Commons Sitting of 14 March 1861

MINUTES.
Public Bills—1a London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance; Industrial Schools; Election Law Amendment; Voters (Ireland); Consolidated Fund(£4,000,000); Sheriff Courts Jurisdiction (Scotland).
3a Red Sea and India Telegraph.

SALE OF GAS.—QUESTION.
MR. JACKSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, at an early date, a Bill to remedy the defects of existing legislation in regard to the measures used in the Sale of Gas?
MR. CLIYEsaid, the last Act passed on the subject was the 22 & 23 Vict. c. 66, commonly called Lord Redesdale's Act, but its operation was suspended for the purpose of enabling those conditions enacted in the third section to be carried out. That section had been submitted to the Exchequer, but its conditions had not yet been fulfilled. When they were the Act would be brought into operation. Probably some defects might be found in the Act, which would have to be considered. It would be unwise, however, for the Government to introduce any measure to remove such defects before the Act itself came into operation, and the public were made acquainted with the nature of it.

TELEGRAPHIC CABLE BETWEEN MALTA AND ALEXANDRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a competent and experienced English engineer and electrician to
  1958
  succeed the late Mr. Gisborne, and to superintend the submersion, by the contractors, of the cable between Malta and Alexandria, and whether measures have been taken for the safe preservation of the cable, and who is the person now responsible for its safe keeping?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the contractors were responsible for the safe keeping of the cable. They would be heavy losers if they failed to take care of it. The precautions which the Government had taken for its safe custody were by having electricians to test its condition from time to time, and to report thereon to the Government. With regard to the appointment of a successor to Mr. Gisborne, all he could say was, when the time, came for submerging the cable between Malta and Alexandria, the Government would take care to have competent engineers and electricians there to superintend the operation.

  THE CENSUS.—QUESTION.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the new Census Tables are to be published under the head of Counties Proper, or Registration Counties based upon the Poor Law Unions?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would take care, as far as the counties proper were concerned, that the total population should be ascertained. But whether returns of the population in the other form could be given remained to be decided.

  NAVAL FORCES IN CHINA.—QUESTION
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether an Admiralty Circular has been issued to the Navy, informing that Service that for the future the extra Pay and Allowances given to the Officers serving in China will be discontinued?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, a Circular had been issued, intimating that the extra pay and allowances given to Officers serving in China would be discontinued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the House was aware that considerable delay had taken place with regard to the business to be transacted in Committee of Supply, and he would therefore ask the House to consider whether it would not

1959
promote the despatch of business if hon. Members who had Motions on going into Committee of Supply that evening should at all events postpone them, so as to allow the Committee of Supply to begin not later than nine o'clock? The statement might then be made that evening with regard to the Army Estimates, and the Tote for men might be brought at least under the consideration of the House. "With regard to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) his Motion was germane to the subject of the statement, and the business would be rather promoted than retarded if the Motion were made on the question of Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair; but with regard to the other Motions, he (Sir George Lewis) thought that their postponement would tend to the despatch of business and the general convenience of the House.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he had come down to the House with the intention of submitting a question connected with the Volunteer Force. In consequence, however, of the appeal just made by the right hon. Gentleman, he would reserve what he had to say until the Vote relating to the Volunteer Force came before the Committee.

PROPOSED PARK FOR FINSBURY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTOIT PETOsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What proceedings have been taken in the purchase of land or otherwise for the purpose of forming the Finsbury Park pursuant to the Act 20 & 21 Viet., c. 150; and if no steps have been taken, whether they will be taken so as to carry out the provisions of the Act—namely, five years from its passing in 1857, or whether it is intended to apply for powers to extend the time for carrying out the same?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that no steps appeared to have been taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works in reference to the formation of the Park, but a Resolution was passed some few years ago by that Board which stated that it was inexpedient to take any steps for the formation of the Park until the Board of Works was placed in possession of funds other than those derived from the direct taxation of the ratepayers. He was not aware what steps had been taken in reference to the extension of the powers of the Act,
  1960
  which expires in 1862. He might say, however, that no opposition would be given to any proposal to extend their powers beyond 1862.
  On Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply,

THE CHINA WAR—QUESTION.
GENERAL PEELsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What portion of the sum of £850,000, granted by Parliament to cover the entire expenditure on account of the China War during the financial year 1859–60 has been appropriated to, or is reserved for, the liquidation of the claims of the Indian Government, on account of advances made or expenses incurred in India. His object in putting the Question was to endeavour to obtain, before proceeding with the Estimates of next year, some information relative to the expenditure of 1859–60. The only true test to be applied to the Estimates was a comparison with the actual expenditure of previous years; the mere comparison of the Estimates of one year with those of another year, which Was now so much the practice, being utterly fallacious, unless we knew whether those previous Estimates had answered their purpose or not. It would be in the recollection of the House that the sum of £850,000 was voted at the end of the financial year 1859–60 for meeting any excess of expenditure in the army and navy Votes in consequence of the China war. The necessity of that Vote was, no doubt, rendered apparent by the information received by the Government from the Indian Government of the money that would be required. It was not very creditable to the Indian Government that when they were called upon in February, 1861, to give an account of what those expenses were, they merely rendered the bare Estimate which they had presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in February, 1860. He supposed it would not be disputed that this Vote of Credit was necessary to meet the sum stated to be required by the Indian Government early in the spring. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he observed, shook his head, but he could prove it by abundant evidence—by the evidence given by the gentlemen from the Treasury examined before the Organization Committee, and by the testimony of the Secretary of State for War.

