Commons Sitting of 25 July 1861

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Morpeth, v. Right hon. Sir George Grey, Baronet, Secretary of State; for Oxford City, v. Right hon. Edward Cardwell, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
PUBLIC BILLS.—20 Treasury Chest Fund; Lunatics (Scotland); Public Offices Site; Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) Continuance.
30 Indemnity; Leases, &c, by Incumbents Restriction.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee (Supply) read;
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
GENERAL PEEL: I am so fully aware of the very general, and I must say the very natural, indisposition of the House to listen to long statements of figures, that I should not venture to ask its attention

1481
to a matter relating to past expenditure, which has already been provided for by means to which I shall hereafter refer, if the subject was not of far greater importance than the Vote of £206,000 would appear to imply. This sum forms a very small portion of the excess of expenditure beyond the money voted by Parliament for army services in 1859–60, and I do not know how I can give a better idea of the importance of the subject than by drawing a comparison between the amount of this sum (spent without the authority of Parliament, and apparently without the knowledge of the Government) and some of those items of expenditure which have created the greatest interest during the present Session. Great alarm has been expressed at the amount required to build a new Foreign Office. The excess would have built five Foreign Offices. Another matter of the greatest interest is the amount required for the national education of the country, and complaints have been made of the gradual increase of that Vote; but this excess exceeds the whole amount required for the national education of the United Kingdom, and is five times the sum that we have been told would insure the permanent enrolment of 200,000 volunteers. It is to this excess, and the provision, or rather want of provision, made for it in the Budget of last year, that I wish to call the attention of the House. In referring to what took place on the 19th of March, 1860, when the Secretary for War moved the Vote of Credit to cover his expenditure, it may be supposed by some that my object is to claim some triumph over my noble Friend, or to find fault with the policy of the Government, that led to this expenditure; but it is neither the one or the other. If it was a mere question as to the accuracy of my statement on that occasion as compared with that of my noble Friend, I should consider that matter completely settled by the production of the account of the receipts and expenditure for Army and Militia Services for the year ending 31st March, 1860, which I now hold in my hand, and I should have been quite willing to leave it to the judgment of those Members who are in the habit of interesting themselves and paying attention to these matters; and as to the policy of the Government, I have not the slightest doubt that they were fully justified by what was passing at the time in exceeding the number of men voted by
1482
Parliament, which naturally entailed the increased expenditure; but what I complain of is that having done so they did not provide the means to meet it—that either they did not know, or, knowing (which I do not believe), they concealed from the House the amount required to meet the expenditure—that the calculations upon which the Budget was framed were erroneous, and that that Budget on the faith of the accuracy of which the House was called upon to make great changes in the taxation of the country, and to repeal the paper duty, was a delusion, and for that delusion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in my opinion, was quite as much responsible as the Secretary for War. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on two or three occasions alluded to what he was pleased to call a controversy going on between myself and the Secretary for War, with which he had nothing to do, and he has laid down this doctrine, "that if the Treasury undertook to cut down the demands of the Military Departments, it would be incurring a great responsibility;" and in this I entirely agree; and if I was Secretary for War I would take care that the Treasury did not so interfere. The number of men and means of defence required by the country is not in the province of either the Secretary for War or the Treasury to determine. That is settled by the Cabinet; and I take for granted that my noble Friend the Secretary for War did not proceed to raise a new regiment and exceed the number of men voted by Parliament by more than 22,000 men without first obtaining the sanction of his colleagues. Having done so it was the duty of the War Office, in the first instance, to frame the Estimates to cover the necessary expenditure; but all Estimates must be submitted to the Treasury, and obtain the sanction of the Treasury before they are laid upon the Table of this House. No Department can incur any expenditure not provided for in the Estimates without the direct sanction and authority of the Treasury; and this sanction, I maintain, makes the Treasury equally responsible with the Department for it. If this is not the case—if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible—then, I think this House ought to insist on having the Minister responsible for the Estimate and expenditure of upwards of fifteen millions of money, here to account for it. Nobody can bear more willing testimony than I

1483
do to the ability with which the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War has discharged the duties of the office. But he is not, and cannot be responsible for the accuracy of Estimates or expenditure over which he has no control. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement last year, he professed to provide for in it, not only all excess of expenditure that had already taken place in consequence of the Chinese war, but for all prospective expenditure not included in the Estimates that could be foreseen and estimated for, and he announced that in order to do so two Votes of Credit would be required, one of £850,000 to meet the expenditure of 1859–60; and another of £500,000 for 1860–1. On the 19th of March, 1860, my noble Friend the Secretary for War moved for the first Vote of Credit of £850,000, of which £500,000 was to be devoted to the army, and it was on that occasion that I expressed my opinion that £500,000 would not meet the excess of expenditure on five Votes alone of the ordinary Estimates of the year— namely, votes 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 entirely dependent on the number of men borne on the establishment during the financial year, and I stated my grounds for coming to this conclusion—namely, that having framed those Estimates, and knowing that they were only calculated to provide for 134,600 men, including the embodied militia, and that the average number of men during the whole year exceeded 142,600 men, there must be an excess of expenditure amounting to at least this £500,000 on these, five Votes, and that to meet the whole expenditure, the greatest portion of which had taken place in India and had been paid for by the Indian Government, that at least another £500,000 would be required, and I concluded by appealing to that time (which has now arrived) when the accounts are before us, to bear me out in this assertion. Now, what I said may be of very little importance, but what the Secretary for War—the Minister responsible to this House for the accuracy of these Estimates—said, is of such vital importance, that in order to prevent the possibility of my misquoting him, I will read from what I take to be a corrected copy of his speech, what he did say—
"He, too, would appeal to facts—not to estimates, but to formal accounts of the money which had been spent—and the House might rest assured that the Government were running into no excess beyond that met by the present Vote."— [3 Hansard, clvii. 920.]
1484
He then proceeded to enter into an explanation about an Army of Reserve which it had been intended to raise, but of which, as we have never heard a word more from that day to this, it is useless for me to dwell upon. And then he said—
"In the Estimates of 1859–60, which his right hon. and gallant Friend had moved, provision was made for 121,601 regular troops, in addition to £410,000 for militia, which would maintain 13,000 men during the year. In the Vote of Credit for China services for 1859–60, also moved by his right hon. and gallant Friend, £210,000 was taken for pay and allowances, which would maintain 7,000 men for one year, so that provision was made in that year for a total force of 141,600 men. In April of last year the force was less than this number by 14,000, which produced a saving of £43,200. In May there was a saving of 12,400 men, and of £37,000. The amount of saving then went on decreasing until November, the upshot being that if in March all the troops going from India to China had actually gone, there would be 15,000 in excess. In point of fact, however, it was known that the vessels which were to convey those troops had not sailed from Bombay and Calcutta in time to land the troops in China before the expiration of the financial year, and would not come within the Estimates until they were disembarked. There would thus be an excess of £97,000 for the payment of the men against £192,000 of savings accruing as he had mentioned in the early part of the year. To make all safe £50,000 had been added as a difference between the organization of the militia and the regular force, the militia having a greater number of officers in proportion to the men than the regular army. Again, £50,000 had been added for an increase which might occur upon the miscellaneous items of Vote 3, but with all these additions, which were stated to be more than ample, there was still £192,000 to meet the £187,000 of excess. But this was not all. Upon the Votes taken for buildings, stores, and so on, it invariably happened, he was sorry to say, that the deliveries were not fast enough to allow of the payments being made in the financial year, and there was almost a saving under this head. Accordingly there was this year a large saving upon the Vote of stores."
"As he had said, he would only assure the right hon. and gallant Officer that he had looked through the accounts with the greatest possible care, and he was confident that there was not only enough for the troops, but a surplus to provide against any deficiency."—[3 Hansard, clvii. 921–22.]
Now will the House believe that the whole of this statement is a mistake from the beginning to the end, and that there is hardly a correct figure in it. I never moved for any Vote of Credit of £240,000 to provide for 7,000 men an account of Chinese services, and for the best possible reason, there were no extraordinary services on China at the time I was in office. The attack on the Peiho only took place on the day, or the day after, Lord Derby's Government quitted office, and was not

1485
heard of in this country for some weeks afterwards. Equally fictious are the savings during the months of April, May, and June, &c.; and I was quite astonished at hearing that I had saved anything. It may be quite true that the number of men quoted may have been wanting to complete the regular army; but they were represented by embodied militia, for whom no provision had been taken but what had been deducted from the pay and allowances of the men voted by Parliament and, in point of fact, there was no deficiency of men, and no saving. Well, Sir, we have now the accounts before us, and what is the result? Oil Vote 2, Pay and Allowances, there is an Excess of, £137 3s. 1d.; Vote 3, Miscellaneous Charges, £261,242 17 s.; Vote 4, Embodied Militia, £245,240 11 s. 7d.; Vote 9, Clothing &c., £265,753 12 s. 7d.; Vote 10, Provisions, Fuel, and Light, £200.780 5s. 8d.: Total Excess in the Five Votes, £973,134 9s. 11 d. And on Vote 11, for warlike stores (the savings upon which we were told would cover any excess of expenditure on the other Votes), there is absolutely, instead of any saving, an excess of £23,595 6s. 5d., and the excess upon all the Votes amounts to £1,061,488 0s. 6d., and deducting from this sum what is called the savings upon other Votes amounting to £243,093 4s. 4d. (which is in reality no saving at all, but a mere postponement of services that must be performed for a future year), which the Treasury have the power, under the Appropriation Act, of applying to meet the excess—there remains an excess of expenditure on the ordinary Estimates of the year of £818,394 16 s. 2d. to be provided for. Now, let us examine the exact state of the account as to money absolutely spent and liabilities entered into, and the means provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first Budget to meet them. There is, first, this sum of £818,394 16 s. 8d. in excess of the money provided by Parliament for the Estimates of the year; and there were two accounts due to the Indian Government—one of £443,896 for the previous Chinese expedition and Indian troops serving in China; and another of £611,000, which the Indian Government had informed the Government in January, I860, would be required early in the spring, on account of advances made by them for army services for the Chinese War then carrying on. My right hon. Friend has stated that the Treasury did not know in which financial year, 1859-
1486
60 or 1860–1, these payments might be made; I will, therefore, take the two years together. In the one or the other the payments must be made, and the financial statement professed to provide for both. The account, therefore, would stand thus: —On account of excess of expenditure on Army Estimates, there was to be provided for, £818,394 16 s.; on account of recent Chinese Expedition, £443,896; on account of present Chinese War, £611,000: Total. £1,873,290 16 s. And to meet this there were two Votes of Credit—one of £850,000, and the other £500,000 — making together £1,350,000. Thus leaving a deficiency of £523,290 16 s.; and not one shilling was provided for the pay and allowances of 10,000 Native troops serving in China (who had not been voted by Parliament or provided for in the Estimates), or for the extra allowances to the regular forces, or for any naval services not provided for in the Estimates. I defy anybody to contradict the correctness of this statement. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer may ask—How was I to know that the Estimate of the Secretary for War was so erroneous? My reply is—How did I know it? The Treasury had far better means of testing its accuracy than I had. I could only calculate that if so many men cost so much in 1858–9, an additional number of men would cost so much more in 1859–60; and my calculation has proved quite correct. As to the first account claimed by the Indian Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was dragging its slow length through the Treasury, and he had no reason to know it would become payable during either of the financial years mentioned, and yet this sum is absolutely returned in the "Home Account of the Government of India," laid on the Table of this House, as having been received in the financial year 1859–60; and as to the other account, amounting to £611,000, the Indian Government had given notice to the Treasury in January, 1860, that it would be required early in the spring of that year. Now, Sir, I never thought that the Government could have been expected to foresee, at the time the financial statement was made, the certainty of a war with China, or that they were bound to provide for such a contingency; but they were bound to provide for the expenditure that had actually taken place, and for such prospective expenditure as, under the most favourable circumstances that could possibly be

1487
anticipated, must inevitably be incurred. If there had been no war—if the demands of the British Government had been at once acceded to—it would have been necessary to apply to Parliament for a million of money at least. And I do ask the House, if this had been all fairly and honestly stated, whether there would have been any collision between this House and the House of Lords, and whether this House would not have done, what the House of Lords, in my opinion, very wisely did—namely, refuse to remit the paper duty? I now wish, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the manner in which this excess of expenditure has been provided for. It arises almost entirely in the expenditure dependent on the number of men; and, in the account laid upon the table, an explanation is given of the cause of the excess, and the portion of it chargeable to the Chinese War. The whole excess on the five Votes I have referred to amounts to £973,154 9s. 11 d., of which £210,451 17 s. is stated to be chargeable to the war in China; and it appears to me a very questionable stretch of the power of the Treasury to appropriate any larger portion of the Vote of Credit (which was granted by Parliament for the specific purpose of meeting the expense of the Chinese War) in reduction of this excess than the sum shown to be chargeable to that war, and such appropriation is directly contrary to the principle laid down by my noble Friend on the 12th of July, 1860, who, in answer to a question from me, stated—
"And he asks me whether every sixpence of the £500,000 which we took has not been expended in making up the deficiency on the ordinary Estimates of last year? In the first place I have to reply that not one sixpence of that sum was applicable to making up any deficiency which might have occurred in the ordinary Estimates of last year. My gallant Friend, who is well acquainted with these matters, must have spoken without reflection, for he must have known that you cannot apply one farthing of a Vote of Credit to any purpose but that for which it was voted. You cannot spend it in making up an ordinary deficiency in the ordinary Estimate of the year. If his vaticinations, therefore, should prove correct, which I trust they will not, the deficiency will have to be made up by a Vote next year, specially taken to cover it. But so far from all that sum being spent in that way, we have reason to believe that a large portion of it still remains unexpended."—[3 Hansard, clix. 1813.]
I understand that the explanation of this is that there would have been a large saving upon Vote 11 for warlike stores, if it had not been for the China War; and that, as the Treasury would have had the
1488
power of appropriating that saving (as it has done the other so-called saving), in reduction of this excess, it is justified in taking an equal amount from the Vote of Credit. But I consider this an exaggeration of the power of the Treasury granted by the Appropriation Act, which applies to actual and not imaginary savings. I have no doubt it will be said that of the whole array expenditure (for 1859–60) £610,000 was owing to the Chinese War; and, therefore, we have a right to charge that amount to the Vote of Credit; but the effect of this is to withdraw from the cognizance of Parliament the real amount of excess which had nothing to with the China War. Now, as I do not intend to conclude with any motion, I may be asked what is the use of occupying the time of the House by these references to things that are gone by— that however faulty they may have been, it is no use raking them up now; that the Budget of last year is now a matter of history, and that it would be far better to adopt the convenient maxim of letting" by gones be bygones?" but I have three reasons for not adopting this course. First, I think it is absolutely necessary that the attention of this House should be called to any expenditure not sanctioned by Parliament. If the lapse of time is to be a bar to inquiry it may always be urged, as the accounts are never laid upon the table of the House until fifteen months after the expiration of the financial year; and a Secretary for War might exceed his Estimates to any amount without any fear of being questioned about it. Secondly, I am anxious to enlighten the minds of some of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's colleagues as to the amount of provision made in his original Budget for the China War. In a recent debate in "another place," my noble Friend Lord Derby stated it to have been the very modest sum of £500,000, but was corrected by a noble Duke, a Cabinet Minister, who said it was two millions and a half. Now I have shown that even the modest provision of £500,000 never existed, but that their was an absolute deficiency of more than that amount. And, lastly, and what is of far greater importance is, that these excesses are not byegones, but are going on at the present moment, and I am confident that when the Army accounts of the last financial year 1860–1 are laid upon the Table of the House there will be an excess of expenditure on the same four votes amounting to a quarter of a million. I do not say that

1489
you may net pay it out of Votes of Credit of open accounts with India of which we know nothing, but I say the expenditure will exceed the amount voted by Parliament by at least the sum I have mentioned; and as to the Estimates of the present year I pointed out when they first appeared that, large as they are, they do not provide for the number of men on the establishment, and that in order to make them appear lower than the Estimates of last year, a sum of £127,000 had been deducted from the pay and allowances of the men voted by Parliament on account of men stated to be wanting to complete the establishment who were not wanting. The Under Secretary for War assured me that the attention of the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief had been called to the subject, and that by the commencement of the financial year the numbers would be so reduced. I called for a Return of the number of men on the establishment on the 1st of April and found they were not so reduced; and, again, I called for a similar Return on the 1st of June to which I beg to call the particular attention of the House, and to ask the Under Secretary for War for an explanation of it, as it is calculated to mislead the House, and is, in fact, not a correct Return? I asked for a Return of the number of men on the British establishment on the 1st of June, and also of the number of men on their passage home from India, or under order to proceed home, who would become chargeable to the British establishment on their arrival. On seeing the Return I was excessively surprised to find that the numbers returned as being on their passage home amounted in each case to nearly the establishment of each regiment—a thing so unusual in regiments coming home from India—that I inquired both at the Horse Guards and the War Office, and found that the numbers reported as on their passage home included the depots of the regiments which are in this country, and have been chargeable to the British establishment during the whole course of the financial year—making the whole number exceed, not only that provided for, but the number voted by Parliament. I have to apologize to the House for having occupied so much of their time on this subject at this late period of the Session, but that is not my fault. This is the first opportunity I have had of doing so since the accounts were laid on the Table of the House; and I only regret that the accounts were not
1490
produced before the Budget, for I think if the House had been acquainted with the real state of the army expenditure they would not have parted with the paper duties this year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his right hon. Friend seemed to expect that he would be found fault with for bringing this subject before the House, and that he would be told it was too late to do so. But the truth was that the subject of the army excesses could only be discussed with effect in the year next but one after the Estimates were voted, so that his right hon. Friend had taken the right time for the discussion which he had raised. The charges which he had made divided themselves into two parts. One might be settled by a discussion in that House—the other [was of a far more serious nature. The lighter portion—that which related to the discrepancy between the actual sum asked for the service of the army and the ultimate expenditure—he would leave to be answered by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of the relations between the Treasury and the War Department, and had ascribed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) a doctrine which most certainly was not his, but was the reverse of his. No doubt it was the special duty of the Treasury, with respect to the Army Estimates, to examine whether or not the services taken were in excess of the purposes to which they were to be applied. The Treasury had the greatest possible interest in the accuracy of the Estimates. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, it was his duty to make a careful examination of them; and it was no reproach to the gentlemen connected with the various departments to say that this examination, as well as the discussions that took place in Parliament, were useful in securing accuracy of detail. His right hon. Friend said the Treasury must necessarily have known the increase of payment for the army called for, in consequence of the increase which he said had taken place in the number of men voted by Parliament. But the fact was that the Treasury were in ignorance of the number of men. The Cabinet itself could not have a perfectly effective control over the number of men chargeable on the British establishment; because, in the state in which affairs had been in India, they had been but little else than servants of the Governor General. They were compelled constantly to have

