Commons Sitting of 29 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Game Certificates, &c.; Dominica Hurricane Loan; Postage (Army and Navy); Medical Act (1858) Amendment; Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment.
2° Local Government Act Amendment.
3° Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read:
  House in Committee, Clauses 27 to 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Landlord
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hennessy), he wished to propose an Amendment. The Bill in its present form applied only to tenants from year to year. That, he thought, was limiting too much the scope of the Bill, and narrowing its beneficial character. Everything was to be done by agreement, and it was desirable to promote such arrangements between landlord and tenant, as tending to a good understanding between them. It was desirable to enable landlords and tenants to carry out improvements in regard to land not

  1191
  included originally in a lease. Cases would arise from time to time in which a tenant might wish to drain and otherwise improve a portion of land not included in his lease, and a slight change in the wording of the clause would enable him to do so. If such a power were given, the industry and wealth of the country would be greatly promoted. He, therefore, proposed that in part 3, the word "tenant" should mean all occupying tenants, holding from year to year, or under written leases or agreements (not containing stipulations as to the execution of any improvements) for a less term than three lives, or for thirty-one years.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he did not see any objection to the clause, since nothing was to be done without agreement. He would propose, however, that the Amendment be not introduced at present; but if he found that there was no objection to it on the part of the Committee, he should be willing to insert the Amendment on bringing up the Report.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment for the present.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 33.
  Clause 34 (Definition of "Improvements").
  MR. MONSELLproposed, that the tenant should be entitled to receive a lump sum, instead of an annuity, from the landlord.
  MR. CARDWELLopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
  Clause 35 was also agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Consent of Landlord).
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he thought that the tenant should have power to make improvements in spite of the landlord, in case the latter should refuse to give his consent, and that he should receive compensation for those improvements in the same manner as if they had been effected by previous agreement. He, therefore, proposed to add at the end of the clause words which would secure the tenant from eviction after commencing improvements except for nonpayment of rent (unless the Chairman considered there was unnecessary delay in the completion of the improvements), until the expiration of the longest period named for such improvements and building leases.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member was perfectly foreign to the object of the Bill, which
  1192
  was to secure certainty of compensation by way of annuity. The Amendment, indeed, would be fatal to the working of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GEORGEproposed the insertion of words giving power to the landlord when works of improvement were proposed by the tenant to execute them, and to charge the tenant with interest at 5 per cent on the outlay, to be recoverable in the same manner and along with the rent, or to agree with the tenant.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he did not object to the principle of the Amendment, but he would suggest that it should be carried out in a somewhat different manner, and observed that he would prepare a clause on the subject, which he hoped would meet the approval of the Committee.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he would not press his proposition on the understanding that the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring it up embodied in a new clause.
  LORD NAASsaid, with regard to the suggestion for securing the tenant from eviction while carrying on an improvement, he thought that the tenant should be required to say beforehand within what time the improvement should be completed, and that during the interval he should be secured from eviction.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he approved of giving the tenant such a security, but he thought it would be better to do so by a separate clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Statement of Expenditure to be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace),
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, the clause as it stood at present was to the effect that the owner might, within three months after the service of a notice to improve from the tenant, serve the tenant with a notice in writing, stating that he disapproved of the proposed improvement, or of any part thereof; and the tenant who had received such notice should not be entitled to commence any improvement from which the owner had so dissented. That clause, even in its present form, was an improvement upon the original proposal of the Bill; but he feared that even as the clause now stood, it would give a sanction to a denial of all improvements on the part of a very large section of the Irish landlords. There was a certain class in Ireland who had the absurd apprehension that the tenant would be likely to improve them out of their property; there were many landlords in Ire-

  1193
  land who would deny that the land wanted improvement—who could not be brought to see why the tenant should need a comfortable house instead of a cabin—who would not admit that the soil required thorough draining, and would perceive no necessity for the making of a road; the fear of the expense would deter landlords sometimes from allowing the tenant to improve, and would urge them to act upon the very letter of the clause; there were landlords in Ireland, and not an inconsiderable number, who refused to grant leases because they wanted to have their tenants in their own power for political purposes; there were landlords who were actually envious of their tenants, and did not desire to see them prosper. That might seem to many a strange assertion, but he had known cases which rendered it incontrovertible—cases which he could bring before the notice of the House, and which had been substantiated upon oath in courts of justice. Thank God, such cases were not the majority. But, although the intention of the present Bill was to induce every man who had a desire, the hands and the means to work, to put forth all his energies for the improvement of the country, it must be remembered that in its present form it was a purely permissive Bill, and only a certain number of persons might adopt it. Believing then that there were landlords who would not avail themselves of the Bill, and who ought to avail of it, he begged leave to propose an Amendment which would make it, to a certain degree, compulsory upon them to do so. If the tenant were really anxious and able to improve the land, to build a better house, to erect out-offices, why should the landlord receive a legislative sanction in refusing to allow him to do so? Such a power conferred upon the landlord would be a terrible barrier to improvement, which never ought to have the sanction of the House. Was the tenant to be allowed to make improvements which would be unsuitable to the farm, and to compel his landlord to pay for them, in case of eviction? By no means—the improvements must be shown to be suitable, beneficial and necessary to the agricultural operations of the farm. If, in such a case, the landlord were still so foolish as to resist the improvements, let him be dealt with as if he were an idiot or a lunatic. Let the Legislature step in between him and his own folly, and tell him that he should not prevent the tenant from performing
  1194
  that improvement, which would result in the benefit of the landlord's own property. He appealed to the House on behalf of the general interests of Ireland, because he knew that there was a deadly stream of emigration increasing every day, and which without exaggeration, was taking away the bone and sinew of the country. He wanted to give those who remained at home a stake in the country—something to defend, something to attach them to the institutions of the land. If the House refused to give that security they would but perpetuate a spirit of discontent, and, as a man anxious to preserve peace in the country, he warned them that they would not be legislating in a wise spirit. It had been sometimes urged upon him by friends that the effect of the Amendment he proposed, would be, that the landlord would, where any difference arose, proceed at once to evict the tenant. But there could be only very few men who would thus dare to outrage public opinion by punishing a man simply for his desire to improve the land. Even admitting that there were found a dozen or twenty such cases in Ireland, yet hundreds of thousands would on the other hand be benefited. They were on the horns of a dilemma, but while one horn was very small, the other horn was very great. One would at worst but gore the individual, while the other would gore the nation. He asked nothing against the rights of the landlord, or the rights of property. The landlord's rights must be co-existent with the improvement of the property, and the increase of the productive powers of the land. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 10, line 41, to leave out from the word 'thereof' to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words 'if, upon the hearing of the case before the Chairman, it shall be proved that the proposed improvements are not necessary, or that they would be prejudicial to the estate, the tenant shall not be entitled to commence such improvements; but in case the Chairman shall decide that the proposed improvements are necessary, useful, and beneficial to the estate, the tenant shall be enabled to proceed with the improvements in the same way as if he had received the assent of the owner."
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTentreated the hon. Member, if he wished to give the Bill a fair chance of passing, to withdraw his Amendment, for he was convinced that with such a clause it would never pass the other House.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the Amendment was based altogether on a wrong idea of the rights of property. It would have the effect of changing the possession of property from one class of hands to another.
  MR. DEASYsaid, this Amendment was an important one, and its success would involve the entire destruction of the Bill. It was precisely the question that had proved fatal to all the Bills that had been introduced on this subject. It proved fatal to the Bill introduced by the Government of the Earl of Derby, to the one introduced by the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen, and also to the Bill brought in by the present Government of Viscount Palmerston. He believed that if the Amendment could be carried into effect it would operate to the disadvantage of the tenant. The Bill applied to tenants at will, and the moment a tenant made the attempt to carry out improvements contrary to the will of his landlord the latter would at once use the powers which the law gave him, and proceed to eviction. He believed it would be impossible to pass any measure that would give a compulsory power to the tenant over the landlord.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he could not agree with the view taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Deasy), of this Amendment. The Bill of the Earl of Aberdeen's Government was thrown out not because it contained a clause of this nature, but because it contained a clause for retrospective compensation. The Report of the Devon Commission recommended the principle embodied in the Amendment, and the Earl of Derby himself supported it with all his eloquence in the other House, and therefore the weight of authority was in favour of the Amendment. He did not believe that any portion of the landlords of Ireland would act as the Attorney General had stated—cruelly evict tenants that wished to make improvments contrary to the will of their landlords. Such a statement was no better than a slander on the landlords of Ireland. After all, according to the Report of Dr. Phillimore, the proposed Amendment was a part of the Roman civil law in use in several countries on the Continent.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he supported the Amendment. He did so as the representative of an agricultural county in Ireland, and had no fear that he would be regarded as acting contrary to the interests of the landlords. By a previous clause
  1196
  the landlord had the power of making improvements himself, and why should it be regarded as an interference with his rights to give the tenant the power of making those improvements which his landlord refused to carry out? He believed that an overwhelming majority of the Irish landlords, wished to give leases to their tenants, but at the same time he was ready to admit the truth of what the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had stated, that there were landlords, chiefly small proprietors, who refused to give leases from the fear that they would lose their influence over their tenants. The land should not be allowed to remain entirely at the caprice of some individuals, who might be averse to improvement. However, as he had opposed the proposal which made the chairman of Quarter Sessions the arbiter on other matters included in the Bill, he could not assent to that portion of the Amendment. He would suggest that the Landed Estates Court be the tribunal to decide, and he would then give his cordial support to the Amendment.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the rest of the Bill, as compared with that Amendment, was utterly insignificant. The rest of the Bill was the landlords' Bill—this was the tenants'. This very Amendment, which to some hon. Members seemed now so objectionable, was no result of proletarian popular agitation. It was one of the results of the Devon Commission, and was embraced in a Bill introduced in the other House by the Earl of Derby in 1846, and in another introduced into the Commons by the Government of Viscount Palmerston. Opposition was not to be anticipated in the other House. If opposition there was it would be in the House of Commons, not in the House of Lords. Suppose a farm which was not so productive as it might be; the landlord was unable or unwilling to expend the necessary capital to make it productive; the tenant offered to do it himself; but, on acccount of some fancied rights of property, the landlord was to be allowed to prevent its being made as productive as it might be made for the general good of the country. He would ask whether hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported the Earl of Derby's Government were prepared to vote against the Amendment, which embodied the principle contained in the Earl of Derby's Bill. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. George) supported that Bill. Would they now find him acting the part of an opponent

