards which had been promised by the noble Lord. With regard to gunboats, he would ask the noble Lord whether his attention had been called to a letter written by Mr. Laird, of Liverpool, who suggested that there were in the Mersey many steamboats adapted to carry a heavy gun, and that by a small annual allowance and an arrangement with the owners these boats might be made available for gunboats. This seemed a valuable suggestion, and the same rule would apply to all the large rivers in the kingdom, so that means of defence could thus be afforded without the enormous outlay which would otherwise be necessary. He would suggest also that in each dockyard there should be a scientific head to direct operations. No doubt the master shipwright was a man of practical experience and good sense, but what was wanted was a man of sound mathematical know* ledge, acquainted with the dynamics of shipbuilding, and grievous errors, opposed to acknowledged principles, might thus be avoided.
  In reply to Mr. WILLIAMS,
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the dockyard battalions had been abolished by the Government which succeeded the first

  1007
  Administration of Lord De by, and, in his opinion, very properly, inasmuch as the full services of the men were required as shipwrights.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEcalled the attention of the Secretary of the Admiralty to the case of the seamen riggers, who, he said, had very hazardous and important duties to perform, while the wages of each were not more than 19 s. &d. per week. That amount of remuneration he regarded as inadequate, especially when compared with that which other naval artificers received, and he therefore trusted the Government would take the expediency of increasing the pay of those men into their consideration.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTconcurred in the testimony given by the hon. Member for Portsmouth in behalf of the Seamen Riggers and pronounced them to he a most valuable and meritorious class of men, and he ventured the recommendation to the Secretary of the Admiralty that the Board would take their Memorial into consideration.
  After a few words from Mr. W. MARTIN,
  Vote agreed to; also,
  (7.) £39,330, Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others, Naval Establishments Abroad.
  (8.) £2,117,130, Naval Stores.
  MR. LINDSAYtook occasion to quote from a published paper facts to the effect that the Admiralty anchors had been manufactured by the same firm since 1841; that the price paid by them for those which weighed fifteen tons was at the rate of £44 10 s. per ton, and for those which weighed five tons at the rate of £73 per ton, while the market price of anchors manufactured by the most eminent firms was £20 10 s. per ton for anchors of twenty tons, and £30 per ton for anchors of five tons weight. Now he should like to learn from his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty whether those statements were correct, and if so, why such a state of things was permitted to exist? Why should £73 be paid for what could be obtained for £30 from most eminent makers? He also wanted to know why no notice had been taken of the report of the Commission appointed seven years ago to inquire into the best description of anchor. They reported that of all the anchors submitted to them the Admiralty anchor was the worst. Mr. Trotman offered to submit his anchors, weighing 50 cwt., costing £90, to be tested against anchors of five tons, the contract value of which was £365. Then,
  1008
  again, in the Supplementary Vote there was an estimate for steam engines, the charge for which was increasing and therefore an important item. Up to a recent period the manufacture of Government engines had been confined to one or two firms, while there were other firms equally eminent willing to make them. He did not advocate an indiscriminate acceptance of terms; but there were great establishments whose offers ought to be entertained. He wished to know whether the door had been opened at all, so as to permit other firms to tender, and, if so, to what extent?
  MR. RIDLEYdrew attention to the Report of a Committee appointed to investigate the subject of steam coals for the Royal navy. Last year, according to instructions issued by the Admiralty, investigations were made as to Welsh and north country coals. The results were various, and Mr. Taplin, of Woolwich, was requested to draw up a new report on the subject. He reported, recommending the Government to undertake further experiments independent of all private parties; and he (Mr. Ridley) asked whether the Board of Admiralty had acted on the recommendation. The French Government had lately been buying coals largely in this country. He understood that they purchased any coals on the Admiralty list; and it was neccessary that that Hat should be drawn up with the greatest possible accuracy. Another important subject of investigation was the consumption of smoke, which many experiments had shown to be possible, and which had a great bearing upon the relative value of different coals.
