Commons Sitting of 26 July 1861

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Tamworth, v. the Right hon. Sir Robert Peel, baronet, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
PUBLIC BILLS.—10 Metropolitan Police District Receiver; East India Loan (No. 2).
3o Lace Factories; Inland Revenue; Stamp Duties on Probates, &c.; Public Works (Ireland).

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee (Supply) read.
House in Committee.
Mr. Massey in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £669,956, to complete the sum for the Packet Service.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the Vote was certainly less than it was on the preceding year, but still it was an enor-

1619
mous tax on the people of the country, and he wished to know whether there was any prospect of it being reduced. The traffic between England and America had increased so largely that he believed companies would be willing to carry the mails without any subsidy, and he wished to know what the Government intended to do to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee who had sat on this subject.
MR. PEELsaid, the Vote was less this year than last, on account of the contributions which had been received from the colonies. Part of the expense of the conveyance of the mails from Ceylon to Sydney was to be contributed by the colonies; and the colony of Mauritius had decided to bear the whole of the expense for carrying the mails from Suez to Mauritius. No doubt the recommendations of the Committee were entitled to the best consideration of the Government. But the sum then asked for was in respect of contracts concluded with companies. As they terminated, arrangements would be made for giving effect to the Report of the Committee.
MR. W. WILLIAMSreminded the House that the American Government had their mails carried by private packets without any expense. He wished to know what had become of the Estimate for the Galway contract.
MR. PEELsaid, the arrangement made by the American Government was that the packets carrying the American mails should receive the postage due upon those mails. The Galway contract having been terminated by the Postmaster General, no provision for that contract was any longer called for, but, should it be decided to reestablish a postal service between the west coast of Ireland and America, it would be for the Government to propose a Vote for that purpose.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he did not understand that the Galway contract was at an end. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) was about to put a question on the subject of intercourse between Ireland and America that evening, to which he hoped the noble Viscount the Prime Minister would give a favourable answer.
MR. PEELsaid, that he did not mean to say that a new service might not be established.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £1,000,000, China War.
MR. PEELsaid, that the Vote was a Vote of Credit for necessary expenses connected with the China War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House that he would propose this Vote, and they would recollect that provision was made for it in the service of the year, which provision had received the sanction of the House. There had been in all three Votes of Credit for the China War, the first of £850,000 in 1859–60, the second of £3,350,000 for 1860–1, and the present Vote. With respect to the Vote of 1859–60, half a million was for the army, and a quarter of a million for the navy; but it was found that the ordinary provision made for the navy was sufficient for all naval purposes, and so the quarter of a million remained in the Exchequer. The army expenditure had exceeded the grants for the year, and, therefore, a further sum of £105,000 was issued, leaving therefore the available surplus on the Vote of a quarter of a million. With regard to the Vote last year half a million was issued to the navy and £350,000 to the army, and there had been a further issue for commissariat services in China of £1,083,000, and to the Indian Government of £1,146,000. The balance in the Exchequer, however, could only be used for expenses incurred during the year for which it was voted. The sum of £1,000,000 was, therefore, asked to meet the expenditure of the forces in China for the present year. Extra allowances were required for the European troops, and, as it was doubtful how long they might require to remain there the present Vote became necessary. The claims from the Indian Government amounted to £1,327,000 up to the 1st of May last, and they had issued to that Government on account a sum of £114,000 out of the Vote of Credit under consideration, leaving a balance due to that Government of £170,000. In case it should prove possible to return the Native troops to India, the extra allowances to European troops would cease, and the necessity for the extra expenditure would be superseded. At the same time, it was necessary to make this provision; which, however, by no means indicated that an extra expenditure to that amount would be incurred.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he felt some doubts as to whether the £1,000,000 which the Committee were asked to vote on account of the China War, was the last call that would be made upon them. He did not clearly understand from the right hon.

1621
Gentleman what was the balance in hand on the Vote of Credit. Out of the early Vote of Credit taken for the China War payments were made for stores which were sent out to China as far back as 1848, and he should like to have explained upon what principle any portion of a Vote of Credit taken for the China War could be applied to the payment of stores sent out previous to the war. Nearly six millions of money had been taken in the shape of Votes and Credit for the China War, in addition to the ordinary expenses paid out of the money taken for the ordinary army and naval services. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that the £1,000,000 he now asked for would cover the entire expenditure on account of China? Until the accounts were squared and the final payments were made they could not be satisfied. He should like to know whether the expense incurred for the transport of troops to China by the Indian Government had been sent into the Treasury or not. He was informed that a single item of expense amounted to nearly £850,000 for conveying troops from India to China. He would also express a hope that better arrangements would be made with regard to our accounts with India, otherwise British finance would fall into the utmost disorder. For seven years there had been a sort of running account with India, and no one knew what would be the end of it. He was afraid they were going on very much in the dark in this matter. As long as there were old and unadjusted accounts for years they could have no notion in that House how the British finances really stood. As long as those accounts were outstanding it was ridiculous to talk of a surplus, or raise questions respecting the repeal of taxes.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must admit that the China war had been a very costly War; but, on the other hand, the sufficiency of the provision had brought the war to the more speedy termination. There was a balance in hand from the late Votes of Credit to the extent of £750,000; but he doubted whether that sum could be spent in operations undertaken after the Vote itself was granted, and hence the present application for the present sum. As to the charge for transport, it might be true that such a charge had been sent home to the Indian Office, but it did not follow that we had that sum to pay. As one instance of the vagueness of the Indian Estimates, he
1622
might mention that the Indian Government had sent home charges for operations which had already been settled at home by the Admiralty through a different channel. The charges for China during the present year would be chiefly under two heads—for the charge for transport and the charge for extra pay and allowances to the troops, which must be paid to the whole army as long as any portion of the Indian army remained there. He hoped, however, that would not be long if the instructions sent from home were strictly followed out. He did not think that the state of our account with India was likely to prove very formidable to British finance. He knew that two or three months ago the balance was rather in favour of England; if any charge had take place since, it was amply covered by the Vote before the Committee. He could not say that this was the whole of the accounts that had come from China, but he did not anticipate any further large sum to be asked from that source.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Am I to understand that we are to save £750,000 cut of the last Vote of Credit for 1860–1?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a great many troops have left China. If they left before the 30th of April the expense of their transport would fall on the £750,000 standing from last year. If they left after that date the expense would fall on the million now granted.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: But the expense will not fall upon both years. If it is taken from the sum of £750,000, then the Vote for this year will be retained?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Certainly. The expense cannot fall on the Vote of both years.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the explanation was satisfactory as far as it went.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, if they declined to interfere as they were doing in China, between the, two parties in that country, there would not be any necessity to keep so many troops in China—which was a great charge on the British taxpayers.
MR. GREGSONasked in what position the claims of the merchants in China stood, and what portion of the Vote the Government intended to appropriate to that purpose? Or were other arrangements in view for an immediate or speedy settlement of these claims?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no part of the Vote could be applied to the payment of the claims of the merchants. He had received the papers respecting those claims, and as soon as the pressure of business would permit, he hoped to be able, with his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, to look into these claims. The subject was a very important one, and one in which the Government should do all they could to meet the reasonable demands of the merchants, consistently with the fair claims of the public.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked whether the million then asked for was in addition to the balance on the former Votes of £750,000?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was difficult in military operations to apportion the sums voted in different years very accurately. If the balance of the Vote of Credit of £750,000 for last year was not expended, the sum would lapse entirely, and remain only in figures. But to meet all contingencies that might arise a million was asked for the year 1861–2.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £53,430 15 s. 10 d., War with Russia (Excess of Expenditure).
MR. PEELexplained that the Vote was asked on account of part of a sum of £115,000, arising out of claims and counter claims between the French and English Governments. The amount had been included in a Vote of Credit granted in 1858–9, but that Vote of Credit was surrendered, and the Vote was now necessary, in order that the sum might be transferred to the charge against the Vote of Credit. It involved a reduction of the excess of expenditure for the Russian War. He believed this would be the last of the Votes for the Russian War.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman was quite sure that the Vote would cover the whole outstanding amount for the Russian War?
MR. PEEL: Yes.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £17,933 11 s. 10 d., Revenue Departments (Excess of Expenditure).
MR. PEELsaid, the sum was asked for the payment of those pensions which had been granted in consequence of the reduction of the establishments. There had been a saving on the effective establishment of £78,000, which had been returned to the Exchequer.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement had anticipated a saving in these departments of £150,000. It seemed that the whole saving was only £78,000. He wished to know if that £17,983 was to be deducted from the £78,000.
MR. PEELsaid, that the saving of £78,000 only represented that which had taken place in the year after the changes were made. There was no doubt the saving in the end would be as large as had been anticipated.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £1,000, Poonah Observatory.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked, why the sum asked for was not charged to the Revenues of India?
MR. PEELsaid, the Vote was in consequence of a liberal offer made by a scientific gentleman at Madras to erect a telescope at Poonah, and make observations free of charge, if the Government would send out the instrument.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the Vote would not be considered as laying the foundation for further such charges, either at Poonah or anywhere else.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £60,692, New Westminster Bridge.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped some explanation would be given of this Vote by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works. There had been great mismanagement in the arrangements for constructing Westminster Bridge, and much time and money had been misspent. Mr. Page told them that the works would be completed for £206,000. He wished to know why they were now called upon to pay the sum of £60,000?
MR. COWPERsaid, the expense and loss of time incurred in the construction of Westminster Bridge were, to a considerable extent, to be traced to the fact that the bridge had been the subject of three Committees of the House of Commons. If there was any opprobrium connected with the construction of the bridge it was to be attributed not solely to the Office of Works, but must be shared by a Select Committee of that House. He believed that if the bridge had been left to the sole responsibility of the Office of Works, it would have been completed long ago, and within the sum originally stated. When the bankruptcy of the contractor caused a suspension of operations, a question as to the soundness of the plan of

1625
the foundations was referred to a Committee which reported in favour of a new mode of construction, superseding the use of coffer dams. In 1857 another Committee was appointed, and it was to that Committee he attributed the want of control on the part of the Office of Works over the expenditure and construction of the bridge. That Committee recommended that the works should be proceeded with by day work as recommended by Mr. Page and under his superintendence. The consequence was that the chief part of the works were being constructed without a contract. He knew of no security for the completion of a great work for an agreed sum, except a contract in gross. But in this instance the engineer was substituted for a contractor, and there was little control of the works at the bridge. The estimate made by Mr. Page was made in 1858, and the explanation of the additional Vote asked for was that the removal of the old bridge cost more than Mr. Page anticipated. It was a very difficult and complicated work to remove piers under water, and it was not easy to foresee the exact expense. Then the very mode of construction, which was so ingenious in its conception, led to an increase in the expenditure. A great deal of the expense had been caused by keeping open the old bridge during the construction of the first part of the new. A portion of the money voted would be met by credits from the old bridge, for it was anticipated that about £23,000 would be realized by the sale of stone, plant, &c. He must say that the only two works in which a great excess of expenditure had occurred were the Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament; and those were the very works in which the Office of Works had not been entrusted with the entire management, but where a great deal of the details had been carried out by direction of Committees of that House.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt unintentionally, entirely misrepresented the facts of the case with reference to Westminster Bridge. The right hon. Gentleman had mixed up the consideration of two things totally distinct from each other—the building of the new Houses of Parliament and Westminster Bridge. The two things were as different as chalk from cheese. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the broad proposition that all the mischief connected with the erection of Westminster Bridge
1626
had been caused by a Committee of that House, and not by the Office of Works. It was when Sir William Moles worth was at the Board of Works that the works at the bridge commenced. The new principle of bridge-building was provided for in the first instance in a contract entered into by the Office of Works, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to allege that the House of Commons had anything to do with it. On the failure of the contractor the Commissioner of Works came to the House and asked for a Committee to relieve himself of the responsibility of making the changes which he wished to introduce. That could not with any fairness be called an interference of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Henley) was chairman of that Committee, and they had before them all the engineering talent and experience of the day. The Office of Works had already decided that half the bridge was to be built at one time, and the other half at another; but the Commissioner of Works had doubted if the old system of coffer dams should not be resorted to. The Committee recommended that the bridge should be proceeded with on the system then in operation, and it was then open to the Commissioner to enter into a contract if he so chose. On that point the Committee gave no opinion. In the following year another Committee was appointed. It was then decided that that half of the bridge which had been already begun should be completed under the engineer's direction, and not by contract. There was nothing, however, to prevent the Board of Works from contracting for the other half, and the blame, therefore, rested upon that department. As to the new principle upon which the bridge was constructed, there had, so far, been no symptom of giving way. He admitted that it was a great experiment to build a bridge over such a river without coffer dams, to build it in halves and then bring those two halves together; but if such works could be carried on they would be completed at an infinitely less expense than under the old system. Though there was an excess of £60,000, he believed that the bridge, when completed, would compare advantageously as to cost with Waterloo Bridge and similar structures.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYexplained that the way in which Lord Llanover intended to carry out the building of the second part of the bridge was by calling regularly for the accounts from Mr. Page, and ex-