1961
But that on which he particularly relied was the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he was in possession of these facts on the 28th of January, long before he made his financial statement. If that Vote of Credit were not intended to cover those expenses then the right hon. Gentleman was open to the charge that he had not dealt fairly with the House when he brought forward his Budget. The right hon. Gentleman then believed that this Vote would be perfectly sufficient to cover all the charges inasmuch as he endeavoured to make the House believe it. But he (General Peel) never believed it, and he stated his conviction at the time, founded upon a comparison of the actual expenditure of previous years, that the portion of that sum,—namely, £500,000—and devoted to the army—would not cover the excess of expenditure on five Votes of the ordinary estimate of the year. He (General Peel) stated that in the previous year 1858–9 the average number of effectives on the British establishment was 130,235, and the absolute expenditure on the Votes he had mentioned was £7,403,003. Of that sum upwards of £400,000 was repayable by the Indian Government and did not properly belong to the expenses of these troops. Now, in 1859–60 the average number of effectives was 139,000, and the money voted was £6,700,000; in other words, there were 9,000 more men and £700,000 loss money voted for them. On that occasion he said he was perfectly convinced that, on those Votes alone there was an excess of £600,000. He did not, however, succeed in convincing his noble Friend (Lord Herbert) who appealed, he said, not to Estimates, but to formal accounts of the money spent and told him he might rest assured that the Government would run into no excess, and that, after making a liberal allowance for embodied militia and other miscellaneous charges, there would be a saving of £5,000 on these Votes. That statement was made within a fortnight of the conclusion of the financial year. What surprised him still more was that his noble Friend stated there would be a great saving on the Vote for stores. Now, the only expenses that could possibly be incurred in this country for the Chinese war was in regard to stores. With the exception of a battery of Armstrong guns, not a single man in that Chinese expedition went from this country, the whole of
1962
the army proceeding from India, and the whole expenditure was defrayed by the Indian Government. Now, who was right? Was it the noble Lord or himself? If the noble Lord were right, that sum of £850,000 was still applicable to paying the Indian Government, and ought to be so applicable under any circumstances, because the noble Lord ridiculed the idea that any portion of this money could be applied to cover any excess of expenditure on the Votes of the year. In July following, when the noble Lord was moving for a fresh Vote of Credit, he (Gen. Peel) asked him whether any portion of that sum of £500,000 had been expended in making up the deficiencies in the ordinary expenditure of the preceding year? The answer of the Secretary for War was that not one sixpence of that sum was applicable, or would be applied in making up the deficiency in the ordinary expenditure of the year, and that the deficiency, if any, would be met by a special Vote of Credit. As no such Vote of Credit had been taken, the House would naturally conclude that he (General Peel) was wrong, but so long as there were Votes of Credit, so long as there were unsettled balances and open accounts with India, so long as the Treasury were able to apply money voted for one purpose to meet an excess of expenditure on another—so long as that practice continued would that House have no control whatever over the expenditure of the money they had voted. He would not say that the power of appropriating money sometimes to a different purpose from that for which it was voted might not be absolutely necessary. But in these cases he would leave the power and the responsibility with the Secretary of State. At present when the Secretary of State had obtained the consent of the Treasury the responsibility was thrown over a great number of persons. But this power of appropriating Votes was nothing compared with the power derived from the system of keeping continuous open accounts with India. Governments under this system actually had the power of carrying on war and paying for it out of those open accounts, of carrying it on with Indian troops, the country not hearing a word about it except from the newspapers until the House was called upon to pay some large lump sum as the balance between the English and Indian Exchequer. This was not only possible, but was at this moment actually going on. They had Indian troops em-

1963
ployed in China for which no Vote had been taken, and of which they would never hear until some lump sum was demanded. He had not the courage at present to propose another Committee upstairs, but if there were one subject more than another that deserved a strict investigation by that House it was the manner of carrying on the accounts between the Indian Government and the English Government. He was opposed to such Committees as had been recently appointed, for he thought that the legitimate control with respect to the expenditure was in the House of Commons itself. It was notorious, and it had been admitted by two gentlemen of the Treasury before the Organization of the Army Committee, that the military expenditure connected with India was on a very unsatisfactory footing; and the noble Secretary for War bore out exactly what he was stating. He said, "The great complaint of the system was that, in point of fact, the House had no power over the Executive as to the number of troops employed. They could vote the men under the Mutiny Act, and not a man more could be employed; but if we employed Indian troops there was no check on the amount of the expenditure until we were called on to pay in a lump sum." The Organization Committee reported that the present system was unsatisfactory, and they bore out what he said as to want of control. He did not blame the present Government for this; for it existed long before they came into office. There were at that moment five open accounts with India, going as far back as the Persian war. In 1858 Lord Canning sent from India to China three regiments of Native troops, without any communication with him (General Peel) whatever. He reported to the Treasury that those troops had arrived and that he had no money to pay them, and he was told that their pay had been placed in account to the Indian Government. The consequence was that nothing more was heard of them for a year or two, till the second Vote of Credit in July. The Indian troops had all the time been in excess of the Vote of the House. He wanted to know in the first place if that £850,000 was not still available to meet those charges of the Indian Government. There was this difference between a Vote of Credit and the ordinary Estimates. In ordinary Estimates they could not pay the money till after the conclusion of the financial year; the Vote of Credit was for a specific purpose. What
1964
he wanted to know was this. Whether the money supplied by the Vote of Credit was not still available to meet the charges of the Indian Government for war purposes, and whether any portion had been appropriated to pay the ordinary Estimates of the year? Had the Treasury sanctioned any appropriation of money to other purposes than that for which they were voted to meet an excess on other Votes, and would no further sum be required in order to meet the excess of 1859–60?
In order to prevent the necessity of his addressing the House a second time, he would now proceed to make a few observations on the Estimates now about to be submitted to the House. The Army Estimates, from remarks in the public newspapers, appeared to be less understood than any other. He had seen it stated in one paper that the hand of the economist might be traced in every page of the Estimates, and that the great reduction in the Vote for fortification was a step in the right direction. It was also stated in The Times of Monday that the great excess of the Army and Navy Estimates arose, in the latter case from the necessity of reconstructing the navy, and in the former from the necessity of providing rifled ordnance. Now, of the whole £424,383 required for iron ordnance, shot and shell, not one-third was applicable to rifled cannon. He wished that every year a regular debtor and creditor account with respect to the Government manufacturing establishments, showing whether they were carried on profitably or not, were inserted in the Estimates. The amount of the Army Estimates was always entirely dependent on the number of men voted. The simplest possible plan for ascertaining the amount of money required for the service of the army was to take the number of men voted and add two 0's to it, and the figures then gave a very close approximation in pounds sterling to the amount required for the service; in other words, the expense was £100 per man; and his only reliance upon the present Estimates arose from the fact that they seemed to square with that rule. The number of men to be voted was 146,044, and the proposed total expenditure for the army was £14,606,751; according to his rule it would be £14,604,000—a difference of only £2,351 in this enormous sum. When once the number of men was voted, 75 per cent of the Estimates were withdrawn from the discretion of the House; for the Vote for the number carried