  LORD LOVAINEremarked that the consumption of smoke could be carried out so as to effect a considerable saving in the quantity of coals, and consequently in the expense. Attention, then, ought to be paid to the subject. Another matter to which he wished to draw the attention of the Admiralty was the system-of superheating steam, which promised enormous saving. Attention was also required as to the best means of coaling vessels in the navy. And on this and other analogous points it would be well for the present to follow the example of the late Board of Admiralty in entrusting the examination of different points of doubt to a scientific Board.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the question raised with regard to anchors was one of great importance. It was not a question of one person's anchor over another's; but

  1009
  as regarded the best description being obtained for the navy. A Committee had reported in 1852 in favour of six different kinds of anchors, all superior to those used by the Admiralty—why had no notice been taken of the report of that Committee? why had it not been acted on? They were now told of a person who offered to produce anchors as efficient as the Admiralty anchors at one-third the cost, and weighing half the weight; why had he not been allowed a trial, in order to prove whether his assertions were correct or not? Still he thought it was not right to press the noble Lord on a point which concerned all the Boards of Admiralty for the last seven years. He would invite the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Droitwich, Carlisle, Halifax, and Portsmouth, who had held office in that time, to give a distinct answer to the question why the Report of the Committee had been disregarded, and why Mr. Trotman's anchors had not been at least tried in the navy.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, there were perfect forests of anchors lying in all the dockyards, and the amount of capital wasted in them was perfectly incredible. It would be well to know by whose orders these anchors were constantly accumulating in every port. He also directed attention to the boats lying in Portsmouth dockyard, which in some tides were wet and in others dry. Why were these boats left to rot? He hoped that some steps would be adopted to take these boats a little higher up out of the water. There was an item for building gunboats by contract. He believed there was a great mistake in all the gunboats built. It was not chiefly gunboats that were wanted for service in the Baltic, but mortar vessels which would throw shells. The only use of gunboats was to protect the mortar vessels. Whether Armstrong's guns were superior to mortars he could not tell; but he had had experience of mortars at the siege of Martinique. Mortars were collected from every island in the West Indies, and the tremendous fort there was captured by mortars and mortars alone. Had there been mortars in the Baltic during the late war, not only Sweaborg but Cronstadt would have been annihilated. If there was war with France it would be with mortars, not with gunboats, that they would attack Cherbourg. Before the report of these Estimates passed he would insist on being told the history of these anchors; also on receiving an account
  1010
  of the condition of our gunboats, and how many of them could be launched at the present moment.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONcould only answer for himself as to what had occurred regarding Trotman's anchors when he was at the Admiralty. He, of course, knew nothing of the quality of these anchors from his own personal knowledge, but on consulting practical naval officers the reply he received was that they did not in their experience find them to answer. He was told that Trotman's anchor, when once it could be got to hold, was a good one, but that officers could not rely on its taking hold. Now, of course, if it did not hold, the most valuable quality of an anchor was wanting. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) asked why they had not given Trotman's anchor a fair trial. In reply, he might state that one of his last acts before leaving the Board of Admiralty was to issue directions for giving the anchor a further trial. With regard to the hon. and gallant Admiral's question about the gunboats which they proposed to build, he had to state that it was proposed to build eighteen, which would be of a much larger size than the ordinary gunboats, that the latter could only carry their guns along the coast, whereas these new boats would be able to carry their guns all over the world.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEcontended that the system adopted by the Admiralty for procuring coal led to their receiving not the best, but a very inferior description of coal. The mode was this,—there was a list of a great many different kinds of coal made out, those varying in price to the extent of 25 per cent. The Admiralty issued an offer to receive tenders for a supply of coal, and the persons who made the tender were free to supply the Admiralty with any of these kinds of coal. The tender was made, and the Admiralty almost invariably got the worst of the coal. He spoke from his own knowledge when he said that the owners of the best coal never thought of tendering to the Admiralty. The large steamboat companies obtained the best article, and the owners who supplied them with coal never supplied the Admiralty. He would suggest that the Admiralty should either reduce the list and strike off the inferior quality of coal, or that they should send agents to the coal districts to inquire into the nature of the coal, with the view of getting the very best article,

  1011
  as the Peninsular and Oriental and c other large companies did.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had on a former occasion asked the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) why the Report of the Committee of 1852 had not been adopted, and the answer was that the report of a body of naval officers was at variance with the Report of the Committee, and was unfavourable to Trot-man's anchors. Now, great injustice would be done to Mr. Trotman if such a statement remained uncorrected, and he therefore felt it right to say that there had been no report unfavourable to Trotman's anchors from any officer in Her Majesty's service. His noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Clarence Paget) shook his head, but the Report applied to Porter's, and not to Trotman's anchors. He had perused all the reports which had been presented to the Admiralty up to this time last year, and he could state that none of them were unfavourable to Mr. Trotman. He still wished that some better information were afforded to the House as to why the Report of 1852 had not been acted upon, and why Mr. Trotman was refused the trial for which he asked. With regard to the new gunboats, he hoped they would be perfectly efficient craft, and that they would not come within the grasp of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood), whose mode of dealing with vessels of that class did not seem, from the discussions which took place last year, to have been attended with very fortunate results.