  1197
  of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan; and was the noble Lord (Lord Naas), whose name was on the back of the Bill of the Earl of Derby's Government, prepared to oppose the Amendment? The emigration of the Irish had been spoken of. It had been urged that it was not owing to evictions. Agreed; it was not owing to actual eviction. But it was owing to the consciousness of the existing want of security to the tenant in the occupation of his land; and unless some such security was given as was contemplated by the Amendment before the Commitee he was of opinion that the present emigration would end in the extinction in Ireland of the old Celtic race.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he was perfectly sure that the insertion of this Amendment would be fatal to the Bill, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan might as well move the rejection of the Bill on the third reading as propose its introduction. The principle of the measure was, that the landlord should have a voice in all the improvements that were made, and the Amendment, therefore, was in direct violation of that principle. He had been amazed at the vagueness and generality of the language used in regard to what we called improvements. The truth was, that many things which were called improvements would greatly deteriorate a property. What were called tenant-rights in Ireland meant, in the estimation of many of the tenants, nothing more than a subdivision of their farms among their children, and a return to that system which had plunged Ireland into the gulf from which, to a great extent, it was now emerging. The effect of the Amendment would be to compel the landlord to employ his capital in carrying out works of which he did not approve, and which would prevent him executing improvements that he believed would be really beneficial. Though he disapproved of the Bill as a whole, he thought that the clause which gave the landlord the power to control the improvements to be made involved a very valuable principle, and he trusted that the Amendment now proposed would be rejected by the Committee.
  MR.VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would beg to impress upon the Conservative landlords that there would not be the least danger in concurring in the Amendment with a little alteration, which he understood the hon. Mover would have no objection to make. The Amendment would not in-
  1198
  terfere with the rights of property, and would to a certain extent, if carried, settle the question for the present at least in the minds of the Irish people—an effect that would not be produced by the Bill in its present form, in consequence of the power given to serve a counter-notice. The Attorney General for Ireland said that the introduction of the Amendment would ensure the rejection of the Bill in "another place;" certainly it would if it would interfere with the rights of property; and, therefore, he wished to impress upon the Conservative landlords that it would not have any such effect. He suggested the Amendment of the Amendment by the introduction of a provision giving the landlord an option of making the improvements if the assistant barrister should decide that improvements were necessary.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had attempted to cast an imputation on his consistency in connection with this question. He knew nothing in the history of the hon. and learned Member's political consistency in that House, or in his political morality that entitled him to catechise him (Mr. George) on his political conduct. The hon. and learned Member alluded to the measure which was brought forward by the ex-Chancellor of Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) when they were connected with the Government of the Earl of Derby. He begged to state that he gave that Bill his general approbation; but that he guarded himself at the time against being supposed to favour all its details. He held an independent opinion then, as he did now, upon the important question submitted to the consideration of Parliament. He, for one, objected to the transfer of the control of his property from himself to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. He was averse to being dragged, at the instigation of his tenant, before an assistant barrister, there to produce his title deeds, and to show the reason why he did and why he did not grant a lease, or assent to projected alterations which might or might not be improvements. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would adhere with fidelity to the great principles of the Bill; but if they agreed to the Amendment he did not think they could carry the measure by any majority in that House, and from previous experience they might expect that it would not be approved of elsewhere.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had no complaint to make as to the manner in which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had brought forward his Amendment; but he thought it exceedingly doubtful whether his proposal would be one advantageous to the tenant. If they continued the power of eviction, every compulsory power they gave to the tenant over the landlord, would operate to the injury of the former. It was of no use to refer to former Bills. This they must make up their minds to, if they wished the present Bill to pass—they must avoid compulsion and retrospection. Where there was a willing landlord and a willing tenant, improvement could take place; and where a limited landlord was unable to make improvements, the clause set him free from the fetters of settlements, and gave him the power of a fee-simple landlord; it gave to the family that benefit of the settlement, and gave to the present occupier the benefit of the freehold. It would also render it impossible in future for a tenant who was evicted to lose the benefit of the bonâ fide improvements that he had made. These two advantages would be gained by the Bill, and he earnestly pressed the Committee not to destroy these principles by the introduction of a compulsory power over the landlord by the tenant.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he did not believe that the landlords of Ireland were such bad men or such fools as to evict tenants because they were anxious to improve their estates. He would support the Amendment, notwithstanding that some Members seemed to think it would endanger the Bill in that place where there was very little redemption for anything that was good.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, that as a landlord he should most cordially vote for the Amendment. He would compel the landlord, in. certain cases, to make improvements; and, in doing so, he would not be doing him any injustice. He knew there were landlords who would prefer to sit down with their hands in their pockets, and very little else in their pockets besides their hands, rather than comply with the just requirements of the tenant. In supporting the Amendment, he was not acting against the interest of his class; because, if they understood their interest, they must see that the improvements of their estates would be for their advantage.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he thought there was nothing in the proposition of the hon. Member for Dungar-
  1200
  van that should excite alarm in the mind of the most sensitive stickler for the rights of property. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) had not stated that the introduction of the Amendment would be fatal to the Bill, and therefore he would give it his support.
  Question put, "That the words 'and no tenant,' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 140; Noes 48: Majority 92.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the Clock.

GAME LICENCES (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  ME. FENWICKsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether a Licence is required for the Sale of Game in Scotland; and, if not, whether there are any reasons why the Law should not be assimilated to that of England on the subject?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was no Licence at present required for the Sale of Game in Scotland. He could not see any reason why the law on the subject should not be assimilated to that of England.

LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Irish Landed Estates Court now employed the Ordnance Department exclusively for all its Surveys and Valuations, and whether at a higher rate of remuneration than used to be paid to the professional gentlemen previously employed for that purpose?
  MR. CARDWELLstated that the Judges of the Landed Estates Court finding that the plans on which the titles sought to be established were incorrectly and imperfectly made out under the former system, had recourse to the Ordnance Department for assistance. The total cost of the plans was now 4d. per acre, but the charge in the aggregate was less than under the former unsatisfactory mode of preparation.

VOLUNTEER CORPS FOR IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he rose to inquire, Whether the attention of the Law

  1201
  Officers of the Crown have been called to the 42nd Geo. III., c. 66, which enables the Government to accept the services of any corps of Volunteers which it is proposed to embody; and whether, in their opinion, it will be competent to form Volunteer Corps in Ireland.
  MR. DEASYsaid, the attention of the law officers of the Crown had been directed to the difference in the law respecting Volunteer Corps in England and in Ireland. It was their opinion that, although the Crown was enabled to accept the services of the Volunteer Corps in Ireland, no power existed either to regulate or control those corps when once levied, and even the Commanding Officer was equally destitute of authority. All the Crown could do was to disband the corps, and to compel them to return their arms and accoutrements into store.

  SUPERANNUATION OF DOCKYARD LABOURERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Board of Admiralty, Whether it is true that certain dockyard labourers have been refused superannuation, and on what grounds that refusal has been given? He also wished to know what steps the Board of Admiralty have taken since the passing of the Superannuation Act last Session, to place the admission of labourers on such a footing as to secure for those permanently employed the benefits which the Act intended to confer upon them.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was true that seven dockyard labourers had been discharged without receiving superannuation. The Act of 1859 did not give retiring allowances to those who were not previously entitled to it, and the ordinary labourers in dockyards had not been entitled to superannuation since 1833. The Admiralty had no intention of proposing any alteration of the law.