1965
with it a variety of other Votes. The present Estimates were, perhaps, the most important ever placed before the House. They might be looked on as the cost of the peace establishment of the country; for at present the country was at peace with the whole world, with the exception of a few regiments necessary for a China garrison and for New Zealand. There was no reason to expect, then, that the number of men could ever be much reduced. He could imagine the anxiety with which many hon. Members might have looked for reductions in these Estimates, but all that they could find was that the net decrease amounted to £185,795. Considering that last year we were carrying on an expensive war, and that this year we were at peace, the decrease was not a large one. Hon. Members might infer, too, on looking at the Estimates, that they were called on to vote rather more men in this year of peace than during the last year of war; but the fact was, that instead of there being an increase in men, there were 9,000 men of embodied militia less provided for. He did not intend to make any observation on the disembodying of those militia troops. They had acquired great proficiency, which was highly creditable to those having the management of them. Some portion of that militia force consisted of artillery, and the Government showed an anxiety to turn a part into a regiment of Royal Artillery. The head of the War Department admitted that in that respect he had made a great mistake; and it was to be hoped that no attempt would be made to place any of the militia officers, by giving them commissions in the Line, over the heads of men who had fought their way up to the positions they now held.
He should next, with the permission of the House, proceed to show that the Estimates which were about to be proposed would not meet the expenses of our war establishment.
MR. T. G. BARINGrose to order, and appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be the fairer and more satisfactory course to adopt to postpone any remarks which he might have to make as to the alleged inaccuracy of the Estimates until they had been submitted to the House. He made that appeal with the more confidence because, from what had already fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it was evident he was under a misapprehension with respect to some of the points on which he had touched.
GENERAL PEEL: The observations of the hon. Gentleman did not apply to the statements which he was about to make. A decrease of £185,000 was claimed for the Estimates as compared with those of last year; but no such decrease in reality existed, inasmuch as the alleged saving was gained by a reduction in the Vote for fortifications, which was merely a transference of the money which had been voted for that purpose last year in the Estimates to the loan this year. He should further observe that the amount of money asked for in the present Estimates would not pay for the number of men which it was intended to maintain. That number was 144,822, while the number of effectives on our establishment was, according to the return which had been laid before the House in February last, 143,481, so that, to complete the establishment, 1,341 more would be required. It must, however, be borne in mind that deductions, from the Vote for pay and allowances, had been made of £127,000, equal to the pay of 4,300 men, and that the country would, in April next, be left in the position of having upon its establishment 3,000 men in excess of the number for which money was asked. But that was not all. Look to the Indian establishment. The number of men sought to be voted for our Indian establishment was 66,729, the absolute number of effectives on that establishment having been, on the 1st of February last, 84,443; so that there would be on Indian establishment an excess of 17,714 men on the 1st of April next. Now, what, he should like to know, did the Government propose to do with these men? He, for one, could not exactly see how they were to be got rid of, and could not help thinking that the present Estimates must be founded on the same false principles as those which had originally been brought forward last year, and proceeded on the assumption that the Indian Government would keep a greater number of men than they were actually prepared to maintain. Under these circumstances it was clear either that the Indian establishment must be reduced by the number of men now upon it, over and above that which was required, or that we must wait until they had been sent back to this country, or become absorbed—a process which would occupy more than two years. That being so, he should like to know what arrangements had been made for the repayment to the