1491
forces ready for the service of India, and to proceed there often without notice, so that no preparation could be made for the amount of change, and it was impossible to say how much would be thrown upon the British establishment. He would pass on to the question of departmental responsibility, and upon this he wished to observe that if the, statements of the right hon. Gentleman (General Peel) were correct the matter ought not to end with a simple discussion across the Table of the House. The charges which he had brought really amounted to this—that at the time when the Government laid their proposals before Parliament with respect to the impending military expenditure they were in possession of information which ought to have convinced any rational man that the charge they proposed was too small. Now, that was a charge which would require a more minute answer than, without preparation, he was able to give. He was in a condition, however, from recollection, to meet the charges pf his right hon. Friend so far. The points on which the Treasury was responsible were three. It was responsible for fixing the amount of any Vote of Credit that was proposed; it was responsible for the transfer and distribution of the Votes under the Act of Parliament; and it was responsible for adjudications on the claims of the respective departments to a share of the Vote of Credit. His right hon. Friend stated that, so far back as the 10th of February, 1860, the Government ought to have been sensible that there was a sum of —1,800,000—including £400,000 for the China War, and £600,000 due to the Indian Government — which they would have to pay, and for which they had made no provision. Now, he denied that the accounts to which, his right hon. and gallant Friend referred were in such a state as to enable the Government to found any estimate on them, with a view of getting a Vote from Parliament. All he could say was, that if an excess of £1,800,000 really did exist in the expenditure of the army, it was not within the knowledge of the War Department, nor within the knowledge of any other department of the Government when he made his financial statement in I860. He, therefore, did not admit that any portion pf that alleged army excess could have entered the calculations of the Government in framing their financial arrangements. Many of these questions— such, for example, as the £400,000 voted for the China War£could not be settled
1492
across that table. Neither he nor his right hon. Colleague the Secretary for India, nor any one else connected with the Government, could have had the smallest idea that any portion of that sum mentioned would go to any other than its original purposes. If his right hon. and gallant Friend wished to make good the opinion he had stated, he ought to have submitted to the House a question, not to be settled across the table, but one that would have led to a more minute calculation, and investigation of accounts than could take place in that House. His right hon. and gallant Friend stated that the charge of £600,000 for India was known to the Government before the financial statement was made. It was in reality known on the 28th of January, but it was not to be taken for granted that the claim was one that should be paid; for, in truth, claims for India not unfrequently required to be corrected after investigation. His right hon. Friend taunted them with having proposed a Vote of Credit of only £1,350,000 to meet an excess of £1,800,000; but that sum was believed fully adequate to the occasion, and was fixed upon partly in consequence of information from the Foreign Office with regard to the probability of an increased charge being required for China, and partly with reference to the Indian account. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that they ought to have left a wide margin for charges that might occur; but, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that at the time there was an expectation that should the Chinese expedition lead to an accommodation, there was a payment from that country of £500,000 under the Treaty of Tien-tsin, which would have been available in aid of the Ways and Means of the year; and it would not have been right of the Government to have made any demand on Parliament without taking that matter into consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman were not satisfied with that, he hoped he would carry the matter further, It was a matter of vital importance that every department, and especially the Minister of Finance, should deal with Parliament not only in good faith, but with as much intelligence as could be expected from him, or as the nature of his office would allow. Then, with respect to the appropriation of what were called the savings on different heads. It was the absolute duty of the Treasury to appropriate the balances in the Exchequer before dealing with the Vote of Credit; and if they

1493
did otherwise they would have acted in excess of their legal power. His right hon. and gallant Friend found fault with the Treasury for having appropriated £600,000 out of £850,000 taken for the China expedition to the expenses of the military department. His answer to that was that it was a matter which depended for its accuracy on careful and minute examination in detail, and it had been examined with care and pains under his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) responsibility. They might, however, have been wrong, and that was a very proper matter for Parliamentary investigation. If his hon. and gallant Friend was disposed to devote his leisure hours to the inquiry during the recess, with a view to its being again brought forward next Session, and thoroughly investigated, he should have every assistance that it was in his power to give him. He was glad that he had directed his mind to the subject, as every Government was the better for being called to account with regard to its expenditure.
MR. T. G. BARINGthought the question between the right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend the Secretary for War (Lord Herbert) could be very easily settled. The right hon. Gentleman in March 1860 stated his belief that there would be at least £500,000 of excess in the military expenditure of the year, and Lord Herbert thought and stated that the ordinary army Votes for the year would be sufficient, with the addition of the Vote of Credit for the China War for that year. The question was not which was right and which was wrong, but which was most right and which most wrong. He had now to ask the House for a Vote of Credit for £200,000 to make up the deficiency for the year in question; this was the whole deficiency after the increased expenditure caused by the China War had been paid, as provided for by Parliament, out of the Vote of Credit. It must be plain, therefore, that when Lord Herbert said there would be no deficiency he was more right than the right hon. Gentleman, who put down the deficiency at £500,000. Lord Herbert was, however, far nearer the truth than that, for out of the actual excess of £200,000, at least £120,000 could not have been known in March 1860, when, as the right hon. Gentleman well knew, six months at least had to elapse before the accounts for the Army were closed. This £120,000 was made up of items of account unexpectedly brought on charge in the year 1859–60. Lord Her-
1494
bert, therefore, was only out by £80,000 out of a total expenditure of £14,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to five Votes, which he said were entirely dependent on the number of men; but that was an incorrect assumption. How could the £120,000 charged to the clothing Vote for items of account, as explained in the Parliamentary paper in the hands of Members, be attributed to the number of men, as stated by the hon. Gentleman? How could the increased supplies purchased for the garrisons of Malta and Gibraltar be caused by the number of men borne? He denied the accuracy of the conclusions drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. He could, having examined the accounts, assure the House that no portion of the £600,000 for China had gone to the ordinary expenses of the Army in the sense stated by the right hon. Gentleman. Had there been no war with China that charge would not have been incurred. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that there would be an excess upon the Vote for men for the current year. There was at present, including the men on passage home, an excess of about 5,000 men which chiefly arose from the unexpected return of troops from India and from the calls made upon us from India; 3,000 were artillery to be charged to India, leaving 2,000 men as the excess. There would be probably 1,000 men in China to be charged to the Vote of Credit, and this would make the excess about 1,000, or say 1,500 men. Then recruiting had been stopped, so that he did not anticipate that the money voted would be insufficient to meet the cost of the men for the whole year.
SIR HENRY W1LLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the gratitude of the House was due to his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon, who had raised a great constitutional principle, to which he too wished to call attention. In the year 1859–60 the House voted £122,655 men, but in the course of the year they had 9,557 more men than Parliament sanctioned. In April 1860, they had 11,507 more men than Parliament voted for. He wanted to know where the money to pay these men came from? It was evident that it must have come out of the Treasury chest; but he wished to ask if the House was disposed to let go its hold over the control of the Army, the number of men voted, and the sources from which they were to be paid? If not, he thought there ought to be a clear and distinct explanation of the cir-

1495
cumstance. He wished, therefore, to have an answer whether or not it was true that 10,000 men in round numbers were kept up last year in excess of the numbers voted in this House? The question was of the more importance, as the House was in a strange position arising from the large standing army kept up in India over which they had no control whatever.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the questions raised by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon would be better inquired into before a Committee upstairs than in that House; but there were one or two points which he thought ought not to pass without notice. He gathered from what fell from the hon. Under Secretary of State for War that he considered the whole matter turned very much upon the question of whether his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) or Lord Herbert were nearest the truth in what they respectively stated on the 19th of March, 1860. The House should bear in mind how extremely different were the positions of the two speakers. One spoke from a general estimate which he was enabled to form from his knowledge of the manner in which business was conducted at the War Office, and of the operations which were being carried on; while the other spoke from official knowledge on the subject, and from documents in his possession. But, after all, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not see that the balance was as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War had stated it. It seemed to him that his right hon. and gallant Friend was upon the whole much nearer the truth than was Lord Herbert. It was said that they were to measure the whole by the £200,000 asked for in excess. But that did not measure the whole. They were distinctly informed last year that only £500,000 would be wanted for the army and £250,000 for the navy. It was simply in consequence of the postponement of some ships building for the Admiralty that the latter sum was not required, but if it had been there would have been a still greater deficiency in respect of the army Vote than there was at present. He made out that the real deficiency was at least £300,000. The hon. Gentleman said the deficiency arose from circumstances which could not have been foreseen. No doubt many things, especially considering our relations with India, would at times arise to baffle the calculations of Government, but
1496
they ought on that account to be the more cautious, and to take care in their arrangement for the year to make allowances for uncertainties. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that he was entitled to take as a set off to the £600,000 required by India the possibility of the war with China coming to an end, and that in such a case there would have been no deficiency. If that statement had been made to the House last year they would have known what they were about; that they were dealing with a certainty on the one hand and with an uncertainty on the-other; but the complaint was that the Government did not tell them all the grounds on which expenditure would be required. He thought the statement of his right hon. and gallant Friend last year was justified by the result, and that he had taken the only means in his power by a reference to the five Votes which he had pointed out of getting at the expenditure for the year. It was not fair for the Government after advising the House to agree to a large expenditure to come forward as they now did and tell them that there was an excess of expenditure through causes which they had not foreseen.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that he, too, thought the House ought to feel obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon in bringing the matter forward, for it was clear that these accounts ought to be examined into in detail. It was not the first time that such accounts had been mystified, and if a Committee were moved for during the next Session he should give the Motion his support.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the thanks of the House were due both to the right hon. and gallant Officer and to the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham for having called attention to that important question. There could be no doubt that the large army in India did give any Government an opportunity to shuffle the cards between the two armies—men in the one country and men out of it—men on sea and men about to go to sea—men to be accounted for now and men to be accounted for hereafter—that he was afraid it would puzzle even a Committee to discover what was the exact state of things at any particular moment. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were many of these matters which it was impossible to foresee when the Estimates were being made up.
THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Those were not my words.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had not taken down the right hon. Gentleman's words; but that was his impression. He could only say that if it had been to lay on a tax the prevision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been considerably strengthened. He had been amused with the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended his right hon. and gallant Friend to employ his leisure during the recess. Was his right hon. and gallant Friend to step into the War Office and into the Treasury to overhaul these accounts? For his part he thought the best way to investigate the matter would be by a Committee. Then the hon. Under Secretary, curiously enough, accounted for the excess of 5,000 men by saying that 3,000 of them were wanted for India. Why that might as well be 10,000. What security, indeed, was there against any number of men being sent? If a great army was to be kept up in India some arrangement should be made with the Government of India, so that the present state of uncertainty might be done away with. The House ought to remember that the question was by no means new. His right hon. and gallant Friend had returned to the charge again and again—he had told both Lord Herbert and the hon. Gentleman opposite, both that year and the last, "You are not taking money enough for your men." And the result of all the mistification was that they were called on to-day to vote £200,000 for excess of expenditure. The Chancellor of Exchequer had in effect said that he had no answer to make to his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel). He neither admitted his right hon. and gallant Friend to be right, nor did he deny his statement — he left them in a state of blessed uncertainty. In his opinion no answer had been given to his right hon. and gallant Friend, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Under Secretary for War. The subject was not an agreeable subject, and he hoped the House would apply itself to prevent its recurrence in future.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know how the 5,000 men that were admitted to be in excess were to be paid for? If recruiting was stopped what was to become of the large Vote taken during the year for recruiting, and why was the passage money for soldiers from India to be paid for by this country, instead of, as
1498
formerly, by the Indian Government? He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give a clear answer to these questions.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he could not understand what was the necessity of sending out 3,000 artillerymen to India. Surely out of the volunteers into the Queen's army, of which they had heard so much, they might have obtained the number of artillerymen required.
Mr. G. W. HOPEsaid, he rose to move I that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the sum of £15,000, voted for an increase to the Royal Military College at Sandhurst to contained five hundred cadets, might not be expended till the House had had time to consider the details of the plan for which it was proposed to make the increase. He wished at the outset to disclaim the intention of making any attack on Lord Herbert, whose merits he fully recognized, and whose retirement from office, which he was afraid was made certain by the writs moved for that day, he considered a great loss to the public service. But one of the merits of that noble Lord was that he was willing to listen to opinions different from his own; and he believed if he had been in his usual health the plan would never have been proposed. That plan was that every officer of the army should pass through the college. The Committee on military organization which sat in 1859 and 1860, took evidence on the subject, and considered it but settled in their Report that they had not information enough; before them to justify their making any recommendation on the subject. From that day to this the Government have given no further information on the question, and yet asked the House of Commons to devide upon it, although the important Committee to which he had referred declared that the information produced was not sufficient to justify any opinion being formed on it. When the Vote was under consideration it was objected to, and the hon. Gentleman made the offer that the Government would incur no expense till further information was obtained. The House, however, divided on the Vote, and it was carried; and after that the hon. Under Secretary stated that, as the Opposition had divided, the Government would not stand by the offer he had made. That was, to say the least, sharp practice, for how could the hon.
Gentleman know how many votes were influenced in his favour by the offer he had made? He hoped the hon. Gentleman

1499
would even now repeat his offer and save him the trouble of arguing the question further. As the hon. Gentleman remained silent he was compelled, though with great reluctance, to go further into the matter. The hon. Gentleman then stated at some length his objections to the proposed plan, referring more particularly to the question of patronage, and the competitive system for admission to the college. It seemed to be settled that every student who passed through Sandhurst was to have a commission. The question, then, was, how was a young man to get into the college? It was at first proposed that they should enter by competitive examination, but that was now overruled; so that the question came to this—that the Commander-in-Chief, instead of giving commissions directly, would give them indirectly by a nomination to Sandhurst. That would practically be the case in time of peace; it would be still more emphatically the case in time of war, for they had the evidence of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief that the college would he inadequate to the supply of officers in time of war. Yet it was proposed to make every officer of the British army pass through this college. The reason alleged was that the education there given was necessary for the officer in the discharge of his duties. Practically, however, it was found that the theories taught by professors were not of much service in the field, and he had heard men of great professional experience declare that the proposed plan would be injurious to the service. Indeed, he believed the Duke of Wellington was always opposed to the plan of making all the officers of the army pass through one college. But all he asked was that the Government should give a pledge they would not carry out the plan till the House was in possession of further information. The plan of the college was that every officer was to enter the college at the age of seventeen. At present any man might enter the army between the ages of eighteen and twenty-three. It might be advantageous in some respects to make the army, like the armies of the Continent, a separate class; but the great object had hitherto been to combine among their officers the qualities of a soldier and a citizen. To introduce a set of men who were to be soldiers only, and not citizens, might be injurious both to the interests of the army and the Constitution. He concluded by moving the Resolution.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he rose to order. He wished to ask whether, when a Vote had been agreed to in a Committee of Supply and been reported to the House, it was competent to move an Address to the Crown to Buspend, if not to annihilate, that Vote.
Mr. SPEAKERsaid, great latitude of discussion was allowed on going into Committee of Supply, but one restriction was put upon it by the House, namely, that any Vote which had passed, or any Vote which was about to be discussed in Committee of Supply, was not a proper subject for discussion on going into Committee. That was the rule of the House. When the hon. Gentleman was making his statement there was much in it which could not be objected to by the House. Therefore, although the speech was founded on a Motion which stood on the paper, he did not think it consistent with his duty to interfere. But, in reply to the appeal now made to him, he would say that it was not consistent with order that he should put the Motion to the House. The Vote to which it referred had been passed in Committee, and had been reported and agreed to by the House. If a practice should arise of moving an Address to the Crown on every Vote which had been passed by the House it was clear that discussion never would end, and that Supply would be postponed indefinitely. Any other subject once considered and disposed of by the House was held to be disposed of for that Session. The Vote had passed in Committee, and been agreed to by the House, and he, therefore, was of opinion, that it was not competent to move an Address to the Crown that the Vote should not be expended.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that as it appeared to be contrary to the rules of the House he should at once withdraw the Motion. He might add, however, he had waited until then to bring it forward, in order to see whether the Government would produce papers on the subject.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he did not think, if the Motion was withdrawn, that the discussion was, therefore, disposed of. He thought the hon. Gentleman was entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing the question forward. Let the House consider the circumstances under which the Vote was passed. It was passed at half-past one in the morning, when the House was tired out. No explanation of the Vote was given, but a