1627
ercising a strict supervision of the various details of expenditure.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMasked whether, in the absence of a contract, Mr. Page was to be paid by commission, and if so, whether he was to have a percentage upon the excess expenditure of £60,000?
MR. COWPERsaid, that Mr. Page was paid by commission. The Board of Works, however, maintained that that commission was to be upon the estimate, and not upon the excess; while Mr. Page contended that he was entitled to a percentage on the £60,000. The point was not yet decided. On the general question he must not be understood as wishing to blame the House of Commons, but he still thought that the injudicious principle of employing the engineer without a contractor to construct the bridge originated with the Committee. It was true that their recommendations applied only to the first half, but he assumed that his noble Friend (Lord Llanover) who was then Commissioner, and was a member of the Committee, was influenced by the opinion of the Committee to entrust Mr. Page with the construction of the second half without the limit to expenditure which a lump contract alone could give. He thought also that he was justified in his reference to the Houses of Parliament, because it resembled the case of the bridge in this respect, that both works were executed without having a contract in gross.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the Office of Works ought to have ascertained, when the first half of the bridge was completed, whether Mr. Page had kept within the proportion of the Estimate; if not, the office ought to have insisted on a contract.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had never felt any doubt that they would get into a financial mess in the matter. He did not wonder at the difficulty of meeting with a new contractor after the failure of the first one, on account of the half-finished state of the works. There was a very good estate belonging to Westminster Bridge of the annual value of upwards of £7,000, and worth a capital sum of £171,000. The original estimate of Mr. Mare was £206,248. Mr. Page thought it would be completed for £316,000, and there had been an excess of £60,000. Would £377,828 conclude the matter? The principle of recompensing Mr. Page by a commission was a most vicious one, and was the old case of Sir Charles Barry over again.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could understand why when the contract for the first part failed it should be finished without a contract, but a grievous mistake was made when it was determined to complete the second part of the bridge by day work, for that was what it ought to be called. The proper course would have been to have instructed Mr. Page to obtain contracts from houses of solidity, to get him to report upon those contracts, and if Mr. Page would have undertaken to complete the bridge at a less cost it would be for the Chief Commissioner to say whether he would have accepted Mr. Page's offer. The Chief Commissioner could not say that the £60,000 asked for would be the last sum that would be required, nor did he (Sir Morton Peto) believe that Mr. Page himself had any conception of it. He did not throw any blame on Mr. Page; his character stood high, and his works were all favourably executed, and he believed the bridge would be after all more cheaply finished than other bridges of similar extent. But the fault, if fault there were, lay with the Office of Works, and the right hon. Gentleman must not throw it on the House.
MR. T. J. MILLERremarked that some of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken were members of the Committee, and it was to them a matter of notoriety that a portion of the bridge was to be erected without a contract; and it would be more just to the Commissioner of Works if they had gone to the House and given warning before the harm was done, instead of complaining of it on the present occasion. He wanted to know whether anything was likely to be recovered from the sureties of Messrs. Mare. As to the bridge itself, he believed it would be the finest ever erected. They were indebted to the Committees that had been so much blamed for obtaining a bridge double the width of the other bridges on the Thames, and at two-thirds of the ordinary expense of stone bridges.
MR. COWPERsaid, it had been found impossible to recover any money from the assignees of Mr. Mare. As to the future expense he could only say that the estimate before the Committee was the estimate prepared by Mr. Page. Application had been made to a great contractor to contract for the completion of the remaining half of the bridge; but he had very fairly stated that in the present advanced stage of the work it would be cheaper to finish the work as it had been begun.
MR. SPOONERremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken the question addressed to him by the hon. Member (Mr. Miller). That hon. Member did not speak of the assignees of the original contractor but of his sureties, and he (Mr. Spooner) now begged to ask if any amount had been recovered from the sureties of the original contractor. He (Mr. Spooner) also wished to know if anything was left of the Westminster Bridge Estate?
MR. COWPERsaid, he meant to say that it was found impossible to recover from the sureties as well as from the assignees the money they were entitled to demand. The estate was valued at £111,000. It consisted of the north side of Bridge Street, and other houses. The site would much increase in value when the houses on the south side were removed, and if not required for public buildings it would be disposed of by the Government when it reached its full value.
MR. VANCEsaid, he did not grudge the expenditure on Westminster Bridge, which was a great metropolitan improvement; but he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Dublin had suffered for a long time from the want of a new bridge, in place of that which was called after an ancestor of the present Lord Lieutenant.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding, £250,000, be I granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Building Iron Ships by Contract, and of the Plating and Engines for five Wooden Ships, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862."
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I am anxious to afford the Committee some explanation of the Vote which I have now to propose of £250,000 in addition to the ordinary Estimates. It will be remembered that we have had various discussions respecting this most important subject. Since we framed our Estimates of iron-cased ships in December last other nations have very largely added to their iron-clad navy. It was consequently my duty in May last to state that the Government had resolved upon building five more wooden iron-cased ships in our dockyards; but that that of itself could entail no increase on the ordinary Estimates of the year beyond expense of plating and partly providing engines for these wooden ships, but that it would pro-
1630
bably be necessary that still further exertion should be made in order to keep pace with foreign Powers. Sir, this Estimate has reference to three distinct items. First, it is proposed to commence the construction of more iron-cased ships by contract. That item amounts to £120,000. The second item is for the plating required for the five wooden ships which I have already mentioned; and, thirdly, we ask for an additional sum towards the expenses of engines for those wooden ships. As to the proposed iron-cased ships, I trust that the intention of the Government to ask for an additional grant for this purpose will create no alarm, because we merely propose now to do, under the sanction of Parliament, that which we have actually being doing during the last three years in the recess without the sanction of Parliament. The Committee will remember that the late Government proposed to build two iron-cased ships of the Warrior class. One of those ships was ordered by them just before they left office, and the other by the present Government. In the autumn of that year(1859)we learnt that other nations were making great progress in the construction of these ships, and the Admiralty thought it their duty, without waiting for the sanction of Parliament, to ask the consent of the Treasury to the immediate commencement of two more iron-cased ships. That made two of the Warrior class in course of construction and two of the Defence class, the latter being of considerably smaller dimensions. These four vessels are now nearly ready, and we trust that the Warrior will be at sea in a very short period. In the course of the next autumn, 1860, the Government again received communications as to the progress made by foreign nations, and thought it was incumbent on them a second time, without Parliamentary sanction, to commence the construction of two more of these vessels, larger than the Defence, but smaller than the Warrior. These vessels will be ready in the course of the next year, and make six in progress. During the present year the Government have commenced the construction of a ship of the Warrior class at Chatham, making the seventh iron-cased ship, and in May last I also announced to the House, as I have just stated, that it was the intention of the Government to make use of the wooden frames of line-of-battle ships under construction which would enable us to construct five wooden iron-cased ships in the dockyards. That makes a total of twelve which are now in

1631
course of construction in the dockyards, or being built by contract. My right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) about the latter end of May, called attention to the great increase which was taking place in the construction of iron-cased ships by France, and quoted statements made by a gallant Admiral, who had -visited the French dockyards, and had reported that ten new iron-cased ships were being built over and above those already completed. In answer to my right hon. Friend, I stated that the Government were perfectly aware of what was going on not only in France, but in various Continental dockyards, and were carrying out a series of experiments under the control of a Committee, composed of very able men, with a view to ascertain what is the best form of construction. I, also, stated that as soon as we had arrived at some sort of conclusion the Government would, if necessary, state what they thought was requisite for the public service. These experiments have made very considerable progress, and, though I am unable to state that any definite conclusions are arrived at as to the nature, the thickness, and the exact style of casing, we have, nevertheless, decided, first, that it is advisable to have very large ships, carrying great weight; secondly, that under these circumstances it is desirable that those ships should be built of iron; and, thirdly, that, as we have very great facilities in the merchant yards throughout this country these ships should be built by contract. I am, therefore, going to invite the Committee to place confidence in the Government, and authorize us to commence the construction of a certain number of these vessels by contract during the recess when we have prepared the drawings, and have come to a definite conclusion as to size, armament, and various other particulars. The item of £120,000 will enable us either to commence six ships, and thus provide for one-tenth of the cost of six ships, or, if is thought more advisable, to make greater progess with a fewer number, in which case we shall have provided during the present year one-fifth of the cost of three ships. What I ask the Committee is, to leave it to the discretion of the Government either to commence the whole number of six ships and proceed at a very slow rate, or commence the construction of a smaller number, making greater progress with them. The course which may be taken by the Government will depend upon
1632
a variety of circumstances, and I am not prepared, at the present moment to say which plan would be the more advisable. Of course, much must depend upon the progress which other nations are making in building iron-cased ships. I have before me a list which I can read to the Committee if they wish, showing the number of iron-cased ships building by Continental nations, and that number is increasing very rapidly. It is the duty of the Government of this country that we should keep pace with such efforts, and, therefore, the proposal I have to make is that we should be empowered to commence by contract during the present autumn not more than six of these ships, leaving us either to make a greater progress with a smaller number, or to proceed very slowly with the whole six. Supposing we commence the whole six, we should then have under construction eighteen iron-cased ships; and these vessels, as far as we are at present advised, will be certainly not less in tonnage and armament than the Warrior class. A good deal must depend upon the trials which will be made of that vessel. I need not say that great care will be taken by the Admiralty to watch the performance of the Warrior, and I have great confidence that she will turn out a very fine and formidable vessel. I have stated what is the proposed expenditure during the present year, and I will now state what will be the ultimate expenditure upon all iron-cased ships. The Committee will then see that, however necessary they may be, these vessels are very costly. If the Government are empowered to commence six more iron-cased ships, you will have, of course, a further expenditure to complete them during future years. This expenditure may be spread over several years, and, indeed, it is only proposed to make such progress during the present year as will enable the Government to profit by the result of the experiments which are going on daily at Shoeburyness, and to modify, if necessary, the present system of iron-casing whether by a smaller backing of wood and thicker plates or by doing away with wooden backing altogether and devoting the weight to iron-casing, or to take advantage of these experiments in other ways. Our progress with these vessels during the present year will not be so great but that we shall be able to introduce any modifications which may be thought desirable after the experiments are concluded. Including the sum which

1633
is required this year, and including also the plating for the five wooden ships, and a sum which will about complete the expense of engines for the wooden ships, the total cost of these vessels will be £2,340,810, leaving to be provided during future years the sum of £2,090,810 as near as we can at present calculate. We have taken a large sum as the Committee is aware in the present year's Estimates for the other iron-cased ships, and over and above that outlay there will be required for those ships in future years the sum of £114,441, so that the whole cost to the country for iron-cased vessels, beyond the present year's Estimates, may be estimated at £2,455,251. That includes the casing of the wooden ships which are building in the dockyards, but exclusive of the workmanship on the iron ship Achilles, which is building at Chatham dockyard; and, supposing the Committee assent to the present proposal, this is the sum for which they will render the country liable in future years. Before sitting down I cannot help saying a few words respecting the alarm which may be created among the mercantile community in consequence of the additional force which we are about to create. It is no use denying that the whole world is commencing the construction of these ships. Every maritime nation has completely given up the thought of building wooden line-of-battle ships, and, I think, therefore, that the proposal which I have just submitted to the Committee is not of a nature to excite alarm throughout the country, but rather to engender a proper confidence, that we are determined to maintain our maritime position in its integrity.
Mr. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the discussion ought not to go on. The notice of Supply was only given at two o'clock that morning, and there was not the least intimation in the paper that the sum of £250,000 would involve so large an ultimate expenditure as £2,500,000. So important a Vote ought not to be proposed in so thin a House, and he would, therefore, suggest its postponement till the evening sitting.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he quite agreed that the House could not have anticipated the precise proposition that had been made; but at the same time no great delay should be interposed at that period of the Session. He admitted, however, that it was desirable to postpone until the evening the consideration of the Vote. He
1634
thought that the noble Lord had rather exaggerated the possibility of alarm among the mercantile classes from the proposal which he had just made. On the contrary, the proposal would rather appease than excite alarm. The public well knew what was going on in different parts of the world, and especially in a neighbouring country. It would be ridiculous affectation on the part of the House to ignore that, and they would be neglecting their duty if they did not make provision for such a state of things. He thought it absolutely necessary to confide certain powers to the Executive in such cases, but doubted whether what was proposed ought not to be finished out of hand as soon as possible instead of delaying for so long a period that reconstruction of the navy which was so imperatively required.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he regretted that a proposal of such importance should have been left to so late a period of the Session. The Committee would remember the earnest endeavours made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) to prevent further expenditure in the construction of wooden ships, and it was satisfactory to find the noble Lord admitting now that the navy must he reconstructed as an iron navy. He could assure the noble Lord that there would be no alarm among mercantile men at the proposition, but only a feeling of deep regret that the French Government had been allowed to take so far-seeing and practical a view as to the necessity for iron-cased ships, while Her Majesty's Government had fallen so far behind. It had been stated, without contradiction, that since 1858 the French Government had not spent a shilling on a wooden vessel, whereas this country had spent £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. Surely we had gained the same experience as the French Government during the Crimean War, and must have known that wooden ships attacked with the new projectiles would be on fire in a few minutes. For his own part he confessed that, instead of regarding the Emperor of the French as one who was plotting against the peace of Europe, he only looked upon him as the chief of a great nation, who, to secure the efficiency of his navy, was taking a course which our own Government ought to have pursued from the beginning. If Her Majesty's Government had only since 1858 quietly studied this subject, and done that which science and practical experience showed to be necessary, there would have

1635
been none of these continuous alarms as to what was being done in France. He repeated that there was nothing alarming in the noble Lord's statement, but it reflected great discredit on the Government that at that late period of the Session, when but comparatively few hon. Members were in London, such a statement should be made. The wisest thing which could be done was that the noble Lord, putting aside all the arts of diplomacy and Foreign Office traditions, should during the recess go to France, and endeavour to come to a clear and distinct understanding with the French Government as to the relative forces of the two countries. He could not understand why there should be any greater difficulty in coming to such an understanding than there was in coming to an agreement with respect to the commercial treaty. On the one hand, the Government were endeavouring to encourage commercial intercourse with France, and yet they neglected precautions by which alone the intercourse could be preserved. From what he knew of the character of the French Emperor and the French people, he believed that so far as they were concerned no difficulty would be experienced in arriving at a satisfactory understanding. He denied that the French Government had in their naval preparations done anything which ought to excite the alarm of this country. They had only fulfilled their duty in acting upon the experience acquired in 1858, and upon their conviction that the fleet of the future must be a fleet of iron. The House of Commons would not refuse any request which our own Government declared to be necessary; but as men of business they hoped that during the recess some means would be taken for preventing all uncertainty and alarm, and for putting an end to the game of "beggar my neighbour." A constant intercourse during the last fourteen or fifteen years with French people of all classes led him to know their feelings, and he believed them to be most anxious to cultivate friendly relations with this country. The friendly speeches at the Mansion House the other day had been responded to most heartily across the Channel, and he had received many letters from French correspondents in this sense. The provincial press of France was full of good feeling, and reproduced at length the speeches of the hon. Members for Koch-dale and Birmingham. That good feeling ought to be reciprocated in this country, and the best way of reciprocating it was
1636
by the endeavour to promote such an understanding as he had mentioned.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I must join in the appeals which have been made to the noble Lord not to press this Vote at a morning sitting. It has been said that we need not look for a fuller attendance in this House; but at least we may anticipate another state of the Treasury bench. At present the Government is represented by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread), and the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peel). Now, I think such a question ought not to be debated in the absence of the confidential advisers of the Crown. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question under discussion, and I think it especially necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be present. If I rightly understand the noble Lord, this is to be treated as an extraordinary Vote beyond the ordinary Estimates of the year. A sum of nearly £2,500,000 of capital is expected to be expended on these ships. Now, is this to be included in time of peace in the ordinary Estimates of the year, or is it to be treated as a capital sum beyond the ordinary Estimates? Again, as the noble Lord has deprecated alarm, I cannot help saying that, to use an expression current on the Stock Exchange, the alarm has been already discounted. Whatever alarm has been created resulted from the speech of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, when the question of Sardinia was brought forward. It is impossible to separate this question from that of our relations with France and with other countries, and, to use the mildest phrase, I think it altogether unseemly that the Committee should be called upon to pass such a Vote when not one of the confidential advisers of Her Majesty is present, and I am bound to say that the House could not have been aware, until it heard the statement of the noble Lord, that the sum of £250,000, which is now asked for, is only the commencement of an expenditure of £2,500,000 beyond the ordinary expenses for the year. For the sake of decency in our proceedings, I entreat the noble Lord not to press the Vote.
LORD CLARENCE PAGEThad no objection to defer the consideration of this Vote till the evening sitting. But he besought the Committee not to run away with the idea that he was suddenly commencing as it were, by stealth, a vast expenditure. [Sir JAMES GRAHAM: £2,500,000.] He

1637
had frankly stated the ultimate cost of his proposal, and as long as he held his present office he would never bring forward an estimate without giving to the House a clear explanation, as far as he was enabled to judge, of what would be the ultimate expense to which would pledge itself, supposing that it should agree to the estimate. He, therefore, thought ho was rather hardly dealt with when it was said he had taken the Committee by surprise, or had not given fair notice. He could only say that notice was on the paper for two days.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that between 1859–60 and 1860–1 inclusive, the House had voted £1,500,000 for iron-cased ships, and that amount, added to the sum now proposed, would make£4,000,000, He hoped the noble Lord would state on a future occasion how that sum had been expended.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that no sufficient reason had been given for the construction of these six vessels, and the only result would be that France would build six more. Then, the chances were that next Session the House would be told that, France having added six ships to her navy, Her Majesty's Government had, during the recess, ordered the construction of twelve additional vessels. Where was that to end? He admitted that the country ought not to be behind France in her naval force, and that if she had twenty we should have thirty such ships; but from what had come under his observation when in France, he believed that the Government of the Emperor was willing to enter into some such arrangement as that indicated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) respecting the relative amount of the forces of the two countries, and if difficulties existed as to any such arrangement, he was afraid that they originated at home.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the question before the Committee is rather what we are now to do than where this is to end. The hon. Gentleman says that our naval strength ought to exceed that of France. I was glad to hear such an admission from him, and I hope he will act in that spirit. Sir, I agree in the necessity of postponing the Vote until the House assembles in the evening, but, although the noble Lord's statement has been a surprise to me, I have listened to it with the greatest satisfaction and the warmest approbation, for in submitting this proposal
1638
the Government are doing no more than their duty. It is said that ten ships are in progress in France. That statement creates an erroneous impression as to what is going on across the Channel. There is no doubt that at this moment sixteen iron-cased vessels are in progress in France. Moreover, there is no doubt that the French Government are not building them so slowly as my noble Friend seems to contemplate. On the contrary, for some reason or other, the French Government are pressing on the construction of these ships so rapidly as to excite public attention in France, as well as some alarm. I will not cuter now into the reasons; I will only dwell on the fact. Meanwhile, what is the position of this country? Until to-day, to set against those sixteen ships, nearly half of which are launched, we only knew that the Government intended to build twelve, of which only seven have been as yet commenced. The Government now propose to build six more, the general result being that when these are begun—and it is doubtful whether that will happen in the present autumn, and whether six or three will be commenced—we shall then only have a prospect of possessing two more of these armour-plated ships than are now actually in progress in France. Under these circumstances I must express my earnest hope that this Vote may not be postponed with any idea of rejecting the proposals made by the Government. These six new ships are to be of the Warrior class, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) seems startled by an ultimate expenditure of £2,500,000. But the cost of the Warrior and Black Prince are well known to the Committee. Multiply that cost by six, and you will have very nearly the amount stated by my noble Friend. I think, therefore, that he deserves credit for his perfect candour to-day. I was struck by the hope expressed by the hon. Members for Finsbury and Sunderland, that we should check this expenditure by entering into some arrangement with France respecting the amount of naval force which the two countries are to maintain. I cannot hear these observations without expressing my strong opinion that any such arrangement is absolutely impossible. In itself, no doubt, it is very specious and plausible, but my firm belief is that if you wanted to lay the foundation of future misunderstandings and quarrels with France you could