  MR. CLAYwas glad that the Admiralty were disposed to give Trotman's anchors a further trial, but this was a question between the Admiralty anchor and the six other descriptions of anchors, and he thought the House ought to know whether the same defect which was attributed to Trotman's anchor was attributed to all the others.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTThoped the attention of the Government would be directed to the number of vessels of war in ordinary at Hamoaze, in the Medway, and at Portsmouth, which were decreasing in value day by day, and which it would require great expenditure to render serviceable.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETfeared that he could not give a very satisfactory answer to some of the questions which had been put to him. The subject of anchors was one with which the Admiralty had
  1012
  great difficulty in dealing. He professed to be a naval reformer, and he was for reform in every case in which it was consistent with efficiency; but wherever the best anchor could be obtained he would never be disposed to object to its cost if it were really serviceable. There was, however, the greatest difference of opinion among naval men with respect to anchors, and if they saw fifteen or sixteen ships of war in a line the probability was that as many different descriptions of anchors would be used. Captains of ships of war were allowed great latitude in the choice of anchors, and there were various and very opposite opinions with regard to the merits of Trotman's anchors. He could not say that he approved them himself, but he was ready to promise that Mr. Trotman, as well as other inventors, should have fair play. He had been asked whether there was to be any alteration in the navy contracts for coals used for steam engines ashore or afloat. At the present moment the subject was undergoing a thorough investigation at Woolwich. If the question were merely whether, as a matter of simple economy, north country coal or Welsh coal should be used, it would admit of easy adjustment; but a great number of collateral questions were involved. Experiments were in progress with regard to the super-heating of steam and the consumption of smoke, but it was of course desirable that these objects should be accomplished with the utmost possible economy. One third of the supply of coal for the navy, which was chiefly consumed at Sheerness and Woolwich, was obtained from the north, while the remaining two-thirds were obtained from Wales, and were used principally at Devonport and on the southern const; but if it should be found that north country coal was equally serviceable it would, no doubt, be used in a much larger proportion. The hon. Gentleman took an extreme view of the cost of navy engines over those used by private firms. It was true that the engines for men-of-war cost more than those for merchant ships, but there were a variety of reasons for this with which he need not trouble the Committee, and a Select Committee which sat upon this subject reported that there was no reason for supposing that the Government had paid a higher price for engines and boilers than private individuals.
  MR. CORRYsaid, that Trotman's and

  1013
  Porter's anchors were identical in principle; and as a proof of the efficacy of the Admiralty anchor, reminded the Committee of what occurred at Balaklava, where, when the Prince went down and twenty-two merchant vessels were lost, not one of the vessels of war went ashore,
  MR. BENTINCKregretted that the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, had fallen into the mistake of confounding Trotman's with Porter's anchor as being the same in principle. Mr. Trotman himself protested against it as an injustice, for it was not the same in principle, and it was admitted by the Admiralty to be 35 per cent better in the efficacy of its hold.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEexpressed his approval of the gunboats which had been built by contract. Some time ago he visited Haslar, where he found the greater part of the old gunboats under repair, and he exhibited some fragments from their bottoms, which showed the injury they had sustained from being alternately wet and dry. Their launching depended upon the longest and finest screw of the sort which had ever been constructed, and if anything happened to it they could not be got to sea. He had been of the same opinion as the hon. Member for Sunderland with regard to the cost of machinery for the navy, until he read the Report of the Committee on marine engines and boilers. The hon. Gentleman read a copious extract from the Report of the Committee, showing that the mistakes which had in former times been committed with respect to naval machinery had been discovered and remedied.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £467,411, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs, in the Naval Establishments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1860."