1501
promise was held out that some explanation would be given afterwards. A division took place, and the Vote was only carried by a majority of five. They were taking a step towards the formation of an institution that was to put the whole officers of the army on a new footing with regard to the mode of entering the army. The Committee on Military Organization would not sanction the plan of the college because it was brought forward in an incomplete; state, and the Government themselves did not know what the plan was. If they did not take care the £15,000 then asked for would swell up to £200,000. The House was surprised into a division in favour of the scheme, and he hoped some means; would be devised to get rid of it.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether the rule, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, would prevent any Motion being made on the subject when they were not going into Committee of Supply?
MR. SPEAKERhad stated what was the rule of the House which it was his duty to enforce—namely, a rule, that in going into Committee of Supply restriction was placed upon the general liberty of discussion on two points—one, that Votes passed in Committee of Supply were not to be discussed on going into Committee; and the Other, that any Votes standing for consideration must be considered in Committee, and not on going into Committee.
Mr. DILLWYNsaid, that if they were to be struck over upon a point of order on a Vote taken at half-past one in the morning, he trusted it would be a lesson to the House never to allow a Committee of Supply to go on at such an hour.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that as a matter of fact the Vote was not carried at half-past one in the morning. At no time were the Votes of the Army Estimates taken at so late an hour.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that in a matter of such importance one would be justified in moving the adjournment of the debate, in order to enable the hon. Under Secretary for War to give an explanation, because he said he would have no objection to lay before the House the plan upon which this money was to be expended.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he would second the Motion. He would not say whether the Vote was taken at one or half-past one, but it was very late, and the Vote on the division was mainly influenced by the hon. Gentle-
1502
man's explanation, that no part of the money would be spent till the plan was laid on the table. He feared there was an attempt making to Germanize the education of the army. Hitherto the officers had been chosen from all the public schools of the country, and it was well known that the Duke of Wellington shortly before his death, pointing to the boys on the playing fields of Eton, said, there is the stuff of which the British officers are composed. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would delay the expenditure of the money till the papers were prepared, which he believed was not yet the case, as there was a dispute between the Horse Guards and the War Office on the subject.
Mr. SPEAKERsaid, that nothing could be further from his wish than to interfere with freedom of discussion in that House; but the House would see that it would be impossible to take into account whether the Vote was carried in Committee by a large majority or a small one, or at what hour.
Mr. T. G. BARINGsaid, that he altogether disputed and denied any want of faith on his part. A discussion took place in Committee, and he said if those who opposed the Vote consented to pass it he would undertake that no expenditure should take place until the scheme was produced. The opposition was not withdrawn; and, therefore, when the hon. Member for Windsor asked him about it the following day, he told him that he was bound to no pledge on the subject. But he was perfectly ready to agree that the establishment of the new system should not take place before Midsummer, so as to give full room for the expression of opinion upon it.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman if he would state that the money should not be expended?
MR. HENLEYobserved, that the Vote could be struck out of the Appropriation Bill, and he would suggest to the hon. Member for Windsor to be in his place.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee; Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected

1503
to the sum of £512 in payment of the fees for the patent making Lord Brougham's barony pass at death to his brother. He also objected to a payment of £150 for conveying the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from Holyhead to Kingstown, and moved, as the last-mentioned item stood first in the Vote, that it should be reduced by that sum.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the item of £150, for the Conveyance of the Earl of Carlisle (Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), between Kingstown and Holyhead, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought the charge for the Lord Lieutenant was most extravagant. If the Lord Lieutenant wished to spend his Christmas holidays at his own residence, he certainly ought to go at his own cost. If, indeed, the money were to take him altogether out of Ireland he would not object to paying it.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would beg leave to ask whether they could discuss the Vote, as it had been already expended?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, though the money had been expended it had not yet been made good.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that the item was not an estimate, but an account rendered of money expended, and in all the expenditure of this country there were only two Votes of that description—one the Treasury chest, and the other the civil contingencies. Both these subjects had been before the Committee on Public Accounts, and, if the recommendations of that Committee with regard to civil contingencies were agreed to, it would never again occur that the House was deprived of the opportunity of discussing such Votes as the present before the money was paid. The recommendation of the Committee was that instead of the present mode of voting money already expended, and over which they had no control, the amount should be converted into a deposit account, and that the money should not be expended till the Vote had been submitted to the revision of Parliament. No doubt, the Report of that Committee would be acted upon by the Government for the future; and, in these circumstances, perhaps, they had better agree to the Vote before them—thus giving condonation for the past, while they took care to act differently for the future. At the same time, he must say there were items in the Vote which he regretted to see there.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think that the position of that House with respect to the money voted under the head of Civil Contingencies was at all satisfactory, and he was glad that the Committee had objected to the system which had been so long in operation. The Committee would see that that was one of those cases in which the Executive Government wanted the assistance of the House. The charge of £150 for the Lord Lieutenant was one of those minor charges that were allowed to go on from year to year simply on the ground of usage, and which it would be invidious to disallow. Certainly the Government would be disposed to give full consideration to the Report of the Committee, as its recommendations would tend to increase the control of the House over these Votes.
Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wanted to know, as the money had been spent, what would be the consequence of omitting this item?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, one effect would be that Government would not again introduce such items.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, another effect would be that if the House condemned it the noble Lord would, perhaps, refund the money.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he desired to ask whether it was a matter of usage to pay the fees for patents in connection with the peerage? If they voted upon the sum of £150 for the Lord Lieutenant, would they be precluded from voting afterwards upon the £512 for Lord Brougham's patent?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that by a recent Standing Order it was open for hon. Members in Committee to canvass every item of a Vote, if they thought fit to do so. The effect of the omission of any particular item would be to reduce the gross Vote, and he did not know of any rule of the House which would entitle him to decline putting a Motion such as that made by the hon. Member for Lambeth; but, undoubtedly, if he put the Motion the Committee would be precluded from afterwards considering the item of £512.
MR. COLLIER: But how then can we arrive at the other items?
Mr. DISRAELIsaid, that it appeared to him that the Committee ought to discuss all those points to which it was proper their attention should be directed before coming to any Vote, and then some proposition might be made which would include in one aggregate reduction the sum

1505
by which they thought the Vote for next year ought to be reduced.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that as one of the Committee, he understood that it was their intention in the Report which they made to the House to leave the various items open to discussion.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he thought the convenient course would be to discuss the items of the Vote. In order to give full scope for that discussion he would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth to withdraw his Amendment. If after discussion any hon. Member thought the sum of £75,000 too large a sum to place at the disposal of the Executive, be might, without reference to any particular item, move that the sum be reduced.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed,
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500. [An hon. Member: Make it £5,000.] He had no objection to make it £2,000 or £5,000. There were several items in the Vote which he disapproved. There was one charge of £280 for the conveyance of colonial Bishops in ships of war. There was another of £944. 4s. 8d. for the Commission for the Encouragement of Fine Arts. It would be a dear Commission at the odd 4s. 8d. He would say of them in another sense than the monument on Sir Charles Wren—
"Si monumentum queris"—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order. The time for adjournment has come.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this day, after the Order of the Day for the Committee on the East India Loan.
MR. HENLEYasked what business would be taken in the evening?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Indian Loan would be taken first; after that they would go on with Supply.
MR BERNAL OSBORNE: And when shall I have an opportunity of going on with my circumspice?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend was not so oddly situated as a certain Mr. Andrews, who was stopped on one occasion, not in the middle of a sentence, but in the middle of a word. He presumed his hon. Friend would have an opportunity of taking up
1506
circumspice in the evening, when Mr. Speaker had again left the Chair.

THE STEAM SHIP HIBERNIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to ask the Junior Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Iron alluded to by him on the 21st of June last, respecting the steam ship Hibernia, is the same as the iron-cased ship Defence is being constructed of, and which was manufactured for Messrs. Palmer by Messrs. Beale and Co., of Rotherham, as shown in Parliamentary Paper, No. 347, of the present Session? He wished to ask also, whether the Surveyor is the same who certified that the Hibernia was seaworthy when she went out?
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, the iron was the same—that was to say, it was found upon being tested to be the best for the purpose of the armour plates. It was manufactured for Messrs. Palmer by Messrs. Beale and Co. He was unable to answer the latter part of the question.

TROOPS FROM CHINA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether Troops ordered home from North China have been detained by the British Minister? If so, for what time they are to be detained? And whether the Troops at Tien-tsin are supplied with fresh water by Coolie labour?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that a Despatch from Mr. Bruce stated that he bad found it necessary to detain one regiment of infantry and one troop of Fane's Horse at Tien-tsin. He was unable to say whether the troops were supplied with fresh water by Coolie labour.

STIPENDIARY NATIVE PRINCES OF INDIA—QUESTION.
MR. ADAMSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the Return with reference to Stipendiary Native Princes of India, for which an Address was moved as unopposed on the 2nd of May last, will he laid upon the Table of the House? He would also beg to ask, if the light hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table a Copy of the Speech of Mr. Laing in bringing forward his Indian Budget?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was sorry be could not say when the Return,

1507
ordered to be made on the 2nd of May, with reference to the Stipendiary Native Princes of India would be laid on the Table. He was, however, as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that it should be printed and given to the world. He must decline to lay upon the Table Mr. Laing's speech on bringing forward the Indian Budget at Calcutta. It was true that Mr. Wilson's speech was laid before the House; but that speech was necessary for the elucidation of public and official documents.

THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Report of the Royal Commission on the Thames Embankment having been signed, it is his intention to place that Report forthwith on the Table of the House, with the protest of any Commissioners against the same?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the Report of the Royal Commission on the Thames Embankment was presented at the Home Office on the previous day. It would be laid on the Table that evening. He had no doubt the Commissioners would append to their Report the reasons given by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works for not agreeing, as one of the Commissioners, to the Report.

COURTS OF JUSTICE (MONEY) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to know, What the intentions of the Government were with regard to the Courts of Justice (Money) Bill?
  MR. COWPERsaid, there was a great desire on the part of a large portion of the legal profession that this Bill should pass into a law, and he was unwilling to abandon it while there remained a chance of obtaining sufficient time this Session for proper discussion. He would certainly not attempt to bring it forward when it could not be fully discussed—certainly not after eleven o'clock at night. He hoped that the Session might last long enough yet for the Bill to be discussed.
  Sir JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he wished to know at what future day would the right hon. Gentleman bring it on?
  MR. COWPERsaid, it was his intention to proceed with it, provided he could get time for full discussion.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he intended, when the Bill should be brought on, to move that it be read a third time that day three months.

THE NAWAB OF THE CARNATIC.

  QUESTION.
  On Motion that the House go into Committee on the East India Loan,
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for India to the ease of Azim Yah, the Nawab of the Carnatic, who had been deprived of his revenues, and who had petitioned Parliament in the beginning of this Session. He (Mr. Layard) had recommended the agents for Azim Yah to advise that Prince to present a memorial to the Secretary of State, his case having only been officially before the East India Company; but that memorial could not be received until late in the year, and the matter could not be discussed till the next Session. The Prince was meanwhile in difficult circumstances, and had been compelled to raise money at great disadvantage to meet his necessities. The East India Company offered him a large stipend on condition that he would renounce all his claims. The Nawab refused the condition. He (Mr. Layard) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he would not allow that unfortunate prince to receive the stipend without prejudice to his claims until an opportunity had been afforded for bringing them forward? It would be a simple act of justice to the Prince, and he was sure would be consonant with the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman. Should the request be refused, Azim Yah would be compelled to encumber himself with debts which he would never be able to discharge, and from a loyal subject might, as other native Princes had done under similar circumstances, become an enemy of the British Crown. The Prince had been in the first instance deprived most unjustly of his property by the East India Company, although his family had rendered great services to the British in India.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that if the hon. Member would substitute the words Board of Control for the East India Company he should agree with his animadversions.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the ease of Azim Yah had been referred to the Government of Madras, and that the Prince was not without a fair allowance,

  1509
  though not so great as the stipend offered to him. He concurred generally with the remarks of the hon. Member, and was quite willing to inquire fully into the merits of the case.

EAST INDIA LOAN.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that some time ago, when he moved for power to raise a loan for the service of East India, he stated that probably before the end of the Session he should have to apply for discretionary powers to raise money to make good any deficiency in the amount required for constructing railroads in India, and he now rose to ask for such powers to raise money to be used only in the event of the railway companies not furnishing the sum required. As he stated the case pretty fully on a former occasion, it would not be necessary for him at present to refer, except very briefly, to the matter. In the course of last year it was anticipated that there would be spent about £6,000,000 in India on the construction of railways; and by the accounts last received the amount came up very nearly to that sum, the actual expenditure having been between £5,800,000 and £5,900,000. The expenditure in this country had been upwards of £2,000.000, and the whole expenditure in the course of the year ending on the 30th of April last amounted to upwards of £8,000,000. It was believed that as far as India was concerned the expenditure for the present year would be about the same—namely, £6,000,000 in round numbers; and that the expenditure in this country would be about £1,700,000 or £1,800,000. Supposing, then, that there should be a little more expenditure in India (which the Government would be glad to incur, in order to proceed with the railroads now in the course of execution as rapidly as was consistent with their due construction), a sum somewhat greater than £6,000,000 might be expended; but, as it was not worth while making estimates except in round numbers, the estimate for the expenditure in this country and in India was £8,000,000. Of course, therefore, from the money market in this country, in one shape or another, either by means of the railway companies or by means of the Indian Department, that sum must be raised. It was impossible for him to say what amount the railway
  1510
  companies would raise, and he had no means of raising a single sixpence unless he received power to obtain the sum required for this purpose, if the railway companies failed to do so. What he wanted the House and the country and the money market clearly and distinctly to understand was that there was no double demand on them. If the railroads raised the money, then he should not raise a sixpence; but, if they did not, then it was incumbent on him to raise the money, because all were agreed that for the interest of India, of England, of the shareholders, and of the Indian Government, who were losing money by paying the guaranteed interest, the railroad expenditure in India should not be checked, but that all the railroads should be completed at the earliest possible period consistent with the due execution of the works. Therefore, he proposed to take a discretionary power to raise such a portion of the sum of £8,000,000 as the railroad companies might not he able to raise for themselves. His own impression was that, assuming the worst, they might be able to raise £3,000,000, and, therefore, he proposed to take a discretionary power to raise £5,000,000 between this and the 30th of April next. Considering what had already taken place, he certainly must say that he found no indisposition on the part of the money market to furnish him even with more than he asked for. On a recent occasion he asked for £4,000,000, and he was offered about £21,000,000. However, he had no wish to borrow more than was necessary for the purpose of carrying on the works of the railroads; and with respect to other works which it might be desirable to construct in India, he believed that the state of the Indian finances was such that it would not be necessary to borrow on that account. Without going further into details, he wished the House and the country to understand that not one single sixpence would be borrowed by him under any circumstances for railroad purposes in India, unless the railroad companies failed to raise the money themselves. He proposed to make the loan in the same stock as the previous loan, and on that subject this was all he had to say. He now proposed to make a statement with respect to the finances of India, and he thought the statement would prove satisfactory, as it was not his intention to raise a sixpence by borrowing for the Indian Government, because there was not

  1511
  the slightest occasion to do so, It was usual, on occasions like the present, to refer to the estimate of the past year, and to the accounts of the year preceding that, and to the estimates for the current year. It had been stated by an hon. Member that the accounts from India were exceedingly complicated. That was true; and one reason for his not making the present statement at an earlier period was because he had waited for an explanation of some discordant statements which had come from India. He was happy, however, to be able to say that the statement which he had made on the subject on a former occasion was borne out by the actual result. The accounts of the Indian revenue and expenditure for the year 1859–60, together with the regular Estimate for 1860–1, had been laid on the Table of the House, but there was, he was bound to admit, a very considerable discrepancy between the estimated and the real amounts coming under those heads. He found, for example, that the estimated amount of the expenditure for 1859 60 was £46,890,000; the actual expenditure, £50,475,000; the estimated revenue, £37,796,000; the actual revenue, £39,705,000; the anticipated deficit being thus in round numbers £9,000,000; the actual, £10,770,000; the actual income was larger than the estimated by about £2,000,000, and the actual expenditure more than the estimated by about £3,500,000. That appeared to be incredible, but no explanation of the matter had been sent from India. An explanation had been written for, and he had anticipated that it would be found to consist in the fact that the reductions made by Mr. Wilson in the military expenditure had not been brought into the accounts for the year, and would appear in the accounts for the years 1860–1. While, however, he was waiting to receive some information in reply to his inquiries on the subject, he had been very much surprised to see a statement made by Mr. Laing to the effect that the expenditure for the year l860-l was, notwithstanding the reductions to which he alluded, actually £200.000 in excess of that for the year immediately preceding. Upon making inquiry of Mr. Laing himself, who had returned to this country the other day, and who he was sure the House would be glad to hear was much improved in health by the voyage home, he learnt that the statement in question was attributable to the fact that Mr. Laing had been misled by the accounts
  1512
  published by the Financial Department of the Government of India in the Calcutta Gazette, which turned out to be altogether erroneous; the real truth of the case being, as he had anticipated, that the reductions stated by Mr. Wilson to have been brought to account in 1859–60 were not brought to account till the following year. Those reductions in the military expenditure, as estimated by Mr. Wilson, amounted for the year 1859–60 to £3,500,000; for 1860–1 to £2,500,000; making a total of £6,000,000; and he was happy to be able to say that, although the actual reduction under that head amounted in the former year to only £171,641, the estimated decrease for 1860–1, based on figures on which he could place reliance, was so large that the reduction in the two years was £5,800,000. He now came to the year 1860–1, the expenditure for which was, in round numbers, £46,000,000; the income, £39,500,000; deficit, £6,500,000; but, if from that amount were deducted the sums paid in the shape of compensation for losses incurred during the mutiny which did not constitute an annual charge, and some other items, the actual deficit would be found to be reduced to little more than £5,500,000. [Mr. H. SEYMOUR: Does that statement include home charges?] Yes. That being so, the Committee would at once see that the expenditure for 1859–60 having been £50,475,000, and that for 1860–1, £46,000,000, a comparison of the expenditure for the two years showed a reduction in favour of the latter of, in round numbers, £4,400,000. Now, it might be asked whether the result of the statements he had just made ought not to be to shake the faith of the House of Commons in the accuracy of the Estimates of Indian revenue and expenditure which might hereafter be drawn up, but his answer to that question must be in the negative, inasmuch as greater pains had been recently and were now bestowed on the framing of these Estimates than used to be the case. That he was justified in making that statement was, he thought, proved by the fact that the amount of cash balances in the Indian Treasury at the end of the financial year was greater than had been anticipated—a circumstance which was to be attributed rather to a reduction of expenditure than to any increase in revenue. The cash balances, as estimated in the regular Estimates for 1861–2, contained in the papers which had been laid on the Table of the House in March last, amounted to £11,448,000,