EUROPEAN FORCES (INDIA) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKES: I beg to ask the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Papers of which the want was so much felt during the debate of last evening are now forthcoming; and if not, whether he can explain the cause of the delay in their production?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I felt it my duty last night, in consequence of what occurred during the debate, to make inquiry into the circumstances connected with the papers relating to the mutiny of our army in India, a portion of which I now hold in my hand. They are very voluminous, and some of them have not yet been printed. I referred for information on the subject to the Military Secretary of the Indian Department, and I have found the circumstances to be as follows. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) asked me early in February, whether there would be any objection to the production of these papers, and I said that he was perfectly welcome to them, if they were moved for as an unopposed Return. My hon. Friend accordingly made a formal Motion for them on the 15th of February. They were prepared in the military Department of the India House, and they were given to the private Secretary of my hon. Friend on the 20th of March, and on the 22nd. of that month they were laid on the table of the House, and ordered to be printed. They were afterwards sent for verification to the Military Secretary of the Indian Department, and I am sorry to say that some delay took place in revising the papers. The Military Secretary thought that he was going on fast enough, as long as the other papers were not sent to him, while we waited to forward the further documents, until he returned the first portion revised. The whole series of Indian papers amounts to about 800 pages, but there was a portion of them referring to the case of Sir Charles Trevelyan, which being a personal question, we thought it desirable should be pressed forward as much as possible. This is the course that has been pursued, and this has been the cause of the delay. I do not wish to blame either the printer or the Military Secretary, although like the Earl of Chatham and Sir Robert Strachan, they certainly have been waiting for one another. But at this present moment there are about 500 pages printed, and there still remain 300 pages to be printed, and I may add that the matter was not brought to the notice of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of the India Board, until the 27th ultimo, when he received a note stating that an hon. Member of the House had been inquiring about the papers, and the steps which he took upon that information evince every desire on our part that

  1203
  the printing should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. The Military Secretary is, in common with the Council, entirely opposed to the amalgamation, and the House will easily judge that if there has been any delay on their part, it has been quite unintentional, and has certainly not been with the view of furthering the course that I have proposed.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to Monday next,
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I wish to take this opportunity of stating briefly the course which we propose to take with reference to the order of business for to-night and the early part of next week. Objection was taken last evening to going on with the discussion upon the Bill for the Amalgamation of the European forces in India, upon the ground that papers which were said to be necessary to the formation of a proper opinion on the subject, had not been placed in the hands of hon. Members. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend, the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), will waive his objection to going on on Monday with the discussion on the second reading of the Bill, provided a portion, if not the whole of the papers, are in the hands of hon. Members on Monday morning, and on the condition that the Committee on the Bill should be put off until the whole of the papers are in the hands of hon. Members. If that should be agreed to, of course the order for to-night will be put off till Monday. I am sorry to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General is confined to his house by indisposition, and therefore is not able to be here to-night to go on with the Bankruptcy Bill, which is the next order of the day. I should hope that under these circumstances the House will agree to going into Committee of Supply, to enable my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to proceed with such Estimates as he is prepared to go on with.
  MR. HORSMAN:—As I understand that we shall have the greater portion of the papers relating to the Organization of the Indian Army in our hands on Monday morning, and that the Bill will be read a second time on Monday evening, with the understanding that the Committee on the Bill shall be postponed until we have the whole of the papers in our hands, I think it would be better, for the convenience of the House, that we should defer the Debate until Monday. But I think it is
  1204
  necessary to state what the papers are which we require, and in doing so, I must beg to call the attention of the House to the very singular statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for India. He told us this morning, two or three times over, that the delay in the production of these papers did not rest in any way with his department. He said that he had presented these papers three months ago, and that the fault of their non-production lay entirely with the printer, and another Member of the Cabinet got up and stated also that it lay with the Printing Committee. I am informed that the right hon. Baronet has been going about the House, from one hon. Member to another, asking them to put a question to him on this subject, so as to anticipate any statement that I might make. I have heard to-day that those papers were sent to the printer, but that the right hon. Gentleman has had them taken back from the printer to the India Department, and that they have been in the right hon. Gentleman's department ever since, and unless I am incorrectly informed, at 1 o'clock this morning, when the right hon. Gentleman said that those papers had been for three months with the printer, and that no fault was attributable to him in the matter, those papers were still in his department, and had not been returned to the printer. Now, is that true, or is it not? If it is true, then I say an amount of carelessness has been displayed, which is scarcely credible on the part of a Cabinet Minister, for last night he sought to carry the House with him, by stating, three times over, that these papers had been three months out of his hands, and in the hands of the printer, and that the fault of their non-production rested entirely with the printer, when at the very moment he knew that they were in his hands, or in the hands of a subordinate of his department. Now, I ask again, is that true? I have not had time to make myself perfectly certain upon all the details, but I have reason to believe that these are the facts of the case, which the right hon. Gentleman has now attempted to anticipate by saying that the question was one which lay between the Military Secretary and the printer. But now, passing from that point, I wish the Government and the House clearly to understand why we want those papers, and why we consider them as a necessary preliminary for the

  1205
  satisfactory discussion of the Bill. Last year the Government introduced a Bill to maintain a local army in India, and this year they have introduced a Bill to repeal the Act of last year, and the Secretary of State, in introducing that Bill, stated to the House, as a ground of justification of that change of policy, that circumstances had since August last come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government which were not known to them last year. But, Sir, I endeavoured to show the House last night, from a telegram which I read, addressed by Lord Clyde to the Governor General in 1858, that those circumstances were known to the Government at the time, and therefore that change of policy appears to have been based upon something which they have not thought fit to explain. I also stated that I had reason to know that the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt frankly with the House, as to certain other papers which had been presented; that he had given to this House papers professing to be complete, but which were only extracts; and that important portions had been omitted from papers which he professed to give entire. It was quite open to the right hon. Gentleman at once to have refuted that statement, and to have challenged investigation upon it; and so far from expecting that he would have voted for closing the debate last night, before he gave an explanation, I should have thought that he would have been the first person to have insisted that a division on the second reading should not be taken, until an opportunity for explaining these matters had been afforded to him. But the right hon. Gentleman remained perfectly silent—glued to his seat—and thus, in the opinion of many hon. Members of the House, he thereby allowed judgment to go against him by default. Under such circumstances, I felt myself justified in insisting that that Bill should not proceed until we had the papers before us, to enable us to judge whether the reasons on which this change of policy was justified, had any existence except in the right hon. Gentleman's imagination, or were based upon more substantial grounds. Now, Sir, I wish further to say that, when the papers are produced, I trust that they will be the real thing for which we ask, and that the right hon. Gentleman will produce the real papers that we desire. The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that they contain 800 pages of printed matter, and he said last
  1206
  night that when produced, they will not afford us much assistance. Then the delay has occurred from the encumbering of those Returns with an enormous mass of matter which no one desires to have, but there are important and interesting documents which we do desire, and we do expect to have—we wish to have all the early despatches of Lord Clyde and Sir William Mansfield—we wish to have a continuous and unbroken narrative of all those circumstances which have been miscalled a mutiny in the European force in India. I moreover understand that within the last day or two, protests from various Members of the Council have been lodged with, and are in the hands of, the right hon. Gentleman. If so, I trust that those papers will be also produced, and I trust that they will be the real papers that we ask for, because I must say, after what I showed from my Lord Clyde's telegram last night, and after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself this morning as to the papers having been so long out of his possession, and the fault being in the office of the printer, I think that the House is justified in looking with great vigilance indeed, to all the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this matter.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLS: I only wish, Sir, to express in one word my entire satisfaction with the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government with respect to proceeding with this Bill. I think it is a most satisfactory arrangement, and I can only say, with regard to the proceedings that took place this morning, that if any suggestion had been made that those papers should be guaranteed to be before the House when we go into Committee, I should have been quite ready to have assented to the second reading of the Bill last night; but the circumstances certainly were rather peculiar. There were many hon. Members who would wish to speak, and whom I am sure the House would have been glad to listen to. Certainly on this very important subject it did strike me as most desirable that no impression should go abroad that at a time when public apprehension was relieved in a great measure in reference to our great Indian Empire, public interest in our Indian Empire and in its prosperity had been abated. I will only add the expression of my hope in confirmation of that which has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that those papers, be they memoranda, or Minutes, or

  1207
  protests, or by whatever other name they may be called, of the Members of the Council, will also be laid upon the table of the House, because I think that they would contribute very greatly to elucidate the question at issue, and enable us to form a correct conclusion upon it. I must say, and I beg to be excused for making this observation, that it has been said with regard to myself, and others who have taken a part in this question, that we have ventured to volunteer statements that are unsupported by personal authority here and in India, and that we are certainly in a minority in this House. I should state that the views which I entertain have been supported by three successive Governors-General of India, and they are supported by many of the Members of the Council; and, therefore, it is not correct to say that we are obtruding opinions which are not seconded by those in authority, both in England and in India.
  COLONEL SYKES: With regard to the Returns granted by the House to my Motion two of them are very important. I have made frequent inquiries with reference to them in the Journal Office, but I can obtain no information about them, and they are not forthcoming. I trust therefore before we are called upon to express an opinion with regard to the second reading of this Bill, those Returns also may be added to the Order of the House.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH: I am unwilling that this discussion should close without making an observation with regard to a gentleman whose name has often been mentioned by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India. I have long been in official communication with the Military Secretary for India, and I am quite certain that no man in this country is more deserving of the confidence of the House of Commons. He is a most honest, upright, zealous, and indefatigable public officer, and I am quite certain that if any delay on his part has taken place in the production of those documents to the House of Commons, it has been entirely the result of his scrupulous anxiety to have them presented to the House in as perfect a form as possible.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I had not supposed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) would have rendered it necessary for me to refer again to the statement which I made last night. What he stated last night was, that I had suppressed the papers, obviously because I did not wish
  1208
  the House to be in possession of them at the time when I brought forward my Motion for the amalgamation of the Indian army. It was not a charge of neglect in my Department, as I should have expected, but it was a charge of wilful supression of truth on my part, and of withholding from the House information which might enable it to come to a conclusion different from that which I recommended. My statement was not that they were out of the hands of my Department, and that I knew nothing about the papers, from the time that they were laid upon the table of this House. What I did say, what I did deny, and what I deny again, is that by any act of mine, direct or indirect, I kept back those papers from the House—and in the strongest terms that I can do so, consistently with civility to the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to say that the charge is totally unfounded. The fact is, as I stated last night, not that the papers were all sent back to the India Department, but that the proof sheets were sent from time to time to Colonel Baker for revision, and, as has been stated by an hon. and gallant Member on the opposite side of the House, he is the most honourable and scrupulous, and one of the best public servants with whom I ever was acquainted. His opinion on the subject of the Indian army is opposed to mine, and no one therefore would suppose that he was actuated by any other motive in the world in keeping these papers back, except for the purpose of insuring their accuracy. I have indeed heard that those revised proofs, to a certain extent, have been perused by others. I am not sure that some hon. Gentleman may not have received information of the contents of these papers—but certainly it was not on my part, in any way whatsoever, that the least delay has occurred, in the production or the printing of those papers. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says that I shrank from the discussion last night, by voting against the adjournment of the Debate. Certainly I should rather say that those who shrank from the debate were those who voted for the adjournment. I was perfectly ready and anxious that the debate should have gone on last night, and I should have been prepared to take my part, and to justify any portions of my conduct which might have been assailed by the right hon. Gentleman—but it is rather too much that he who voted for the adjournment of the debate, should now