  MR. KINNAIRDcalled attention to an item of £50,000 for the purchase of a site for coal stores at the head of the great harbour at Malta. In 1858 a sum of £23,000 was proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) for the purchase of this very property, having fifteen or sixteen tenements upon it, and that amount was then regarded as a very liberal estimate of its value. The exorbitant feature was certain
  1014
  stores erected by a person named Casolani, Bishop of Mauricastro, and son of the late collector of land revenue. These were estimated at £15,000. The last valuer, who was official, estimated them at £25,841, adding £5,168 for jus luendi. Casolani came to England on the business, and made a very modest demand of £123,000, which the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) afterwards cut down to £50,000. Mr. Victor Houlton being called in to fix a price, instead of the naval authorities, named £60,000 for Casolani. If a Committee of Inquiry into this matter were granted, it would be proved that this was one of the most monstrous extortions ever practised upon a credulous Government. The charge in the present Estimate was double the amount fixed upon in 1858. Correspondence that he (Mr. Kinnaird) had had on the subject with persons resident at Malta, convinced him that the country had been imposed upon in this business to the extent of £25,000. He would ask, was there not, among the archives of the Admiralty, a protest against these exactions on the part of the naval authorities of the island? and he would appeal to the noble Lord, as a naval reformer, whether the interests of this country had been sufficiently watched when so monstrous a price had been given for this property. It was by transactions of this kind that the Estimates were inordinately swelled. He wished also to ask, whether there was not some talk of an expenditure of £200,000 for enlarging the port of Valetta, to meet the wants of the Royal Navy, and at the same time to enlarge the commercial port: but in which it is to be feared an inordinate demand will be made on the Imperial exchequer, unless the expenditure is fixed and limited in the same manner as the island proportion has been fixed by the Council of Government of Malta. This was a point of great importance: or the consequence would be that instead of £100,000 the Government would find themselves committed to meet an expenditure of three to four hundred thousand pounds. He must caution the noble Lord against sanctioning any such charge upon the Imperial resources. Objecting so strongly as he did to the item to which he had referred, he had no alternative but now to move the omission from the Vote of the sum of £50,000 for the purchase of this property at Malta. The House should distinctly understand that the original vote taken by Sir Charles Wood was

  1015
  for this property inclusive, with some fifteen or sixteen tenements attached to it. Now £50,000 was about to be paid for one of these tenements only, whose real ascertained cost was £15,000 only.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That the item of £50,000 for the purchase of property on the Great Harbour at Malta be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished, as far as he was concerned, to deal with this question with perfect frankness. He could now only repeat what he told the House in the month of March, when he had to move a Supplementary Estimate, that it was quite an accidental circumstance that this item came before Parliament in the Estimates for the present year. The House ought to understand, especially after the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend, that this was only a re-vote. He had never been at Malta, and therefore was not acquainted with the land in question; but the decided opinion of all the naval officers with whom he had communication, including Sir Richard Dundas, now the senior Lord of the Admiralty, was, that it was absolutely necessary for the public service that it should he in the hands of the Government. The House could not make a greater mistake than to repudiate the bargain. In the Estimates of 1858, framed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), there was a Vote of £23,000 for the purchase of the land; but that was a purely conjectural Estimate, for the Government valuator at Malta valued the property at £31,000, while the owner thought it was worth £120,000. Subsequently, however, he agreed to split the difference, and take £76,000 for the laud, which the Colonial Secretary at Malta valued at £60,000. Under these circumstances the late Government offered £50,000, and as the proprietor was willing to accept that sum, the Admiralty should be authorized to complete the bargain at once.
  MR. WHITBREAD MR. WHITBREAD, seeing that the land was necessary for public purposes, and that the good faith of the House was pledged to some extent, hoped the Vote would be agreed to.