  1513
  while it appeared by the Financial Letter from India, dated the 2nd of May— which contained, of course, the actual amount so far as the great treasuries were concerned, and the estimated only so far as related to the more distant treasuries; that these cash balances reached the sum of £12,850,000, thus leaving a surplus over the amount estimated so recently as March last of £1,402,000. No more satisfactory proof than that could, he thought, be afforded of the improved state of Indian finance; nor need he, he felt assured, say anything I further to point out that greater confidence than hitherto might be placed on the system of accounts in India, and that that confidence ought to be extended to the Estimate for the current year. That Estimate he found given by Mr. Laing in a very clear manner in his official statement, although he could not help thinking it was somewhat too favourable. Mr. Laing, by transferring to the local budgets £500,000, omitting loss in connection with railroad money, £470,000, and making a reduction on home charges, beyond the estimate which was sent out from this country, of £300,000, arrived at a surplus of nearly a quarter of a million; but, taking a view of the case which be believed, after due consideration, to be more correct than that formed by Mr. Laing, and assuming the revenue of India to remain as it was, I and no reduction of expenditure to take place, he calculated there would be a deficit of £1,000,000 at the close of the current year. That amount would be diminished to the extent of £500,000 if a transference of expenditure to that amount were made to the local Budget. Mr. Laing also hoped that a considerable reduction might be effected in connection with the army, and he hoped that in the proposed modification of the licensing tax, some additional revenue might be derived from that source. He was in hopes that in one way or another the deficiency would entirely disappear. But, even if it did not, the cash balances were amply sufficient to defray any excess of expenditure which might occur in the course of the present year. At the end of the present year, at latest, the expenditure and income would be brought into a state of complete equilibrium, and he trusted that in future there would be no necessity for raising any loan, either in India or in England, to meet the Government or State expenditure in India. There were one or two things very satisfactory in the Budget statement from In-
  1514
  dia. In the first place, the expenditure for this year included a sum of £600,000, which was entirely due to the recent famine in India, and that item of course would not occur again. In the next place, a large portion of the expenditure consisted of the guaranteed interest on railway capital, and of the loss arising from the transmission of money to India. This was for the present a charge upon the revenues of India; but, of course, when the railways were completed and became remunerative, to however small an extent, that charge would cease. For the present year the charge for guaranteed interest, less traffic receipts, was £1,300,000, and the loss by exchange last year amounted to £473,000, the result being a charge upon the revenue of India of £1,773,000 on account of railways alone. But that charge, as he had said, would soon cease, and he hoped he might look forward to a state of things in India such as had not been seen for many years past. For some time past there had been an excess of expenditure over income, but he trusted that after this year, unless some great calamity occurred, we should have a surplus instead of a deficiency, and then we should be able to make those alterations in the taxation of the country which everybody wished to see carried into effect. The reduction of the duty on yarn from 10 to 5 per cent had caused some loss to the revenue, but be hoped the yield would soon reach its former amount. He also trusted that we might be able before long to reduce, in like manner, the duty on manufactured goods from this country. The duty on salt had been most productive, and he was glad to say that, owing to the improved condition of the people in India, it had in no degree diminished the consumption. In Bengal, where the additional duty was highest, the consumption had increased very rapidly. The additional duty was 25 per cent, whereas the increased consumption was 30 per cent. He believed that the only duty as to which any apprehensions were entertained was, as usual, the duty on opium. Last year, owing to the very high price of opium at Calcutta, the duty was exceedingly productive; but within the last few months the price had fallen considerably, and one never could speak with confidence as to I what the yield of the tax would be. Mr. Laing had taken a low figure, and he believed his estimate would not be found too large. The House already knew that the I reduction which had taken place was mainly

  1515
  in the military expenditure. He did not I mean to say that it had been carried as far as he could have wished. If it had been begun earlier it would have been more valuable; but he thought the House would be satisfied, after hearing a few facts, that a great deal had been done in a short time. The following short paragraph from the last financial despatch from India would show the amount of the reduction:—
  "Seventy-seven Native regiments will have been broken up since 1859, and the Native army reduced from 284,000 to about 140,000 men. Including military police, the reduction of Native armed force since 1859 will not have been less than 200,000 men."
  A certain proportion of the soldiers had been absorbed in the police, and a considerable number had found employment in various ways. He thought that, considering the state of the country, the Government of India had gone quite as far and as rapidly as prudence would warrant. In 1858–9 the military expenditure was £24,750,000; in 1861–2 it was estimated at £15,500,000 — showing a reduction since 1858–9 of no less than £9,250,000. He had nothing further to say on points of finance; but there were certain matters connected with the administration of India upon which, he wished to make a few remarks. A most interesting and instructive report on the famine had been received from Colonel Baird Smith, and he would state one or two facts from it. The extent of the area over which the drought prevailed was much more restricted than many people supposed. A considerable portion of the North-West Provinces was visited by the famine, but in the neighbouring countries—Oude, for example— there was plenty of grain to be had; the difficulty was in paying for it. In the afflicted districts the distress arose from the utter impossibility of cultivating the soil, which, from the want of rain, became almost as hard as iron. Perhaps the best proof of the severity of the pressure was to be found in the price of grain. It was very remarkable that though the famine of 1837–8 was infinitely more severe, and infinitely more destructive to human life and cattle, than that which recently raged in certain districts in India, the price of grain was never so high as it was during the last year. Taking the mean of the six districts where the famine was most severe, the average price of grain in common years was 40 1/2 seers per rupee; during the famine the same sum purchased
  1516
  only nine seers. Relief had been extended very largely to the people, partly by the Government and partly by liberal subscriptions raised in India and in this country. For a considerable period no fewer than 143,000 people were daily employed on the relief works—irrigation, railways, and roads. The famine led to an extensive emigration from the afflicted districts, but he had every reason to suppose that the people would return to cultivate the soil when the rain came. Colonel Baird Smith showed in his Report the diminished quantity of rain which fell during the last year. In the six districts where the famine raged the average fall of rain was, in autumn, 24.19; in spring, 6.86; but during the famine year it was, in autumn, 9.09, and in spring, 1.33. These variations in the fall of rain were quite sufficient to account for the failure in the production of food for man and beast, the productiveness of the soil in India being almost entirely dependent on the rain-fall. It was curious enough that those tribes which were the best agriculturists had resisted the famine throughout, while those who had not given their attention to agriculture were not only worst off, but actually would not receive assistance; their heart failed them, and to a great extent they emigrated to other districts where the famine was less severe. Fortunately, by the blessing of Providence, rain had fallen more early this year than usual, and he hoped, therefore, they might anticipate that the worst of the famine was over, and that next year would be one of prosperity. The next subject to which he would call the attention of the House was one on which some discussion had taken place, on the Motion of the hon Member for Southwark, in connection with the planting of Indigo in Bengal. The state of feeling between the ryot and planter was, unfortunately, one of some standing, and its more recent intensity had been productive of great suffering and loss. He held in his hand a letter from the late Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, so long ago as 1854, stating that while the planting of indigo ought to have been one of the greatest blessings to the country, the ryots themselves regarded it as their direst curse. The cultivation of indigo during the present year had ceased to a great extent. There had been attempts to enforce by criminal proceedings the performance by the ryots of the contracts into which they had entered. A measure had been

  1517
  passed with that view; but of course that was only a temporary Bill. No doubt the indigo planters would lose very largely, and it was natural that they should be exceedingly irritated at the present lamentable state of things. The Government, however, had done their duty in all cases by holding the scales as impartially as possible between the ryots and planters, He was sorry, however, to say the bad feeling which existed had been increased by a fact to which the hon. Member for Westminster had on a former occasion referred;—namely, the circulation under an official frank of a Bengal play not calculated to raise the character of the planters in Bengal. He thought that a most improper act, which had been done not only entirely without the sanction, but without the knowledge of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. When brought to his knowledge in such a way that he could take notice of it, be had expressed his extreme disapprobation of such conduct. It was the duty of the Government, as he had stated, to hold the scales of justice perfectly even between the one and the other—to protect the ryot from oppression and the planter against violence; and all parties in this country must be anxious to contribute as far as they could to a fair and reasonable settlement of the dispute. They were the best friends both to the ryot and the planter, to the interests of this country and of India, who sought to soothe feeling on both sides, and promote as far as possible that settlement which would restore the cultivation of indigo on a sounder and healthier foundation than before. The next point to which he would call attention was one which at all times was of the greatest importance, but at the present moment was of vital importance to this country and India—he meant the cultivation of cotton. He need not say that his attention had been directed to this subject in former years; and his attention had been constantly directed to it since he held the office he had now the honour to fill. Various opinions were entertained as to the capability of India to produce cotton in the quantity required by this country. His firm conviction was that if proper means were taken in India by the Government, and by those in this country who were interested in the production of cotton, all co-operating together—and it could not be done without that co-operation—India might be made a source of supply which, to a very
  1518
  large extent, would render this country independent of other countries. He trusted before long that would be the case. So far as he could make out the probable supply of cotton from India this year would he very large—considerably in excess of any previous supply. Upwards of 620,000 bales had already left India for this country; from 300,000 to 400,000 bales more were expected; so that in all there would be 1,000,000 bales, or 320,000 more than ever before wore; received from India. The price obtained, he hoped, would stimulate still further the cultivation of cotton in India, and lead to an improvement in the processes of picking and cleaning, which the cultivators were too apt to forget. The Indian Government had laid out considerable sums of money in endeavouring to ascertain what were the best sorts to be grown in India, and in the southern parts a considerable quantity had been grown and sent to Calcutta. He thought it well worth the while of those interested in the growth of cotton in India to take active measures in order to obtain from all accessible points the best information on the subject. With this view he was happy to state that Mr. Haywood had been sent out from this country. Dr. Forbes, in India, was, he believed, intimately acquainted with the best modes of producing cotton in that country. These two gentlemen were going to visit the cotton districts together, and he hoped the result would be to lay the foundation of producing cotton in India to a much larger extent and in better condition than had hitherto been the case. So much for private enterprise. The duty of the Government was to improve the communications from the coast to those portions of tho interior where cotton was grown. The main source of supply were two—Dharwar and Berar—and every effort was being made to improve the communications as rapidly as possible. With regard to Dharwar cotton, the most convenient port was Sadashevagur, and orders had been given for proceeding rapidly with the road to that place. He would read an extract from the last report which had been received on that subject—
  "Orders have been given that the engineer in charge shall be supplied with funds as fast as he can employ them advantageously. The Government promise that 'no exertion shall be spared to have the road completed throughout as early as possible; but this,' they add, 'cannot be this year.'"
  He now came to the second source of sup-

  1519
  ply, Berar. Cotton would be brought thence in two ways—first, by the East India Peninsula Railway, for the prosecution of the works of which, as rapidly as possible, orders had been issued. What ever money was necessary for that purpose would be forthcoming, and both branches of the line—namely, that through the centre districts to Nagpore, and also the northern branch, would be completed as expeditiously as practicable. Another route by which cotton could come from Berar would be by the Godavery. The navigation of that river was to be opened up with the least possible delay. When Captain Haigh was here, he asked for money to provide plant and machinery with which to improve the Godavery along its whole course, and whatever he had asked for had been supplied. No means would be spared and no time lost in furthering that important work. Sir W. Denison, the Governor of Madras, said that immediately on his return from Calcutta he would proceed along the course of the Godavery himself to see what would be the most advantageous mode of conducting these works. For himself, he had always been convinced of the expediency of opening this great channel of communication into the interior; but hitherto the main difficulty had been the want of funds. That difficulty was now got over; and although when questioned on this subject the other day, he was then unable to answer until he had consulted his Council, he was happy to have it in his power now to state that it had been determined that morning in the Council to send out orders to India directing that the opening up of the Godavery should be carried out as rapidly as the supply of labour available would allow, and as was consistent with the due execution of the work. In the present precarious state of our cotton supply, the Government would not do its duty either to this country or to India if it lost a moment in taking energetic measures to provide the means of communication between the cotton growing districts of India and the coast. He would next make a few observations on one or two points connected with the political administration of India. He had briefly adverted on a former occasion to the policy pursued by Lord Canning towards the Native Princes and chiefs. That policy he believed to be sound in principle, and well calculated to lay a firm foundation for our power. As far as it had already been carried out it had proved ex-
  1520
  ceedingly successful. In past years the tendency had been rather to depress the Native Princes. That had been entirely reversed of late. New treaties had been made with several of those Princes, and territory assigned to them which, while consolidating our dominions, increased the dignity and honour of those to whom that territory was assigned; and an assurance was held out that Native rights would not be invaded by the British Government. An exemplification of the effect of that policy was seen in the recent events in Sikkim. The people of that country made inroads into our territory, and carried off our subjects. It was the duty of our Government to despatch a force to that quarter to obtain the liberation of the captives, and also reparation for the outrage committed upon them. Reparation was accordingly demanded by our agent, accompanied by an intimation that we had not the slightest intention of annexing an acre of territory. What was the result? Our troops had hardly entered Sikkim before a conciliatory message was sent by the Rajah, which led to the speedy conclusion of a treaty between that Prince and Mr. Eden in the most amiable and satisfactory manner. And not only so, but, with the Rajah's concurrence, a road was to be opened from our dominions through Sikkim into Thibet, and goods were to be allowed to pass into Thibet and Sikkim either at no duty at all or at a very low one. Thus would be attained that which had long been a great desideratum—namely, a land communication between China and India. The Governor General had written to our Minister at Pekin to procure the requisite authority for the introduction into Thibet of a small party of Indian officials, who would penetrate into that country to ascertain what openings there were for commerce. A similar policy had been pursued towards the upper classes of Natives in our own provinces. They had been associated more than they formerly were with the higher agents of our Government. The talookdars of Oude now acted as magistrates, collected the revenue, and performed the other duties of country gentlemen, and the most friendly spirit existed between them and our officers. In a Report from the Chief Commissioner of Oude as to the instructions given to our officers there was this passage—
  "The Chief Commissioner's wish is to treat the talookdars as gentlemen of property and station, whose interests are identified with those of

  1521
  the Government, who are its natural born adherents, not opponents, as they have too frequently been considered by our officials; and this view he has inculcated in his subordinates. All district officers have been desired to hold weekly receptions of the native gentry, to visit them on their estates during the cold weather, and to communicate with them as much as possible direct, and not through native subordinate officials, who designedly often adopt an uncourteous tone."
  MR. VANSITTARTasked the name of the author of that document.
  SIR CHARLES WOODbelieved it was Mr. Wingfield. Experience had shown, especially during the rebellion, how much the people of Oude and other provinces were attached to their Native gentry and chiefs. Our Government in India had profited by that lesson, and sought henceforth to make the Native gentry and chiefs our steadfast friends and supporters, instead of our enemies. The Home Government had been guided by the same spirit. Some mode of rewarding Native chiefs for their fidelity had long been wanted; and lately Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to institute an Order of Knighthood, which had already been conferred on seven or eight Native Princes of India, some Hindoos and some Mahommedans, with whom were associated European officers, either of the Company or of the Crown, who had rendered distinguished service in that country. The Governor General believed that this measure had had the very best possible effect, and that such a mark of favour from the Sovereign of England and of India would be highly valued by the Native chiefs. The three Indian Bills introduced into Parliament this Session were framed in one and the same spirit—namely, a desire to break down the system of exclusiveness, and admit to a participation in the management of public affairs both European settlers and Natives of rank and ability. By those measures both of those classes would or might have a voice in the Legislature, a seat on the bench, or a part in the Administration of India. The earnest aim of the Government, both in India and at home, was to consult the interests and conciliate the affections of the inhabitants of that country, European and Native. He was aware that one of the three Bills had excited considerable alarm among the Civil Servants. That alarm, however, was, he hoped, now allayed. The Civil Servants had met the proposed changes in the frankest spirit. He did not believe they would be at all injured by what had been done; but it was right to acknowledge the spirit
  1522
  in which they met these changes. He was happy to say that since the Bill had passed he had received a minute from the Governor General recommending a course substantially the same as that which had been adopted. As to the other two Bills, the nature of them was so well known to the Committee that he need only remind them that the first admitted Natives to the highest places in the Legislature of India, while the other would enable them to take their places upon the bench along with Europeans, and by their knowledge of the laws of their own country there was no doubt the administration of justice would be improved. Provision was also made for legislating on local subjects at Madras and Bombay, and other parts of India, which was so much desired by the inhabitants of parts of India away from Calcutta, and which would, he thought, tend much not only to the contentment but to the advantage of India. Those were the measures which had been adopted within the last few months in India and in England, and which he hoped would be productive of great advantage to both countries. It had been a matter of satisfaction to him to find that there was a general concurrence in the policy which those measures indicated. That they were measures of vast importance no one could deny, and he had deeply felt the responsibility that weighed upon him in proposing measures affecting the vast and anomalous fabric of our Indian Empire. Upon such matters no man could be certain of results; but he could only say that those measures were the result of deep deliberation, and had the concurrence of the highest authorities upon Indian subjects. The event must be left in the hands of Providence, and now he could only hope and pray the measures that had been adopted would contribute to the welfare of both countries, and would cement the bond of union between England and India by promoting the prosperity and happiness of all Her Majesty's subjects. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving a formal Resolution, that it was expedient to give power to the Secretary of State to raise money by way of loans.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to express his satisfaction at the lucid statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and the wise policy which it enunciated. Indeed, he considered it to be the most satisfactory statement he had made with regard to India since he had the honour of a seat in the House. He could not, in the