1967
Indian Government of the money which they would have to expend in keeping up a number of men in excess of their establishment. The hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War, had, he might add, on Monday last, informed the House that there were 3,840 Indian troops in China. Those men, it was very evident, would, after the 1st of April, be in excess of our establishment, and no money was provided for them in the present Estimates. The real question, after all, however, was, whether the number of men asked for in the Estimates was adequate to the defence of the country The total number of battalions in the infantry of the Line amounted to 132; of these 50 battalions were required for service in India, which he understood was the number to be permanently maintained there, 40 would be wanted for the Colonies and foreign garrisons, thus leaving 42 battalions for home service—a number which he did not think could be regarded as excessive. It was merely sufficient to enable us to carry out our system of reliefs, as regiments remained ten years abroad and five at home. He was of opinion that 100,000 men, which was the number he calculated would be left at home—a number which Sir John Burgoyne, in his evidence, stated ought to be 200,000—was not larger than was expedient; and, in making that statement, he did not overlook that splendid exhibition of patriotism, the Volunteer movement, which, however, he trusted would always be regarded as furnishing a valuable auxiliary to, not a substitute for, the regular army. In conclusion, he had only to say that he found no fault with the Estimates, except that they did not convey a fair representation of the amount of money which the House would have to vote for the army. The House would probably support the Government in these Estimates; but he thought it was not desirable the House should be called upon to proceed with its eyes blindfolded in so important a matter.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was with very great regret he felt it to be his duty to animadvert on a Member of the House so much and so deservedly respected as the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He must, however, observe that the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken that evening, and at a time when hon. Members were seeking to effect amendments in the mode of transacting the public business, was, to say the least of it, extremely
1968
inconvenient. The right hon. Gentleman had inverted the order of business and had entered into a review of the Estimates in anticipation of the statement which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War was about to make; although the rules of the House provided that on the presentation of the Estimates they should be referred to a Committee of Supply to be there discussed. He might add that it was the practice, in conformity with ordinary courtesy, to allow the organ of the Government an opportunity of explaining the Estimates. After that explanation the Members of the House in general, and even the younger Members, were satisfied to commence their comments; and he must, moreover, say that the display of that courtesy might with more than usual justice be claimed when the task of bringing forward the Estimates fell to the lot of an hon. Gentleman who had but recently become responsible in the House of Commons, in relation to the affairs of the army, and who might, therefore, naturally anticipate that obstacles, instead of being thrown in his way, would, as far as possible, be removed from his path. He should not here further allude to the remarks which the gallant General had made on the Estimates, and thus imitate the irregularity of which he had been guilty, beyond saying that, so far as his recollection went, the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken was entirely without precedent, and expressing a hope that it would be adopted on no future occasion. Passing, then, from that subject, he might observe that the gallant General had given him notice that he should put a question to him which he had not put; while he had asked him three questions of which he had not given notice. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) course was to afford all the information he could in the very limited aspect of the case with which he had to deal, because it was not for him to enter on the question of controversy raised between the gallant General and his hon. Friend last year as to the sufficiency of the Votes for the army service. He should leave that matter to his hon. Friend; but he would first answer, as well as he could, the question of the gallant General as it appeared on the paper. The question of which the hon. and gallant General had given notice was, "What portion of the sum of £850,000 granted by Parliament to cover the entire expenditure on account of the

1969
China war during the financial year 1859–60 has been appropriated to, or is reserved for, the liquidation of the claims of the Indian Government on account of advances made or expenses incurred in India?" It appeared to him that the right hon. and gallant General had, to a certain extent, misunderstood the effect of the Return which had been made to the House of the Motion of the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) last year. The hon. and gallant General seemed to he of opinion that, inasmuch as a sum amounting to about £610,000 of Indian expenditure was to be anticipated on account of the Chinese expedition at the time when the financial statement was made last year, and when the Vote of £850,000 was announced, £610,000 out of that £850,000 ought to have been set aside to meet Indian claims. He did not concur in that opinion. The Vote of £850,000 which the Government proposed as a Vote of Credit for the small residue of the financial year 1859–60, was necessarily indefinite to a certain extent, but it had reference to the periods within which the payments could be made, as well as to the ultimate claims which might arise during the remaining portion of the financial year.
GENERAL PEEL: It referred entirely to the China war.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Quite so, but the hon. and gallant General would recollect that the sum of £610,000, which was the principal item of the amount estimated, not claimed, was not a service which could probably be appropriated to the year 1859–60, because, although the expression used was "early in the spring of 1860," it was understood to mean the time at which the expedition was to sail—namely, some time in May—and, consequently, the claim was not one which, in the judgment of the Government, was properly applicable to the Vote of Credit granted in respect of the year which was to end on the 31st of March. The Government had to consider two things—first, the financial provision for the latter end of 1859–60; and, secondly, the financial provision for 1860–61. So much for the principle of the Vote of Credit, and, therefore, he should say that the main object of the Vote was to supply means for meeting such excess upon the army and navy expenditure as might be justly due to the expedition to China. The application of the Vote might be
1970
shortly stated. The navy in consequence of its having a sufficiency upon its ordinary Votes, made no claim whatever upon the Vote of Credit. A sum was provisionally allotted to it, but that arrangement was afterwards cancelled. The army, on the contrary, would absorb a very large portion of the Vote of Credit. He apprehended, however, that it could require nothing in aid of its ordinary Votes, except what it could show to have been expended on account of the Chinese expedition. The right hon. and gallant General knew that the army accounts were not yet closed, and he believed the separation of expenses between ordinary services and Chinese services was not yet completed. What he was given to understand was that the whole of the army claims on account of the Chinese expedition would be satisfied, and that the residue of the Vote of £850,000, whatever it might be, whether more or less than £200,000, would be applicable to meet the Indian claims on account of that portion of time. He must also point out to the right hon. and gallant General, with respect to these Indian claims, that it was quite impossible to make an accurate separation of accounts in respect to the periods to which the charges belonged, because, unfortunately, the Indian financial year did not coincide with ours. The Indian accounts were made up to the end of April, whereas ours were made up to the end of March; and he did not expect it would be possible to divide the Indian expenditure accurately between the year 1859–60 and the year 1860–61. Here, in passing, he might be allowed to express his entire concurrence in what the right hon. and gallant General had said with respect to the great inconveniences and disadvantages that attended the enormous depending accounts between the Indian and British Governments. It was hardly possible to exaggerate them, and, in point of fact, at particular periods they were the means of greatly misleading the House of Commons. At one time we were in large advance to the Indian Government, and then our expenditure at home appeared much greater than it really was; at another the Indian Government was rather in advance with us, and then our expenditure appeared less than it really was. Independently, therefore, of other objections, the existing state of things had a serious effect upon the functions of the House of Commons; and he, for one,