  1209
  turn round upon me, and accuse me of sitting quietly by, without giving explanations which I was perfectly willing to do, and of allowing judgment to go against me by default. According to the invariable practice of the House, the hon. Member who moves a Bill waits for the close of the debate to hear the different arguments which are adduced against the measure, and according to that rule, I was waiting for the close of the debate, and it was the right hon. Gentleman who urged the receipt of those papers, and the hon. Members who voted for the adjournment of the House, who prevented me on that occasion from taking that part in the debate which I otherwise should have done. The right hon. Gentleman how complains of my overlaying these Returns by unnecessary details. He must know, as the House knows, that the Department is bound to answer the Order of the House; and if my hon. Friend the Member for Perth moved for certain papers, it was our duty to return those papers however long they might be. Her Majesty's Government have no wish to withhold those papers, although they do not think that they will throw much light upon the question; but the lion. Gentleman having moved for them, we felt that we had no right to resist the production of those papers. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud should find that they are more voluminous than he thinks convenient, all I can say is, that I beg that he will not throw the blame on me. The papers that were moved for were produced, and are now in course of being printed, and they will be placed upon the table of the House; and if any delay has occurred, all that I beg to say is that I am not responsible for keeping back those papers. The right hon. Gentleman has made another charge against me of garbling papers. Perhaps I may be permitted to state what the fact is upon that matter. The papers which are now on the table of the House were extracts from private letters. I thought it desirable that my colleagues in the Cabinet and the Indian Council should see these private letters, and they were printed confidentially for their use. Three Members of the Council prepared confidential memoranda on those extracts, and they also were printed for the use of the Council. Before they had been printed a week, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) moved for the production of those papers,
  1210
  and I stated to him at the time that it seemed to me to be a most unheard-of proceeding that he should move for confidential memoranda of the very existence of which he had no right to be aware.
  COLONEL SYKES: I did not know that they were confidential.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend has said that he was not aware that they were confidential; but how the fact of the existence of those confidential memoranda was communicated to him I cannot say. I can only say that I objected to their production. I stated, and I repeat it again, that I thought they were not papers which ought to be laid before the House. Indeed, Sir, even if I had wished that those confidential memoranda should have been laid before the House of Commons, it was obviously impossible that those papers could be laid upon the table of the House without the letters on which they were founded; and before I could lay them on the table of the House, I was obliged to telegraph to India to ask the permission of Lord Clyde, Sir William Mansfield, and Earl Canning, to lay upon the table of the House such portions of those papers as I thought desirable. There were some expressions in the letters which had been laid before the Council, which I did not think advisable, or fair to individuals, to lay before the public, and I omitted them, after obtaining the permission of those who had written them. I have now only to say that the extracts which I omitted were of two kinds—one expressing an opinion more favourable by far to my view than anything I had left, and another an expression to which I suppose the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman refers, an expression of Colonel Durand. That is the only case to which I am inclined to suppose this accusation can refer, and I shall be obliged to him if he will state whether I am right in that. The right hon. Gentleman declines to do so. I will, therefore, state to the House that the only instance to which his imputation can possibly apply is with reference to one of Colonel Durand's memoranda. I will state to the House exactly what those facts are. I have no wish to keep back anything that occurred. In Colonel Durand's confidential memoranda there were two paragraphs which referred to a private letter of Sir Patrick Grant, which I did not think it right to lay before the public. I sent for Colonel Durand, and suggested to

  1211
  him that it would be better if those two paragraphs were left out, and he said that he had no objection on his part, except for this reason, that though he had kept these confidential memoranda perfectly secret, he knew that they had been shown about to many persons, and he would not like himself to withdraw any paragraph to which he had put his hand, but that the memoranda were in my possession, and if I chose to take upon myself the responsibility of striking out those two paragraphs he had no objection. I said, I will take upon myself to do that, because, as I do not lay upon the table of the House the private letters of which those paragraphs are part, I think it is better that those paragraphs should not appear." I beg to say that the omission does not in the slightest degree vary, alter, or retract the opinion expressed in the memoranda. I have stated to the House fairly and openly why I left them out. I had authority from Colonel Durand to keep back such portions of private letters as I have mentioned, and it would have been absurd to have left in the hands of the printers paragraphs referring to private letters which do not appear. I do not think, therefore, that I am in fairness open to the accusation of garbling those papers.
  Now, Sir, I will not enter into the question of whether I am justified in taking a different course this year from that which I pursued in August last year. I think that the circumstances which I have already stated perfectly warrant that change of course, and I beg to remind the House of this, that when I introduced the Bill in August last, for the purpose of covering an illegality which had been committed by the Government which preceded us, in having a larger local force than was warranted by law, (for by law the limit was 24,000, which limit was exceeded) I stated distinctly the reason why I introduced that Bill, and I stated at the same time—in the middle of the month of August—that the introduction of that Bill was in no way to prejudice the question of the Indian army which we should be compelled to tike up this year.
  I must beg pardon of the House for having made these statements. It is certainly no fault of mine, but I think that after the right hon. Gentleman last night and to-day has imputed such motives to me, I could not, with due regard to my character as a Member of this House, avoid
  1212
  making the observations which I have done.
  Subject dropped.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the disturbances which took place on Sunday last in the neighbourhood of the church of St. George's-in-the-East. He had collected a few facts from the public journals relative to what had occurred, but he did not rely on that source of information alone as he had also been in communication with persons who were present on the occasion. He found it stated that great disturbance occurred during the service, but the sermon was not interrupted, but afterwards,
  "The mob collected in the yard round the entrance to the rectory, and as the clergy and choristers passed in they were hooted and hustled. Two or three of the choristers attempted to make their way home, and for that purpose went out into Cannon Street, where their appearance was the signal for a terrific uproar. They were followed by several hundreds of people, who hissed and yelled, and threw at them dirt, stones, and anything else they could obtain. Once or twice the choristers, who wore round collars similar to those adopted by Roman Catholic priests, and long coats, made a run for it, but the mob ran too, and increased in numbers at every step."
  He (Mr. Kekewich) must correct one statement in that Report, for he was assured by the parties themselves that they wore nothing in any way resembling the dress of Roman Catholic priests. The Report went on to say:—
  "On arriving in the Commercial Road an attempt was made to beat the choristers, and a desperate rush was made upon them, but three or four policemen who arrived at the time kept the mob back as well as they could, and the choristers darted down a narrow street. The mob followed and drove them back into the Commercial Road. At this time they seemed undecided as to the course they should pursue, and one of them tried to go back so that he might take refuge in the clergy house in Cannon Street, but the mob refused to let him do so, and drove him and his friends in an opposite direction along the Commercial Road, on reaching the top of which they made another attempt to escape by running down a street at the rear of Whitechapel Church, into the Whitechapel Road. The mob, which at this time consisted of at least 1,000 persons, followed them with loud execrations, and, matters threatening to become serious, two of them took refuge in a coffee-house. Peremptory orders were shouted by the mob that 'the Puseyites should be turned out,' and turned out they were, to be knocked about by their ruffianly assailants."