1639
not adopt a surer course than by entering into such negotiations, and by attempting, as between two powerful nations naturally jealous of each other's influence and power, and in some measure rivals in the exercise of that power, to define in a treaty what should be the number of ships or the relative armaments which they should maintain. Looking to the empire we have to defend, I feel that no such arrangement would be for the interests of England, and that it would be equally dangerous to the future friendship between the two nations. I must also dissent from the opinion expressed that the English Navy hereafter must be an iron navy. That opinion has been frequently expressed in the course of these discussions, and there is a strong tendency in the House to jump to the conclusion—and, as I think, the erroneous conclusion—that, because we have found it necessary to embark in a large expenditure in armour-plated ships, there is necessarily an end to the utility of our wooden vessels. I entertain no such opinion. Considering the extent of our empire, I believe that none of us will live to see the day when our wooden navy will not be most valuable and important to us in all parts of the world, though with a view to possible contingencies in Europe we now find it necessary to embark in this outlay upon an iron navy.
MR. H. A. BRUCEasked, whether in the sum of £2,500,000 was included the cost of completing the five vessels, as well as the construction of the six proposed to be built?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the total expenditure, as he had stated, would be £2,500,000, which would include the plating required for the wooden ships, the total expenditure of the six iron-cased vessels proposed to be constructed, and, likewise, the completion of the, vessels of that class at present building, with their engines, and also the engines for the wooden ships. The new ships would carry ninety guns each, with a tonnage of about 5,000 tons.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to disclaim all intention of opposing the Vote, and at the same time to admit the propriety and candour with which it had been submitted to the Committee by the noble Lord. As regarded the conduct of France, the Emperor always appeared to have acted very candidly, and to have said, "I have nothing to do with you; you may do what you like; but I shall
1640
maintain an efficient navy, and that is the best way of preserving peace between the two countries."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again this day, at Six of the clock.

APPOINTMENT OF INDIAN OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the appointment of Colonel Mollan, C.B., of the 75th Foot, to the command of the 101st Fusiliers (late Bengal 1st Fusiliers), to the prejudice of the claims of local Field Officers of the Bengal Army, has his approval; whether the following appointments in Bengal General Orders of the 20th of May last has his sanction: Brevet Major Gordon, of Her Majesty's 46th Foot, to command the 33d Regiment Native Infantry; Lieutenant Geddes, Her Majesty's 27th Foot, to be Adjutant of the 14th Regiment Native Infantry; Lieutenant A. B. Morgan, Her Majesty's 19th Foot, to be Adjutant of the 42d Regiment Native Infantry; whether those Officers have passed the prescribed tests as Interpreters; whether they are to be seconded in their respective Regiments; and whether those Officers are permanently attached to the Staff Corps?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had received no account of any one of those appointments, and, therefore, he was not able either to sanction or disapprove of them.

  CASE OF THOMAS CARTER.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Carter, who was on Monday, the 15th day of July, brought before Thomas Thorpe Fowke and Le Marchant Thomas, Esqs., at the Ryde Police Court, charged with being a vagrant and sleeping in the open air at Oakfield, and who was committed by those Magistrates to Winchester Goal for three weeks, and ordered to be kept to hard labour for that period; and, if so, whether he has given, or intends to give, orders for his immediate release.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I do not at this moment hold the seals of the Home Department. I did at the time when a letter was written calling for a report of

  1641
  this case. That letter was written several days ago, and no answer has been received from the magistrates. A letter has been written to-day again calling attention to the subject.

  On Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply,

  SLAVE TRADE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Government to the great increase of the Cuban Slave Trade, and the importance of supplementing the exertions of the squadron on the African coast by j additional measures for the suppression of that trade. At that period of the Session, and in the then state of the public business, he would not detain the House for many minutes. Ho was very anxious, I however, to submit two or three suggestions to the Government which ho believed would be efficacious, if carried out, in greatly diminishing, if not overthrowing, the slave trade. It was no longer matter of question that Africa would afford a boundless amount of cotton if only the slave trade could be put down, so as to enable agriculture and commerce to thrive. Even, therefore, if no higher motives came in, he should feel justified in reverting to that painful subject before the Session closed. The recent accounts of the slave trade were terrible. Too ample proof was afforded by the blue books of the extraordinary activity with which the slave trade was being pushed forward. That lamentable state of things might fill them with discouragement and almost with despair, but the legitimate inference would be that they should reconsider the system on which they were acting, and see whether some further measures could not be adopted which would render their exertions more effectual. The fact was that since the American Government had refused to acknowledge the right of visit the British naval force had been rendered, he would not say useless, because he believed that fourteen slave ships had been captured during the past year, but far less potent than it used to be. He was anxious, therefore, to call the attention of the Government to two or three supplementary measures, which would, he thought, be of great value. One of these was suggested last year by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs himself, though he believed it had not been acted on. It was that an
  1642
  attempt should be made to supplant the slave trade in Cuba by the introduction, under the most stringent precautions, of a free immigation from China and India. That would require the greatest possible care, and it might be thought that experience as to the abominable traffic in Chinese with Cuba ought at once to condemn the suggestion. But the truth was that recently Her Majesty's Government had made great and, he believed, successful exertions to put a stop to the cruelty with which that coolie immigration had formerly been attended. Our authorities in China, in conjunction with the Chinese authorities, had placed the emigration under strict regulations, and it also appeared that in Cuba the Chinese ha asserted their independence, and had enforced considerate treatment for themselves. He trusted that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would direct Mr. Crauford, the British Commissioner at Havannah, to make strict inquiries on that point, and if it could be shown that humane treatment and fair wages could effectually be secured for Indian and Chinese emigrants, then, by encouraging such an immigration, they would supplant, not only the slave trade, but in the long run slavery itself in the Island of Cuba. Next, he would urge on the Government that, instead of trusting only to cruisers on the sea, they should take steps to break up the slave trade on the African coast itself. He believed that would do even more than the squadron to harass and injure the slave traders, and it could not bring England into collision with any European Government. Now, by the kind of protectorate which England had established along the Gold Coast, and at Accra, and at Lagos, the slave trade had actually been extinguished along what formerly was its very mart and emporium, and which used in fact to be called the Slave Coast. But there was one exception. At Whydah, a port belonging to that execrable ruffian the King of Dahomey, the slave trade was still most prosperous. By the last accounts several slavers with large cargoes had sailed from Whydah. He could not see why they should not use violent measures to put a stop to it at that point. No courtesy surely need be observed with the King of Dahomey. Well, then, going further south, Portugal possessed great dominions along both the west and east coasts of Africa. Her western coast was formerly rife with the slave trade. When Mr. Gabriel, the English Commis-

  1643
  sioner at Loanda, first went there he saw eighteen slave vessels in one harbour. Since that the slave trade along the whole of the Portuguese West Coast had been utterly extinguished, and the result had been a great development of commerce, to the value, taking exports and imports together, of half a million a year. How had that come about? In great measure owing to the fact that England had had Consuls and Commissioners on that coast who had brought the influence of England to hear on the Portuguese authorities. Meanwhile, however, on the East Coast no such improvement had taken place. The last blue book showed an immense amount of slave trade from Mozambique and the adjoining districts. Now, surely, it would be only common sense for England to do her very utmost to induce Portugal to put the slave trade down on the East as well as on the West Coast, and nothing in his opinion would do so much towards that end as the appointment of an able and energetic man to the post of Consul at Mozambique. It might be said that no able and energetic man would go there, but a gentleman who stood very high in the opinion of the Government was willing to take the post. There were, he owned, some objections. The climate was unhealthy; the place was detestable. There was also the expense. That, however, would be small, and nothing in proportion to the interests involved. Again, it had been urged that Dr. Livingstone had recently been appointed Consul at Zambesi, but Zambesi was very far to the south, and Dr. Livingstone was always up the country exploring. The main objection, however, made by the Government was this, that a consul would be of no use without a large number of cruisers; but two or three ships of war were always kept on that coast. He thought their being few was an additional reason for giving them as much assistance and information as possible. Were the whole coast watched by cruisers it would be less necessary to have a consul on shore to find out all that was going forward, and the points from which it was likely that slaves would be embarked. The objections, then, were not strong ones. The inducements were very strong. The fact was that the Portuguese Government was well disposed on the subject. It was fain to stop the slave trade, but was too feeble to enforce its views on that far distant coast, where many of their own authorities had excellent reasons for cherishing
  1644
  the slave trade. Nothing, then, would so much tend to enable the Government of Portugal to carry out their views as the fact that England had a Commissioner there to watch with a keen eye all that went on, and report the proceedings of the slave traders and the action taken by the local authorities. In fact this would be the means of bringing the powerful influence of England to bear, and of pouring light on those dark places of the earth, rendering it infinitely more difficult for these cruelties to go on there. A consul had originally been appointed at Mozambique after full inquiry by Mr. Hume's Committee in 1853, and experience seemed to him (Mr. Buxton) to have shown the value of having such a representative of England on that coast. In urging the reappointment of a consul on the Government he was expressing the views entertained by Lord Brougham, by the Bishop of Oxford, the Anti-Slavery Society, the African Aid Society, and, in fact, nearly every one acquainted with the question of the slave trade. More than this, the same point had been strongly urged by the Economist newspaper, and by others who looked on the matter from a mercantile point of view. There seemed real grounds for believing that English influences exerted on that coast might do much to suppress the slave trade and open a large commerce. He was glad to think that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was sure to give the question a candid and careful study, as no man had shown more persevering energy in promoting as far as he possibly could the abolition of the slave trade.
  MR. CAVE: — Mr. Speaker, I could have wished that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) had been able to bring this question before the House on the day for which he first gave notice, as we might then have had the valuable assistance of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in discussing it; and I feel bound to take this opportunity of expressing my acknowledgment of the ready attention the noble Lord always gave to the representations I have felt it my duty to make from time to time on this subject. Late, however, as it is in the Session, I cannot think the moment an inopportune one, because the whole question has been advanced, during the last few days, by the publication of a very remarkable and important document. I allude to a letter from the French Emperor to his

  1645
  Minister of Marine, giving notice of the ratification of a treaty with Her Majesty, of which we have as yet heard nothing, but which will, I hope, late as it is, be laid upon the Table of the House before we separate at the conclusion of the Session. As far as we are able to conjecture, from the terms of the letter, this treaty extends and makes permanent the Convention of last year, under the provisions of which the Emperor, who cob siders the supplying his colonies with labour an Imperial question, is empowered, in return for abandoning the so-called African emigration, to compete in the labour market of Calcutta, backed by all the resources of France, with our colonists, who have only their own private and most scanty means to rely upon; and with such vigour have these resources been applied, that I have just learned that no less than twenty-seven ships have sailed from Calcutta with coolies for the French colony of Reunion, while only twenty-two have gone to the whole British West Indies collectively. I will not trouble the House again with my objections to the principle of this measure: I have already fully stated them, and they have since been strengthened by the occurrence of one of the evils I anticipated. We find in a recent minute of the Governor of Mauritius complaints that a large number of coolies had been shipped by French agents in Calcutta for Reunion, under the pretext of taking them to Mauritius.
  I cannot help thinking, however, that the letter itself is highly unsatisfactory. The Emperor has some doubts about the African emigration. He thinks it may possibly be open to abuse; he therefore determines to put an end to it. But when? Immediately? No, at the close of another year. It may, indeed, be said that it would be impossible to terminate these arrangements at once; and this argument would be very forcible, were it not for a letter which I have here from the same Imperial writer to his cousin, Prince Napoleon, dated as long ago as 1858, couched in similar terms, breathing the same doubts, and expressing the same determinations: and so general was the belief in England, at that time, that the Emperor had become convinced of what all the world knew long before, that this immigration was the slave trade in disguise, and was resolved immediately to put an end to it, that an hon. Member, now a Member of the other House of Par-
  1646
  liament (Lord Stratheden), proposed a Resolution in 1859, conveying the thanks of the House to the Emperor for his zeal and sincerity—a Motion which was seconded by my hon. Friend who has revived this subject to-night, but which, from some information of an opposite tendency which I had received, I felt bound to oppose.
  Has it taken His Imperial Majesty all this time to make up his mind? or is it not rather to the opposition of Portugal that we owe the discontinuance of this French slave trade on the east coast of Africa, if it be indeed discontinued? Perhaps a consul at Mozambique might tell us a different tale. However this may be, we were certainly led to expect, and we had a good right to expect, that the moment French recruiting agents were allowed to set foot in British India they would cease to be employed on every part of the African continent. But it appears that a much harder bargain was driven by the Emperor: that the Convention under which the Queen's subjects are now, as we learn, being carried in such large numbers to Reunion, was to be paid for by abandoning the slave trade on the east coast alone; and that this wider and more advantageous treaty was necessary to induce its cessation on the west coast also. But the fact is we give up everything and get nothing. The Emperor knows that the African immigration is the slave trade, and cannot be defended. He knows this, or he would not go all the way to India for a more distant, a more expensive, and less efficient class of labourers. If it be the slave trade, France is already bound by treaties as solemn as any new ones can be made, to have nothing to do with it. So we are paying her extra for abstaining from doing what she is already pledged not I to do.
  But, leaving this retrospect, I should like to say a word as to the future. As far as we can judge, France is to have the benefit, up to July 1862, of both Indian and African immigration, and we see that she is making the most of her time in I both. I presume we shall find that either of the contracting parties can put an end to the treaty by giving due notice. Supposing France gives this notice at the end of the year, she will be in statu quo as regards Africa, and be richer by some thousands of the Queen's subjects from Bengal. Again, there is an important exception in the terms of the treaty, as

  1647

  stated in the letter. France is still to be allowed to draw emigrants from her own possessions on the African coast. Now, any really free emigration from these places is out of the question, and, without imputing any intended breach of faith, I will show how liable this provision is to abuse, by a single illustration.
  It is perfectly well known that for several years the Natives of the British Province of Madras were smuggled to Reunion through the French territory of Pondicherry. Between 30,000 and 40,000 Indians are computed to have been so carried off. I need scarcely point out how easy it would be for an unlimited African slave trade through a French possession to flourish; either with the connivance or without the knowledge of French authorities. The French possessions fringe the African coast for hundreds of miles, and are bounded by great slave-trading nations in the interior. We have seen already that a consul at Reunion is to be added to our list for the purpose of watching the operations of the treaty in that island; a far greater number of consuls than even the hon. Member proposes will be necessary on the African coast to guard against the possible abuse of it there.
  Before sitting down I may, perhaps, be allowed to express a hope that when Her Majesty's Government were making these great concessions to France they at least stipulated in return for some modification of the French law relating to right of search, which interposes so many obstacles to the success of our African squadron. Hard language has frequently been used in this House in regard to the conduct of Spain, but Spain scarcely receives a single slave who is not carried under the flag of one or other of two great maritime nations. That the banner of America has long been deeply disgraced in this way is a matter of world-wide notoriety, but that of France is not unstained.
  A naval officer commanding one of our cruisers on that station wrote to me a short time ago thus—
  "The Franch flag, I am sorry to say, is becoming a cloak for slavery, through immunity as to the right of search. A French ship escaped on the south-west coast last November. She had a legal clearance for China for coolies."
  Somewhat significant this, especially as fetters form part of the equipment of free emigrants, according to French notions.
  "But had her papers been ever so irregular she was French and could not be detained; so our cruiser let her go, and she took 700 slaves."
  1648
  Now, Sir, if France and England really co-operate in earnest, America cannot long hold out, especially if her vessels are to sail henceforward under a divided flag. Now is the time to strike; and if, when this treaty is laid upon the table, I find that France has made some concession in this direction, even to the extent only of placing French Commissioners on board English cruisers to overhaul French slavers, I shall see some light under the cloud. If not, I shall be compelled to adhere to the belief, which is shared by many Members on both sides of the House, and it is said even by some of Her Majesty's Government, that this treaty, while creating new evils of a grave and painful nature, does practically little to obviate those which already exist, and against which it is ostensibly directed.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, that from letters which he had received on the subject he could corroborate the statement made as to the great increase of the slave trade on the East Coast of Africa. He was also in a position to state that the Portuguese authorities were most anxious that there should be an English consul at Mozambique, in the hope that a change for the better in that respect might be effected.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that if he rightly understood the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the question he was of opinion that the slave trade had not of late been vigorously prosecuted upon the Mozambique coast. But, if that were the impression of the hon. Gentleman, he (Sir John Pakington) had reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken upon that point. He had lately been informed by naval officers from the coast of Africa, that the slave trade so far from having decreased on the Mozambique coast, now flourished there in the utmost vigour.
  MR. BUXTON: It was on the west coast I said it had decreased.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought it would be well to defer creating any consular establishment on the East Coast of Africa until the report of Dr. Livingstone had been received on the result of his expedition up the Ruvuma. The presence of a consul at Mozambique was rendered the less necessary by the fact that the Governor General of the district entertained the most honest intentions to suppress the slave trade. The trade, moreover, was not carried on to such an extent at Mozambique as at other points of the East Coast of Africa.