  1523
  first place, pass over the great debt which the country owed to the late Mr. Wilson, who had fallen a victim to his zeal in the interests of the public. Another hon. Gentleman had also nearly fallen a victim to his arduous labours in the same cause; but he was gratified to learn that Mr. Laing had just arrived in England in better health than was expected, and looked forward to being able in a short time to resume his labours in India. It was most desirable that he should be able to do so, because his last speech showed that Mr. Laing felt the absolute necessity of equalizing the revenue and the expenditure, and of admitting the Natives of India to some share in their own Government. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to notice one point urged by Mr. Laing, that the local Governments should have the power of making minor budgets for their own localties. It would be satisfactory to hear that the right hon. Baronet concurred in that view. Mr. Laing had shown that in Madras 40 per cent of the outlay upon public works was consumed in the supervision of those works. That was an enormous waste of money, but it would always occur as long as the Government had no interest in keeping down the expenditure. The most unsatisfactory part of the right hon. Baronet's statement was that while Mr. Laing estimated a surplus of £300,000, the right hon. Gentleman expected a deficiency of a million. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to make up the deficiency in some part by a lieence-tax, which Mr. Laing objected to inflict upon the Natives of India. He (Mr. Seymour) thought less objectionable means could be adopted, one of which he would point out. They had very large military charges in proportion to the reductions in the army. There had been a reduction of 200,000 Native troops, and the number to be kept up in future was 140,000, but the contemplated expenditure for military purposes in future years was higher in amount than it was in 1857. They were quite right in keeping up a sufficient European force in India, but the force now in that country was 19,000 in excess of the European force which the right hon. Gentleman himself had estimated to be necessary for the security of our empire. It was proposed to absorb that excess at the rate of 2,000 men a year, but when the finances of India were so much pressed upon he thought the reduction might be carried out more speedily. But, above all, it was wrong under those circumstances to send
  1524
  out more troops from England, no less than 3,000 men of the most expensive arm, artillery, had been sent from England to India. He could not understand why the number of men could not have been obtained as volunteers from the surplus troops now in India. There was another point to which he would call attention. It appeared that an error of £4,500,000 had been made not six months before in the revenue department of Calcutta in the estimate of last year. He should be glad to know whether this department had lately been thoroughly remodelled, in accordance, with a promise of the right hon. Gentleman. He knew that it was the wish of the Marquess of Dalhousie that the Indian accounts should be kept in precisely the same manner as the accounts of the Imperial Government. He saw no reason why trade and navigation returns should not be published periodically, similar to those of this country. The income tax was an apparent failure, but the right hon. Gentleman was, be thought, right in persevering with it, so as to uphold the principle of taxing personal property instead of raising all the taxes from the land. It should not, however, be carried too low. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman did not mean in future to borrow. If the House could depend on the Estimates—and he trusted that Mr. Laing had given the right hon. Gentleman satisfactory assurances on this subject— the expenditure and revenue at the end of the current year would balance each other, leaving out the railways. The recent famine could not fail to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the subject of emigration from India to the West Indian Islands, and other places willing to receive labour. The question was of great importance, from its bearing on the subjects of the slave trade and the supply of cotton, and he trusted that the Indian Government had now ceased to place obstacles in the way of emigration from India. Had the French Emperor been enabled to obtain labour from India for the French West Indian colonies, he would not have been compelled to obtain importations from Africa. He considered the French Government not so much to blame for the temporary extension of the slave trade arising from that cause as the Indian Government. The famine must have convinced the right hon. Gentleman of the importance of encouraging public works in India, for had there been better roads and communications in the North of India no famine

  1525
  would have occurred. The right hon. Gentleman's statement respecting the indigo districts was not perfectly satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had prevented the Indian Government from carrying out a beneficial law of contract, but had not suggested any law of contract himself. The Civil Service disliked the planters, and he must say that the conduct of Mr. Eden, which had been justly praised on other grounds, deserved blame with reference to the planters. He thought that the Government had acted improperly in circulating an obnoxious pamphlet, which was a caricature of the planters. With regard to the question of the cultivation of cotton, he considered it would be better promoted by the construction of railroads than common roads. Mr. Locke, formerly a Member of that House, and Mr. Brassey had both assured him that the expense of the maintenance of a road was exactly the same as that of a railway, when it was once made. The only difference was the first cost. He regretted that nothing had been done to advance railways in the southern parts of India, where a communication with the cotton districts was much wanted. He was delighted to hear that at last the Government had adopted a policy so rational and so excellent in every way as that which it had announced with regard to the Native Chiefs and Princes of India, for he believed it would be productive of the greatest possible benefit to the Natives, and ensure the permanent tranquillity of the country, but it had, unfortunately, required a great convulsion and revolution, and a terrible massacre in India to convince them of the wisdom of such a step. If that policy had been adopted in 1853 he firmly believed the mutiny would never have occurred, and an addition of £40,000,000 to the Indian debt might have been averted. They had already found the profit of a wise policy in the opening of China. He remembered when, immediately before the mutiny, a gentleman connected with the East India Company said how easy it would be to govern India for the future. However, since then the mutiny had taught him better, and a policy of conciliation had been introduced. He was glad that the Order of the Star of India had been established, and he was sure the Native Princes had accepted with pleasure and gratitude the the conciliatory policy of the British Government, and that they would henceforth consider themselves magnates of the British Empire as much as Peers of Parlia-
  1526
  ment. As a general rule, every educated Native of India was a friend to this country. He was told by schoolmasters in India that the difficulty was to get the boys out to play, so anxious were they to learn the English language, and so studious and painstaking was the Native character. So good and great a change of policy as had now taken place could not fail to lead to beneficial results.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that instead of following the hon. Gentleman over the wide field of discussion he had opened, he would confine his observations to the subject before the Committee— the state of Indian finance. He had no idea the right hon. Gentleman intended to make his financial statement on India that night. He supposed from the notice paper that the right hon. Gentleman only intended to move in Committee a Resolution upon which he might found his Bill for the Indian loan for railways. The right hon. Gentleman would not forget that on the 11th of February in the present year he had stated that in his view no loan would he wanted for the public exigencies of India, although it was possible a railway loan might be required. But only the other day the House had passed a Bill empowering the Indian Government to raise £4.000,000 for the public exigencies, and, therefore, that amount had been added to the public debt of India. The railway finance of India appeared to be so intimately dove-tailed with the general finance that it required a sharp intellect to distinguish the one from the other. In 1857 the debt of India was £57,500,000, now it amounted to £103,000,000. The dead weight upon the finances of India had, indeed, increased so alarmingly that it had become a source of financial danger to that empire. The collection of Indian revenue amounted to £4,500,000; the allowance to Native Princes and other charges to £2,250,000; and the charge on account of the debt was from £3.500,000 to £4,000,000, making a total of £10,000,000. For the last three years there had been a series of most extraordinary miscalculations, both in India and at home, with regard to Indian finance. Mr. Laing only recently made a mistake of £1,300,000 by the omission with regard to the transfer of the Indian navy. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) must say that the right hon. Gentleman had been very sparing in his observations as to the state of Indian finance. He certainly had hoped to hear

  1527
  something from him as to the cost of the new scheme of amalgamation. They had heard a good deal about the reduction in the military expenditure, and no doubt it had been very great, but the House had not heard a word about the Staff corps, or how the Indian officers were to be secured those prospects which were guaranteed them by the Act of 1858. He could not help sharing and sympathizing with the disappointment Mr. Laing had expressed that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary in Council, had not been able to do something to curb the military expenditure on this side of the water. It appeared that the War Office had more control over the finances of India than the right hon. Gentleman and his Council. It appeared that the Secretary of State and Council had no effective control over the military expenditure. The number of men in the Indian depots in this country was reduced, but the officers were not reduced; and why had not the Secretary of State and Council pluck enough to insist upon a reduction of the officers? If the right hon. Gentleman did not defend the Indian Exchequer, there would be no end of the charges which, on one pretext or another, would be placed upon it. He hoped the House would back the Secretary of State for India, and induce him to defend the Indian Exchequer with more spirit than he had hitherto done. When they were endeavouring to reduce expenditure in India at every risk, and were resorting to the most extraordinary modes of taxation, they should on this side of the water do what was fair and just. It would, therefore, have given him pleasure to hear the right hon. Secretary of State speak with a little more determination on that point; in fact, he believed he had not spoken on it at all. Passing to the subject of railways, he would say that he looked with great distrust upon a Government engaging in such matters, in which substantially they could have no control. This year £8,000,000 would be required, but how long was that to go on? The original estimate for railways in India was £54,000,000 or £56,000,000. Now, he would like the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the extreme amount of obligation that was contemplated on these railways. The companies had raised on paper £32,000,000, of which they had actually advanced £30,500,000. Would the remaining £24,000,000 be the whole of the possible obligation which the House would be called upon, either directly or in-
  1528
  directly, to furnish or guarantee? Those were questions which appeared to him to be of great importance, and he thought the Committee ought to receive information upon them.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was glad that the hon. Baronet had called attention to the Indian military expenditure in this country. It was a subject that required the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, for it was clear that when the amalgamation of the armies took place the object of the Home authorities would be to throw as much expense as possible on the Indian finances, by maintaining large depots in this country. He agreed with the hon. Member who spoke in favour of giving due importance to the Native Princes in India, but he thought that the hon. Member carried his idea too far when he said that if that policy had been adopted before, there would have been no mutiny. The mutiny, it must be remembered, was a military mutiny. The reduction of an overgrown Native army had long been imperative. A large expenditure under that head was absolutely ruinous, and retrenchment was a source of strength. He could not but deprecate the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the loans, as, instead of giving an Imperial guarantee, he was raising money at 5 per cent, which might otherwise be had at three and a quarter, thus disturbing, also, the finances of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must look upon the right hon. Gentleman as his greatest enemy, for he was disturbing his money market for the sake of theories. In India, however, retrenchment was not the only remedy for a deficiency of revenue. He should have been, therefore, glad to hear that remunerative public works were to be extensively undertaken. Increased instead of diminished expenditure in that respect was the secret of wealth and power; and he hoped they would soon see the day when there would be a separate Board of Public Works composed of men like Colonel Baird and Sir Arthur Cotton, who were entirely devoted to their development. Deficiency of revenue instead of being an argument for diminishing expenditure under that head, was only a reason for increasing it. In the water-courses of India lay the wealth of that empire. The old Native Princes had executed the most magnificent works for the purposes of irrigation and navigation, but these had long since fallen into ruin; and it

  1529
  was the duty of England, as the governing power in that country, to see that her internal resources were properly developed. Let those works be restored and they would become the source of fertility and riches. Let them be left as they were, and while occasionally the rivers fertilized the country through which they passed, at other times they desolated it by flood, or left it barren through failure of supply. He might illustrate what he had said by a reference to Cuttack and Tanjore, which were districts of about the same size. During twenty-three years only £2,400 was expended anually upon waterworks it Cuttack, while in Tanjore £11,600 was spent. The annual revenne from Cuttack consequently was only £85,000, while that of Tanjore was £470,000. Land in Cuttack was worth £1 10 s., in Tanjore £5 an acre; and while Cuttack had the best natural supply of water, yet in twenty-three years it had three years of famine, four of drought, seven of inundation, two of severe inundation, and only seven moderate seasons. The total excess of revenue from Tanjore during that period was nearly £7,000,000. He would ask them, then, which was the true economy?—to increase our expenditure on works of irrigation, and thus our revenue; or to diminish it or allow it to remain stationary? Again, as a mere question of finance, what could be more ruinous than periodical famines? It was unquestionable that they could be averted; and, happily, our interest and our duty equally called upon us to avert them. Closely connected with irrigation was increased facility for the conveyance of goods. The waste of goods in India caused by the want of canals was a fearful evil. He had heard it said in general terms, for instance, that as much cotton was wasted in the interior of the Madras Presidency as was produced in America. Give the Natives of India a market for their goods, and a remunerative price, and there was no limit to what they could produce. But, more than that, the development of roads and of other means of communication was absolutely essential for the administration of justice. He believed that a strict inquiry into the condition of Bengal, for instance, would show that to false economy was owing some of the terrible evils under which the ryots there had for years been groaning. European magistrates were placed in charge of enormous districts, and the difficulty of doing their duty was greatly increased by the want of roads. On every ground, there-
  1530
  fore, he felt imperatively called upon to press the question of public works on the attention of the Government, and to demand for the people of India every facility that could be granted, for the development of its natural resources, and of its commerce.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that, having trespassed so often on the indulgence of the House during the Session in reference to Indian questions, he rose very reluctantly on that occasion. He could not, however, refrain from expressing the feeling of deep regret with which he had listened to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, as he thought the practice of coming down to the House year after year for powers to raise loans for India very objectionable. The objection was the greater on the present occasion, because the right hon. Gentleman asked for another loan actually within a week after the acceptance of tenders for a loan, which had been already sanctioned during the year. If, however, the right hon. Baronet preferred to adopt that course, instead of submitting a bold and comprehensive financial scheme. in reference to the entire debt for India, that unhappy state of affairs must continue. He was aware that that course had its attractions, inasmuch as all that the right hon. Baronet had to do was to announce his intention to make a loan, and calculate a price at which it would be sure to command a premium, and he was aware by experience that he would find no difficulty in obtaining tenders for twenty times the amount required. But he begged to warn him that, however popular such an arrangement might be regarded on the Stock Exchange, it involved a serious loss to the Indian Government, because the loans were obliged to be issued at a price below that, which would be given by regular contractors. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, encouraged stock-jobbing, and be disturbed the regular and legitimate monetary and banking business I of the City. He had no sort of intention to dispute the absolute necessity of completing these railways as rapidly as possible. He thought that was only due from England as the ruling Power—that they were calculated to be advantageous to her, and it must be for her interest that the trade and industrial resources of India should go on expanding like her own every year. But what he complained of was that the right hon. Baronet did not explain the precise position and the relationship

  1531
  existing between those railway companies and the Government. Now that the English Government had stepped forward with the necessary funds to complete them, some explanation on that point was very naturally sought to be obtained by the proprietors and shareholders. It should also be borne in mind that the Indian Government, at the instigation of the Home Government, had interfered very actively in the construction of those railways from the very commencement, and not always to the advantage and profit of the railway companies. Let him take, for instance, the Madras Railway, which ran from Madras to Beypore, on the Malabar coast. The Indian and Home Governments insisted that for military purposes it should be made from point to point, as straight as a needle; and so cleverly had that been done that the railway contrived to avoid every town and village of any importance. The consequence was that the receipts of the last six months, after paying the working expenses, amount to only £7,000, on an outlay of several millions. For his own part, he confessed that, looking to these facts and to the great stake and interest which the Home Government had acquired in these railways, he thought the time had arrived for considering whether it would not be desirable for all parties concerned that we should adopt the Ceylon system —namely, abolish the twelve or fifteen separate companies which how existed in this country, and transfer the management of them to the Secretary of State for India and to his not overworked Council. Would it be believed that to manage a capital not so large as that of the London and North-Western or Great Western Railways there were some twelve or thirteen separate companies, with chairmen, deputy-chairmen, directors, secretaries, clerks, and handsome offices? They were all amenable to one and the same authority, the Secretary of State and his Council, and they refuse to stir an inch or to turn a clod of earth until they obtained a guaranteed interest of 5 per cent. Now, the great advantages resulting from his proposition would be that the shareholders would possess increased confidence in the soundness of their investments—the necessary funds to complete them would be easily raised—very great economy would be introduced, because that part of the Indian Council which was called the Committee for Public Works, would perform all the duties of those twelve or fifteen
  1532
  separate companies with the assistance of a few additional clerks; and, lastly, the great mercantile community would be spared the trouble of having to wander to all parts of the City in quest of the numerous companies now in existence.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that if the hon. Member for Windsor, before recommending that all the railways in India should be handed over to the Secretary of State and his Council, had inquired into the relations which at present existed between the railway companies and the Government, he would have found that they were of such a nature as could not be interfered with except by a direct act of the Legislature. The railways in India had been constructed and were to be managed under contracts entered into by the companies with the Government under the sanction of Parliament, and if they were to be transferred to the Secretary of State and his Council, what, he asked, was to become of the shareholders? The Government could not take possession of the railways without repaying to the proprietors their capital, which was the reason, perhaps, why the hon. Member for Windsor wished to see the railways placed under the management of the Secretary of State and his Council. The hon. Member was largely concerned in the Madras Railway, which happened to occupy a worse position in the market than any other line in India, and if that railway were to be taken by the Government at par, the hon. Member would receive £10 more for every £100 which he had invested in the undertaking than he could obtain by the sale of his shares on the Stock Exchange. Reference had been made to a statement by the Governor General as to enormous extravagance on the part of the railway companies in India; but it should be borne in mind that the whole of the expenditure on railways in India was incurred under the direct control and superintendence of the Government itself. The Government Was a party to every item of expenditure, and, therefore, when the Governor General said that enormous extravagance had marked the expenditure of the railway Companies, he was fostering a censure upon his own administration. The hon. Member for Poole had urged the construction of more railways; but he could not help thinking that to enter upon such works at the present moment would only increase the difficulties of the time. Money could not be obtained for new railways without the security of a Government guarantee. The