  1213
  When the subject was last before the House the Secretary of State, referring to what had occurred within the church, said he did not know whether what had happened could be called an outrage. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would admit the proceedings of last Sunday were outrageous, and take steps to prevent their recurrence. He (Mr. Kekewich) did not appear for the rector of St. George's, whom he did not know. He believed that rev. Gentleman to be an amiable man, attentive to his pastoral duties, but it was to be regretted that he had not met the irritation that had sprung up in due time, and by conciliatory measures endeavoured to prevent these troubles. He could assure the rev. Gentleman that the people of this country would not brook any departure from the pure and holy system of worship to which they were accustomed, or sanction any forms or innovations which they considered to belong to a religion which was not their own. Having called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the circumstances he would only ask him further what steps he had taken to prevent a recurrence of such disorders.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The hon. Member has referred to an article which appeared in the newspapers, professing to give an account of what took place at St. George's-in-the-East on Sunday last. He has not said that he has any additional information.
  MR. KEKEWICH: I distinctly said I had been in communication with those who were present.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I did not collect that the hon. Gentleman had received any information from those persons, as all he has stated has been extracted from the newspaper report. In one material particular—that relative to the dress of the choristers—he has corrected the account, and, from information I have received, I am led to believe that in other parts it is overcharged. I have here the report of the superintendent of police who was in the church on Sunday last, which I will read to the House:—
  "I beg to report that this day's 11 o'clock morning service at the parish church of St. George's-in-the-East was attended by about 160 persons, twenty-five of whom left the church at the commencement of the sermon. The Rev. T. Dove officiated throughout, and, with the exception of a little feigned coughing during the prayer for the clergy, no irregularity occurred. The lecturer's afternoon service was attended by about 300 per-
  1214
  sons, who conducted themselves in an orderly and attentive manner. About 200 persons awaited the opening of the churchyard gates prior to the 7 o'clock evening service, which was attended by about 1,000 persons. The choristers (eighteen), as in the morning, wore their white surplices, and sat in the organ gallery, and the clergymen, when not officiating, sat within the communion rails. The Rev. T. Dove read or intoned the prayers, a strange clergyman read the lessons, and the sermon was preached by the Rev. Mr. Ward. There was the usual amount of noise from feigned coughing, hissing, and some laughter during the first of the service, although but little interruption was attempted during the sermon. On Mr. Dove ascending the steps of the altar after receiving the offertory, he turned his face towards the east; this caused much hissing and noise, which continued during the benediction. The people next attempted the doxology, which for a time was prevented by the organ, but finally sung; afterwards they all gradually left the church and streets."
  That is the report of the police superintendent who was present on the occasion, and the House will observe that the disturbances were confined to unseemly and irreverent noises interposed during the service, and that there was nothing which amounted to a breach of the peace, or the use of any force. I have two other police reports bearing more directly on the statement of the hon. Gentleman. One is the report of the inspector and superintendent, dated June 29:—
  "I beg to report respecting the attached extract from The Times of the 26th instant, that on Sunday evening, the 24th instant, about half-past 8 p.m., two gentlemen (supposed choristers) were shouted at by a few boys, who, it is supposed, followed them from St. George's-in-the-East Church to the Commercial-road. The police were on the spot immediately, having been posted at short intervals to prevent persons leaving the church being molested. The crowd increased to about 250 or 300 persons, and when at Church-lane, Whitechapel, the gentlemen who were being followed then ran down Spectacle-alley into High-street, Whitechapel, and the police prevented the crowd from following; but some of them, taking another turning, again met the same two persons in Whitechapel. The police then escorted them to George-yard, up which they went, and the crowd was prevented following any further. No mud or any other missile was seen thrown by the police, nor was there any person assaulted, and no complaint was made by any person to the police of any one being ill-treated."
  Here is another report by the inspector and superintendent:—
  "I beg to report with reference to the annexed paragraph from The Times newspaper of the 26th instant, that none of the clergy or choristers were hooted or hustled in the churchyard near the entrance to the rectory-house on Sunday evening last, nor was there a terrific uproar in Cannon-street-road, nor were three of the choristers hissed, yelled, dirt or stones thrown at them, nor was

  1215
  there any disorder near the church to justify the interference of the police in arresting any person."
  I do not find, therefore, that there is any reason for supposing that any peculiar violence or impropriety occurred last Sunday. The House may, perhaps, wish to know what is the police force now regularly stationed at that church and its neighbourhood every Sunday to preserve the peace. There are ten police-constables in. the church, with two sergeants and an inspector. In the churchyard there are two constables; between the churchyard and Wellclose-square there are five; a sergeant and twelve constables are kept patrolling near the church; there is a reserve of one inspector, two sergeants, and twenty constables; and in Denmark-street an inspector, a sergeant, and fifteen constables are stationed, making altogether seventy-three men constantly employed there every Sunday for the special purpose of preventing any breach of the peace. The Commissioner of police informs me that, with the exception of occasions when there are great open-air assemblages, he has not for many years brought together so large a body of police for any purpose as now regularly attend the services at St. George's-in-the-East. Perhaps I may also state, for the information of the House, the instructions under which the police act. I will not go into the details, but hero is one sentence:—
  "The police are, if possible, to prevent the commission of any assault or other breach of the peace, and apprehend the parties offending. They are likewise to enforce the provisions of the 1st of Mary, cap. 3, an extract from which accompanies this order."
  After this explanation I hope the House will be of opinion that there has been no remissness on the part of the Government in giving due protection to those who perform Divine service in this church. It is very lamentable that these irreverent interruptions of public worship should so often occur; but, as I have already stated, I think they do not amount to breaches of the peace. They are interruptions in the nature of noisy exclamations, the responses being made at improper times, and other means adopted by which persons, without showing that they interrupt the service, nevertheless contrive to attain their end. They do not appear to bring themselves within the grasp of the law. At all events, the acts they commit are not such as are cognizable by the police. Subject to that exception, every means has been used by
  1216
  the Government and the Commissioners of Police for preventing the recurrence of these very lamentable and unseemly disturbances.

  HOLYHEAD HARBOUR—QUESTION.
  MR. STANLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is in possession of any Report or Documents regarding the effects of the severe gales of the 25th and 26th October last on the new Harbour, Piers, and Works at Holyhead: Also, as to the security of the Great Eastern and other vessels taking shelter there during that gale, and if any casualties occurred owing to any defect in the construction of the Harbour: And, if he can state the number of vessels taking shelter in the new Harbour during the last two years? The harbour at Holyhead had cost the country a million of money, and the Admiralty ought to state whether they were of opinion that the harbour was, as he believed it to be, a really useful work, or, as the public prints had lately described it, of no service whatever. A journal which they all admired—The Times—had on three or four occasions misled the public as to the state of the harbour. The special correspondent of this journal, who was on the spot at the time, and who had described the gale of October 25–26 in a letter of great ability, made this statement:—
  "A large part of the breakwater works at Holyhead have been destroyed, and vessels anchored far inside and sheltered, compared to where the big ship lay, have either gone down bodily or been driven high and dry ashore. ….Within the very extremity of the breakwater, where one would have thought the Channel fleet might have ridden through any gale, much damage had been done. High and dry ashore under Holyhead mountain lay a fine barque, and around her, in the same predicament, were three smaller vessels. Out in the centre of the harbour the tops of two slender tapering masts showed where Captain Henry's beautiful schooner yacht, the Mariquita, had gone down bodily. Immediately behind this last was another and larger vessel, which had apparently only escaped the same fate by driving on the rocks."
  Again, in a leading article of The Times respecting harbours of refuge there was this passage:—
  "The harbour at Holyhead has been altered half a dozen times, each time, it is said on a worse principle than before, and the final result is that last autumn the Royal Charter passed it, and was wrecked at night; the Great Eastern was all but lost in it; and small vessels were either thrown high and dry, or sent to the bottom."
  And, upon a more recent occasion, in the

  1217
  course of some remarks upon Trotman's anchor:—
  "A very practical illustration of the advantages of the invention may be given merely by mentioning that in the terrible storm of last autumn the Great Eastern rode securely in Holyhead harbour, held in position by her anchors, and these were supplied by Mr. Trotman. Now, if that enormous surface of metal, acted upon by the furious gale, was held in its place by those anchors, it seems probable enough that under circumstances equally trying they might do the same good service for ships of war."
  In "another place" a noble Lord, whose mind had been prejudiced by these statements, had declared that Holyhead harbour was of hardly any use, and did not answer the purposes for which it was constructed. Now, he was an eye-witness of the gale described by the special correspondent of The Times, and if the Great Eastern ever was in danger it was not from any want of shelter, for she was not in the harbour. She was anchored outside, in the first instance, by a single anchor, and during the height of the gale she was hardly subjected to any sea. Towards morning the wind changed, and she was then swung round clear of all shelter from the unfinished breakwater. About nine or ten she got up her steam and weighed one of her anchors, with the view of shifting her position. She steamed ahead; her anchor, he believed, broke; and he should never forget the sight which presented itself as she appeared to be drifting towards the rocks. Of the vessels inside the harbour not one of the fifty-nine which took shelter there had suffered injury in the slightest degree from the construction of the harbour.

  TROTMAN'S ANCHORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MILDMAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in the The Times of Monday the 25th, signed "John Trotman," stating that no Trotman's anchor has been supplied to the Navy, except the one used by the Royal Yacht; and whether he adheres to his statement that any Officer can have one of these Anchors if he asks for it? Of course anything falling from a man of the noble Lord's high character was of the greatest weight, but Gentlemen in office were occasionally misled by their subordinates, and he had no doubt that was the case in this instance. Mr. Trotman had stated most distinctly that he had supplied no anchors to the navy except that on board
  1218
  the Royal Yacht. The merits of this anchor had been investigated by a Committee appointed by the Admiralty, and they reported in its favour as the best which had been brought under their notice, adding that the anchor used by the Royal Navy was the worst but one of eight different sorts submitted to them. Mr. Trotman had spent £600 in his trials, and it seemed rather hard that the Admiralty, after the result, should neither have reimbursed him his expenses nor compensated him by ordering any of his anchors. The anchors now in use were supplied under a contract of 1841, since which time great improvements had taken place in the forging of iron; the invention of Nasmyth's steam-hammer, for instance, made the process much cheaper; and to give the same price for forging now, as nineteen years ago, seemed almost like paying the same for calico as before the invention of the power-loom and spinning-jenny. A shipbroker, from whom he had made inquiries respecting the opinion of the commercial marine in reference to the anchor, told him that he never chartered a ship without insisting that it should carry a Trotman, though, he added, that the captains were rather unwilling to use them, except on extreme occasions, on account of the difficulty of getting them up again. But that seemed to him to be the best character they could receive, as it showed that they held so tight it was not easy to draw them up. He was informed that every ship in the navy carried four bower anchors, and he would suggest that one of those should be a Trotman, and that at the end of six months all the captains should be asked to send in a report of the manner in which they worked.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Stanley) he had to state that though he was not in possession of an official report of the Harbour-master of Holyhead Harbour as to the casualties which occurred in the gale there last October, yet he was able to confirm the hon. Gentleman's account of what took place on that occasion. There was no doubt that some casualties did occur among the vessels lying in the harbour on that occasion, yet none of them were caused by any defect of the harbour or by a heavy sea running in, but by the collisions of the vessels one with another. One vessel came in without an anchor, having lost it off Liverpool, and she ran foul of several