  1649
  The Portugese Governor of Mozambique was exceedingly desirous of putting down the abominable traffic, and the fact was the more creditable to him because he was placed in a position of great temptation to connive at the evil. He did all he could to suppress it, but, in fact, he was powerless, on account of the extent of coast to be guarded, and the few and wretched means at his disposal. His soldiers were most of them twice convicted criminals, and he had only one brig and one gunboat, and that was useless. It was true he had a militia to assist him, but their value might be guessed from the fact that the officers only received £4 a year. They did not want a consul to keep an eye on the Governor General. If anything was to be done at all, they must have five or six cruisers; permanently stationed on the coast. But his own opinion was that Cuba was the point which ought to be watched. It was notorious that there was a joint-stock company in Havannah for carrying on the slave trade, and that slavers were fitted out in that and other ports under the very nose of the authorities. The law and the church, were always ready to connive at the importation of negroes, and the Captain General, though he had the power, wanted the will to put a stop to the slave trade. By stationing an efficient force of gunboats off the coast of Cuba they might, to some extent, check the importation of slaves, and it was also the duty of the Government to make the strongest representations to the Spanish Government with the view of inducing them to put in execution existing treaties. He repeated he could not approve the reappointment of a consul at Mozambique at that moment; they ought to wait to see whether Dr. Livingstone might not succeed in establishing a legitimate trade with the interior, which would supersede the slave trade.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought that was a peculiarly suitable time for calling attention to the subject. He was glad that the Emperor of the Ereneh had at last determined to put a stop to that branch of the slave trade between Reunion and the coast of Africa. It appeared to him that the Emperor, having adopted that course, might be induced to join with us in taking more vigorous measures for the suppression of the slave trade between the coast of Africa and Cuba. Persons were generally but little tolerant of those bad practices which they had relinquished themselves. The disruption of
  1650
  the American Republic was another circumstance which gave him hopes that they might at length be able to aim an effective blow at the slave trade. It was notorious that the real traffickers in the flesh and blood of their fellow men were citizens of the Northern States. It was in Yankee ships, floated by Yankee capital, commanded by Yankee skippers, sailing forth on their abominable errand, with the connivance of bribed Yankee authorities, that this work of the devil was carried on. Lord Lyons writing to Lord John Russell in September, 1860, stated that within the previous eighteen months eighty-five vessels had sailed from American ports to be employed in the slave trade. The captures made by the American squadron itself off the African coast from September, 1859, to October, 1860, consisted of ten vessels, seven of which were from New York. Of forty-four slavers which arrived at a certain part of the African coast within a limited period, thirty-one were American vessels. It was not surprising, under these circumstances, that Lord John Russell should have written in strong terms of the prostitution of the American flag. The noble Lord had conducted his correspondence with the American Government in a spirit which entitled him to the highest commendation from every person to whom humanity was dear. The reply of General Cass was couched in a style of flippant impertinence; but the rejoinder of the noble Lord—that as long as it was clear that the American flag was prostituted to the purposes of the slave trade—as long as that accursed traffic was mainly maintained by American citizens he would not cease to remonstrate with the American Government and people on the subject — was worthy of the Foreign Secretary of England. The United States were no longer hampered by what were called Southern prejudices. Now was the time to test the truth of all the statements they had made that Southern prejudices had prevented a really vigorous opposition to the slave trade, and to see whether, when an appeal was made to the United States authorities, we might not be able to obtain from them that real hearty co-operation which would enable us eventually to put down this traffic. The difficulty hitherto experienced, as every one knew, was the almost impossibility of stopping, detaining, or visiting American vessels. Every proposal we had made to the United States with that view had been rejected. Joint

  1651
  cruising and every other expedient had been invariably rejected. In former days, no doubt, these proposals had been rejected, not from any inherent difficulty in the proposals themselves, but because there was a feeling in America that it would be against American interests, he might say, to attempt to employ vigorous means in the stopping of the trade. At one time it was perfectly notorious that the acquisition of Cuba was the question not of years but of months, in the opinion of the American people. That dream had now faded completely away. It was then a great object to obtain Cuba well stocked with negroes. It was no longer an object that it should be so. On the contrary, if the slave trade were not revived—and he would not enter into the question of the real bonâ fides of the Southern States upon that point; he simply believed they did not intend any thing of the kind—and if Louisiana had to contend against Cuba, it was the greatest object to Louisiana and the South that the importation of negroes into Cuba should not continue. That negro labour in Cuba should be dear was a primary object to the Southern States. He believed, therefore, they ought now to have both the North and South of America perfectly concordant in their views to put down the slave trade. He did most sincerely trust that Her Majesty's Government would now have to deal with a different set of statesmen at Washington, and that they would again appeal to them in the cause of humanity to join with England in vigorous action to put down this trade; for he was perfectly confident that it did rest with the hearty determination of the American authorities to prevent these slave vessels sailing from their ports, when they had sailed, to give every facility for their capture, so that they might eventually hope for the suppression of that detestable and atrocious traffic.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the only conceivable objection that could be urged to the reappointment of a consul at Mozambique was the salary he must receive; but when he considered the success which had attended the presence of a consul on the West Coast, and the large sum they spent in cruisers, he was inclined to believe that small outlay might result in a great saving; so that the appointment might be justified on the mere grounds of economy. He agreed that that was a peculiarly fitting time when an effort should be made to obtain the co-operation
  1652
  of other countries in putting down the slave trade, and they might especially hope for the co-operation of the United States. Till recently America had been the great supporter of the slave trade. If disruption should unfortunately take place, he should look forward with great fear to the revival of the slave trade. Upon that point he might mention the fact that Mr. Gancey, the leading Commissioner to Europe of the so-called Southern Confederacy, himself proposed a year or two ago in the Southern Convention at Montgomery a resolution for the repeal of the law of the United States against the slave trade, and for months supported the resolution with great energy and ability. He differed from his hon. Friend who introduced the subject as to the propriety of sending coolies into Cuba. He did not see how they could take on themselves the responsibility of their proper treatment under a foreign Government.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he thought that the only means of effectually putting the slave trade down would be by making it unprofitable, and that could only be done by rendering the production of free-grown sugar as cheap as slave-grown. He entirely agreed that the introduction of East Indian coolies into foreign countries was fraught with the greatest danger. At the same time he advocated the importation of free coolie labour into our own colonies. He was glad to find there was a great change of feeling in this respect, and that the measure was no longer opposed by those who were inimical to the slave trade. Under the present stringent regulations, however, it did not pay to invest private capital in that enterprise, as a sufficient term of service was not insured. As a remedy for that difficulty he would propose, although it might be an unpopular suggestion, that a differential duty should be put upon slave-grown sugar, which might be applied for the purpose of coolie emigration into our own colonies. He regretted that this country had so largely imported slave-grown sugar from Spain, and he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government would inflict a heavier blow on Spain by putting a differential duty on that article of produce than by attacks on paper. If Spain gave up the traffic he believed it would cease in the quarter of the world alluded to.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that he thought the tone of the discussion proved, that there was not the least dimunition in the deep

  1653
  feeling of hostility entertained in this country against the abominable traffic in slaves. He trusted that some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Galway would have their due effect upon Her Majesty's Government. It was an indisputable fact, that the capital and ships of the Northern States of America had been largely employed in this traffic, and our Commissary Judge at the Havannah (Mr. Crauford) said—
  "Since the year 1858, when there was such outcry about our cruisers in these waters boarding American ships, the traffic has been almost exclusively carried on by vessels under that flag, which fit out and sail from the United States; and such has been the effect of the impunity enjoyed by the slave traders, that the American masters and crews no longer hesitate to continue on board, and have brought all their energies and cunning into operation to avoid their own Government cruisers, as well on the coast of Africa as in the waters of Cuba, from the last mentioned of which all Her Majesty's vessels of war have been withdrawn for the two last years."
  Our cruisers had been withdrawn from the Cuban waters because the American Government refused to co-operate with them in suppressing this nefarious traffic; and the American cruisers, being left to execute that task alone, had entirely failed in its performance. He earnestly entreated the noble Lord not to imagine that the restoration of the consul at Mozambique was not to be desired. The slave trade was carried on there to a considerable extent, and but for our cruisers it would be greatly increased. Dr. Livingstone was particularly anxious that there should be a consul at Mozambique. The trifling expense which such an officer would entail on the country would be amply repaid by the legitimate trade it would occasion, for there was a great demand therefore our cloth and hardware. He looked with extreme jealousy on the plan for importing coolie labourers from India into the French colonies, and he hoped that the recent treaty on the subject would be laid on the table without delay.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to make some observations upon what has passed with regard to the slave trade. I am bound to say that I think the House and the country are under obligations to my hon. Friend who brought forward this Motion, because this is a subject of the deepest interest; and it is impossible that this House can too often or too strongly express its opinions in condemnation of the continuance of this abominable traffic. The truth is that the abolition of the slave
  1654
  trade, although it may be, and, in some instances, has been brought about, as in the case of Brazil, by the exercise of force, cannot be wholly extinguished except by the progress of opinion, not only in the minds of different Governments, but in the minds of the different nations which they rule. I regret to say that of late years there has been a relapse on the part of our neighbours on the other side of the Channel. France very early abolished the slave trade. France not many years ago abolished slavery in her colonies; and we had reason to hope that, the French nation and the French Government being throughly convinced that slavery and the slave trade were abominations, and having determined to get rid of both, there was no danger whatever of their backsliding. But the first symptom of a relapse was seen when the French Government, under M. Guizot, refused to ratify the convention for the mutual right of search which was negotiated by the Earl of Aberdeen, its refusal being grounded on some Motion made in the French Assembly. That was, no doubt, an indication of a retrograde movement in opinion. Then came, four or five years ago, the Regis contract for the emigration of so-called free labourers into a French colony, but which was nothing more nor less than the slave trade in its purest and simplest form, at least as far as the acquisition of the labourers was concerned. It was the slave trade in the beginning of the process, though not entirely so in its end, because although these unhappy creatures were landed in a French colony, apprenticed against their will, subjected to regulations which rendered them liable to degrading punishments, and otherwise made to feel that they were in a state far from one of freedom, the French law did not acknowledge the system of slavery. The manner in which these negroes were caught was exactly the same as that in which the Spanish and the Portuguese got their slaves in order to send them to Cuba. It was said, indeed, that they were ransomed, and were to be set free, and documents were given to them which professed to be certificates of their emancipation. But they were obtained in the first instance by persons who sold them to the French by all those means of force, of violence, and fraud by which slaves were and still are procured for the Spanish market at Cuba. This, unfortunately, was the result of the ascendancy gained in French councils by the colonial interest.

  1655
  That ascendancy was paramount; and for a long time the French Government was deaf to all the remonstrances made to them by the Government of England, pointing out that this was the slave trade, and contrary to every principle by which they had openly promulgated their resolution to abide. At last the French Government consented to put an end to that system, provided other means could be obtained by which the additional supply of labour required in the French colonies could be procured. The only means by which we could at all assist in procuring labour was by allowing the French to obtain coolies from our possessions in India; and the question was whether we would give them that permission on condition that the Regis contract should be put a stop to. I should say that two years ago the French Government, upon the urgent representations of the Queen's Government, did put down the exportation of the so-called free labourers at the Western Coast of Africa, but it still continued on the East Coast. There were great objections, such as those referred to in the course of this discussion, to our allowing these French colonists to go to our territories in India for the purpose of obtaining coolies. No doubt, it was liable to this objection—that improper means might be resorted to for, as it is called, kidnapping the coolies; and, therefore, it was necessary to establish regulations by which you should be sure that those labourers who went did so of their own goodwill, that they should not be overcrowded or otherwise ill-treated during the voyage, and that they should be well-used when they reached the island of Re-union or the French West Indies. These matters were the subject of long and difficult negotiations, because we had to contend with the peculiar interests of those who thought it better and cheaper to go on with the existing plan. The Emperor's advisers felt that the system was a bad one, and were anxious to co-operate with us to put an end to it. Accordingly, a treaty has been recently concluded by which, under certain regulations, the French colonists are entitled to bring coolies from India into the French colonies. It has been said that we give everything and get nothing. That is not exactly the case. It is quite true it permits the exportation from India to take place at once, while the French Government does not engage to stop the Regis contract until 1862—a period to which
  1656
  they are bound to allow that contract to continue in force. We might have said, "We will not allow you to get coolies while you are carrying out this contract." That point was considered, and it was decided, rightly as I believe, not to act upon that view. We felt that they would not get a less number of negroes if we refused them coolies; but that, on the contrary, it was probable if we allowed them to have coolies immediately they would find them better labourers, more subordinate, and cheaper than negroes; and in proportion as they obtained coolies so they would obtain fewer negroes; and, therefore, our object being to put an end to the abominations of the African trade, I think we were right in opening the supply of coolies at once to the French colonists. I am not sure whether that convention has been ratified, but when it is it will, of course, be laid on the Table of the House.
  There is no doubt that the crime of slave trade does exist still, and to a great extent; but, omitting for the moment all question of the Regis contract, it is chiefly confined to the supply of Cuba. Now, how is that carried out, and how have we been prevented from putting an end to it? It arises from the corruption of all the authorities in Cuba, and the apathy of the Spanish Government at Madrid. We have remonstrated time after time; we have sent proofs that the slave trade is enormously carried on—that large fortunes are made by their officials—that Captains General go out poor and return rich. We were met by assurances that the orders sent out would be better observed, and that there was every disposition on the part of the Spanish Government to fulfill their treaty engagements. That is what we get from Madrid. It is unsatisfactory, but, of course, we are obliged to take the answer, especially when it admits the treaty obligations, and declares the intention of the Spanish Government to observe them. Then, in Cuba, when our consul sends proofs to the Captain General that a cargo of slaves has been landed at such a time and place, and calls upon him to punish the offenders, the Captain General says he will make inquiries, and after a certain time he reports that he has made inquiries, and is unable to trace any proof that a landing has been effected; and when he is requested to search certain plantations to which it is suspected the slaves have been removed, he replies that he has not the power to do so conferred