  1533
  existing companies were pushing forward their works with the utmost vigour, and in a very short time there would he 7,000 instead of 700 miles of railway opened in India. Of course, in some instances, the shareholders would he disappointed; but he believed that in the great majority of cases the traffic and profits would considerably exceed the guaranteed amount. He agreed with the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) that beneficial results would ensue from the sale of waste lands. There was at present a large accumulation of capital in Native hands. That capital would soon require an outlet; and, since the confidence of the Natives in public loans had; been completely shaken, he did not see how it could be more judiciously invested than in land. He rejoiced to hear that there was no necessity to ask for money for the general purposes of the Indian Government. The powers now asked were to be only discretionary. He could not help, under these circumstances, expressing his opinions that, in the present state of the money market and the increasing value of Indian securities here, the railway companies would find no difficulty—or, at least, not so much as had been expected—in finding money in the course of the year, and that the Government would not have to use to anv very great extent the powers which the House was asked to vest in them.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he must altogether disclaim the motives which had been imputed to him by the hon. Member for the City of London, in the recommendation he had made. He had but a small stake in Indian railways; whereas the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Crawford) was not only chairman of the East India Railway, but possessed a very large stake in Indian railways.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, that the statement of the right hon. Baronet in relation to the condition of Indian finance was under the circumstances satisfactory; and he congratulated the Committee that no further loans would be resorted to or needed, except for reproductive public works. In one item of revenue, indeed, there was a likelihood of a further and very rapid increase—he alluded to the revenue produced by the duty on salt. Every additional mile of railway and river navigation which was opened reduced the present enormous cost of carriage, and thus enabled the Natives to obtain salt upon lower terms than before, and in that proportion would the consumption increase. There was one
  1534
  point in the right hon. Baronet's speech which would give great satisfaction to the manufacturers of cotton in this country. For the last twenty years they looked with alarm at their growing dependence upon one source of supply. That dependence had gone on increasing, until last year the consumption of American cotton was 85 per cent of the entire amount. Various steps had been taken from time to time to enlarge the supply; and it was now found that India was the only source to which they could look for receiving any considerable quantity. The right hon. Baronet said that probably 1,000,000 bales would be received from India this year. That receipt was stimulated solely by high I prices in England; but what was required was a regular and constant supply from India, so that India might be placed upon the same footing as the United States of America. The foundation of American prosperity in the growth of cotton arose from the cheapness with which the cotton could he brought to market. The American planters had availed themselves of the advantages afforded by their rivers of bringing their cotton to a port of shipment at a very smaller cost. A few millions of dollars had been spent in removing the obstructions to the navigation of the Mississippi, and the result had been to make New Orleans the largest port of shipment in the world. We had evidence that the same results may be obtained by the adoption of the same means in India. Within the last few years the navigation of the Indus had been opened and improved; steam-boats had been introduced and were plying upon it, and Kurrachee now promised to become another New Orleans. The right hon. Gentleman said, the Government had decided upon opening the Godavery in the shortest possible period. He hoped this promise would be crrried out in good faith. If it was the greatest advantages would result. A large part of the richest land in the centre of India—an extent of surface equal to four times that of Ireland—would be opened to trade and cultivation. In the words of Sir Charles Trevelyan, "the opening of this river would be equivalent to the creation of a new trade, to the extension of which no limits could be assigned." There was at present, not unnaturally, great excitement and alarm with respect to the supply of cotton; but if the civil war in America should cease to-morrow, the necessity would still be urgent to secure new sources of sup-

  1535
  ply. It was neither politic nor just that we should rely on one source of supply which, in a great measure, was dependent on the labour of slaves while we had in our own dominions an extent of territory suitable for the cultivation of cotton greater than existed in any other part of the world.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had to observe, with reference to the discrepancies in the statements of the Indian revenue by Mr. Laing and the right hon. Gentleman, that if they could only trust to estimates and budgets, they might rest satisfied. But, unhappily, hope told a flattering tale in India as well as elsewhere, and wishes had been substituted for facts. The real explanation, however, was that the military retrenchments in one of the statements had been assumed to be made, whereas they were only prospective. They however, would soon be effected and to a very considerable extent. But the savings produced by the reduction of the Native force were more than absorbed by the increase of the European force. The reduction of the Native troops had been carried to an extent which would cause inconvenience, and he was afraid would prove dangerous to the public interests. They had now 19,000 Europeans in India beyond the proposed future establishment, in addition to which 3,000 artillerymen were to be sent out immediately from this country. Surely, out of that excess of 19,000 Europeans in India, 3,000 volunteers for the Artillery might have been obtained, so as to save the expense of sending out those 3,000 men. The debt of India was 57 1/2 millions sterling in 1857. Now it amounted to 103 millions, but this was only two and a half years' revenue. In that respect India was better situated than England, whose debt was twelve and half years revenue, or any European country. He had, therefore, good hopes of a satisfactory financial condition in India, provided the proper sources of economy were duly attended to. The civil and political establishments of India, including the charge for contingencies, cost in 1856–7, £2,556,000, while in 1860–1 they cost £3,684,000. The judicial and police charges had risen from £2,812,409 to £4,004,500. Those figures exhibited a vast increase, for which there was no apparent necessity. In the charge for the police establishments of India considerable retrenchments might be effected. Any outlay on works of irrigation, canals, and roads was politic and highly reproductive. The Gauges canal
  1536
  was as magnificent a work as any in Europe; and a commercial company had taken advantage of it to establish a system of transit by boats in its channel, and on the 31st of January last the Company advertised from Cawnpore a dividend of 34 per cent on its capital in one year from the transit of boats on that canal. The value of that means of carriage during the late famine it was impossible to exaggerate. No doubt India would prosper if we ruled it in a manner calculated to insure the confidence, and to win the affections of its people. The ill-judged income-tax had yielded 50 per cent less than its estimated produce; and, its operation reaching down to persons having only £20 a year, and living from hand to mouth, it had led to frightful oppression in numerous instances. The myrmidons employed in its collection were reported, in some cases, to have forced their way into women's apartments, and to have stripped them of their earrings and other jewellery. He trusted that, in accordance with Mr. Laing's suggestion, this obnoxious impost would be restricted to incomes of above £50 per annum. Upon the whole, however, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the statement he had made, and he confessed he looked forward to a happier future for India.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, that he, too, wished to congratulate the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Wood) on the general character of the statement he had laid before the Committee. At the same time he wished to call attention to the importance of encouraging the emigration into India of British settlers, upon whose capital and intelligence the fate of that empire must to a great extent depend. It was indispensable to any sound system of internal commerce in India that there should be a more satisfactory law of contract, visiting with proper penalties any breach of faith between the landlord and the ryot. In Bengal a great improvement was required in the police, and small debt courts, administering justice cheaply and expeditiously between debtor and creditor, ought to be established. The laws should be executed impartially towards Natives and Europeans; but the English settler who had not been fairly treated heretofore ought to be fairly treated. It was to him that they must look for the introduction of Western civilization into India. One of the great evils of the present system of conducting business was the making of advances.

  1537
  If the system of advances could be got rid of, and a good law of contract established, a great benefit would be conferred upon India; and if the extended cultivation of cotton was to take place, such a law would be more necessary even than it is at present. It would be wise, as suggested by the Committee on settlement in India, to sell waste lands in fee simple. Thus, cultivation by means of British capital, would confer lasting advantages upon India. The extended communication through Thibet with Central Asia would open a new outlet for our manufacturers, especially our woollen fabrics. He was disappointed that nothing had been said by his right hon. Friend on the cultivation of tea upon the southern slopes of the Himalayas. That cultivation was destined to become a source of immeasurable wealth to India. He was gratified to find that the right hon. Gentleman intended to recognize the legitimate position of the Native gentry of India. From long habit, from time-honoured associations, the people of India recognized and respected them, and their authority was an obvious means and instrument of govering the people. After hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he ventured to believe that the financial difficulties of India were not irremediable. Far from it. Better times were opening on them, disclosing a futurity hopeful alike to India and to England.
  MR. ADAMobserved that at last they had turned the corner in Indian finance, and were about to enter upon the region of surplus after being so long in the deserts of deficits. That hope, however, was damped by a recollection of how often they had been deceived by fallacious figures in relation to Indian finance. The same thing had happened now. Mr. Laing estimated a surplus, but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State declared a deficiency. What was the Committee to believe? They had hitherto been working in the dark, but he trusted, under the new system about to be inaugurated, more reliable information might be obtained. He had read Mr. Laing's speech to the Council with very great pleasure, and had risen from the perusal of it with the impression that India had at length got a financier who would be able to understand her requirements. There were, however, many things in the speech with which he could not agree. In the first place he thought that in the attempt to diminish the Native force too rapidly he had incurred some
  1538
  danger. The last accounts stated that there was an uneasy feeling in the Punjab, arising from the number of soldiers who had been disbanded, or who were about to be disbanded. Another point upon which he differed from Mr. Laing was as to the Indian navy. It was quite right that the Indian navy should be put upon a different footing; but, although it might be a saving to India, it would be none to this country, which must keep up a naval force if the Indian navy was not employed. Mr. Laing had unconsciously borne testimony to the truth of what was urged by the late Lord Elphinstone and Sir Charles Trevelyan against the taxes proposed by Mr. Wilson. The three taxes proposed by that gentleman were now practically in-operative. The income tax only produced one-half the estimated amount. The Licence Tax Bill had not been read a third time, and the tobacco tax was never mentioned now. He did not object to a licence tax or an income tax which would reach the richer classes—those who most benefited by our rule, and he hoped that what Mr. Laing proposed would be carried out—a blending of the licence with the income tax in such a way as to satisfy Native ideas. One of the most important fixtures of the Budget was the granting to local Governments a voice in matters of legislation and taxation. The great curse of India was centralization, and he trusted that that evil would now be remedied. He agreed with the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) that they were now borrowing money at an unnecessarily high rate, for although they practically gave an Imperial guarantee they could not do so formally, and thus, for an idea, they were losing a large sum every year. Another point deserving consideration was the unfairness of charging the Indian depots in this country to India, seeing that they constituted so much increase to the force in this country. The question of the land tax and its redemption had been treated incidentally in the course of the present discussion, and an hon. Gentleman had suggested that any person holding land in India should be allowed to redeem the land tax. He believed that, if that matter were worked judiciously, the Government possessed a mine of wealth in connection with it. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that in future years Indian business would be brought forward a little earlier in the Session, so that the House might have more time to consider it. He thanked the

  1539
  right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India for his able statement, and he had great hopes that they had at length got into calm weather as regards Indian finance.
  MR. GREGSONremarked that the debt of India amounted to only about two and a half times the revenue of India, while that of England was equal to twelve years' purchase of our revenue. He could not, therefore, think it desirable to encourage India by an Imperial guarantee to raise money in this country. He admitted that the statement which had been made respecting the finances of India presented a favourable appearance; but, seeing that India was in perfect tranquillity, and that all the Native Princes were in amity with the Government, he believed that the expenditure might be still further reduced. He was glad to hear it distinctly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India that it was intended to go on with the works for improving the navigation of the Godavery, and he should offer no objection to the proposed loan, for he concurred with Mr. Laing in thinking that money could not be more advantageously employed than in improving the roads in India. He conceived that the Bengal planters had some reason to complain that the system of contracts had not been put on a proper footing, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to that subject, in order that harmony might be restored between the Natives and the planters. He also would express a hope that the duty on salt would be reduced as soon as the increased revenue derived from it would permit.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman on the part of the commercial community for the efforts that he was making in their behalf. At present a great commercial calamity was impending. There existed in this country at the present time a supply of cotton from the United States that might be sufficient for our immediate wants; but if the United States blockade were not broken, or some other source of supply were not obtained, next year would be one of calamity. His right hon. Friend had referred to a larger importation than usual that might be expected from India. Last year it was600,000 bales; this year it was expected to be 1,000,000. But they must recollect that other nations would be competing with us for that additional supply from India. America at the present time was receiving
  1540
  supplies of cotton from Liverpool. The embarrassment which existed at the present moment with regard to the supply of cotton he hoped would be beneficial in developing the great resources of India. The consumption of cotton in this country was 2,500,000 bales last year. The imports from India this year it was expected would amount to 1,000,000. It was the duty of Government to do all they could to promote the cultivation of cotton in India. There was a general impression that the great desideratum was an improvement in the cleaning and preparation of cotton in India. But that was not so. It was a better quality of cotton that was required. The cotton from America had a fibre twice as long as that from India, and ho did not hesitate to say that by proper modes of cultivation, and by growing cotton of a superior quality, the ryot might get eight times the reward for his labour and produce as he now obtains. His hon. Friend had stated that more cotton was wasted in India than was used in England. Nothing could be more erroneous. The cotton consumed in England was worth £30,000,000, and the same quantity of Indian cotton would be worth £12,000,000, and it was not likely the ryots would lose such an amount. It was another mistake to suppose that as much cotton was grown in India as in all the world beside. The truth was as much might be grown there as in the United States; but while the latter crop was worth £40,000,000, the ryots never obtained more than £15,000,000 for what they grew. He would urge upon the Government the propriety of encouraging the improvement of the crop in India, and of opening up the means of transport; and, if they did, they would not only promote the prosperity of India, but would relieve this country from dependence on a foreign source of supply, and take away our share of the guilt that was incurred by the encouragement we gave to slave-grown cotton.
  MR. HADFIELDurged the propriety of giving power to trustees to take advantage of the opportunity which was presented by the proposals of the Secretary for India to invest the funds at their disposal at a better rate of interest than was to be obtained by an investment in Consols.
  SIR CHARLES WOODbriefly replied. The hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) had alluded to the close connection there was between the railway ex-

  1541
  penditure and the general expenditure, It was impossible to keep the two entirely separate. The hon. Gentleman wished to know what the future charge would be. The utmost amount for the construction of railways in India would be £56,000,000, The hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart) objected to a loan to make good the deficit in the payments on account of the railways. What were they to do? So long as the railways were not completed the Government were losers to the extent of the guaranteed interest.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he did not object to the railway expenditure. What he had said was, that the Government I ought to have submitted a more comprehensive plan with regard to the railways.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the cost of the railways would be £56,000,000. If the railway companies could not raise the money for the completion of the lines, the Government must. They must complete the railways that they had undertaken should be constructed. The Government had considered the question of taking possession of the railways; but they had come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would not be advantageous to do so. They thought it better to advance money, thus putting themselves in the position of shareholders.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That is expedient to enable the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise Money in the United Kingdom for the Service of the Government of India."
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EASTER OFFERINGS.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) he rose to ask the Home Secretary, Whether his attention has been drawn to the state in which the town of Accrington has been placed by the Vicar of Whalley seizing the household goods and other property of poor parishioners, and selling the same by auction, to enforce the payment of small sums of money claimed by him for Easter Offerings? Accrington contained a popul-
  1542
  lation of 17,000 persons, and its inhabitants were called upon to pay for religious services which were rendered, not to themselves, but to the people of Whalley and its neighbourhood. He had no doubt that the demand thus made by the Vicar of Whalley may have been legal; but it had been enforced in a manner little calculated to raise the Church in the eyes of the community, or to promote the harmony of the district. Though compulsory payment was contrary to the spirit with which Easter offerings were originally established, the goods of some of the poorest inhabitants of Accrington had been seized and sold by public auction, and these harsh proceedings on the part of the Vicar of Whalley laid naturally led to great excitement, almost amounting to riot. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would inquire into the circumstances, and, if necessary, bring forward a measure on the subject next Session. He called attention to two petitions which had been presented on this subject, and their prayer was so moderate and reasonable that he hoped the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department would take the matter into his serious consideration. He moved for any Correspondence that had taken place.
  MR. HADFIELDseconded the Motion. He could not understand why those dues should be claimed by a clergyman who rendered no service whatever to the persons from whom he claimed them.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in consequence of the notice which had been given on the subject by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Barnes) he had caused a letter to be written to the clerk of the magistrates at Accrington, and he had received from him a reply explanatory of what had taken place. He should be very happy to submit it for the information of the hon. Gentleman and the House. The facts appeared to lie in a very narrow compass. There was some dispute with regard to the legality of Eatter offerings in the parish of Accrington. He had no information whatever in regard to the legality of those claims; but if there was any legal defence to those against whom distress warrants had issued, they would, no doubt, raise the question by an action of trespass. It was essentially a question of civil right, and it would not be competent to the Executive Government to interfere in any way in the matter. At least, he knew of no power that resided in the Executive Government

  1543
  to decide questions of this nature. He was informed that distress warrants had been issued against thirteen individuals; their goods had been seized and sold by auction, but bought up by two persons representing some association for the protection of those whose goods were seized under these distress warrants. Considerable excitement prevailed at the time of the auction, but there was no breach of the peace, a party of police who had been present being quite sufficient to maintain public order. That was the account which he had received from the clerk to the magistrates. With regard to the general question of Easter offerings, his impression certainly was that they were a voluntary gift, and not recoverable by law; but he presumed there was some special custom or practice in that part of the country which enabled the vicar or incumbent to assert a legal claim. He repeated he had no information as to the legal nature of those claims, and he could see no ground for the interference of the Secretary of State.

POLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask a question of which he had given notice. He wished to know, Whether a despatch existed in which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), when Foreign Secretary, had stated, with reference to Poland, that the rights of the Czar were in-contestible; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to its production?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have looked at these despatches since notice was given. There is no such expression in any despatch as that the rights of the Czar were incontestible. There will be no objection to the production of the despatches. There is a note from Count Sebastiani to Prince Talleyrand, communicated to me at the Foreign Office, and a despatch from me to the British Ambassador at Paris in answer to it.

ECCLESIASTICAL REGISTRY IN ENGLAND AND WALES.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that he rose to move for the Return of which he had given notice relating to Ecclesiastical Registries. It divided itself into three parts —first, as to the state of the registries, many of which in 1832 were reported to be in a very dangerous condition; secondly, as
  1544
  to their subordinate officers—their names and qualifications; and thirdly, as to the total number of fees received by all ecclesiastical officers. The registrars were bound to have their tables of fees hung up in the Courts, and, therefore, there ought to be no difficulty in producing that part of the Return, Many of these Gentlemen were in the enjoyment of sinecures of £1,200 a year, and there was something astounding in the insolence of their refusal to give a return of their fees without being paid out of the public purse for their trouble in doing so. The information was necessary to enable the House to understand the abuses in the ecclesiastical system; and, by refusing to furnish it, the Home Secretary appeared to be shielding improper practices.
  The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Returns respecting—
  "Every Ecclesiastical Registry in England and Wales, stating in what town situated; whether in a private house or a public building, and whether such house or building is fireproof; if not fireproof, whether the books and documents are kept in fireproof safes; if not, how kept.
  "Of the names, places of residence, dates of appointment, by whom appointed, professions, whether if clergymen, and what appointments they hold; and if any other occupation what employment of the following officers:—Registrar; Deputy Registrar; Apparitor; Sealkeeper; Chancellor or Vicar General, Commissary, or Official; Surrogates; Proctors; Advocates resident in the diocese; Copy of Table of Fees; and, of the total number of Fees received respectively."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "That there be laid before this House," &c.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the hon. Gentleman had used a singular argument for calling for these Returns, because he seemed to be already in possession of a large part of the information for which he asked. The hon. Member reproached him for wishing to suppress valuable information; but the truth was that the information was not already in existence, or the hon. Gentleman would be most welcome to it. To obtain it it would be necessary to call upon the officers of the Ecclesiastical Courts under the Bishops to go through a great deal of labour in drawing up what would amount to an exceedingly elaborate report. An effort was made by the Home Office last year to procure this mass of information, when remonstrances were sent in as to the impossibility of obtaining it unless the persons employed for the purpose were remunerated for their trouble.

  1545
  Not having any funds at his command for such an object the matter had rested in abeyance up to this time. The ordinary course when so voluminous a mass of information was sought was for the hon. Gentleman who desired to have it to move for a Committee, or even propose an Address to the Crown for a Commission. Again, if the House chose to make an order upon each officer of these Courts requiring him to furnish the information, no doubt that order would be compulsory; whereas the Crown could only call upon him to do it upon his allegiance, and could not enforce the performance of the duty. The Government, therefore, could not agree to the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURasked whether the right hon. Baronet would give the permission of the Government to the appointment of a Committee next year?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he could only reply that if the hon. Gentleman would make a Motion for a Committee next year no doubt the House would give it their consideration.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he thought it rather unfair to put such a question to the right hon. Baronet in his present dubious state, he now being half at peace and half at war. His successor at the Home Office would be the proper person to give a pledge on the subject. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman should remember that the Returns he objected to had been given in the case of Ireland; and why, therefore, were they not to have justice to England?
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he must protest against its being supposed that it was in the power of any Government to grant a Committee. All that the Government could do was to listen to any Motion that was made on the subject. It was the privilege of the House itself to appoint Committees, although hon. Gentlemen were too much in the habit of allowing the Government to assume that function.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsuggested that instead of moving an Address to the Crown, the hon. Member (Mr. Seymour) should move for an order of the House for the production of these Returns.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that having sat on the Committee which investigated the subject eleven years before, he could promise the hon. Member who made the Motion a great deal of valuable information, not to say amusement, if he would take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Home
  1546
  Secretary or Secretary at War—one could hardly tell which—and move the revival of that Committee.
  Question, "That the words proposed to left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
Mr. Massey in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Original Question again proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
Mr. W. Williams and Mr. BERNAL OSBOBNErose together. Yielding to the loud calls for Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE, the hon. Member for Lambeth gave way.
MR. BERNTAL OSBORNEsaid, as he was cut short in a quotation at ten minutes to four o'clock, it was rather unkind in the hon. Member for Lambeth to wish to prevent his resuming it in the evening. But, on the other hand, he was rather glad he had had time, since the adjournment of the House, to examine the Vote, as he was the better able to propose what he thought would be right to deduct from the credit of £75,000. He would put it at £2,000, a sum which would give the Committee an opportunity of discussing some of the items, and allow him to make a few observations upon them. The first item was the charge of £273 for the expenses of the various colonial Bishops in visiting their dioceses. He would not, however, insist on being too particular as to that Vote. There was another to which he would direct the attention of the House, chiefly for the sake of asking for some information on it. It was the charge for fees paid on conferring titles of dignity. A sum of £512 was asked for passing under the Great Seal a patent granting to Lord Brougham a barony with one remainder. He was the last person in the House who would ever say anything to detract from the justly-established merits of Lord Brougham; he thought he had well earned the gratitude of the country. But when he saw an item of the sort for the first time brought under consideration, he felt bound to call attention to it, and he was told that this was a peculiar patent, as it proposed for the first time in the history of granting peerages to skip one generation. The successor to this title

1547
was a Whig of acknowledged ability, who, like other Whigs, had retired on an acknowledged pension of £2,500 a year after a few years' services. He would not object to the Vote if it was admitted that great men's patents of nobility were to be paid for by the public; but, if not, why was an exception made in favour of Lord Brougham? Some explanation ought to be given before that item was voted. There was another charge of £188 for passing under the Great Seal the letters patent appointing the Duke of Argyll Postmaster General. A good explanation might, perhaps, be given of that item; but the House would be curious to hear what were the circumstances under which the Postmaster General's patent was to be paid for out of the public taxes? He came next to the charge of £1,415 for erecting galleries in Hyde Park for the Volunteer Review of last year. He believed more ill-will than pleasure was created by these galleries. He was told by an hon. Gentleman next him that he could not obtain a ticket for the gallery, nor could any of his friends; and if it had come to this, that galleries were to be erected on public occasions for the friends of whoever might happen to be in power, he believed it would be a very strong argument in favour of a Reform of Parliament. To that Vote he objected altogether, and would certainly divide the House against it. He now came to the last item of £944 for the Commission appointed for promoting and encouraging the Fine Arts in connection with the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament. The appointment of that Commission was a most unfortunate thing for the Fine Arts, as well as for the pockets of the people of the country. It was appointed in 1841, when the new Houses of Parliament were first begun, under the pretence of taking advantage of the opportunity to encourage the Fine Arts. The Commission originally consisted of twenty-one members, all gentlemen highly distinguished in society. No doubt they felt themselves very well employed while spending the public money in promoting the Fine Arts — with what effect let the House judge. Since the appointment of the Commission eleven of the members had died, and it at present consisted of fifteen; and—what the House should always avoid—they were gentlemen of great taste. Whenever they appointed a Commission of gentlemen of great taste they might depend the public purse was in great danger. In 1846 the Commission
1548
proposed that £4,000 a year should be spent in decorating the Houses of Parliament, and since that year £60,000 had actually been expended for that purpose. Was any hon. Member of the House not connected with the Fine Arts satisfied with the way in which that sum had been laid out? He would not make his quotation again, but if the Houses were ruins, and the New Zealander Lord Macaulay had depicted were sitting on a fragment of Westminster Bridge, if any of the frescoes remained, would he not think that they had been painted by Pagans? Not that there was any chance of their being in existence, for at the present moment they were falling from the walls. Cordelia was defaced, and Lear was almost invisible. Had not the £60,000 been grossly and wantonly wasted by this Commission? He had spoken of the frescoes only; but the Commission had been been in the habit of laying out money for purposes for which it was not originally voted. Mr. Maclise, the celebrated artist, contracted to paint certain pictures, to be completed in ten years, for which he was to receive £10,000. In 1855 the House granted £1,500, on account, to Mr. Maclise. But Mr. Maclise had since repudiated his contract. What did the Commission do? The Kensington Museum was convenient; there were rising artists to be encouraged, and this £15,000 was employed for that purpose. Hon. Gentlemen had been in what was called the Painted Chamber. There was there a series of what had been called "splendid sign paintings." Twenty-eight Tudor portraits, furnished by the Kensington Museum at £70 a head, so that the money voted for Mr. Maclise was devoted to the encouragement of unknown artists, and twenty-eight, not paintings, but inferior copies of the most approved Wardour Street School, were purchased in order to encourage the rising artists of the Kensington Museum. It was a little too much for the Fine Arts Commission to take upon themselves in that way, and it was high time for Parliament to step in and put a veto upon such proceedings. Then, again, as to the frescoes, he could only say, although not a man having a taste in that House, that he thought they were disgusting exhibitions. They cost £600 each, and the only good the country would get for the money was that in five years they were all likely to fall off the walls. Who were the designers? Who had commanded them? That House had

1549
nothing to do with them, but the fifteen hon. Gentlemen had who met to spend the public money, though not to the public satisfaction, He was fortified in his opinion by the right hon. Gentleman whose vote perhaps he could not claim, but whose silence at least he should expect—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman could defend and adorn any subject—he could even prop up Her Majesty's Ministers. He said, on August 3,1860, "He did not hesitate to admit that the ornamentation of the Houses of Parliament had been in many instances enormously and ludicrously overdone." That was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion of the Fine Arts Commission. The right hon. Gentleman was not only a man of real taste, but he had a sincere desire to save the public money, and it could only be by the pressure of gentlemen in his neighbourhood who had enormous taste that he could be brought to consent to so prodigal a waste of money. But there was not only a question of taste but one of historical judgment in respect of the statues about to be put up. He was sorry to make any charge—he made no inuendo— but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had acted with candour in the matter. Upon the same occasion when the right Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer denounced the Fine Arts Commission in August, 1860, there was a great debate as to the sum to be appropriated for the erection of statues. Originally in 1845 the Fine Arts Commission, with that prodigality that distinguished all gentlemen who were putting their hands into other people's pockets, and spending other people's money, proposed to have statues of British monarchs from Egbert to William IV. The House had then one of their fits of economy, and rather objected to have a series of statues from the renowned Egbert down to the equally renowned William IV. and it was agreed that there should be only four statues, one at each corner of the Royal Gallery. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works—if he would only save them from such works as these, had hardly acted with candour, his love of monarchy exceeded his admiration of that House. On August 3,1860, there was an item of £1,600 for two British Sovereigns, and great contention arose as to who those Sovereigns should be. The hon. Member for Brighton was all for Oliver Cromwell.
1550
[Mr. WHITE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Dundalk would not hear of Oliver Cromwell. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] The tide of opinion ran strongly, and the House, not feeling that confidence in the First Commissioner which they ought to have felt, the right hon. Gentleman withdrew the Vote, and in doing so said— "He did it with a view of considering whether some selection of Sovereigns might not be made that would he generally acceptable to the House." Of course it was expected then that they were going to have four respectable Sovereigns, at £800 each, and, therefore, he (Mr. Osborne) made no objection, relying upon the First Commissioner; but it now appeared, from the 12th Report of the Fine Arts Commission, signed by one Royal personage, one literary Peer, and one late Radical M.P.—the Prince Consort, Lord Stanhope, and Lord Llanover—one of the recent creations. They now recommended that Mr. William Theed be invited to undertake two of the marble statues to be placed in the Royal Gallery —those of William IV. and George IV. They were to be seven feet high upon proportionate pedestals. Mr. Thorneycroft was to he invited to undertake other two statues—those of Charles I, and James I. The money had been voted, and now the Committee found themselves in the same position as they were with respect to the Military College which they had been discussing that morning. They voted the money for the College, and the College would be erected; they had voted money for four statues, and these four statues of four distinguished monarchs would he undertaken at the expense of the nation. No doubt they would hear from the Treasury bench some talk about the necessity of promoting the fine arts; but in answer to that, by anticipation, he would refer to a previous Report of the Fine Arts Commission, in which it was stated that since the institution of the Commission the encouragement of art had been so much increased in this country by private orders that it was no longer an object to apply the public money for its promotion. He repeated that it was high time that Commission of gentlemen for spending other people's money should cease. Ho thought he had shown fair reason why that particular Vote of £994 should be refused, and if hon. Gentlemen could not agree with him in voting that £2,000 he deducted from the Estimate, he hoped they would

1551
join him in aiming a blow—for he avowed his object was to put an end to the Fine Arts Commission—in aiming a blow at this "profligate expenditure," to use a celebrated phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should move that the Vote be reduced by £2,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £23,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
MR. COWPERsaid, that as he had been personally alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, he supposed he ought to say a few words in defence of his candour, even if he did not enter into the general question of his vote. His hon. Friend had been kind enough to remember what he (Mr. Cowper) had said during the last year, but he had not remembered what he had said in reference to these statues in the present year, when the Vote was passed. The estimate as framed in the previous Session appeared to pledge the House to a series of forty-two statues, from Egbert down to the last Sovereign who preceded her present Majesty. There was no such intention on the part of the Government, but as the form of the Estimate did appear to pledge the House he withdrew the Vote, stating that consideration would he given to the question whether a selection could not be made that would he acceptable to the House. When it became his duty to explain the Vote of this year, he gave his explanation in such a manner as, he thought, ought to have guarded him against any charge of want of candour. He had not trusted to his own memory, but referred to what he was reported to have said on that occasion. He was reported in The Times to have said that the Fine Arts Committee had been engaged for a long series of years in endeavouring to promote art in that building, and that they proposed that four out of the twelve statues in chronological series were to be placed one at each side of the principle doors of the Royal Gallery. It often happened to them in that House that they said too much, but he ought, perhaps, to regret that on the occasion to which he referred he had not said a little more. He ought, perhaps, to have explained at some what greater length the meaning which he had endeavoured to sketch out in those few words; but he had taken it for granted that hon. Members interested in the subject had read the Report of the Commission on the Fine Arts, which had been on the
1552
table for some time before the Vote came on. In the report of the Sub-committee, which was referred to in that of the whole Commission, it was proposed to divide the chronological series into three portions: —first, twelve statues in the Royal Gallery; and then a certain number in two others respectively. In St. Stephen's-hall were statutes of men who had been distinguished in the House of Commons; and the Fine Arts Commission suggested that in the Royal Gallery and other parts of the approach through which the Sovereign passed there should be statues to illustrate the Monarchy and the history of the country. He thought that that view was not an unreasonable one on the part of the Commission. The Fine Arts Commission had been in existence for nearly twenty years, and it had produced twelve Reports. The Commission had been proceeded by a Committee of that House which sat in 1841, and which recommended that an encouragement should be afforded to the fine arts which could not be given by private persons. Private persons had not houses sufficiently large to have large pictures, and without large dimensions they could not have frescoes, or any historical art on a grand scale. It was thought that advantage should be taken of that building to encourage high art. He did not presume to put forward his opinion against that of any other Gentleman who thought himself more competent to form an opinion on the subject, but it was the opinion of very good judges that the proceedings of the Fine Arts Commission had done a great deal to encourage an important school of painting. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Oh, oh.] When the hon. Gentleman found fault with the decay of the frescoes—[Mr. B. OSBORNE: I did find fault with that.]—he thought that his complaint was not well founded. With two exceptions the frescoes were in good preservation; and he hoped they would last 300 years. The hon. Gentleman might go over the good frescoes and rub them with a towel without doing them injury, or he might endeavour to get rid of them by scrubbing them with water and a brush. [An Hon. MEMBER: And soap.] No; without soap; but he would find that the operation would have no effect in removing them. It was in that building that the practice of painting frescoes was commenced in England. They had been painted in other buildings since; and there was a very fine painting of that kind in the hall of Lincoln's-inn, With regard to sculp-