  1219
  others, and, as might be expected in a heavy gale, they drove athwart others, and they all drove on shore together. The proof that there was no heavy sea in the harbour was that the damage done to these vessels was generally very slight. The only serious damage done was to a yacht, which was run into by a steam-tug, and both went ashore together, and the yacht was considerably damaged. As for the Great Eastern, she never was under the shelter of the breakwater at all, for she lay all the time outside the harbour. She certainly was in a state of great danger at one time, not from any fault of the harbour, but from the fault of Trotman's anchor. It was thought desirable at one time of the gale to lift the anchor, in order to shift the vessel into a more sheltered berth. She steamed up to the anchor in order to lift it, but whether there was too much way on, or the anchor was not strong enough, he could not tell, but the fact remained that Trotman's anchor broke. The same thing happened the next day. The vessel again hove up to her anchor (also a Trotman's), and it again broke. He (the noble Lord) was very glad that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mildmay) had brought this question forward, because when it was stated that the Admiralty had some prejudice against the use of Trotman's anchors in the Royal Navy, it was right to point out that there was proof that Trotman's anchors could break like any other. He was not prepared to say that Trotman's was not a good anchor, because he had used it in his own yacht, and had found it do very well; but if he were asked, as commander of a large ship, whether he thought Trotman's acted well, he should distinctly say that, apart from its holding qualities, it was not the anchor he should recommend. Holding qualities were but a small part of the qualities required in an anchor; and Trotman's had a vice that was common to the whole family of what were called "tumbling fluke" anchors—namely, that there was a great difficulty in fishing them. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman would understand what he meant; but when there was any considerable sea there was a great difficulty in applying the fish hook so as to catch the fluke of the anchor. With the common anchor they could catch either one side or the other; but with Trotman's the hook must go into a large ring bolt close to the shank; and it would be a very difficult operation with a heavy sea to
  1220
  effect that manœuvre. Still he was not prepared to say that on that account the anchor was not to be used. Mr. Trotman made application to the late Board of Admiralty, and the late Secretary to that Board replied that the Admiralty had no objection to a trial being made on board of two of Her Majesty's ships if anchors were supplied for the purpose; but Mr. Trotman by letter declined this offer stating that nothing would satisfy him but another Committee. Now, if a Committee on shore, or on the River Thames, were to test the merits of anchors, it might be found, as it had been found before, that anchors which best stood the test in all such experiments were, when brought into practical use at sea, inconvenient and insufficient for their purpose. An idea had got abroad that all Boards of Admiralty had combined against this unfortunate Mr. Trotman, but nothing of the sort was the case, for the Admiralty would be very glad if any captain would take one of his anchors, and it was to Mr. Trotman's interest to persuade some captain to ask for one of the anchors, because it was more likely that a favourable report would proceed from such an officer than from one who had, against his will, a Trotman's anchor placed on board his ship. He had seen Captain Denman, and had asked him as to the different merits of the Trotman's anchors on board Her Majesty's yacht. He ascertained that the anchors of that vessel were very seldom let go. The yacht was generally used in summer time, when the merits of anchors could not be fully tested, and the yacht generally lay at moorings. Captain Denman said that he thought Trotman's anchor, from what he saw of it, a good anchor, but there was the defect in "fishing" it. If that was the case in a vessel like the Victoria and Albert, how great would be the inconvenience in a heavy line-of-battle ship? It was because officers disapproved of these anchors that they were not used, and he for one, though he liked Trotman's anchors in a small vessel, should be very sorry to have one in a line-of-battle ship. In one thing Mr. Trotman was deceiving the public—namely, in stating that his anchors were very much cheaper than the Admiralty anchors. Now, he took the trouble to ascertain what was the cost of the anchor supplied to the Queen's yacht, it was an anchor of 47 cwt.,, and cost £119 13 s. 6d. Mr. Trotman, in a letter he wrote to The Times, stated:—
  "I have further expressed my willingness to

  1221
  submit to a competent Committee of their Lordships' selection, but whose decision shall be deemed final, a Trotman's anchor of 50 cwt., costing £90."
  That would lead the public to believe that these anchors of 50 cwt could be supplied for £90; but as the anchors on board the Victoria and Albert of 47 cwt., cost £119, the cost of an anchor of 50 cwt. would necessarily be more, and amount to somewhere about £125, instead of £90. The truth was that Mr. Trotman's anchors were dearer than the Admiralty anchors instead of being cheaper, and were disapproved by the officers of the fleet. Under these circumstances it really was a question whether the Board of Admiralty, with whom lay the responsibility for the security of Her Majesty's ships, would be justified in ordering captains of ships to use a particular anchor against their own will.

  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee).
  (1.) £10,009,778, Packet Service.
  MR. COGANsaid, he wished to know the reason that the Vote for the contract between Galway and New York was omitted from the items of this Vote. The reason which had been given was, that the contract had not yet commenced; but neither had the increased Holyhead contract commenced, and yet the sum necessary for ten months at the higher rate was included. It was not dealing fairly with the two companies, and, as a right hon. Gentleman had given notice of his intention to divide the Committee on the Galway Vote he wished the Government to explain why it was postponed.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he wished to state that the order in which the Votes would be taken would be, first the packet service, then the revenue departments—Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post-office—and afterwards the other civil Estimates, beginning with class one. With regard to the Galway contract, the reason it was not included in the Estimates was that at the time the Estimates were prepared and submitted to the House it had not come into operation. The vessels had not then been tendered for survey. A correspondence was pending between the department and the company as to whether the vessels would be ready by the time specified, and the whole subject was before a Select Com-
  1222
  mittee, who had since reported, although that Report had not yet been printed and circulated. The case of Holyhead was very different. That contract was made a considerable time ago, in pursuance of the investigation of a Select Committee; the steamers were ready, and the only cause of delay was owing to some arrangement respecting the completion of the pier at Holyhead. With regard to the Galway contract, there was no alternative but to postpone it; and, so far from the Vote being prejudiced, it was obvious that if it had been inserted the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) would have moved that it be struck out, and that a discussion would have been prematurely raised before the Report and evidence taken before the Select Committee were in the hands of hon. Members, and before it was finally ascertained that the company were ready to perform the service. Those who were most interested in the Vote were of opinion that the question would be more fully and fairly brought before the House by a supplemental Estimate rather than under that Vote.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to get from the Government an assurance that they were sincere in their intentions as to the Galway contract. If the Government acted fairly with the Irish Members they would, on the other hand, render the Government every assistance.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he would promise that an opportunity should be given to the House of fully discussing the question of the Galway contract, which would suffer no prejudice from not being introduced into the present Vote. It was impossible for the Government to give a positive pledge as to the course they would pursue in regard to the contract until they had considered the Report of the Select Committee, which had just been presented to the House, but had not yet been printed.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know whether the Government held this contract to be binding, or whether they understood that question to be under the judgment of the Committee.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the vote for the packet service was one of the most important that could be brought before the House, especially as it was increasing yearly. According to an official report, the produce of this department of the postal service was only £400,000, so that the public were taxed to the amount of £600,000 in order to maintain it. He

  1223
  deemed that system both impolitic and unjust. Other countries which shared in the advantages of our postal service ought to contribute to its maintenance, and in the case of those, which would not, either the postal facilities should be reduced or the charges should be raised. The making of these contracts involved not a little corrupt patronage; and he urged the House to adopt the recommendation of one of its Committees, and not allow any such contract to be made without its sanction. He wished to know why the cost of the conveyance of the mails by steam-vessels between Holyhead and Kingstown had been raised from £25,000 last year to £75,750 this year? There was also an extravagant charge of £4,000 for the mails between Southampton and the Channel Islands. The West India mails cost £238,000, a sum which was not warranted by the amount of our trade with that part of the world, and the amount for the mails to the Cape was £32,000, and the conveyance between Point de Galle and Melbourne was £180,000, though he was glad to say that the Government at Melbourne had agreed to pay a large part of this sum. The cost of the mails between this country and America was £175,000, but why could not our Government imitate the example of the United States Government, by which they had recently saved a large sum in the conveyance of mails? He should certainly have divided the Committee on some of the Votes if they had not represented bonâ fide contracts.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTremarked that the increase in the cost of the Holyhead and Kingstown service had been recommended by a Select Committee. It was now proposed to vote £75,000 as an increased subsidy for ten months. When, however, the agreement was made with the Railway Company and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company for this increased service the companies wore promised an excellent pier in Holyhead Harbour. The companies had carried out their part of the agreement by the construction of magnificent vessels and by building new engines; but the third party, the Government, had never laid one single stone of the new pier, and consequently the service for which the Vote was proposed could not be carried out in so efficient a manner as would otherwise have been the case. If the present pier, with the alterations proposed, could be made as efficient as a new one, he would not be the advocate of an
  1224
  unnecessary expenditure. He would therefore agree to the Vote upon the Government giving an assurance that if at the end of a short time the proposed arrangement should not be found satisfactory, the original proposal would be carried out.
  MR. COGANsaid, he understood that the pier at Holyhead would not be completed for two years. During that period the company would be carrying on the service without being subject to penalties, on account of the failure on the part of the Government to make the stipulated works at Holyhead. He regretted to see that while the amount for the Holyhead service was proposed to be voted, the Galway contract packet Vote of £60,000 was excluded, although that service had already been commenced on the faith of the country, and that shareholders had expended nearly £500,000 upon the building of four large vessels to carry out the mails. While, however, he thought it would be dangerous to break the public faith upon a commercial undertaking he agreed that these contracts ought in future always to have the first sanction of Parliament.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he thought that the people of Ireland would not have justice done to them if the Galway contract were not carried out.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he was glad to hear so general an expression of opinion in favour of laying these contracts before Parliament prior to their ratification by the Executive, and he should shortly submit a Resolution to the House in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. The present contract expenditure amounted to between £600,000 and £700,000. It was not under the control of the House of Commons, and the Committee were satisfied that the services might be far more cheaply performed. In the instance of Belfast the mails were carried gratuitously, and he thought it possible in other cases to make the same arrangement, as many companies would carry the mails for the honour of their vessels being called mail-steamers. Without entering into the merits of the Galway contract, he would merely observe that the Report of the Committee which inquired into that matter not having been yet circulated, it was impossible for the Government to come to any decision; but he hoped that soon they would be in a position to do so.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he knew nothing of the recent disclosures as to the Galway