  MR. KINNAIRDcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on so quickly assuming the Government tone in defending a job. The fact was Signor Casolani paid only £15,000 for this land, for which £50,000 had been offered by the Government. This remind-
  1016
  ed him of the English chapel in Paris, which Lord Cowley agreed to buy, but the House of Commons repudiated the bargain, and the country was thereby rid of a burden. Was it not the fact that the Admiralty authorities at Malta had protested against this purchase?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not tell all the original details of this affair. He himself knew Malta well; he could say this land would be very useful, but he did also think that they were to pay a great deal too much for it. He was afraid, however, that if Government did not buy it, there would be no subscription to buy it, as in the case of the chapel alluded to. Moreover, the good faith of the country was pledged to the purchase.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it was exceedingly desirable that the land should he purchased. It was very important to have the harbour of Malta placed in the best possible military state.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that Parliament had assented to the purchase of land at Malta at a price of £50,000, and to repudiate the Vote now would be to present the sight of one Parliament undoing the act of another.
  MR. MAGUIREcomplained, that of £11,000,000 voted for the Navy Estimates a trifle only was spent in Ireland, in violation of repeated pledges from various Governments that Ireland should have a fair share in the public expenditure. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to call the attention of the Government to the capabilities of Cork Harbour.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress," (Mr. Had-field) put and negatived.
  (10.) £45,000, Medicines, and Medical Stores.
  (11.) 52,221, Naval Miscellaneous Services.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," (Mr. Lindsay) put, and negatived.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £368,311, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Half-pay and Retirement to Officers of the Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1860."
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERcomplained of a plan, which he said had been drawn up by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, but without the approval of the other Lords, for disposing of old naval officers.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the question alluded to by the hon. and gallant Admiral was one of the most difficult questions connected with the whole interests of the naval service, and he suggested that that was not an hour (twenty minutes past twelve) at which the Committee should enter upon its discussion. He entirely protested against the plan alluded to being discussed in the House of Commons. It was perfectly true that he did prepare a plan which, if he had remained in office, he should certainly have endeavoured to carry into effect. But that plan was not shown to any one except in confidence, and it was never finally adopted or promulgated. He therefore must protest against the right of the gallant Admiral to come down to the House of Commons and pretend to give a description of what he had no right to know anything.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: The plan was not communicated to me in confidence. It was mentioned to several officers by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who gave the plan to them, and I think that as it was shown to me, and my opinion was asked upon it, and my name signed to a petition to the Queen against its adoption, I was at perfect liberty to mention it in this House. I tell the right hon. Baronet that I do not believe he could have put that plan in force. It was entirely objected to by his own Board.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. and gallant Admiral has taken a most irregular and disorderly course. His last statement is not correct. The whole of the Board of Admiralty were not opposed to that plan; but I deny the right of the hon. and gallant Admiral to bring on a discussion in this House of a paper that was never finally adopted. I never did show that plan to any one except in confidence. I do not deny that some one may have given him a copy of it; but I tell him, that inasmuch as it bore the word "confidential" at the head of it, he had no right to make a public use of it. I could give no better proof of the unfairness, injustice, and impropriety of his making a public use of it than by telling him that one of the last things I did before leaving the Admiralty was to draw up a modification of that paper.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: I beg to deny that it was a confidential paper. It was no such thing. It was shown to the whole of the Admirals resident in London, who signed a petition to Her Majesty against it. Now, if that can be called a confidential paper I do not know what confidential papers are. The civil Lord of the Admiralty, I believe, said very little about the plan. I believe the Dovor Lord did not make any great objection to it; but all the old sailors who were on the Board did object to it.