  1657
  upon him by the Home Government. So we have Cuba setting up Madrid, and Madrid setting up Cuba against us. That is a disgraceful thing for a country like Spain, and I believe that at last they feel it to be so, as they have lately sent additional ships to watch the coast of Cuba, in fulfillment of their treaty obligations. It is quite true that the importation of slaves into Cuba does not take place in Spanish ships, but in ships sailing under other flags, and especially under the American flag. There are some little Portuguese shipments from the East Coast of Africa, but it is mainly carried on under the American flag. Lately there has been some little amount of slave trade carried on under the French flag, but not to any great extent. We have, as is well known to the House, been constantly remonstrating with the American Government against that abuse—that prostitution of their flag. In one piece of correspondence I told them that a piece of bunting ought not to be a national passport. They took offence at that, and said I had insulted their flag. It was not the expression that nettled them, but the reproach that their flag was prostituted to base purposes. We tried to persuade them to grant a mutual right of search, but we were unsuccessful. We tried other plans, and at last we proposed to the Government of Mr. Buchanan that English and American cruisers should sail in company, and when any ship under the American flag should be taken with slaves on board, she should be prize to the American cruiser, and treated according to the American law; but when a ship was taken without a flag or papers with slaves on board she should be prize to the British cruiser, and be subject to our law. That proposal seemed too well calculated to accomplish its purpose to be accepted by the American Government, and accordingly it was declined. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) says that now that the North and the South are at variance is the time to get the assistance of the North against the South. It is quite true that at the time of the disruption of the Union—if we may assume it to have taken place—or before this civil contest broke out, it was the influence of the South which prevailed at Washington, and prevented the Government there from accepting any of the offers we made for the purpose of enlisting the support of the United States Government in the execution of their treaty engagements. There is a treaty engagement by which they are bound
  1658
  to co-operate with us for the suppression of the slave trade. For a time they sent one or two small vessels to the coast of Africa, and lately they have increased the number. But this I have observed, that when an American cruiser is commanded by a captain from the South, no effective assistance whatever is given us for the suppression of the slave trade. The Southern captain shuts his eyes to what is going on, and runs off to Madeira for supplies or water; but the cruisers commanded by captains from the North do give us very effective and vigilant co-operation. This would lead to the hope, no doubt, that if the turn of events should give to the North a more sovereign existence, possibly the spirit of the North would prevail over the influence which hitherto has controlled them, and, although most of the cruisers were fitted out at New York and at Boston, and, perhaps, with capital from the North, yet it was the spirit of the South which animated these expeditions. With a view to the suppression of this crime we have urged upon the Government of Portugal to exert its authority more effectually upon the eastern coast of Africa; but, as has been truly observed, the Portuguese possessions on the eastern coast are of enormous extent, thinly populated, and the ports are separated by immense distances, while the authorities there are far removed from the observation of the Government at Lisbon, with every opportunity for yielding to corruption and bribery; and, therefore, it is very difficult for the Lisbon Government to control what goes on there. I am informed by our Minister at that Court that that Government is doing all in its power by removing delinquents and sending out better persons as Governors to put an end to the evil. Whatever may be said of the Government of Spain, I have no doubt of the sincerity of that of Portugal in exerting all the means in its power to accomplish this purpose. I do not even despair of seeing the Portuguese Government adopt some measure for prospective emancipation. Portugal has no interest in the slave trade, but quite the reverse. Her possessions lie in Africa—they want all the labour for cultivation and improvement that the population will afford, and every man sent away is a man withdrawn from the development of the natural resources of the country. Spain is in a different position. Her colonies import labour from other places, and in their narrow and erroneous view every slave imported is so

  1659
  much gain. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hope) wants us to revert to a differential duty between slave-grown and free-grown sugar. The question has been frequently discussed, and Parliament has made up its mind that such a plan is not desirable, as evasion would be easy, and, if applied to sugar, the principle must be extended to slave-grown cotton, tobacco, and other articles. As to the particular point of establishing a consul at Mozambique, I am inclined to agree that it would have little reference to the slave trade. Mozambique is known to be an unhealthy station, and there would be a difficulty in inducing a consul to go and in insuring his continued residence when he was once there. I believe it was chiefly on account of the unwholesomeness of the place and the little influence he would have in checking the slave trade that the consul has been withdrawn from Mozambique, but at the same time the expediency of his return is a fair subject for consideration, and I can assure the House that my noble Friend (Lord John Russell), who is as eager and as anxious as any man can be to put an end to this abominable crime, will give to this and every other method of putting a stop to it the fullest consideration. I do not know whether there is any other point to which I ought to advert, but I can assure the House that both my noble Friend and myself and every Member of the Government are most anxious to complete the work—I will say the noble work—in which this country has been engaged for so many years. Cuba is now the only plague spot in the world, for I do not believe that there is any real importation of slaves into the Southern States of America. Cuba, I repeat, is the only real plague-spot, and I hope that by some means or other we may be able, if not entirely to put an end, at least greatly to check and ultimately to put an end to the abominable practice of the slave trade.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he thought the abolition of slavery could be best effected by importing large quantities of free labour into the slave districts, as they would thereby reduce the value of negro labour, and, therefore, the value of the negro, and consequently render the importation of negroes an unprofitable occupation.

MERCHANT SHIPPING.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LINDSAY,in calling attention to the Report of the Merchant Shipping
  1660
  Committee of 1859–60, said, that the House was aware that the shipping interest of this country for more than two centuries was a protected interest, and presumed to derive from protection peculiar advantages in which other classes of the community did not participate. Consequently, peculiar taxes of various kinds were laid upon that interest. In 1849 and 1850 protection, and all the supposed privileges of protection were taken away. The least the Government could have done when they removed protection was to remove those burdens and those restrictions which were created with that protection. Well, he was sorry to say that, though Committees of that House had reported over and over again in favour of removing the burdens which still fettered that great and important interest, most of those burdens still remained. For two years he had the honour of sitting on the Merchant Shipping Committee upstairs. That Committee, after great consideration, laid a Report, in 1860, upon the table of the House, recommending, under ten distinct heads, that various burdens and restrictions ought to be removed, and stating that these were questions which seriously affected the maritime interests of this country, with which it was the duty of the Government to deal. He had delayed calling attention to this subject up to that late period in the hope that the Government would have introduced Bills for the removal of at least some of the most oppressive of those burdens. From some cause or other he was sorry to say but one of those ten recommendations had been dealt with by the Government. The Merchant Shipping Committee recommended that the question of belligerent rights should be dealt with, and unanimously arrived at the conclusion that the time was come when all private property not contraband of war ought to be exempt from capture at sea. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) made four or five attempts during the Session to bring that question under the notice of the House. It was but reasonable that he and other hon. Members, and many out of doors who felt that we had a larger share of private property. On the ocean than any other nation, should desire that that private property should be exempt from capture. But all attempts to bring that question forward were, he was sorry to say it, stifled by Her Majesty's Government. After unsuccessful attempts, on the 18th

  1661
  of February and the 17th of April, his hon. Friend on the 7th of May had an opportunity of bringing the question forward, but an appeal was made to him not to do so, on the ground that the whole question of the Treaty of Paris was under consideration. Now, he wished to know from his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, what was the result of that consideration on the part of the Government? Again, a revision of the liability of shipowners who were exposed to heavy and ruinous penalties and conditions in fitting-out passenger ships, &c, was another of these recommendations which had not been carried out. So far back as 1845 a Committee, of which the noble Lord at the head of the Government was a Member, recommended that the shipping interest should be relieved from light dues, but since that period nothing had been done, and since then the shipping interest had paid for the liquidation of debts contracted for the purchase of private lighthouses no less than £1,250,000. Pilotage was a monopoly in the hands of private individuals. It was clearly shown that where pilotage was voluntary a better supply of pilots was to be obtained. With respect to local charges at various ports, the shipping interest was still taxed for craneage where there were no cranes, for buoyage and beaconage where there were no buoys or beacons, and for wharfage where there were no wharfs. It had been proved before a Commission appointed by this House that there were many who levied those dues who had no right to levy them, but even where there were rights those rights could be valued and redeemed, and he could not help expressing his surprise that the Government did not deal with them during the Session. It might reasonably be supposed that, considering the vast increase of trade, the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 and the Passenger Act might require some modifications, but nothing had been done with regard to it. In respect of the main and truly important question of reciprocity, he was sorry to find that nothing whatever had been done, and he feared that no exertions had been made by Her Majesty's Government to obtain from foreign nations those reciprocal privileges and advantages which we had long granted to them. France still maintained differential duties against us—duties so high as in many cases entirely to exclude our shipping. Spain, Portugal, the United States, and various
  1662
  other nations, including Austria and Russia, still excluded us from the coasting trade. There was one remark which struck him very forcibly which was made by a large shipowner who was examined before the Committee of which his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was at the head. Alluding to his ship in the port of Calcutta, he said—
  "It is very galling, indeed, and enough to break one's heart, to see my ship lying at Calcutta getting only 15 s. a ton, while a French ship alongside obtained 60 s., 70 s., or 80 s. per ton, simply because the latter vessel, on arriving at this part of the world, was at liberty to deliver its cargo with equal facility either in England or France."
  In the Report of the Merchant Shipping Committee regret was expressed at the apparent apathy on the part of the Government in connection with this important question, and their neglect to enforce the retaliatory clause. That Report had been upon the Table of the House for a year and a half, and he wanted to know what had since been done to obtain from foreign nations a reciprocity of advantages. He was in America during the last recess, and Mr. Buchanan in discussing the question with him frankly admitted that, it was no more right to call the trade between New York and California a coasting trade than the trade from this country to Calcutta. He believed, too, from what he learned while in France, that the French Government, if the matter were fully brought before them, would have seen the justice of reciprocating the many advantages which this country had granted to French ships. Of all the re-Commendations of the Merchant Shipping Committee only those relating to the abolition of passing tolls and the settlement of differential dues had been carried into effect. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had given notice of a Merchant Shipping Bill, but it was too late for such a measure to be introduced in the present Session. He hoped, however, that the Government would early in the next Session bring in measures to carry into effect the more important provisions of the Merchant Shipping Committee. The shipping interest did not require protection, but they desired a clear stage and the opportunity of conducting their business without those disadvantages which they were at present subject to. Having made these observations, he did not intend to move the resolution which stood on the paper in his name.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he was glad his hon. Friend had brought forward this subject. On most of the points he took he cordially agreed. He would remind him, however, that the difficulty of obtaining reciprocity was caused by our having given everything to other nations without stipulating for anything in return. He had intended asking the right hon. Gentleman a question on this subject, but was better pleased that the initiative should be taken on the opposite side of the House. Those who, like himself, were interested in the welfare of the Mercantile Marine had, he thought, reason to complain that the right hon. Gentleman had not, he might almost say, redeemed his pledge, but at any rate had not fulfilled his intention, and brought in again a measure which he carried last year, of great value and utility to the shipping interest—he meant the Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight Bill—or, at any rate, incorporated its provisions in some more comprehensive measure. This Bill simplified and rendered intelligible the laws respecting freight, which were now the source of constant litigation. It also placed the law which regulates the landing of goods (which was now habitually disregarded) on a footing more in accordance with the important changes caused by the general use of steam in merchant shipping. The right hon. Gentleman met with no opposition from that side of the House. He was sure he would allow that he gave him, in his humble way, all the assistance in his power both in and out of Parliament, as did the Member for Sunderland. The Bill was one which severely tried the patience of those interested in it. It appeared on the orders of the day two or three times a week during the greater part of the Session, and eventually came on between two and three in the morning, in an empty House, when the reporters were worn out, and the space in the papers allotted to reports filled up, when it might be said that virtue was its own reward; for though for two or three nights there were lengthened and animated discussions, strong opposition from a few hon. Members opposite, whose constituents were interested in maintaining the present anomalous state of things, and two or three divisions, yet all these exertions, all this expenditure of time and patience were as little known to the public as the achievements of the heroes who lived before Agamemnon. However, the Bill passed, and if they might judge by the comments
  1664
  of the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, and other papers specially devoted to the subject, it gave universal satisfaction to the shipping interests. It was too late, unfortunately, to pass through the House of Lords, and it was generally supposed that it would have been re-introduced at the earliest moment this Session. A Bill of this sort, full of details affecting particular interests, and which Members in general could not, or at any rate would not give themselves the trouble to understand, had little chance unless it was brought in as a Government measure, and he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give the assurance that evening that he would introduce some measure of the kind as early as possible next Session.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the real reason why he had not dealt with some of the subjects to which the hon. Member for Sunderland had called the attention of the House was that the opportunity of doing so had not been afforded him. He had brought in a Bill for the purpose of abolishing passing tolls, but when that measure received the assent of the House he found there really was no time at his disposal to proceed with a measure of such magnitude as that to which the hon. Member for Sunderland adverted. So far as light dues were concerned, the question arose whether the object for which they were imposed should be carried out by means of public taxes or of dues levied on shipping, and, although a good deal might be said in favour of the former alternative, yet he could not help thinking there was nothing very unreasonable in the latter when it was taken into account that it was chiefly for the benefit of the merchant shipping that the lights were maintained. If, he might add, the charges under that head had not been placed on the Consolidated Fund they had, at all events, been reduced to the extent of £60,000 or £70,000. Then came the question of compulsory pilotage, which was beset with much difficulty. In principle there was, he admitted, not a little to be said in favour of not compelling the owners of vessels to employ pilots, while there was a legal difficulty pointing in the same direction, inasmuch as if, as matters at present stood, a ship in charge of a compulsory pilot did, owing to his fault, any damage, the owner was not held to be liable to make compensation. Indeed, the consequence of that state of the law was to give shipowners themselves an interest in upholding the

  1665
  system of compulsory pilotage, and he was not at all sure, therefore, that if a measure for its abolition were introduced it would not meet with some opposition from that quarter. Be that, however, as it might, the subject was one with which the Government fully intended to deal, and a ' Bill had actually been prepared, which he thought would be found to contain some satisfactory provisions with reference both to light dues and pilotage, and which he hoped to be able to lay on the table of the House at an early period next Session. He now came to the complaint of the hon. Member for Sunderland that the Government had taken no steps to insure reciprocity from foreign countries, and he begged to assure him that in that respect he was in error, as he would discover if lie were to look into the records either of the Foreign Office, or of the Board of Trade, which clearly showed that Government had lost no fitting opportunity of representing to foreign countries the claims which England possessed to full reciprocity in navigation. The subject was one, he might add, on which a great deal of misapprehension prevailed in this country as to the extent to which reciprocity was really withheld from this country by foreign nations. At present there were only, three countries—France, Spain, and Portugal—that in the indirect foreign trade did not give to England complete reciprocity. In the direct foreign trade they had, he believed, reciprocity with every country. He believed that British ships coming direct from England received national treatment in almost every country in the world. In many countries the coasting trade was given to England in consequence of the repeal of the navigation laws. And it was something to say that the three countries he had mentioned were the only countries that had not given to England complete reciprocity. With regard to the direct trade with France they were on the footing of national ships. With regard to the indirect trade with France they had recently received very considerable relaxations. The differential dues on jute and cotton wool coming from Australia and India to France had been abolished, and those articles were liable to the same duty, whether brought in French or English ships. That was a great object effected, and he hoped we might be able to secure a still larger share of advantage in that direction. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for
  1666
  Sunderland in regarding the shipping interest as of the utmost importance, as well as with respect to the expediency of adopting the necessary measures for its encouragement; but he should beg the House to bear in mind that that interest was evidently increasing both in amount and prosperity. He found, for instance, that for the first six months of the present year, ending the 80th of June, the total British tonnage entered and cleared with cargo amounted to 5,951,722 tons as against 5,628,589 tons in the corresponding period of 1860; and 5,429,277 for the first six months of 1859, thus showing a regular increase of tonnage for those three years. He also held in his hand a statement which proved that the repeal of the navigation laws had, instead of doing harm, done great good to British shipping, though we had not received from any country the same privileges of free navigation which they granted to all the world. Be that, however, as it might, he found that on comparing the year 1860 with 1850, the year immediately subsequent to the repeal of the navigation laws the tonnage entered and cleared with cargoes in the former year amounted in six months to three-fourths of what it was for the whole year in 1850. So that since the repeal of the navigation laws there was a constant increase in the amount of tonnage. It might also be satisfactory to the House to know that our export trade was exhibiting no signs of that decline which some persons anticipated, inasmuch as for the month ending the 30th of June last the declared value of British exports was £10,362,893 as against £9,236,454 for the month of June, 1860. The decline in the export trade was not so considerable as many people supposed. In the first six months of the present year the declared value of British exports was £60,143,425; in the first six months of 1860 it was £62,019,989, showing a decline of only 3 3-10ths per cent—a much smaller decline than at the commencement of the year seemed probable. He might mention that there had been a considerable increase in their trade with Italy and also with China, owing, no doubt, in the case of Italy to the changes that had taken place, and to having the benefit of a more liberal system under the Sardinian Government. He mentioned these facts in order to remove an impression which seemed to prevail—that some very considerable decline was taking place in the export trade of this country, which

  1667
  might have a serious effect on the revenue of the country and on the interests of the merchant shipping. The hon. Member for Sunderland was not more anxious than were the present Government on every fitting occasion to urge upon foreign countries the claims of the country in regard to freedom of navigation. At the commencement of the next Session a Bill would be introduced dealing with light dues, compulsory pilotage, and the liabilities of shipowners, and he trusted it might become law.
  In reply to a question from Mr. CAVE,
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not give a definite pledge to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cave) that the Bill which he (Mr. Gibson) introduced last Session, and which passed that House with reference to clearances and freights inwards, would be reintroduced next Session. Since that Bill passed the House of Commons representations had been made which somewhat altered the view originally taken by the Customs authorities in this matter. He could only promise that a measure dealing with the subject would be introduced.

  THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH AND ITALY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to call attention to the tone and tenour of certain telegraphic despatches which had just been addressed to the Italian Government by the Emperor of the French. A few days before at Vichy the Emperor Napoleon happened to cast his eye over a Legitimist journal, called the Gazette de France, where, in the correspondence from Naples, he read a statement to the effect that General Pinelli had ordered three peasants to be shot for the alleged offence of having carried provisions to the brigands. Without further inquiry the Emperor sent off the following despatch to General Fleury, who was then in the north of Italy:—
  "The Emperor to General Fleury.
  "Vichy, July 21, 10.35.
  "I have written to Rome to make remonstrances. The accounts which arrive are of a nature to alienate from the Italian cause all honest hearts. Not only misery and anarchy are at their height, but the most unworthy culpabilities are the order of the day. A general, whose name I have forgotten, having forbidden that the peasants should carry provisions with them in going to their work in the fields, has caused those to be shot upon whom a morsel of bread had been found. The Bourbons have never done anything like that."
  That despatch was shown to Baron Ricasoli on the evening of the 23rd, but on the
  1668
  morning of the same day the journal L'ltalie had given the following account of the matter:—
  "The Gazette of France, in its correspondence from Naples of the 9th of July, announces that General Pinelli had caused three peasants to be shot who were suspected of having conveyed provisions to the brigands. We are able to contradict absolutely this story on every point. What may have afforded a pretence for it are the dispositions made by General Pinelli to forbid the bakers, in localities exposed to the attacks of the brigands, from making a larger quantity of bread than is required by the population of the place, and from selling it to persons outside; which is a measure of simple prudence, to prevent the maintenance and extension of brigandage. We, therefore, totally deny the fact related by the Gazette de France, and assert its statements to be falsehoods, and totally undeserving of credit.
  In order, he supposed, to make the despatch more insulting to the Italian Government, it was not sent in cipher, but in the ordinary language of the country, and its contents were known by every clerk between Vichy and Turin. If brigandage existed in the South of Italy nobody was more responsible for it than the very man who now affected a virtuous indignation and presumed to insult the Italian Government on account of an erroneous statement in a Legitimist newspaper. He believed that that proceeding on the part of the Emperor of the French would have a very different effect from that which it was intended to have on the Italian Minister. Baron Ricasoli was distinguished for firmness of mind and nobility of character. Not a single inch of Italian territory would ever be yielded by him, and his answer to the gratuitous rebuke from the Emperor of the French would be such as to vindicate the independence of Italy.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he believed it might be alleged on behalf of the Emperor of the French that he knew what was going on in the South of Italy, and that in addressing the despatch to which the hon. Member had alluded he thought he was only discharging a duty to humanity by protesting against the shooting down of peasants who were fighting for their legitimate Sovereign.
  Motion agreed to.
  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £250,000 (Iron Ships, &c).
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Sir, I entirely

  1669
  approve the course which has been taken by the Admiralty as explained by the noble Lord at the morning sitting. The protection of our own shores, our enormous commerce, and our wide-spread colonies and dependencies renders it a matter of vital importance that our navy should be placed on a footing not only equal, but superior to every other navy in the world. Our naval supremacy was essential to our existence as an empire. I, therefore, not only concur in the present Vote, but in the next Session will give my cordial support to any increase of the Estimates of £2,300,000 now assumed, which might be thought necessary. I wish to know from the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the six ships he names to be the intention of the Admiralty to build were to be altogether of iron, or of wood and iron combined. At no distant period, I believe, the staple material to be used generally in the construction of our ships would be iron, but there could be no objection to converting those for which the timber had been prepared into iron-cased ships; and, independently of large ships like the Warrior and Black Prince class, we required some of the smaller dimensions, not more than 280 feet in length, carrying, say, eighteen guns, and cased entirely in iron, and having a speed of not less than twelve knots an hour. I consider it a great error in having built the Warrior and Black Prince with tender ends, and both bows and quarters unprotected; likewise I beg to call attention to the urgent necessity in our being provided with a number of formidable gun and mortar-boats. I did not exactly understand what the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty proposed with respect to the construction of the six ships about to be l laid down—what was to be their tonnage, what description of guns were they to carry, and were they to be built entirely of iron, or of iron and wood combined—were they to be built by contract, or to some extent in our naval yards? Before the Admiralty proceeded with these ships the Warrior and Blade Prince should be thoroughly and fairly tested in respect to their general good qualities, not being sent to sea in smooth weather, sea, and wind, but with the prospect of a heavy sea and strong gale of wind.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he had heard the statement of the noble Lord that morning with great satisfaction, and it had also afforded him no little gratification to find
  1670
  the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich giving the noble Lord his earnest support. He had, however, heard with great surprise the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), although in a tolerably full House, propose that the Vote should be postponed in order that it might be discussed when there was a larger attendance. They ought to support the Government energetically to enable it at the earliest possible period to have as good and efficient a fleet of iron ships as the French possessed. No man had studied the science of artillery more deeply than the Emperor of the French, and as soon as he had convinced himself that wooden ships could not resist the improved artillery of the present day he ordered iron vessels to be built. We had been slow in following his example, but once having begun to do so, our great resources and advantages would soon enable us to construct a fleet of equal strength to that of France. He thought the Admiralty had exercised a wise discretion in asking only for a small additional sum that year, as it would be some months yet before the experiments at Shoeburyness were brought to a conclusion. The Admiralty could not be too careful in the steps they were taking with respect to the mode of constructing iron ships. We had to reconstruct a navy which should have the mastery of any other navy in the world, and the average cost of each iron-cased ship was estimated at half a million sterling. There was, however, much to be ascertained respecting the powers of resistance of iron ships. It would be advisable if, when the Warrior was completed, she could be subjected to a number of experiments with heavy Armstrong guns. It was really no use in sticking up a single plate of iron 41/2 inches thick to be experimented upon at Shoeburyness, for there were many other things which required to be tested besides the question of mere resistance, such as the best mode of putting the plates together, and the nature of the supports which were to be placed behind the armour plates. He was anxious to know whether the Admiralty had determined to condemn rolled iron plates, and to confine themselves entirely to the making of steam hammered plates instead.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when this Estimate was brought forward at the morning sitting, thought the matter too important to be considered in so thin a House.

  1671
  The question was now revived at the evening sitting, when the attendance was not any larger, and the right hon. Baronet himself was absent. He (Mr. Lindsay) wished to ask the question—whether, by that vast expenditure, they were creating a greater danger from within than that against which they were guarding themselves from without? Taxation was bearing heavily upon the people, and, if the harvest should prove deficient, and the unhappy war in America continue, vast masses of our people would be thrown out of employment. Then they would complain to Parliament, if they did nothing more, that they were ground down by unnecessary taxation. Against that danger they were more likely to have to contend than war with foreign Powers. Already the House had voted more than £12,000,000 that year for the navy, and now his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty coolly asked for £250,000 as an instalment of a sum of £2,500,000. In his (Mr. Lindsay's) opinion £4,000,000 was more likely to be the actual sum. As they were at peace with all the world he could not understand whom they were arming themselves against. It was said that they required six more iron ships, because a neighbouring power was increasing her navy; before his noble Friend asked for the Vote he ought to give the Committee ample information as to the present state of the French navy, and the number of ships she was building. The Government ought to state the whole truth and say if they were proceeding on any other information than the rumours of Admiral Elliot, who made a flying visit to the French dockyards, and represented that he saw vast preparations going on, but which the gentleman that he (Mr. Lindsay) sent there could not see. The Government had cased five wooden ships with iron, and now the House was asked for means to build six more iron ships equal in size and power to that terrible instrument of destruction—the Warrior. What would be the effect of this? Why, the effect would be that France would go on building her ten iron ships, which he did not believe she intended to complete for two or three years under present circumstances. It was useless to say to the House and the country, as his noble Friend did, "Don't be alarmed," because the people would not believe that there was not something behind if these ships were really required. If they went
  1672
  on in that way the French Emperor could not stop, however anxious he might be to do so, because the people and the Representative Assembly would bring an irresistible pressure to bear upon him to keep pace with England. Again, if the statements they had heard with respect to the preparations in France were true then even more ships than those proposed to be built were necessary, because England ought to occupy the first position in Europe upon the sea. But he not believe those statements. As at present informed he believed we were fooling away millions of money, as he was convinced that the Emperor of the French knew it to be his interest to keep on terms of peace with England. Unless the noble Lord gave to the House a satisfactory statement he would resist the Vote, though he might do so alone.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is supposed by my hon. Friend that our information rests upon the statement of Admiral Elliot. Now, I do not in the least degree mean to discredit that Report, but we have other information upon the subject from totally different quarters. We know that the French Government have now afloat six iron vessels of various sizes—two of them two-deckers, not frigates—all large vessels. We know that they have laid down lately the keels, and made preparations to complete ten other iron-vessels of considerable dimensions. The decision as to those vessels was taken as far back as December last, but was not carried into effect until May, because they were waiting to ascertain what were the qualities and the character of La Gloire and other ships afloat. My hon. Friend says he sent a friend to the French dockyards who saw nothing. I remember an amusing story called Eyes and No Eyes—one person who saw everything, and the other, who made the same tour, saw nothing; but the one who saw was right, for the things he saw were there, and the things which the other man did not see were not the less in existence. Well, here are six ships afloat, or which can be completed in the course of next year. Ten others are begun, which will be completed, with ordinary exertion, in the course of eighteen months or two years, and which by great exertion might be completed in less time. We know that the French Government have great dockyard establishments. I cannot say offhand what the area of their dockyards is,

  1673
  but I believe it is three or four times that of our own. They have an almost unlimited amount of labour, for they are not now occupied in building purely wooden ships, and if it were their interest or their view to hasten in any great degree the completion of these iron vessels—there is no illusion about them, for we know their names and the ports at which they are being built—if it suited them to hasten materially the completion of these ships, they might, probably, finish them in eighteen months. That makes sixteen ironships; but besides them France has, I believe, eleven floating batteries, as they are called, but two or three of which are very powerful seagoing ships. That makes twenty-seven ships in all, which they might have fit for sea at the end of two years. My hon. Friend asks if this is to go on, England increasing her force and Franco increasing hers. But I say in this ease France has taken the lead. It is not our preparations; but it is her great preparations which render it indispensable we should make corresponding preparations. The hon. Gentleman tells us to look at home, and spoke about a bad harvest, interrupted trade, the industry of the country impaired and thwarted. Those would be unpleasant and lamentable results, but are we, in anticipation of those evils, with our eyes open, to add an additional evil—that of having another country superior to us at sea? Is that a remedy for those evils? Upon the contrary, it would be a great aggravation of them, and would expose this country to a condition which my hon. Friend, as a good Englishman, would be most unwilling to see it exposed to. There is nothing in what he has said to justify the Vote which he announced his intention of giving; and I hope, after this explanation, he will not feel it necessary to continue his opposition to the Vote.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he hoped that his noble Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, would tell the House in what ports and arsenals of France the six great iron-ships, the eleven powerful iron-cased batteries, and the ten ships laid down, were to be found. If what the noble Lord had stated was true—and he ought to be accurately informed—his statement was quite alarming, and he, for one, would not be satisfied with a Vote of £2,500,000, but would be prepared to vote double that sum. France had no right to have these ships.
  1674
  If she had them, she could not be honest in her professions to England, and it believed us to know what she meant by such armaments. He could not help thinking, however, that the Government had been misinformed.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should have remained silent on that question but for the observations made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jervis), who had blamed him for suggesting the postponement of the debate from the morning to that evening sitting. The discussion which had already taken place was, he thought, a sufficient warrant for the postponement. The statement just made by the noble Lord the Prime Minister was not unimportant. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jervis) had said that when the Navy Estimates were proposed the House was forewarned with regard to these supplementary Votes. His hon. Friend must have had quicker ears and more insight into mystical sayings than he (Mr. Henley) could possibly profess to have if such were the case. He should have been much surprised if any one had discovered in the speech of the noble Lord when he proposed the Navy Estimates a ground for the notion that a supplementary Vote would be taken pledging the country to a future expenditure of £2,500,000. He was more confirmed in the opinion that nothing of the kind took place, because the noble Lord took credit to himself for having made a candid statement with respect to the purpose for which the £2,500,000 was required. Had the supplementary Vote been announced when the Navy Estimates were proposed, or under discussion, it would now have been quite unnecessary for the noble Lord to say a word on the subject, and it would have been passed as a matter of course. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend had made a somewhat singular recommendation to the Government, after having blamed him for postponing this discussion, in having urged them not to go on in haste and to do nothing blindfold. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had recommended them to try experiments on iron-cased ships—on the Warrior, for instance—and see if they could not batter to pieces almost the only iron-cased ship we had got. He (Mr. Henley) did not think it a very satisfactory course to build up a ship at a vast expense, and then batter her to pieces. It was not quite clear whether the idea of building iron-cased ships did not first come