1971
should be glad when the time came, when by whatever instrumentality, the accounts could be put upon a better footing. All he could say at present was that, although great changes had taken place of late years, they had been entirely to the disadvantage of the British Exchequer. Last year, when we were called upon to make a heavy financial provision for the existing Chinese war, we were likewise obliged to pay up heavy arrears for a former Chinese war. At the present moment, we were pretty well up with the Indian Government, and, indeed, he might go the length of saying that, including all that the Indian authorities had spent on behalf of the Chinese expedition, they owed us a good deal more money than we owed them. We were, therefore, out of pocket for the moment, but with a prospect of reimbursement. He would now answer the three questions which the right hon. and gallant General had put to him. So far as he was aware, no portion of the sum of £850,000 had been, or could have been, applied to any ordinary Votes. He was unable to state, the right hon. and gallant General not having given him notice of his question, whether there had been any transfer of Votes from one army service to another. Such a transfer might have taken place in some matter not of great importance—of a mere administrative character; but, if so, it must have escaped his recollection, if, indeed, it had ever been within his knowledge. However, the question could be answered so as to give full information if the right hon. and gallant General would allow time for the purpose. With respect to the question whether there was to be a Vote for an excess over the Army Estimates of last year, that was a part of the controversy between the right hon. and gallant General and the Under Secretary for War, and all he could say was that no application had up to the present time been made to the Treasury for any such purpose. As he had already stated, the separation of expenditure on the part of the War Department between the Chinese services and the ordinary services was not yet completed, and he should leave his hon. Friend the Under Secretary to enter further into that matter. Officially he had received no information on the subject.
MR. DISRAELI:—The answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, it appears to me, fully justified the first part of the observations of my right hon. and gal-
1972
lant Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has made some important admissions; but he has not supplied my right hon. and gallant Friend with the whole of that information which he desired to obtain. I should like to know whether any portion of the sum of £850,000 was appropriated to the Indian service. But I quite despair—
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought I had stated that the great bulk of the Vote of £850,000 would be appropriated to army expenditure, and that the residue would be applicable in satisfaction of the Indian claims. I may be permitted to add that the payments made to the Indian Government up to the present time on account of the Chinese war amount in all to £1,111,000
MR. DISRAELI:—I will not pursue the subject further except to express my hope that ere long we shall have an accelerated audit. Until we have it it will be impossible to enter upon any intelligent criticism. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehended the spirit of the observations of my right hon. and gallant Friend in the second portion of his observations. When the right hon. Gentleman says there was a want of courtesy and of fairness in these observations towards the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War, I must say I drew a very different inference. I thought he conferred on the hon. Gentleman a great advantage, and that the position taken by my gallant Friend was one which if I had been in the responsible position of a Minister I should have deemed one of great courtesy and consideration from a leading Member of the Opposition. My right hon. and gallant Friend expressed his approbation of the policy of the Government—so far as their estimate of the proper amount of force. Surely it was an enormous advantage to a young Minister that he found he was not to fight a battle with the Opposition, but that he would be assisted with the advice of my right hon. and gallant Friend. On the other hand, my right hon. and gallant Friend impressed upon the notice of the House and the Government that in his opinion they had not demanded sufficient funds to pay for the maintenance of this force. This gave the hon. Gentleman the advantage of knowing what, in the opinion of the Opposition, were the weak points with which he would have to deal. With that adroit-

1973
ness which I have no doubt distinguishes the hon. Gentleman—else he would not have been placed in a position which I have no doubt he is quite adequate to fill—he will find that this is one of the most favourable opportunities that could be given to a young Minister, and I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman will know how to avail himself of it. When he rises to make his statement he will know that he has to address himself to an Opposition which has already assented to the amount of force, and which has intimated its opinion that he ought to ask for more money. I suspect, indeed, that the hon. Gentleman will find that any observations of an unpleasant character which may be made will come from below the gangway on his own side. At all events, the remarks of the hon. and gallant General cannot be said to be deficient in courtesy or in fairness to the Under Secretary, whose statement would now be heard with much interest and attention.