  1225
  contract, but hoped that the question would not be prejudiced by the mere fact of the contract being excluded from this Vote. It was a matter of great magnitude and importance, which he hoped would be seriously considered when the whole question of packet companies could be brought before the House. There was one recommendation of the Committee which he could not agree with. The Committee suggested that with respect to fresh contracts of this character the Government should accept some tender, but that the contract should not be binding until laid for a month before that House. He conceived that such an arrangement would be transferring from the Government to the House one of its most important functions. He thought it would be better, when the engagement was to extend over several years, that the Government should come to that House with a Resolution approving the service to be embodied in an Act of Parliament, and that the contract should be subsequently taken by the Treasury in the usual way. Such a course was adopted in other countries possessing representative institutions, and might well be adopted here. He wished for an explanation of one or two points from the hon. Secretary of the Treasury. He observed that in some instances where Estimates were framed of particular services there was a note that provision was otherwise made for those services; but the contributions which would cover part of the expense of the year would not be received until after the close of the year, and therefore no deduction was made on account of those contributions. That was a very inconvenient and not a very rational course of proceeding. In other parts of the Estimates this principle was entirely overlooked, as indeed it was with respect to some of the services in this very Vote. But as to others the deductions were large and not allowed for. In one instance, the deduction that should be made was £67,000, and in another instance £24,000, making a total of £91,000, which was a considerable sum out of £1,004,000. He also wished to know whether the Government had considered the expediency of taking steps to reduce the rates for the conveyance of mails to those of our possessions which were able to bear a portion of the cost. In some cases, such as Canada, India, Australia and Mauritius, those colonies did defray a portion of the cost, and he could not understand why the Cape and the West
  1226
  Indies could not do the same. He would also call attention to some of the arrangements for postal service between this country and our possessions beyond the Isthmus of Suez. Three or four years ago Lord Canning, then Postmaster General, made an excellent arrangement by which there was to be a fixed and uniform rate to all our Colonies, for letters of a certain weight, and another for newspapers. That arrangement worked well, and foreign countries and distant colonies adopted the plan; but lately there had been a change of policy at the Post Office, and a system had commenced under which in different ways impediments were placed in the way of the transmission of newspapers abroad. For instance, suddenly, and without notice, the rate of postage was doubled for newspapers across the Isthmus of Suez. When this was objected to, in justification of the course taken by the Post Office it was stated that since the completion of the railway, the charge on the public for crossing the Isthmus had been increased. He had moved for a return on this subject, from which it appeared that, instead of an increase there had been really a decrease in the charge to the extent of £20,000 a year; and he hoped that the conduct of the subordinates at the Post Office in putting forward this plea would be noticed by the Treasury; and that the additional tax would be taken off. It had been removed as to the Australian mails, on condition of the Colonies paying an equivalent; but even this, although unjust, had not been done for the India and China mails.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought that by better arrangements a considerable reduction might be effected in the amount charged for the conveyance of mails between an English port and any foreign country with which an active and a permanent trade was carried on.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, it required a considerable number of men to man those packets, and it should be made a sine qua non that the whole of the men on board the packets should be reserved seamen, for they could always be found in the event of a war. A naval officer should be attached to the Post Office to see that these packets were properly manned. He did not think there would be any objection on the part of the contractors to consent to a plan for that purpose.
  MR. JACKSONobserved that the crews

  1227
  of those packet-ships would always be available for the country in case of any emergency; but he protested against any such interference on the part of the Government with the ships as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had suggested.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEasked whether the Treasury had made any arrangement as to the future mode of entering into these packet contracts. Much evidence had been laid before the Committee last Session of the irregular course pursued by the public departments on this point. One striking fact was that no contract after it had once been entered into had ever terminated; they all seemed to prove a perpetual monopoly in the hands of those who originally got the grant. Now, that was not a proper state of things. It might be true that the original contractors were, on the whole, able to perform the work most efficiently and economically. But he was confident that there were occasions when these contracts should be thrown open again to public competition; and he thought the House was fairly entitled to expect the Government to give an undertaking that some fresh arrangement would be made for the future. The question was one involving the expenditure of more than a million a year, and after the mismanagement and abuses which the Committee had exposed the House ought to insist on a change in the system.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the unsatisfactory mode in which these contracts had been entered into in many cases in past times. The system of subsidies had frequently been carried further than was right, and he admitted that when Colonies were in a position to contribute a share of the cost of conveying the mails, as Australia was now doing, they should be called upon for a contribution. In the appendix to the first Report of the Committee there was a Treasury Minute showing that the subjects of these contracts had been fully considered, but as to the mode in which formal effect would be given to the conclusion of the Committee, the best plan would be by the adoption of the formal Resolutions which the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Dunlop) intended, he believed, to bring before the House. He hoped that such Resolutions, giving effect to the unanimous opinions of the Committee on this point, would be submitted, for they would be found the most efficient remedy for the abuses which
  1228
  had prevailed. Entire publicity should be given to these transactions before they were finally concluded by the Government. The general question of contracts would not at all be prejudiced by taking this Vote, and in the expectation that the whole subject would be brought before the House he thought it better not to pursue the general question further.
  With regard to the question of the Naval Reserve, there was no doubt that ships of most of the contract packet companies were manned by a superior class of men, but in the case of some of them it was obviously impossible that the men could find time for training. With the large companies, where long voyages were made, and the vessels remained some time in port, of course the men would have more opportunities. He was glad to say that the Peninsular and Oriental and the Royal Mail Steampacket Companies had shown great liberality, and had given every facility for inducing their men to join the Reserve.
  With regard to the postage of newspapers to the Colonies, he quite agreed that every facility should be given for their transmission at as low an expense as would cover the prime cost of conveyance; beyond that he did not think it the duty of the Government to go. The complaint from Australia had instantly been met by a remission of the additional penny, but as yet he had received no representations with regard to India and China. If any were made, they would meet with the fullest and fairest consideration. No doubt, the account would look better if the sums paid by the Colonies for the transmission of the mails appeared on the face of it; but, as all the payments had to be made within in the year in this country, it was necessary to take a Vote for the whole, otherwise there would be no authority to make the requisite payment. The contributions of the Colonies were paid into the Exchequer, and went to swell the account.
  As to the Holyhead Pier, he could assure the House that there was no intention on the part of the Government to depart from their obligation to construct such a pier as experience might show to be requisite for the convenience of the Irish service. Some delays had occurred in carrying out the original plan. A short time ago representations were made by the City of Dublin Steampacket Company that the most convenient arrangement would be to alter and complete the present pier, so as to make it a permanent structure, while the railway

  1229
  company were in favour of the original plan. Under these circumstances, it had been thought desirable to have a short experience of the actual working, and by next summer the Government would be in a position to see how the money could be spent with the greatest advantage.
  MR. MONSELLobserved that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was not satisfactory. An additional expense of some £50,000 was to be incurred for the improvement of the Irish service, and it was very doubtful whether all the advantages which the House contemplated in voting that sum would be gained. All the other parties had performed their parts of the contract, but the Government had neglected to carry out theirs. About half an hour would be lost of the hour and a half which the House had calculated on gaining when it consented to this additional expenditure.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was not satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman had said about the Galway contract. The Irish Members were not content with the statement that that contract should not be prejudiced. What they wanted was to know accurately and definitely in what light the Government viewed the contract, for the hon. Gentleman had given no satisfactory information on the point. He should like to hear him say in so many words whether if the contractors performed their part the Government would consider themselves bound by the contract. A very large proportion of the postage to America came from Ireland. He did not see, when contracts were made for packet service with other countries, the justice of always omitting Ireland. He wished, therefore, to know whether the principle, fairly and honestly adopted by the late Government, of making contracts for Irish service, was to be carried out.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the only answer which he could give to the question of the hon. and gallant Member on the subject of the Galway contract was a very simple and distinct one. A Select Committee had been appointed by the House to report on the contract. Its Report was not yet printed and distributed, so as to be in the hands of the Government and of Members of the House, and until it was it would be impossible for the Government to indicate what course they would take. If any hon. Gentleman persisted in construing that into an adverse opinion on the part of the Government with respect to the Galway
  1230
  contract, he (Mr. Laing) must only say that such hon. Member was, in his opinion, prejudicing his own case very much.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEobserved that the large Vote now under consideration did not represent so much money out of pocket, for a deduction must be made for the postage, received and the amount paid by the Colonies. With respect to the Galway vote, there could be no doubt that the contract was made by the late Government in a perfectly legitimate and proper manner. He believed that the service had actually commenced, and that the Company would now be entitled to their money. There was no absolute necessity, however, that the Vote for the money should be taken immediately, and it would be inconvenient to take the Vote now, as the Report of the Select Committee would be circulated in a few days. He entertained no apprehension that the circumstances brought out in the Report would prejudice the parties to that contract, or interfere with the subsidy, but it was proper that the subject should be discussed, and he wished to understand that an opportunity would be given as early as possible, after the Report was in the hands of Members, for a full discussion, which was due not only to the public interest, but to private interests also.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was entitled to ask the Government to say distinctly whether they were determined to ask for the £60,000, in accordance with the Vote in the Estimates, on the condition of the Galway contractors beginning to fulfil their contract not later than the month of June, 1860?
  MR. LYGONsaid, he noticed an increase of £600 in the Vote for the Dovor contract, which was said to be on account of a Sunday service, and he desired to know on whose recommendation that increase had been made.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the increase of £600 in the Vote for Dovor arose out of new trips for Sundays between Calais and Dovor, which were rendered necessary in consequence of arrangements for considerably accelerating the mails between London and Paris. With regard to the Galway contract, he wished to explain that the Committee on Mail Contracts, who on a previous occasion declined to recommend the suspension of that contract, had been again called together by the Chairman. They went into a further investigation and