  1675
  from us, although the French had worked it out more rapidly and continuously. We had waited to see whether modern artillery would batter these plates or not. It was now quite clear that, under all circumstances, we must go on. He did not think the country had any choice in that respect, but he disagreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) in thinking that this was a matter to be regarded as one of hostility on the part either of France or England. The hon. Member had no right to say that it was any proof of hostility on the part of France to choose to have a navy. The French always had a navy. We destroyed it at the time of the Revolution, but France chose to have a navy again. Nor was it a proof of hostility if France thought that iron ships were better than wooden ones. We ought to look at this question irrespective of France, and to take care that we had a navy equal not only to that of France, but all other nations put together. Every small State was building iron-cased vessels for itself. Unless we progressed with the same rapidity they exhibited, we should soon be in the minority. It was a great misfortune, but he did not see how it was to be helped. If we waited until men cunning in artillery battered the Warrior to pieces, and ascertained the number of plates that would resist shot from Armstrong guns, we should fall so much behind that when the pinch of the game came we should not be able to fetch it up. He held it to be the duty of the nation not to look with too jealous an eye at what the Government might do in the matter. The Government must do the best they could. No man could tell whether a ship plated in this or in the other way would succeed, and he did not believe that accurate information on such points would ever be gained until we were at actual war, an event which he sincerely prayed God would avert. Until then, however, we should not know whether big or little ships were best, or whether we were not better, as we had ever been, in smaller ships than our neighbours. We must trust to the Government upon these matters, and if they did their best not to be behind hand, he did not believe they would find the country, and at all events they would not find him, too apt to find fault with them because they had not adopted the course which experience afterwards proved to be the best. Unfortunately we should have to pay the piper, but that could not be helped. No necessary
  1676
  thing could be got without paying for it, and we must continue to pay for it. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lindsay) had taken a very curious course in this matter, for he had expressed his disbelief of the truth of the Prime Minister's statement. [Mr. LINDSAY: I said nothing of the sort.] He had certainly so understood the hon. Gentleman, for he had said, "If it is true, take £5,000,000, but at the same time I do not believe it." The noble Lord had used the strongest possible expressions in saying that he knew his statement to be correct; and, speaking as the noble Lord did from his place as Prime Minister, if 100 persons had been sent by hon. Members just to look round them, open and shut their eyes when they liked, perhaps having no eyes to see with at all, he did not think that the reports of such people ought to be allowed by the country to weigh for one moment against the positive declaration of the Prime Minister from his seat in Parliament that he knew the facts he stated to be facts. He should cordially support the Vote.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he considered the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to be so completely to the purpose as to render unnecessary any further statement in favour of the present vote. He was sure the country would agree in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, on that point he should not say another word. With respect to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) he regretted that a gentleman of his knowledge and experience in shipping and love of country (for he had stated that very day that he was willing to vote any sum that might be necessary to put the navy on a proper footing) should have expressed himself as he had done in the face of being told officially, as he had been over and over again, of the increase of foreign navies in regard to iron-cased ships. Every word which his noble Friend at the head of the Government had stated he could affirm to be fact, and he could also inform the House that the increase in other navies was going on in a ratio corresponding with that of France. Austria was building two iron-cased ships; the King of Italy was building two, and had two others ordered to be constructed; and Spain was building two. So that there were not less than eight iron-cased ships over and above what were possessed by France, and he believed that Prussia, and, in fact, every continental

  1677
  nation were moving in the same direction. The right hon. Member for Carlisle had that afternoon asked whether the sum named as exhibiting the probable ultimate cost of the proposed ships was to go on over and above the ordinary Estimates of the next year. It was impossible to state anything with certainty for the future, but he was quite sure that his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset was anxious, inasmuch as there was to be that great expenditure in building iron-cased ships by contract, that there should be certain corresponding reductions made in the dockyard expenditure. He trusted that, if matters remained peaceable, and no unforeseen and unfortunate event occurred, in future years there would be a still further decrease of expenditure in the dockyard. That year the Government had decreased that expenditure by something like £300,000. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) seemed to think that because the Government were going to build very large ships of iron, therefore, the Admiralty had changed their mind, and had given up the building of wooden ships. It would be very improper that such an idea should go forth. There was no intention whatever on the part of the Admiralty to give up wholly the building of wooden ships. As far as these very large sized ships were concerned he believed that wood has not strength for the purpose, but for corvettes, gunboats, and other small vessels, which must be maintained for the protection of British commerce all over the world, as yet iron vessels had been found no substitute whatever. Therefore, he trusted that it would not be supposed, because it was necessary to construct at once a certain number of very large iron-cased ships of iron, that in future there would be no further building or repairing of wooden ships in the dockyards. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) seemed to think that the Warrior no sooner than completed ought to be battered to pieces. That was not the intention of the Admiralty. What they were preparing to do was to carry on experiments against a target precisely similar to the side of the Warrior, and that target was now being constructed, and would, no doubt, be the object of very interesting experiments. He trusted his hon. Friend would not persevere in his opposition to the Vote, for in so doing he would be acting against the wishes not only of the
  1678
  House of Commons but of the country at large.
  MR. DISRAELI: If I were to judge from a speech made a few nights ago by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell), and from, the observations that have fallen from the noble Lord the Prime Minister on the present occasion, I should suppose that the good understanding between England and France was in great peril. Sir, that is not my opinion. Notwithstanding the rumours that are in circulation I believe that good understanding will be I maintained; and I still hold the opinion which I have always expressed in this House, that upon that good understanding the happiness of the world and the cause of progress and civilization mainly depend. But how is it that questions of this irritating nature are mixed up with matters of business detail, such as those which ought to occupy the attention of the Committee of Supply this evening? There is no doubt that a great change has taken place in ship-building. There is no doubt that there is no country in the world so interested in ascertaining the best construction of vessels, and of vessels of war especially, as our own country. But it does not follow that because we feel it to be our duty to reconstruct the navy of England upon the undoubted principles of science which now are acknowledged, we should be supposed to be taking a course adverse to the interests of any other country, and especially to a country so near to us, with which our interests are so various and numerous, and with respect to which, whatever may be the occasional misunderstandings there is no doubt that the general tendency of our policy for nearly the last half century has been that of increased amity and increased good understanding. Well, is there any cause for this irritating discussion? Is it France that objects to the reconstruction of the English navy? Is it France that objects to our building iron ships? No one for a moment has ever hinted that there has ever been any protest from the other side of the water against the course which we are adopting. Well, I have yet to learn that we have felt it our duty to protest against the course which France is following. No one has maintained for a moment that France has not the right to establish a navy, and a navy of great power. She is justified in taking such a course by her geographical position, by her possessions, and by the

  1679
  general course of her conduct in various parts of the globe. But, then, it is said by some hon. Gentlemen that there is no termination, apparently, to this race of competition between England and Prance as to the respective positions of their navy; and I will admit that if every time we build new ships of war France immediately proceeds to build an increased number on her side, and if the moment we hear she is laying down new keels we are to enter into an indefinite competition with France —I admit that such a state of things would be most hostile, and perhaps, fatal to the interests and fortunes of both countries. But what is the use of governments? What is the use of diplomacy? "What is the use of cordial understandings, if such a state of affairs can take place? I speak, of course, now with great deference to the Government on this subject; and I hope with that reserve which is befitting one of my inferior position compared with that of Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject. But, certainly, I have always been under the impression, at least so long as I have had any intimate acquaintance with public affairs, that, on the part of the French Government, there has certainly been for many years past a perfect willingness to come to an understanding with the Government of this country, if not in an absolutely definite sense, yet, generally speaking, as to the relative proportions of the naval powers of the two countries. That understanding has been by France candidly expressed and voluntarily offered, for France has always been ready to acknowledge that there should be a superiority—I will not say a supremacy, but a superiority, and a great superiority, too, on the part of England, in natural consideration of the undoubted superiority in military power possessed by France. I am under that impression. I cannot doubt that there is to be found on the part of the Government of France a readiness to come to an understanding as to the definite proportion which should exist between the naval powers of the two countries. Well, if that be the fact, and I cannot believe that any one will deny the accuracy of that fact, then I say that we do see the end of this reconstruction of the naval power on the part of both countries—that there is no danger of that indefinite and fatal and ruinous competition which has been referred to, and that we ought to see before us the point at which this vast expenditure should cease.
  1680
  Well, Sir, if these be just views—if I am not mistaken in the facts to which I have referred—it is in the power of the Minister of this country to tell us that, no doubt, under existing circumstances, it is the duty both of England and France to reconstruct their naval power; but that they do this with the understanding that it is not that they have entered into a reckless competition on this subject, but that they have arrived previously at some grave political conclusion upon it, and that it is understood between the two countries that when that reconstruction has taken place it shall be accepted on the part of France that the superiority of the maritime power of England, the naval force of England, shall not be a subject of jealousy to France, but that she is prepared to willingly accept that naval superiority as the natural and inevitable result of the circumstances of the British Empire; France at the same time expecting from us that we shall exhibit no unjust or unnatural jealousy of her equally necessary military superiority. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government would only come forward and tell us this, with all the authority which waits upon the expression of opinion and upon the statement of a Minister, and especially one so experienced and influential as himself, a better understanding on this subject I cannot help thinking would prevail. I think on the part of the French people there would not be that hostile jealousy and that irritable feeling which I am sorry to see when debates of this kind take place; and on the part of England there would not be that undignified panic and readiness for reckless expenditure, which I for one entirely deprecate. Am I right or wrong in maintaining the expediency of this course? The noble Lord can tell me that I am labouring under a delusion if such be the case, and that it is a mistake to suppose there exists between the statesmen of the two countries that generous and wise and politic understanding as to the relative proportion of the naval force of each to which I have adverted. If he makes such a statement then I may be induced to believe that the wildest suggestions which I have heard in this House upon this subject may have some authority. But if the noble Lord can assure us—and I am unable to bring myself to doubt that he can—that the understanding of which I speak exists and that France, while establishing—as she is in my opinion perfectly justified in doing—a navy equal to the exigencies of

  1681
  her position and all claims on her power and patronage that may arise, is willing at the same time to acknowledge that she views with no jealousy on our part the reconstruction of our naval power in conformity with recent scientific changes and discoveries, on a scale greatly superior to that which she has fixed upon as the term of her exertions—if, I repeat, the noble Lord can give us that assurance it will, I have no doubt, have the effect of putting an end to the vexatious controversies in which we have been in the habit of indulging of late, and throw light on the subject. If, however, the noble Lord can do this I can hardly think he is justified in rising as he does on every occasion when discussions of this kind take place, and seeking to impress on the public mind that it is in consequence of unexpected and almost unnatural efforts on the part of France that he feels obliged to call upon the country to make exertions by which those efforts might be overpowered. For my own part, I hold that both nations need not stand with respect to this question in a hostile, invidious, or competing position. They are both great Powers with vast demands on their maritime influence, are placed in consequence of the revolution which has of late years occurred in naval affairs in a situation in which both are called upon to make great efforts to establish an adequate naval force. Instead, therefore, of looking upon one another under those circumstances in a criticising and hostile spirit, the leading statesmen, at all events, of each ought to use every effort in their power to enlighten the public mind, and to point out that the exertions which are being made to create those naval armaments are the inevitable result of that march of science which neither men nor nations can resist, that both countries, so far as can be judged, are justified in the adoption of the course which they are pursuing, and that nothing has hitherto occurred in reference to this question which England on the one side, or France on the other, can fairly impugn. But, that being the case, the interference of statesmen may bring about this result, that there shall be on neither side excess or extravagance of action; that there shall be no unnecessary or wasteful expenditure, and that instead of the people in both countries being oppressed, owing to rival exertions, care should he taken that, mutual understanding should exist that the naval power of each should not exceed the amount
  1682
  which the interests of each demand. Well, I say, if these grounds were placed fairly before the House—if the noble Lord called upon us to make those exertions in consequence of that great revolution in naval affairs, and at the same time should assure us that there is not an insane race of competition for naval power between England and France, then the Governments of the two nations would have each before them definite objects, and which when obtained need not endanger the peace of Europe, but rather consolidate and secure it. We should end unfounded sources of panic, and these circumstances, no doubt very distasteful to the population of both countries who have to pay for the expenditure, would not be a source of misunderstanding, but, on the contrary, would be clearly apprehended, and would tend rather to peace than to those hostile sentiments so often referred to.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he had heard with pleasure the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman had so admirably expressed, differing, as they did, materially from those which appeared to find favour on the Opposition benches in the earlier part of the Session. It was evident the right hon. Gentleman looked upon the responsibilities of office as not very remote, and that he now deemed it the more statesmanlike course to adopt, to come round to views which it was some time ago the fashion to regard with abhorrence when uttered by hon. Members who sat below the gangway on the Ministerial side, while every expression of hostility to France was greeted by the followers of the right hon. Gentleman with cheers. But, passing from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he had to complain that categorical answers had not been returned by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to the questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Sunderland. He should, however, again put those questions to the noble Lord, and if he declined to reply to them, it only remained for him, in conjunction with his hon. Friend, to take the sense of the House on the subject. If the required information were not furnished, the probability was he would find, on taking up the Moniteur in a few days, a flat contradiction given in its pages to the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he wished, therefore, to have some more detailed knowledge with respect to how matters really

  1683
  stood. The questions he had to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty were —what were the names of the six iron vessels now afloat to which allusion had been made? Where were the ten new vessels being built or laid down, and the eleven floating iron-cased vessels to be found?
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, these were points of detail which should be left to the Government. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had assured the Committee that such a force was in course of construction in the French ports, and upon a former occasion the Secretary to the Admiralty gave the names of the vessels and the places where they were to be found. He hoped the Government would proceed with all possible speed in getting up the strength of our navy.
  Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I rise to give the information which as been asked for by the hon. Member for Sunderland with respect to the French iron-plated ships. The Magenta and the Solferino are two-deckers. The Magenta is launched, and the Solferino is either launched or will soon be so. The Gloire is afloat, the Normandie is afloat, the Couronne is afloat, the Invincible is afloat, the Saigon is afloat, the Palestro is afloat, the Tonnante is afloat, and the Devastation is afloat. Here we have ten vessels, two of them line-of-battle ships, four of them with 36 or 40 guns each, and four belonging to that formidable class which the French call floating batteries. We have then the Provence, the Savoie, the Revanche, the Magnanime, the Gauloise, the Valeureuse, the Heroine, the Surveillante,the Flandre, and the Guienne, These vessels—improved Gloires—were commenced in the early part of this year, and are all in course of construction. We have besides the Congreve, the Lave, the foudroyante, the Paixhans, and the Peiho—all floating batteries. There are two other vessels, the names of which I do not know, and as to which I have not such correct information, but I believe they are being built as floating batteries. The Magenta is at Brest, the Solferino is at L'Orient, the Gloire is at Toulon, the Normandie is at Cherbourg, the Couronne is at L'Orient, the Invincible is at Toulon, the Provence is at Toulon, the Savoie is at Toulon, the Revanche is at Toulon, the Magnanime is at Brest, the Gauloise is at Brest, the Valeureuse is at Brest, the Heroine is at L'Orient,
  1684
  the Surveillante is at L'Orient, the Flandre is at Cherbourg, and the Guienne is at Rochefort. Altogether, the French have 16 large iron-plated vessels and 11 floating batteries, either afloat or in course of construction. Is any further information I wanted?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I stated this morning that I entirely approve the course which the Government have taken in proposing this estimate, and I should not have troubled the Committee again had it not been for an error into which the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich has fallen with respect to the cost of these iron-cased ships. The hon. and gallant Member stated that we might take these ships as costing half-a-million each. [Captain JERVIS: With their armaments.] Even with their armaments the estimate of the hon. and gallant Member is exaggerated. The most expensive of these ships is the Warrior, and yet I think I am right when I state that the whole cost of the Warrior, excluding the armament, will not be much, if at all, more than £300,000. The sum is enormous, no doubt, but still, as the expense is so large, it is desirable that it should not be overrated. The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that of the eighteen ships which are promised — twelve in progress and six proposed to-day —nine are to be of the Warrior class, and the remaining nine will consist of the four which the Admiralty are now building of considerably smaller dimensions, and of the five small wooden ships which were promised some time ago. It will be seen, therefore, that of the whole eighteen ships one half will cost only three-fifths of the sum which the hon. and gallant Member has estimated, and the other half will cost very much less. And now I must say that I have heard the hon. Member for Sunderland to-night with great regret. This morning the hon. Member told us that whatever number of ships the French may have we ought to have more. I was sorry to hear him this evening, I will not say retracting that expression, but declaring that if ho stood alone he would vote against the proposal of the Government. On what ground? Because he did not believe their statements. After what the hon. Member has now heard I think he must abandon everything like disbelief, which, indeed, he had no right to entertain before. The statements which he refused to credit rested upon unimpeachable authority; the evidence was conclusive,