RAMY—NEW BARRACK STOVES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILLIAM STUART,in pursuance of notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the new Stoves or Stove Grates lately placed in the barracks in London, Portsmouth, Chatham, and other stations; and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, The name of the Inventor of these Stoves, the name of the Contractor, the cost of the Stoves themselves, and the expense of fitting them at the different stations; also, whether any Officer in command of a district, garrison, or regiment, or any Barrack Master in charge of a station, has reported favourably of the experiment; and whether the economy of fuel has been sufficient to justify the expense incurred in the alteration? These stoves, he was told, had caused a great consumption of fuel without anything like a correspondent benefit, even where the number of men in the barracks had been reduced. Some of the grates had been made for the old barracks, and he understood that the expense of alteration amounted to £4,000 for Chatham and £1,500 or £2,000 for Portsmouth. He wished to ask if these alterations were going on in other portions of the country. From what he had learned, these stoves were failures, either for giving out warmth or in promoting economy. The grates were too small, and the warm air which was generated came
  1974
  from a height of eight feet from the ground. The tendency of this state of things was to make heads hot and feet cold. The sufferings of the men daring the passing winter had been considerable; in many instances the men were glad to get a rug from another man's bed. The barrack masters had been ordered to try these stoves, and one principal defect was found to be, that fuel which had formerly lasted seven days was consumed in live, and when a requisition was sent for more fuel the reply was that the regular winter allowance had already been issued. Many of the officers were obliged to supply fuel at their own expense. All the while the Estimates were largely increasing. The Estimate for fuel and lights in 1859 was only £96,000, in 1860–61 it was £112,000, and for the present year it amounted to £172,000. He complained of the great expense of these experiments being forced on the country, to the discomfort of those immediately affected by them. In this way large sums were annually frittered away in trying experiments which turned out to be failures.
  MR. T. G. BARING,in reply to the Questions put by the gallant Officer, begged to state that the inventor of these stoves was Captain Galton, an officer who had paid great attention to the improvement of the comfort of the soldier, and the contractor was Mr. Kennard. Captain Galton had no pecuniary interest in the matter. The stoves were designed for ventilating as well as warming, and he had been informed by Major Buckley, Barrack Master at Chatham, that by their use fresh air was introduced into the barrack rooms, so that the air was pure and sweet, even after the men had slept in them all night. Having been to the barracks and seen the stoves in operation he quite admitted that there was some inconvenience in them. They did not produce so large a fire or afford the same convenience to the soldier in heating his dinner as the former stoves. There were some defects to be remedied; but after the alterations suggested had been made he thought that the objection to the stoves would to a great extent be removed. The expense of putting up these stoves had, no doubt, been very considerable, chiefly on account of the apparatus for ventilating; but the actual cost of the stoves themselves was very small—only £3 10s. for the medium size, and £3 15s. for the large size. The expense occasioned was chiefly with a view to ventilation.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he was one of the officers who had tried these stoves at Portsmouth, and could state that these stoves were an utter and entire failure. What might be the effect of the improvements suggested he could not say, but on one occasion, when he went round his barrack-room, a thermometer being placed at either end, he found the one where the stove was to introduce hot air at zero, and where there was to be no hot air the thermometer stood much higher. The stoves were also condemned by the medical officers of the regiment, and he believed also by the general commanding in the district. As far as regarded Portsmouth garrison he believed there had not been a single report in favour of the stoves except from the inventor.

HUNGARIAN NOTES.—QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—or perhaps the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would have the goodness to answer—What instructions were given to Sir Richard Mayne, in reference to the alleged manufacture of Notes in this Country in the name of Hungary, and what course Sir Richard Mayne took upon those instructions; by what authority Sir Richard Mayne required the Messrs. Day to suspend the manufacture of the Notes; and by whom the expenses of the proceedings taken are to be defrayed? It appeared that early in February an application was made at the Foreign Office to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London by the Austrian Government, or by the representative of Austria in this country to stop the manufacture of notes which was said to be going on at the establishment of the Messrs. Day. The noble Lord entertained the question, and took, as he told them the other day, the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. The matter having been referred to the Home Department, the Home Secretary also took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought the noble Lord then went out of his way in telling the House that in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown the manufacture of those notes was illegal. He (Mr. Duncombe) had often heard questions asked in that House to which the Government answered—"We took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and we are
1976
to be guided by it." But if the Government were asked to lay that opinion upon the table, they always said, "Oh, no it is only to guide us." The effect of the statement made by the noble Lord must be to prejudice the proceedings at present pending in a court of justice. If the law officers of the Crown had given their opinion that the manufacture of those notes was illegal, he submitted the noble Lord ought to lay that opinion on the table of the House pending the proceedings which were being taken. The law officers of the Crown having given their opinion on a case submitted to them nothing appeared to have been done for nearly three weeks. In the meantime a communication was made early in February to Messrs. Day's place by Sir Richard Mayne, the Commissioner of Police, requiring Messrs. Day to suspend the manufacture of those notes. The Messrs. Day were pursuing their trade legally, as he believed it would turn out, and that trade was interrupted by the communication of Sir Richard Mayne. Notes had been ordered by M. Kossuth for his own purposes, but what those purposes were they did not know. Austria might have made representations to the noble Lord to stay the issue of those notes; but if he (Mr. Duncombe) was rightly informed, a large number of the notes was ordered after the visit paid by Sir Richard Mayne to Messrs. Day's, and an additional number of hands were taken on. He was told that among those hands was a detective employed by Sir Richard Mayne. This detective obtained a print of one of the notes; but it appeared that Messrs. Day had subsequently looked over their papers and found all their prints were intact. Now, he wished to know where this note came from, because they knew that it had been produced before the Court of Chancery. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) would be able to explain how this note came to be produced before the Court of Chancery. There ought to be no equivocation shown in this matter, because if there was anything more repugnant to the feelings of the people of this country than another it was the spy system. He wished, therefore, to know what were the instructions given to Sir Richard Mayne, and by what authority he required the manufacture of the notes to be suspended? Another question was by whom the expenses incurred in procuring information and paying for that espionage