  1231
  made a Report, which was laid on the table, but was not yet printed and circulated. Under these circumstances it was impossible for him at present to give a pledge that the Galway Vote would be brought forward and supported as a Government measure. At that moment it was not possible for him to give any positive undertaking, but at the earliest moment after the Report had been printed and circulated which the state of public business would admit, the Government would consider the subject, and would make up their minds, and a full and fair opportunity would be given to the House of considering this question.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEasked whether the first packet had actually sailed in fulfilment of the terms of the contract?
  MR. LAINGsaid, he was informed by a telegram received that day that she had done so.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he would congratulate the Committee on the official recognition which had at last been given to the contract by a Member of the Government. The system of manning packet vessels by the naval reserves would not be very favourably recceived. The competition was quite suffiient to ensure a good supply of able seamen.
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYcomplained of the unbusiness-like way in which these packet contracts were managed. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) that, instead of being renewed, the contracts should be allowed to come to an end, and that all of them should be put up to public competition. In that case he believed the charge would soon be reduced.
  MR. BEAMISHsaid, he hoped the Committee, before it voted so large an amount, would receive from the hon. Secretary to the Treasury some more distinct and satisfactory assurance than had yet been given, that whatever might be the tenor of the Report of the Committee the Government would in no way interpose to prevent the fulfilment of the Galway contract, providing the parties were capable of carrying it into execution. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman rather conveyed the impression of a foregone conclusion; but he trusted the English Members would not be led into committing an act of injustice towards innocent parties who had become shareholders in the company on the faith of its receiving the subsidy from Government. Unless the pier
  1232
  at Holyhead were completed it would be put out of the power of the public to enforce penalties against the steampacket companies if they failed in their portion of the undertaking.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he thought that hon. Gentlemen interested in the Galway contract were only manifesting their apprehensions by endeavouring to elicit beforehand from the House a pledge that they would not be guided by, or even wait for, the Report of the Committee to whom this subject had been specially referred.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he was of opinion that upon every principle of justice the Galway contract ought to be maintained; but that that was not the time for discussing the question, as no satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at in the absence of the Report of the Committee. Putting contracts up to competition was not always the soundest manner of proceeding, for very often it happened that it resulted in one or two great companies getting the contract simply from the fact that there was no one to compete with them. He believed that where there were many competing elements, the putting up of contracts to public competition was sound, and he looked forward to the time when the postal communication with America could be put up to public competition, but that was not the case with regard to the conveyance of mails between this country and other places, especially the East; and he might mention the fact that an attempt was made to throw the conveyance of mails between this country and the Red Sea open to public competition; but after numerous attempts it fell, after all, into the hands of the Peninsular and Oriental Company.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he must again ask for a distinct assurance that, unless the circumstances which had occurred since the 11th of June were such as to justify the Government in retracting their previous proposal, the Galway contract would be brought forward in the Estimates with the full weight of Government influence.
  MR. LAINGrepeated that the circumstances to which he alluded were the reassembling of the Committee consequent on the receipt of fresh information, and the furnishing of a fresh Report, which had been laid on the table of the House, but which had not yet been printed.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEasked, whether any understanding had been come to with Mr. Churchward about the extra services?
  MR. LAINGreplied, that Mr. Churchward was entitled to payment by the piece for the extra services which he performed for the Post Office. It was found that this came as nearly as possible to £2,500 a year, and it had been thought more convenient, both for the Post Office and the contractor, that a fixed sum should be paid as long as the contract lasted. But it was distinctly understood on both sides that this in no way altered the period at which the contract was to expire, which, according to the view of the Treasury, was in the year 1863.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANasked when the new pier at Holyhead would be completed, and whether the plans had been submitted to the railway and steamboat companies?
  MR. LAINGsaid, the plan of the temporary pier had been first suggested by the Dublin Steampacket Company, and approved by the railway company.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that so far from the sum of £2,500 being the amount at which the extra services would be charged if paid for by the job, the fact was that it would cost £3,400. There was a sum of about £900 estimated as the expense of a small steamer running to Calais, which was a matter of dispute between the Post Office and Mr. Churchward, and that was the way in which the sum of £3,400 was made up. Mr. Churchward had commuted the whole of the bonâ fide extra services for £2,500 a year, on the faith of the extension of the contract.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to understand whether the Treasury had, on the one hand, taken advantage of the arrangement made by the late Government with Mr. Churchward to give a certain commuted sum of £2,500 as for extraordinary services, and, on the other, did not allow Mr. Churchward the advantage of an extension of his contract. The late Government thought it desirable to settle Mr. Churchward's claim by a commuted sum, which he had agreed to take in consideration of the extension of his contract. That was the bargain. If both parts of it stood it was a right and good bargain, for the advantage of the country and Mr. Churchward also; but if the Government took one half and not the other, he did not know what to think of it.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he could not allow such a statement as that of the hon. Under Secretary to pass uncontradicted. The whole matter was very carefully in-
  1234
  quired into, legal opinions were taken, and it was found that Mr. Churchward was entitled to the full amount of £3,400; and that not a farthing could be deducted for the steamer alluded to. There was no stipulation whatever about such a steamer in the contract, and, in point of fact, it was, as had been stated, a commutation of a claim on the faith of the extension of the contract.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the arrangement made by the Post Office with Mr. Churchward was the alternative one either to pay him by the job or at a commuted rate; and, without any pressure being brought to bear upon him, he elected to take the commuted rate. The employment of the small steamer had been dispensed with.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he was sorry to trouble the House again about the Holyhead pier, but as they were now in summer weather—he meant the period when summer might be expected—and in six months the winter would come, when it was most important that there should be good accommodation for the mail packets, he thought it was hardly fair that the Government should be so strict with the steam packet contractors while they neglected to complete the necessary arrangements for the landing and embarking of the mails.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, it was absurd to call it a pier at Holyhead. It was impossible to run large vessels along side of it in any weather.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to know whether the pier arrangement at Holyhead was a temporary one; if so, it was a very good one, but if it was intended to be permanent it was a bad one. There must be a permanent stone pier.
  MR. LAINGsaid, the present structure was merely temporary, until it could be decided where it would be most advantageous to construct a permanent pier. He hoped it would be ready by the 1st of August.
  LORD DUNKELLINinquired when the Estimate for Galway would be brought forward.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he could not in the present state of public business name a night, but ample notice would be given on the subject.
  Vote agreed to, as were also,
  (2.) £855,200 Customs' Department.
  (3.) £1,490,813 Inland Revenue Department.
  COLONEL DUNNEasked for an explana-

  1235
  tion of the sum of £14,000 for the services of the Irish constabulary.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that that sum had been set down in the Estimate in consequence of the transfer to them of the duties of the late revenue police.
  MR. STEUARTsaid, that with reference to the reduction in the expenses of the Customs department promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement, he wished to ask why that reduction had not been carried into effect.
  MR. LAINGsaid, it was manifest it must take some time to carry the proposed reduction into effect. In the Customs' department the consolidation consequent upon the simplification of the tariff had as yet been put into operation only in the port of London, where a reduction in the establishment of 276 persons and a saving, consequent on the proposal of his right hon. Friend, of £48,471 a year might be expected. The Committee might rest assured that so far as the Government were concerned they would be prepared to give the country the benefit of any saving which might be accomplished in the working of the department.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, that it was not wise to effect savings in the Custom-house at the expense of the merchants who had to do business there. He understood that the reductions already made had rendered necessary the employment of 300 or 400 additional clerks in Mincing-lane.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he thought that the Committee ought to have some further explanation as to how this saving was to be effected.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4). £2,108,581, Post Office.
  Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked whether it was intended to appoint any one to replace the Earl of Elgin as Postmaster General, or whether that noble Earl was to continue to draw the salary of that office?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that since the departure of the Earl of Elgin from this country the Duke of Argyll had held the office of Postmaster General and had received its salary. If the Earl of Elgin proceeded to China some other arrangement must be adopted, and a permanent successor to him must be appointed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the Duke of Argyll had vacated the office of Lord Privy Seal?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied that the noble Duke filled both offices, but received only the salary of the Postmaster General.
  Vote agreed to; as was also (5) £477,838 Superannuations.
  House resumed; Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3, agreed to.
  Clause 4, (Repeal of Provisions in ss. 2 and 3 of first-recited Act with reference to Salaries of Registrar General and Secretary).
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, he wished to leave out the word "hereafter" from the clause.
  MR. DALGLISH MR. DALGLISH moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now report Progress."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 75: Majority 63.
  Amendment made, Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provision as to Sessional Registers).
  Clause postponed.
  Clauses 7 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 (As to Remuneration of Registrar).
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON SIR JAMES FERGUSSON moved the omission of the clause.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 31; Majority 17.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported, as amended; to be considered on Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 216].
  House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.