1553
ture, there was a demand for statues in the streets of our great towns, and it was important to set forth good examples in the Houses of Parliament. Excellence of sculpture was more easily attained and developed in the representation of historical and Royal personages, than in the imitation of the costumes of the present day. The Royal Commission was appointed for the purpose of giving encouragement and support to the fine arts, and he believed it would be conceded that the internal decorations of the Houses of Parliament were a credit to the country and elicited the admiration of foreigners. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Oh, oh!] His opinion was that, on the whole, they had reason to be proud of the manner in which the money had been expended in those decorations. He admitted that in the lavlsh carving of the exterior money had been wasted. The names of the members of the Fine Arts Commission were a guarantee for confidence in that body. These were men who might be well trusted with the selection of a few statues and paintings. For a long period of years a sum of £4,000 had been annually placed at the disposal of the Committee of Fine Arts, but that year, for the first time, a much less amount was demanded, and that sum was to be spent entirely on the four statues, no new pictures being contemplated at present. He repeated his belief that no one was to blame for the manner in which the money was expended. At the time the Vote passed, the Committee of Fine Arts had not come to any decision regarding the statues to be selected. They of Fine Arts had not come to any decision regarding the statues to be selected. They had received a Report from the sub-committee, but had arrived at no conclusion upon it; and it was after the Vote of the House that their decision was given.
Mr. GREGORYobserved, that he was bound to say that it would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman been either a great deal more laconic or a great deal more communicative. On three different occasions the right hon. Gentleman had addressed the House on the subject of those statues. Last year, when the question was fully discussed, there unquestionably prevailed in the House a feeling of opposition to the proposed series of thirty-eight statues of British monarchs in chronological order; the objection being taken wholly from an artistic point of view, and without the smallest disrespect to any of the former monarchs of England. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets on
1554
that occasion objected strongly to imaginative statues of Saxon monarchs, and laid great emphasis on the fact that one of them was an extremely immoral character. The result was that the right hon. Gentleman withdrew the Motion, stating in the most clear and unmistakable terms, as preserved in Hansard, that he did so "with a view of considering whether some selection of sovereigns could not be made which would be favourably accepted by the House of Commons." Now, he asked, what chance was the right hon. Gentleman giving the House of Commons of favourably accepting any selection of monarchs? No one had been more amused than himself at the good-humoured jest of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, a few nights before, who asked him whether he could wonder at the difficulty experienced in selecting sovereigns, when he himself had such trouble in finding Members to serve on the Galway Committee. But at that very time the selection had been made. The House was allowed to believe by the First Commissioner of Works at the time the Vote of £3,200 was agreed to, that the question of what four monarchs would be selected was still open to consideration. Certainly the impression left upon his mind was not that the monarchs chosen would be George IV., William IV., James I., and Charles I.; but that the choice lay between the Edwards and the Henries, or possibly Alfred the Great. Not to use an offensive word, he believed that in the proceedings of the Government on the question there had been a want of candour amounting to a suppressio veri. The Government knew perfectly well that four statues had been selected which would be unpalatable to the House of Commons, and that if a plain issue had been raised with regard to them their execution never would have been regard to them their execution never would have been sanctioned. They shifted and they shuffled; and having last year withdrawn their scheme, with a view of considering whether some selection acceptable to the House; of Commons could not be made, they now came forward and declared their intention of persisting in the chronological series of statues which was repudiated by the House of Commons last year. It would have been much better and more candid had the right lion. Gentleman, on their part, come forward to declare that a pressure which they could not resist had been brought to bear upon them; that they had changed their original intention, and called upon the House of Commons to support them in

1555
their altered views. There was some difficulty in discovering whether those marble statues were ordered with the object of doing honour to Royalty in England or of encouraging English art. If with the former intention, he certainly did not think honour had been done in the right place. If with the latter be believed the proposed method to be the very worst way of encouraging art which could be adopted. The old maxim of fiat experimentum in corpore vili was to be applied to the House of Commons, and artists were to try their 'prentice hands on statues to adorn its approaches.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not help feeling that his hon. Friend who had just sat down had been unjust towards his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works in charging him with a want of candour. Several of those occupying seats upon the Ministeral bench had a distinct recollection of the facts as they really happened. Last year, when the Vote was proposed, the feeling of the Committee was very adverse to it. His right hon. Friend withdrew the Vote for the time, and undertook that the question should be thoroughly reconsidered. He took measures to secure that reconsideration, and, as they now knew from the Report of the Commission on Fine Arts, great difficulty was experienced in making any proposal upon the principle of selection. His right hon. Friend made up his mind that it was not expedient to proceed upon that principle, and came down to the House with a proposition founded upon that opinion, at which he had deliberately arrived in conjunction with his colleagues upon the Commission. It was not, however, only his hon. Friend who had changed his opinion. The opinion of the House had also undergone some change, because the Report of the Commissioners of Fine Arts was on the table; there was no suppression or concealment about the matter, and the proposal made was a proposal to take money for the erection of four statues out of a chronological series. A very animated speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire turned upon the impossibility of acting upon the principle of selection, and although the hon. Member for Galway had not changed his opinion, but stood to his task, he was in the recollection of the Committee that the discussion which took place made the object of the Vote as clear as possible, and it was passed without any
1556
call for a division. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard had quoted an opinion of his, which was, perhaps, expressed in too strong terms—[Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Not at all.]—but, as far as be recollected, that opinion referred only to what appeared to him to be an enormous waste of pains, of money, and of ornament upon the exterior of the Houses, because, with regard to the interior decorations, although they might go to excess in quantity, yet he was boound to say that he did not think that anything more beautiful waste be found in any existing fabric. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that the sum charged for the expenses of the Fine Arts Commission ought to be submitted to the House by way of estimate, and undertook that in a future year that course should be adopted. As to Lord Brougham's patent, the Committee was, perhaps, not in full possession of the state of the case. His noble Friend, in advising Her Majesty upon the subject, thought fit to treat this as a patent granted for special services, and it was set forth in the patent that it was granted for Lord Brougham's "eminent public services, more especially in the diffusion of knowledge, the spread of education, and the abolition of slavery and the slave trade." No doubt it was the general rule, that when honours were conferred by the Crown the charges attendant upon the conferring of those honours should be borne by the parties who received them. That was a wise regulation if only for the reason that it tended to limit the range of solicitation for such honours. But there were precedents for the course pursued in the case. In 1846 Sir Henry Hardinge was made Viscount Hardinge, not for military but civil services, and in 1852 Lord Fitzroy Somerset was made Lord Raglan also for civil services, and in both these cases the charges were defrayed by the public. Again, in 1859, Lord Canning received promotion in the peerage for civil services, and Lord Elphinstone in the same year was made an English peer, and in these cases also the charges were borne by the public. But, with respect to the charges, it should be known that a considerable portion of them went back into the Exchequer. The charges on Lord Brougham's patent were, he believed, a little over £512, and of that £440 went back again into the Exchequer, leaving £147 to be paid by the public. In short, in various cases where peerages had been conferred

1557
in consideration of civil services, the practice obtained of defraying tice expense out of the public purse.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that the principle upon which the Fine Arts Commission was founded, that they could by spending the public money promote the fine arts or create great artists was entirely fallacious. That it was so was proved by the fact that although portrait painting was the branch of art which received most encouragement in England, we had now no portrait painter equal to Sir Joshua Reynolds or Sir Thomas Lawrence, and by the quality of the frescoes which had been painted on the walls of that building. The amount of money which had been paid for them was greater than that received by Michael Angelo or Raffaell0e, and yet look what things they were. It was said that they were coming off the walls, and he thought it would be a good thing if they did. With regard to some of thom a basin of whitewash and a brush might be very beneficially employed. The selection of subjects for the paintings was singularly injudicious. One of the frescoes, entitled the "Funeral of Charles I.," represented a brutal insult offered by a Round-head soldier to the remains of that Sovereign. It was extremely offensive to his feelings as a Royalist and cavalier, and could not be agreeable even to a Republican. Again, there was a piece of sculpture in the room behind the throne in the House of Lords, representing the murder of David Rizzio. He was at a loss to conceive on what principle such a subject could have been selected. It was surely most inappropriate for commemoration. Then, as to the artistic part of the question, it was impossible to gather from the paintings in the House of Lords the subjects there pourtrayed; they were perfectly unintelligible. For instance, there was one which was said to represent the "Baptism of King Ethelred," in which a man was to be seen kneeling without any clothes on his body, and with a crown on his head. To all appearance he seemed prepared for a whipping rather than a baptism. The King could not have stripped for the purpose of immersion, for the font was also shown in the picture, and was so small that he could no more get into it than into a tea cup. Before they went on spending money on such paintings they ought to know more about them. He would recommend the Government to put a stop to an expenditure which produced
1558
results discreditable to the country, for they gave foreigners a very low idea of the standard of art in England. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would look to the matter. He placed great reliance on the noble Lord in matters of taste, and was sorry he was not present during the recent debate on the style of the Foreign Office, to show that there was at least one Italian question on which he agreed with the noble Lord.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that a reference to Hansard would show that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works had distinctly stated that the original intention of having a chronological series of Sovereigns had been abandoned, and that it was intended to have only four statues in the Royal Gallery. In his opinion there was no difficulty in making a selection of Sovereigns to be represented. If the choice lay with him he would name Alfred, Edward I., the greatest of the Plantagenets and the English Justinian, Elizabeth, the greatest of the Tudors, and then, coming to the beginning of our constitutional history, William III. He pointed out that the sub-Committee of the Fine Arts Commission bad not reconsidered the subject since the decision of the House last year, as their Report was dated June, 1860, while the Vote did not take place till August. He agreed with his hon. Friend as to the Brougham patent, which was a most unusual proceeding. It was a compliment not to Lord Brougham but to William Brougham. That gentleman was appointed a Master in Chancery solely on his brother's account, and when objection was raised on the ground that the office was to have been abolished, people were led to believe that he would not claim his pension. As to the galleries in Hyde Park at the Volunteer Review last year he objected altogether to the presence of either House of Parliament in its collective capacity at such spectacles.
MR. COLLINSsaid, that the next heir of Lord Brougham was a nephew, then in Australia. There had never been an instance of a patent in remainder where the next heir had been passed over.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURasked whether the Government had abandoned their idea of raising statues of all the Sovereigns of England, and whether they had abandoned the chronological series?
MR. COWPERsaid, the House and the Government had been accustomed to leave

1559
the selection of statues to the Commissioners of Fine Arts. Last year it was stated to be the intention of the Commissioners to erect the statues of twelve Sovereigns immediately preceding her present Majesty. The four statues voted this year were not a selection of the Commissioners out of the twelve, but were an instalment of the twelve; and the instalment consisted of James I. and Charles I., and William IV. and George IV.
MR. GREGORYasked when had the House received an intimation of the change in the sentiments of the Government from the determination last year that there should be four statues, one in each corner of the Royal Gallery?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it was clear that if the speech to which reference had been made had been uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, he could only have been expressing his individual opinion; and he could have had no communication with his colleagues on the Fine Art Commission.
MR. COWPERsaid, there had been an estimate last year for a chronological series of forty-two Sovereigns, but it had been afterwards resolved, in deference to what was believed to be the opinion of the House, that an estimate for four only should be asked for, and nothing had been said which would convey that four would be the entire number. He had done nothing to mislead the House. Last year he contemplated a selection; this year he did not; and he had a right to change his mind as he had done after deliberation, and after consultation with the Fine Art Commissioners.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished for some explanation of an item in the Vote of £7,000 to be paid to Pepple King of Bonny.
MR. PEELsaid, that a person named "Pepple, ex-King of Bonny," set up a claim, arising out of certain proceedings of the British Government in regard to the slave trade. It appeared that the King was deposed by his subjects, but was taken under the protection of the British Consul, to whom the King's subjects were to pay a certain annual sum. The Consul, it seemed, sent the King to the Island of Ascension to keep him out of the way. There he remained for some years, and then came to this country, when he made large claims against the British Government. The matter was referred to arbitration, when "Pepple" set up a claim of £200,000.
1560
The Government then put a stop to the arbitration, but referred the matter to the Judge Advocate and the Attorney General, who recommended that £7,673 should be given to him as compensation for the annuity of which he had been deprived.
MR. WYLDinquired what progress had been made in the labours of the British and French Newfoundland Fishery Commission?
MR. PEELthought that a Gentleman representing Newfoundland had been on the Commission, which, he believed, was now closed.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he noticed with surprise a sum put down in connection with Her Majesty's licence to the Convocation of the clergy of the province of Canterbury to alter the 29th Canon, relating to godfathers and godmothers. He wanted to know whether Convocation could alter a canon without the sanction of Parliament?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that Convocation had deliberated on the subject, but no decision had been come to, and as the Convocation had no funds it was thought proper that this expense, having reference to a matter of a public nature, should be paid out of the Civil Contingencies. Some canons, made by Convocation with consent of Parliament, could only be altered with the consent of Parliament; but others, made by Convocation with consent of the Crown, could be altered by the same authority as made them.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he wished to know upon what question the hon. Member (Mr. Bernal Osborne) intended to go to a division?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment was that the Vote be reduced by £2,000.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he would propose his Amendment in another form. He should take the opinion of the Committee on the item of the expenses of Lord Brougham's patent, because he thought it was a mischievous principle to lay down that a Minister should himself make such a charge on the public. If he had come to the House first, and asked for their sanction, he (Mr. Bernal Osborne) would not have offered one word of objection. He also proposed to take the opinion of the Committee on the item for the Fine Arts Commission, especially after the explanation that had been given about the four Sovereigns, to which number he re-

1561
gretted that Pepple, King of Bonny, had not been added. He should move the reduction of the Vote by the latter item first, his object being to get rid of the Fine Arts Commission.
Motion and made, Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £24,050, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the item which his hon. and gallant Friend wished to have disallowed in the case of Lord Brougham's patent had already been expended, and consequently no reduction of the sum which the House was asked to vote for the Civil Contingencies for the next year would have any effect upon the amount expended under that head last year. That being so, and the item for the Fine Arts Commission appearing, as had been already stated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the shape of an Estimate, the proposed Amendment had, he contended, no application to the object sought to be attained.
MR. COLLINSsuggested that the hon. and gallant Member for Liskeard should lump together the two items to which he was opposed, and take a division upon both at the same time.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEexpressed his readiness to withdraw his Amendment if the hon. Member would make a Motion in accordance with his own suggestion.
MR. AYRTONobserved that it was not necessary the Amendment should be withdrawn in order that an hon. Member might move a larger reduction of the Vote. If such a Motion were made, it would be competent for the Chairman to put it at once.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the remark of the hon. Member would be correct if the question with reference to the smaller amount had not been actually put.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he would then move that the Vote be reduced by two items—namely, £944 4s. 8d. for the expenses of the Fine Arts Commission, and £512 16 s, for Lord Brougham's patent, being in the whole £1,456.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthen took occasion to say that Lord Brougham had expressed a strong desire—a desire natural and honourable to him, that the title which had been conferred upon him as the result of his professional career should be continued after his death. Having taken into
1562
account the long-continued services of the noble Lord, lie had felt no hesitation in advising Her Majesty to comply with the request, while the wish that the title should descend to his surviving brother seemed to be also a question which ought to be determined by the feelings of the person who made the application. Then arose the question of the fees to be paid, and he could not help being of opinion that when it was known that the new patent gave Lord Brougham no additional rank, and merely created an alteration of the remainder, the noble Lord ought not to be called upon to incur the necessary expenses for the purpose. Lord Brougham had, by the decree of Providence, no immediate descendant of his own, and the ground on which his application in favour of his brother had been acceded to was that he himself had in the course of a long life rendered, quite independently of political considerations, great and eminent services to his country, and that by assisting in the promotion of knowledge, by greatly contributing to the diffusion of education, and by the zealous and able manner in which he had advocated the freedom of the slave and the abolition of the slave trade, he had rendered conspicuous services not only to his country, but, it might be said, to the human race itself. That being so, it had appeared to him, and to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the expenses of the patent in question should be defrayed by the public, and he could scarcely bring himself to think that the House of Commons, when it bore in mind the eminent career of Lord Brougham, the high position which he occupied, not simply in the estimation of his own fellow-countrymen, but in the eyes of Europe—in short, the world wide reputation which he enjoyed, would allow any remnant of party feeling to interfere with the giving its sanction to a Vote the rejection of which could not be otherwise than painful to the noble Lord whose name was connected with it.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he was astonished the noble Lord should insinuate that there was any objection to granting the sum in question on party grounds. He as well as the noble Lord was alive to the eminent services of Lord Brougham, but he could not, therefore, see why he should not oppose the grant of money for the making out of a patent of peerage for a gentleman who, through no merit of his own, was appointed to succeed to the noble

1563
and learned Lord in an indirect line of succession.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he also thought the noble Lord had been somewhat rash in the insinuation which he had thrown out, when it was taken into account that the proposal to strike out the item in question had come originally from his own side of the House. For his own part, he could not see why a grant of public money should be made in the instance under discussion which was not even asked for in the case of men who had rendered such distinguished services as Lord Eversley or Lord John Russell.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the remainder-man would no doubt enjoy the benefit of the peerage in question, but then it should be recollected that it was granted not so much to him as to the living Peer. He wished it to be clearly understood that under no circumstances could the fees of this patent have been payable by Lord Brougham's brother. They would have been payable by himself.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £23,544, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 76: Majority 26.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £512 3s.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the proposal was a testimony to the great services rendered by Lord Brougham, and was a honour conferred on him by perpetuating his name and title. The name of Lord Brougham was known throughout the whole civilized world, and it would be a disgrace to the Committee to refuse to pay the fees. Hon. Gentlemen disclaimed all party feeling, but when the name of Lord Brougham was first mentioned, that feeling was indicated by a party cheer.
MR. BUXTONsaid, the peerage was given to Lord Brougham as Lord Chancellor.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved that Lord Brougham received £10,000 a year during the period he was Lord Chancellor, and during the twenty-seven years which had since elapsed he had received a pension of £5,000 a year.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, it was all very well for the hon. Member for Southwark to
1564
make statements on hustings which could not be contradicted, but he had made a very untrue statement to the Committee. The cheer came from Gentlemen behind him.
MR. LAYARDrose to order.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman must perceive that the use of the words "untrue statement" conveyed a charge against the hon. Member.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would at once withdraw the words. What he wished to say was, that the cheer proceeded from behind the hon. Member for Southwark.
Motion, made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £24,488, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 62: Majority 14.
Original Question again proposed,
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would ask for information as to certain sums in the Estimate for preparation of Irish Bills, though he did not expect to have any information on the point, seeing that there was neither Secretary for Ireland, Attorney General, nor Solicitor General for Ireland, nor, in fact, any person who knew anything about Ireland, on the Treasury bench.
MR. PEELsaid, that it was impossible for the gentleman who was employed at the Home Office to draught all the Bills which were introduced during the Session, and it was, therefore, necessary occasionally to employ others.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should move that the item be reduced by £100, being the sum stated to be paid for the draughting of the Irish Tramways Bill, which was so badly drawn that it was impossible it could be passed by the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £24,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow at Twelve of the clock.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present, — Committee counted, and 40 Members not being present:
Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair:—House counted, and 40 Members not being present:
align="right">House adjourned at half-past
Two o'clock.