1977
were to be defrayed? for it was notorious that the Government had obtained the clue they wanted by bribery. If our Government found the money, then this country was paying for the spy system of Austria. If Austria found it then our police were in the pay of Austria. If Her Majesty's Government had used what was called the secret service money for this purpose, how would the people of England like their taxes to be spent in that way? He said this was disgraceful conduct on the part of the Government. Although he believed the noble Lord had pro-Austrian sympathies, he could not have thought he Would allow such a visit to be paid by the police to the shop of respectable tradesmen, and their business to be thus arbitrarily interrupted; still less could be have supposed the noble Lord would have given the opinion he had done pending the litigation in that case, which would be argued in a few days, when it was most probable that the injunction obtained against the Messrs. Day would be withdrawn.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I think there is no doubt that my hon. Friend, if he believed that any grievance existed in this matter, has exercised a constitutional privilege in bringing the subject under the consideration of the House on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply; but I trust, after the simple explanation which I have it in my power to give, that the House will be satisfied that no grievance exists. My attention was called by Sir Richard Mayne to the existence of certain notes printed in the Hungarian language about the 5th of February, and I may say that Sir Richard Mayne, myself, and every other person in the Home Office were equally ignorant of the Hungarian language. It was, however, a small printed note, purporting to be signed by "Kossuth Louis." It appeared that it was printed by Mr. Day, the lithographer, and at my suggestion Sir Richard Mayne put himself into communication with Mr. Day, and addressed to him the following letter, dated February 11:—
"Sir Richard Mayne requests Mr. Day will be so good as to call here to-morrow at 12 o'clock, or as soon after as may be convenient.
"Metropolitan Police Office, Feb. 11."
In consequence of that letter an interview took place between Mr. Day and Sir Richard Mayne; but I do not understand that Sir Richard Mayne made any demand on Mr. Day of the nature my hon. Friend states. On the 13th of February Sir
1978
Richard Mayne addressed a second letter to Mr. Day, which I apprehend contains the substance of the intimation that my hon. Friend alluded to. This is the whole of the correspondence addressed by Sir Richard Mayne to Mr. Day:—
"Sir,—I request you will detain for the present all the Hungarian notes on your premises, as you told me yesterday you would do if a notice to that effect were given to you.
"I hope to see you to-morrow with reference to the inquiry on which you are to give me information.
"I am, your obedient servant,
"Feb. 13.
"RICHARD MAYNE."
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: Did you give Sir Richard Mayne no instructions?
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I gave him those instructions. I wish to say that Sir Richard Mayne was acting entirely under my instructions. Well, no further interview took place between Mr. Day and Sir Richard Mayne, and nothing further passed in writing. That is the whole ex-tent of the transaction between Sir Richard Mayne and Mr. Day. With regard to any detective, I am not aware of any person having been employed by Sir Richard Mayne in the manner my hon. Friend describes. No expense has been incurred by the Government, and they are no parties to the proceedings now pending before the Court of Chancery.
MR. BRIGHT: I think my hon. Friend gave the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make a rather fuller statement than he has done, and I am sorry he has not availed himself of it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned—and it was the first fact he stated—that Sir Richard Mayne called his attention to the matter of these notes. I should like very much to know who first called Sir Richard Mayne's attention to them. Was it the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, or the right hon. Gentleman himself, to whom the noble Lord deputed the subject? Because it makes some difference in the case whether Sir Richard Mayne did this of his own mere motion or from the orders of a superior Department. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us exactly how the matter stood in this respect. It appears that Sir Richard Mayne had become possessed of one of these notes. The right hon. Gentleman has not informed us how he became possessed of it. It is not to be supposed, I presume, that the ex-Governor of Hungary sent him a copy, nor is it asserted that Mr. Day sent him one. Somebody must have been in Mr. Day's works and