  MR. LINDSAY: I was one of the number that received this document. It was printed, and had not been revised. It was marked in the corner of it "Confidential." Seeing it thus marked I certainly would never think of naming its contents out of this House, much less in this House. It was with the view of that plan being fully discussed on a future evening, at a more suitable hour, that I moved that the Chairman should report progress.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: My hon. Friend may have supposed that this was a confidential paper, but I put it to the House whether a paper that has been shown to all the old Admirals residing in London, and with respect to which a petition to the Queen has been signed, can be called a confidential paper or not.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Resolution to be reported this day (Tuesday): Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

POOR LAW BOARD (PAYMENT OF DEBTS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. GILPIN, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said the Bill had been introduced to correct a difficulty which had been introduced to correct a difficulty which had arisen in consequence of a decision by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and to enable the Board of Guardians of the City of London Union to clear themselves from debts which they had properly and rightfully incurred.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that although that portion of the Bill which required the settlement of debts by Boards of Guardians within twelve months might be unobjectionable, the second clause was of a differ-

  1019
  ent character, as it had a purely retrospective action and enabled the guardians to pay any debts incurred within six years previously. The House would recollect that in the month of March a similar Bill was introduced in order to enable the Board of Guardians of the City of London Union to collect rates for the payment of accumulated arrears of six years throughout that union. The House came to a right conclusion, and rejected the Bill by a considerable majority. He considered this was an attempt to smuggle through the House the very objectionable project which was defeated upon that occasion. It was almost too late an hour to enter into a discussion, but unless the Government were prepared to withdraw the second clause he should be obliged to move the rejection of the Bill and take a division upon it. The House would recollect that about two years ago two persons, one the clerk to the Board of Guardians of the City of London Union, and the other the collector of nine parishes in that union, disappeared with very large sums of which they had defrauded the union. Those persons had held their respective offices for a long period of years, and during that time, owing to the neglect in a great measure of the Board, and of the Poor Law Auditors, had contrived to swindle the parishes of sums amounting to £23,000. Among the creditors, the bankers, Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co., figured, he believed, to the extent of £4,000. Large sums were also owing to butchers, bakers, and others who had contracted to supply the union, and who were left unpaid for the goods they had supplied. The question for the House to consider was whether the ratepayers having been legally assessed prospectively, according to the spirit of the law, having paid their rates, and having obtained regular receipts, could be called upon again to make good what these swindlers had obtained, by an ex post facto law. He believed such a thing was unprecedented. There had been a Motion before the Court of Queen's Bench to compel payment, and the decision of that Court, which was in favour of the Board, was appealed from to the Exchequer Chamber. The Exchequer Chamber reversed the decision of the Queen's Bench, and this Bill was brought in to upset the decision of the Exchequer Chamber, and to do by enactment what the Court had refused as contrary to the existing law. The first clause, which was to prevent similar scan-
  1020
  dal in future, provided that all debts should in future be paid in twelve months, with power to the Poor Law Board to further extend the period six months. But the second clause provided for the retrospective payment of all debts which might have been incurred by Boards of Guardians within six years, being a clause to set aside the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, and to reverse the policy of the law which required the collection of poor-rates to be prospective and not retrospective. He would not trouble the House by going into a discussion, but he believed the 3econd clause so improper that he should vote against it. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day 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."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he assumed to himself whatever faults there were in the Bill, as he believed it was identical with one which he introduced when President of the Poor Law Board. Notwithstanding the hard words of the hon. Gentleman, he believed he should be able to show that the Bill was founded on equity. The ordinary understanding with regard to Boards of Guardians had always been that current expenses should be met by current rates. Boards of Guardians were trusted by their tradesmen like private gentlemen. There had never been a question until two years ago but that expenses fairly incurred by Boards of Guardians might be met by their raising rates for the purpose. About a year and a half ago the question was first raised, and the Court of Queen's Bench were of opinion that the law would permit Boards of Guardians to pay retrospective accounts. Appeal was made to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and the Exchequer Chamber reversed the decisions of the Queen's Bench, and determined that it was not competent for Boards of Guardians to pay any expenses by means of rates which were levied after the debts had been incurred. They laid it down so strictly, he believed, that if a debt were incurred on Christmas Day it was not competent for the Board of Guardians to pay it by means of a rate made on the 4th of January. It was therefore illegal for them to pay by any other mode than ready money, and he believed the

  1021
  whole of the Boards of Guardians in the kingdom had been acting at variance with that decision. That being the state of the case, it was proposed to fix a reasonable limit; and by the first clause, to which he understood the hon. Member for Berkshire did not object, twelve months was fixed as such reasonable time; with the addition of six months to be allowed by the Poor Law Board in such exceptional cases, as the death of the tradesman or creditor and the inability of his representatives sooner to send in the account. An hon. Friend of his would propose to reduce the ordinary term to six months, and if the power of the Poor Law Board were extended so as to allow twelve months in addition, he saw no objection to that alteration. The second clause was that to which the hon. Member took objection. The Court of Exchequer Chamber refused to allow Boards of Gardians the power of paying retrospectively, and, of course, therefore refused to the City of London Board power to pay debts incurred under the circumstances to which the hon. Member had referred. The guardians came to him and said, "We are unanimously of opinion that our just debts ought to be paid; but it is contended that those parishes only ought to be mulcted in whose behalf the particular collector had been employed." He found, however, that no such distinction could be drawn, for, though the collector had been appointed by a few, he had been accepted by the whole body of parishes; but he told the guardians that they must carry the case to the House of Lords. They refused, however, in consequence of the expense, and brought in a private Bill, which was rejected by the House of Commons. In his opinion, it was fair and just that the constituents of the Board of Guardians should be called upon now by means of a rate collected through the whole of the parishes to repay the sum which was justly due from the Board. It might be said that the second clause proposed to accomplish by a public Bill that which the House had refused to do by a private Bill. There was really, however, a considerable distinction between the two cases; for the private Bill introduced a particular mode of raising this money, which was not to be levied from all the parishes equally, but by a special local arrangement.