  1685
  and the hon. Member might as well have said that he did not believe this was the House of Commons. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks that the question before us is not one of a foolish rivalry between England and France. The right of France to have a large navy has never been disputed; but, on the other hand, we must take care to maintain the same right for England. We have the largest colonial empire and the most extended commerce in the world, and it is our first duty to provide ourselves with an adequate naval force. I thoroughly approve the proposal of the Government, in which I see nothing hostile to France, and I hope it will meet with the approbation of the Committee.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he had no doubt his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, after hearing the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, would at once accede to the propriety of this Vote. He did not believe there was any panic in this country, but he was quite convinced the temper of the people would not tolerate that we should be left behind any other country in our naval armament. The proposal of the Government, which had been somewhat tardy, would be found in unison with the public sentiment. It was absolutely called for; and he was not without a hope that the strength of our naval armament would enable us to make reductions in other departments.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that after the statement which had been made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that there were in France six powerful iron-clad ships now afloat, and eleven floating batteries, while there were ten iron ships in the course of construction, he should no longer oppose the Vote. That statement, however, was entirely at variance with the information he had received from high authorities in France. But he could not do otherwise than accept the declaration of the noble Lord, and he could not, therefore, take upon himself the responsibility of dividing the Committee upon that point. If what the noble Lord stated was correct he was desirous that the Vote should pass unanimously. But it was a serious subject for consideration how long that rivalry between this country and France was to go on, and he thought they ought to consider well the suggestion that had been made by the right hon. Gen-
  1686
  tleman the leader of the Opposition. The Government should, at least, make an attempt to come to an understanding with France, for the purpose of preventing this rivalry of expenditure. He could confirm what the right hon. Gentleman had said. France would not be the last to move, and if some arrangement was not made, it would not be the fault of France, but their own fault.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £206,629 10 s. 9d, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Excess, of the Army Expenditure, beyond the Grants for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1860."
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had no wish to renew the discussion which had taken place on the previous day, or to object to the passing of the Vote. He must say, however, that there was nothing in the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Under Secretary for War to alter the opinions he had expressed. He entirely disclaimed any intention, which had been imputed to him, to make a personal attack on the late Secretary of State for War. He had doubted the accuracy of his figures from the first, and he should not have discharged his duty if he had not come forward and stated wherein he thought his calculations were mistaken.
  MR. T. G. BAKINGsaid, that he had not stated that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made any personal attack on Lord Herbert of Lea, and ho (Mr. Baring) had only defended the statement which had been made last year by his noble Friend against the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. No words had fallen from his lips which could lead any one for a moment to imagine that he had supposed that the right hon. and gallant Member meant a personal attack on Lord Herbert.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should move that the Vote be reduced to £l83,595. That was a remarkable instance of their total loss of control over the public money in consequence of the alteration which took place in 1845 in the Appropriation Act. They had no control over the expenditure either of the army or navy. In fact, he found that a million had been expended without the authority of Parliament, which he thought was too serious a matter to be passed over without

  1687
  notice, as it showed that that House had lost its control over the expenditure. He wished to ask whether in the last two months of 1859–60 there was not an excess in each of 9,559 and 11,327 respectively above the number of men voted by Parliament? He further wished to know whether any portion of the Vote in excess arose out of that excess in the number of men, and if not, from what source was the pay of that extra number defrayed? There were also two payments in the army grants which he thought were utterly indefensible, and upon which, unless satisfactorily explained, he should take the opinion of the Committee. One was a sum of £14,212 on account of the survey of London, and the other £8,820 for the survey of towns. It was stated that those works had been executed by the Board of Ordnance, respectively at the request of the Commissioners and the Board of Health; but, if that were so, those bodies should pay the expense, which could not legitimately be regarded as an army expenditure.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that there was certainly an excess upon some of the Votes; but, of the million spoken of by the hon. Baronet, 6£600,000 was expended for services caused by the China War, and was, therefore, properly charged to the Vote of Credit for that war; pound;200,000 was met by the savings upon other Votes, and the remaining £200,000 was the Vote now asked for. The excess upon the Votes did not arise from any excess in the number of regular troops, but from an excess in the number of the embodied militia, the excess in the number of regular troops in the months to which the hon. Baronet had referred was covered by their numbers having in others months been below the estimate. With respect to the two items which the hon. Baronet complained should have been charged to army services, the reason was that the work was originally done by the Ordnance Survey, which though strictly a civil service, yet was included in the Army Estimates. The money due on account of that work was partly repaid by the Board of Health. Those two balances, however, Were left over, and as it was found impossible to get the money, the Treasury decided that the sum should be borne by the army Votes.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had not met the case that had been put. There was an excess of expenditure of £973,000 upon five Votes.
  1688
  How was that excess met? The Vote of Credit was not moved until March 19, and, of course, the money had then been spent. There was no doubt when the Vote of Credit was taken it was applied to meet the excess as well as all the savings upon other Votes; but it appeared that the authority of the Treasury was only given on the 2nd of April this year. Before the 14th of March he had asked his hon. Friend three questions—first, whether any portion of the 500,000 was to be appropriated to meet the expenditure upon the ordinary estimate, and the reply was, "None." The second, question was whether the Treasury had given authority to appropriate the surplus upon other Votes, and the answer was in the negative. The third question was whether there would be any further Vote in excess, and the answer was "None." Now, he found that all the Vote of Credit, all the savings upon other Votes, had been disposed of before the expiration of the financial year. He had stated in March last year that £500,000 would not cover the excess of army expenditure, but that a further half million would be required. It now appeared that he was so far wrong that, instead of £500,000, the excess was £973,000.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that from the Returns he had moved for it appeared that the number of men voted for in 1859–60 was 122,659, and the number that was borne and paid out of the British Exchequer on the 1st of March, 1860, exclusive of the embodied militia, was 132,233 men, so that more than 10,000 men were kept and paid beyond the number voted by Parliament, which was unconstitutional. With regard to his Motion, it came to this, was a debt, whether it belonged to the Army or not, to be paid out of the Army Estimates? They might as well apply the money to the embankment of the Thames.
  MR. PEELsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet did not understand the question. The particular sums were irrecoverable debts due to army funds, and the only question was whether these sums should remain outstanding debts, or whether they should be charged to army grants. In 1848 the Commissioners of Sewers applied to the War Department to make a survey of London, they undertaking to repay the expense. The survey was made, and£10,000 paid on account, but when application was made to the Commissioners for

  1689
  the balance they said they could not pay without legislative sanction. The matter stood over, and when application was made to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in 1858, they objected to pay, upon the ground, among others, that if the Commissioners of Sewers had waited the survey would have been made for them gratis, there having been a survey made of the whole of England. The charge of £8,000 was made for surveys instituted by the Ordnance Department at the request of the Boards of Health of various towns, on the understanding that the local boards would pay for them, which they afterwards declined to do.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that the number of men voted by Parliament in 1859–60 was 122,050. At that time the number of men below the Estimates was 20,000, but they were represented by the embodied militia, and he deducted from the pay and allowances £125,000, which ho took for the militia. The money taken exactly corresponded with the number of men. What he wanted to know was out of men. What fund the expenditure of £978,000 was absolutely paid. Was it by appropriating the surplus of other Votes?
  MR. PEELsaid, that the Treasury gave authority for the issue from the Exchequer of the aggregate amount of the Votes on the Army Estimates, and they had no power of telling from day to day whether the amount of any particular Vote was exceeded or not. When the sum for 1859–60 was exhausted, application was made for a Vote of Credit, and then the Treasury gave authority to draw from the Exchequer on the Vote of Credit.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that the surplus of one financial year had clearly been devoted to meet the expenditure in excess of a previous year. He should like to know where the money was held during the interval.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know by what authority the Board of Ordnance had instituted these surveys of towns and sewers?
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he had never heard a more extraordinary statement than that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) did not understand what he was talking about. It now appeared that the ignorance was altogether on the side of the right hon. Gentleman. Earlier in the Session he had expressed an opinion that the Military Estimates would be
  1690
  nearer£16,000,000 than£14,500,000, the amount when they were first brought in. The House had, however, been called upon to vote for military expenditure alone, during the present Session, a sum little short of£17,000,000. He believed that such an expenditure was totally uncalled for, and that it was not distributed in the manner most serviceable to the Army.
  SIR WILLIAM VERNELR,in rising, pursuant to notice to call attention to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains for the army, said, that every one who got a commission in the army and navy was expected to be a gentleman. It was also universally admitted that all the persons appointed as chaplains had been educated at the College of Maynooth. He said that in many instances these chaplains originally came from a very low class of society, and were, therefore, unfitted to associate with and attend upon officers in the army. He pointed out other inconveniences connected with the appointments, and complained of the great increase in their number of late and the consequent augmentation of expense.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding£183,596 13 s. 2d. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Excess of the Army Expenditure, beyond the Grants for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1860."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 45; Noes 52: Majority 7.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.)£637,000, Disembodied Militia.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSremarked upon the enormous standing army kept up, and pronounced it to be unnecessary, considering the great Volunteer force which had sprung up. He would begrudge no funds for making the navy equal to meet all comers; but the army was preposterously large. He objected to the Vote for the disembodied Militia, believing that body to be very inferior to the Volunteers.
  Lord BURGHLEYsaid, he hoped that something would be done for the Militia surgeons, who were most inadequately remunerated for their services. Ho suggested that that they should either receive permanent pay on the Staff, or have a certain amount of lodging-money allowed to them.
  COLONEL DUNNEremarked that Ireland must be very badly off, for, as it was not allowed Volunteers, it had to put up with, according to the hon. Member for Lambeth, a very defective militia force.

  1691
  But his estimate of the latter force was very different from that of the hon. Member. The efficiency of the force, however, very much depended on the Inspectors. Hitherto officers of the Line only had received those appointments. He thought the Inspectors should hold commissions in the militia. With regard to the lodging-money of the Serjeant-Major (4d. per day) it was only the mere pay given to a private in the army. He considered it ought to be increased, for the Serjeant-Major had many responsibilities resting upon him. He objected to the item of £500 for rewards for discovery of deserters, considering money so spent ill-spent. He thought instructors in musketry ought to be supplied by the Government. The Adjutants were too much occupied to be able to perform this duty. With these alterations he thought the Militia would be made perfectly efficient.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he believed that if half the attention were paid to the Militia that was devoted to Volunteers the former would be as fine a force as the country could possibly have to fall back upon.
  MAJOR WINDSOR PARKERsaid, that the Volunteers and the Militia were drawn from very different classes of the community, and there was a difference between their motives for enlistment, but the only rivalry between the two forces was in their desire to be of service to their country.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he fully concurred in the observations of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Parker). He considered an officer of the Line had full power to inspect. The question raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) as to lodging-money and desertion would be taken into consideration. Arrangements were being made for supplying instructors in musketry to the Militia, and due consideration would be given to the other suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member who had addressed the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £30,000, further charges for Volunteer corps.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought it was a miserable sum, and that, unless the Government acted more liberally towards the Volunteers, the movement would ultimately fail.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution reported.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) had correctly stated last night that the fresco of King Lear had been seriously injured by decay.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that any one who would take the trouble to use his eyesight would see that the fresco had sustained no injury, and that the figure of Cordelia was in as perfect a state as when the late Sir Robert Peel had referred to Mr. Herbert's noble work as fully justifying all the money expended upon the House in frescoes.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Order for Committee read.

  APPROPRIATION BILL.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to know, Whether the Appropriation Bill would be printed, and. in the hands of hon. Members, before the second reading? He should be glad also to know why the usual Appropriation Clause, the most important of the Bill, had been omitted from the Bill in the second Session of 1857 and again in the second Session of 1859?
  THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUERsaid, that so far as he was aware, the printing of the Appropriation Bill was conducted by the officers of the House, and the Treasury had not interfered with it. A regular account was kept by the clerks of the House of the Votes in Supply, which was checked by an account kept by the Treasury. Therefore, the accuracy of the Appropriation Bill depended on the accuracy of these accounts. Whether the Bill should be printed or not was more a matter for the consideration of the House than the Government. He could not say why the clause was omitted from the Act of 1857, as he was not then a Member of the Government.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was omitted from the Act of the second Session of 1859, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make no difficulty about printing the Appropriation Bill, which ought to be in the hands of hon. Members.

THE NEW SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITE: I beg to ask a question of the noble 'Viscount at the head of the Government. A new writ has been moved for Tamworth, and I' wish to ask, Whether the hon. Baronet has really been appointed Secretary for Ireland; and, if so, whether he is still a member of the Carlton Club?
  VISCOUNT PALMEBSTON: Sir Robert Peel has accepted the office of Secretary for Ireland. In regard to the Carlton Club, I am not in the secrets of that body.

  WATS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  1.Resolved,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there be issued and applied, to the service of the year 1861, the sum of £424,207 7s., being the surplus of Ways and Means granted for the service of preceding years."
  2. Resolved,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £32,605,936 11 s 5 d., be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  WINDSOR SUSPENDED CANONRIES BILL—CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he should move, after Clause 1, to insert the following clause:—
  "The said Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall hereafter pay over to the said dean and canons, or permit them to retain, one half-part of the share of divisible revenues of one other of the said suspended canonries, and the said dean and canons shall pay and apply the same unto and equally between the said vicars choral, in augmentation of their present emoluments."
  The adoption of that clause would only do justice to the vicars-choral, who were in his opinion fully entitled to the provision which he desired to make for them.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, that all gentlemen who were desirous to secure the proper performance of the services of the Church of England, especially in our cathedrals, ought to support a proposal for giving a fair remuneration to the lay clerks, whose position had during a long series of years been continually becoming
  1694
  worse and worse, and whose emoluments were now entirely inadequate to the proper remuneration of their services. He should, therefore, vote for the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was sorry that it was not in his power to accede to this Amendment. He had already carried the proposal for dealing with the suspended canonries to the furthest limit to which it was expedient to go. The hon. Member for Bristol had spoken of the vicars-choral as though they were I clergymen, but in fact they were nothing more than the singing men of the choir. It was quite competent for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to raise the stipends of the vicars-choral out of the Cathedral funds without legislative interference.
  MR. G. W HOPEobserved that he should be happy to see further remuneration granted to these persons.
  MR. VANSITTARTobserved that, even if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the Amendment, the revenues of five and a half canonries would remain to the Commissioners. He thought that the claim of the vicars-choral was a very just, one.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 44: Majority 17.
  Lord JOHN MANNERSobserved that the whole tenor of modern legislation had been to respect the local claims of parishes, and he, therefore, wished a clause to be introduced to the effect that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have due regard to such claims before they appropriated tithes. The great tithes of Wraysbury, which were £392 a year, were proposed to he given to the Military Knights and the two livings of Windsor. The net revenue of the clergyman of the parish of Wraysbury was£86 a year without any house to live in. They ought first to satisfy the just claims of that parish, and then he should have no objection to improve the condition of the Military Knights of Windsor.
  Clause (Local claims in respect of Tithes) brought up, and read 1o.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if neither the clause nor the Bill were passed the proceeds would go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and would be appropriated to increase the small livings generally, but not necessarily the living of Wraysbury. The Chapter of Windsor was on a totally different footing. The other chapters were no precedent for it, nor was it a precedent

  1695
  for the other chapters. The proposed arrangement was fair and equitable, and he hoped the Committee would not assent to the anomalous clause proposed by the noble Lord.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that Wraysbury would be left by the Bill precisely as it was before, and, in fact, Wraysbury had no claim.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  Clause 2 (Appropriation of Profits of Eighth Canonry to Churches),
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that if they went on nibbling in this way at the source of revenue of the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they would very soon have other claims as irresistible, and the common fund would disappear. It was a retrograde step in legislation which was gradually bearing fruit with the greatest possible advantage. He, therefore, felt it his duty to divide the Committee against the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not propose the clause as part of a general policy, and it would not become a precedent.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsupported the clause on the ground that it recognized local claims.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMobserved that whatever specialty might have been in the case of Windsor there was a waiver on the part of the Crown of its rights. If the clause received the sanction of Parliament it would reverse the principle on which the common fund was placed.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he thought that it was a great oversight in the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission that some stipulation was not laid down that parishes, the tithes of which were dealt with, should be considered in reference to their spiritual wants before the money was applied to other purposes. But that was not proposed to be done by the present Bill, and he could not support a clause which established in that case exceptional legislation, which was not applied to other cases.
  MR. HENLEYobserved that if the clause passed the common fund would be gone.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 13: Majority 26.
  Clause 3 (Mode of ascertaining Amount of Payments to be retained),
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he would propose an Amendment in Clause 3, the effect of which would be to exclude commanders and masters in the navy from the privileges of naval knights. The intention of the bequest was that these persons should be exclusively lieutenants in the navy.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause to follow Clause 3, line 5, to leave out from "knights" to "it," in line 7.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.