  MR. HENLEY MR. HENLEY moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it would be necessary for the Poor Law Board to consider the manner in which this Bill was drawn.
  1022
  The measure must be entirely remodelled if it was to receive the assent of the House.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that considering the advanced period of the Session, he should have thought it more convenient to accede to the second reading now, and then to discuss the clauses in Committee. The Bill consisted of two parts, which had grown out of one decision. Various frauds were committed in the City of London Union, the effect of which was that the creditors of that and other unions were defrauded of their just debts, In consequence of that defalcation, orders were made by the Board of Guardians for the payment of rates to supply the deficiency. The legality of these orders was contested, but the Queen's Bench decided in their favour. The matter was then brought before the Exchequer Chamber, where a decision was given virtually establishing the principle that Boards of Guardians could not take a single day's credit. This was a principle which had never hitherto been acted upon by the Poor Law authorities of this country, either before or since the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act. Tradesmen who had dealt with these Boards had always given credit. The main object of the Bill, therefore, was to legalize what had always been the practice in such cases. He did not wish now to discuss whether a year was too long or too short a period, but he could not help thinking that the first clause of the Bill conferred upon Boards of Guardians not only a reasonable but a necessary power, or otherwise a principle would be established in their case which existed with respect to no other municipal body. For the reasons which he had stated, he thought there could be no doubt that it was necessary the first clause of the Bill should, in substance, be passed into a law. The second clause related mainly to the City of London, in whose case it was evident loss must be incurred by some one; and, as it was mainly through the neglect of the guardians that the frauds in question had been committed, it was, he thought, but fair to ask by whom those guardians had been elected. There was no doubt that they were elected by the ratepayers; and it therefore seemed to him that the loss which had been occasioned would fall more equitably on those ratepayers than on the tradesmen, who trusted the guardians in accordance with a practice which was at the time when the credit was given almost univer-

  1023
  sal. It might be, he admitted, a hardship to make the operation of the clause extend back over a period of six years, but then he did not mean to contend that it was not in that respect susceptible of amendment. Paying regard to the principle of the Bill, however, he thought the House ought at once to assent to its being read a second time.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEwould support the Motion for the Adjournment. He thought the arguments of the Home Secretary were the most extraordinary he had ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman advocated the Bill for the purpose of upsetting the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, although that decision only recognized what had been the universal practice and settled law. All Boards of Guardians were bound at the beginning of each year to make a rate to meet all their probable expenses, and had no right to take credit. The hardship on the tradesmen in this case was not so great, as they must have known the risk which they incurred when they intrusted the Board of Guardians beyond their term of office. They had not, besides, sent in their bills in proper time, and therefore they had not been subjected to that hardship which might at the first blush appear to have been the case. He, therefore, saw no reason why an alteration in the law should be introduced, or why a decision which had been come to by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, after due deliberation, should be upset.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 64: Majority 20.
  MR. HENLEYwould not again move the Adjournment if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring on the discussion on going into Committee at a reasonable hour.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISwould do his best, but he must remind the House that as every Government night would be devoted to Supply, he would have some difficulty unless a morning sitting were appointed.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 43: Majority 17.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2° and committed for Thursday.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.