1979
abstracted a note to make use of it—in fact, to furnish it to Sir Richard Mayne. It is stated, further, that a police-officer obtained employment with Mr. Day as a labourer at the press, and that he took one of the notes belonging to his employer—an act of larceny, I imagine, though I hardly know what the lawyers would call it. Certainly it would not be a very honest act. If he did not do that, it is said that he must have used some paper of his own, making an impression of the note upon it, and furnishing it to Sir Richard Mayne. If that be true—and the House will, I am sure, think it a little important to know whether it is or not—we arrive at this position—that in A matter which does not in the least concern the security of the Crown or Government of England, but which does in some degree, it may be, affect the interest of a foreign Government, the head of the Metropolitan police undertakes to introduce into the workshop of a tradesman in this City one of his detectives in the garb of an honest, frank, labourer at a printing-press, in order that he may there discover what the tradesman is doing, and take from his premises a note which may be used in a court of justice, not only against the ex-Governor of Hungary, whose name is attached to it, but against Mr. Day himself. That is contrary to all the opinions prevailing in the country with respect to the powers of the police. Whatever use may be made of such a proceeding for the purposes of our own Government—and I do not think it would be very desirable even in that case—there can be no question that it would be very wrong for the Home Secretary to sanction such a proceeding on the part of the police, for the purposes of the Austrian or any other foreign Government. Of course, as regards the main question, that will be settled by the Court to which it has been referred. I do not mean to go into it; because what that Court decides we can be well content to agree to; but I think the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to be a little more explicit. He ought to tell us whether the Home Office, acting for the Foreign Office, and Sir Richard Mayne acting for the Home Office, or for the Austrian Government, is to be permitted to introduce into the shop of a London tradesman a detective in the garb of an honest labourer, who may give evidence whereon a foreign Government can pursue an exile who has taken up his residence among us.
1980
I shall say no more about that; but the right hon. Gentleman ought to make an explicit statement, because, Sir, if any part of this transaction is left unexplained it will create a very strong and most unfavourable suspicion against the conduct of the Government throughout the entire country.
MR. HENLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that appeal allow me to put one further question on a point he has not touched upon. As I understand the action from his description of what has taken place, an interview passes and a letter passes between Sir Richard Mayne and the tradesman employed in this act; and the right hon. Gentleman left the matter in this way without giving us any further explanation as to the imtermediate stage of the matter. He says that Sir Richard Mayne gave this tradesman notice not to suffer any of that property to go from his premises, and there the right hon. Gentleman left it. Now I think it is right to know whether the police of this country are to give notice to a tradesman not to suffer property that may be in the ordinary way of business in his possession to go off his premises, although no criminal charge has been alleged against that tradesman. The right hon. Gentleman says that, and there he left it. Is this tradesman now under notice from Sir Richard Mayne, or is he not? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I suppose he is not; but he did not inform the House. Of course, in a question of doubtful circumstances it is perfectly justifiable for the police, if they think a crime is about to be committed, to take means to prevent it. That is a totally different matter, and I think it is not lawful to leave a tradesman under such a notice when the matter to be dealt with appears to be a question to be decided by a civil court on a motion for an injunction, and not by a criminal court. When the right hon. Gentleman answers the question I should be glad to know whether Sir Richard Mayne has withdrawn his notice.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Perhaps the House will grant me permission to reply to the questions that have been put to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I can state in the most confident manner my belief—I think I may say my knowledge, but certainly my belief—that no improper agent such as the hon. Member for Birmingham de-

1981
scribes was induced by corruption to give information. I know nothing whatever of any such means having been used. The reason I interfered in the first instance was this—the House must be aware that it is contrary to the law of the country to counterfeit the money of any foreign Government. Not being, as I said before, master of the Hungarian language, I could not tell the exact nature of this note without obtaining a translation of it. Afterwards, when we got a translation of this note, and saw that it did not purport to be a counterfeit of any Austrian money, but that the fabrication was one of money to be used by a new Government to be constituted, we saw that if the matter was a crime at all it was one of a different character. We took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, That opinion was, of course, confidential, given for the guidance of the Government, and it is not for me to state it; but, in consequence of the opinion of the law officers, the Government decided not to institute any proceedings against Mr. Day; and he was informed—certainly when he came to Sir R, Mayne he must have understood—that this notice Was only for the moment, and until further information had been obtained; and he could not for twenty-four hours have remained under the impression that the police would lay any embargo on his property.
MR. BRIGHT: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained how he came by the note.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The note was laid before me by Sir Richard Mayne.

CROWN PROSECUTIONS AT ARMAGH (IRELAND).—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he rose to ask the attention of the House to a question with regard to the due and impartial administration of justice in a country nearer than Hungary. He referred to the Crown prosecutions which had taken place in Ireland, in the county of Armagh, at the Spring Assizes held for the county. The House would perhaps remember that in the month of July last there occurred near Lurgan one of those unhappy riots which were not new in that part of Ireland, in the course of which one individual unfortunately lost his life; another was severely wounded, and several were wounded in a less degree. It was hardly necessary for him to say at the outset that no one re-
1982
gretted more deeply than he did that such occurrences should ever take place, or was more desirous that proper steps should be taken to bring to justice any persons who were answerable for such conduct. He wished also to say that in the short statement he was about to make, he derived his information from the usual means of public information, the newspapers. He believed that the statements of which he Was about to make use were correct, but he should be most happy to be set right in any unintentional inaccuracy. If, moreover, there had been any prospect of seeing either of his hon. and learned Friends, the Attorney or Solicitor General for Ireland, in their seats in the House within a definite period, it would have been his duty and his happiness to have postponed his inquiry till their arrival. At the recent assizes at Armagh several persons were put on their trial for participation in this affair. The prosecution was conducted by the Government in the usual way. The Attorney General went down from Dublin, the Solicitor General accompanied him, and they were assisted by four other eminent counsel. The first person prosecuted was Samuel Tait. He was indicted for the murder of the individual who, as he (Sir Hugh Cairns) had said, lost his life on this very melancholy occasion. He believed he was right in saying the case opened by the Attorney General was, that there could be no mistake as to the nature of the circumstances. He was indicted for murder, and was accused of having committed the crime in cold blood. It was the duty of the officer of the Crown, having in his hands the usual materials in such cases—the information and the evidence—if he had arrived at the conclusion that it was a case of murder, to call upon the jury to say it was a case of murder. He must here remind the House of an important fact to consider in this case, namely, the position in which a prosecutor stood in Ireland. In that country, instead of individuals being allowed to prosecute in such cases as this, the rule was that the prosecution should be instituted by the State, and be conducted by one or other of the public prosecutors. The first point on which he should ask for an explanation was this: it appeared there was in the possession of the law officers of the Crown the dying declaration of the unfortunate man Murphy who lost his life. Now he had never heard it doubted that if a dying declaration of this kind bore

1983
an aspect favourable to the prisoner it was evidence almost conclusive in his favour. The dying declaration in question was to the following effect: Thomas Murphy, being under the apprehension of immediate death, said that on the evening of the 12th of July, 1860, there was a crowd of people passing along the road, consisting of about 200 men, beating drums. He, the declarant Murphy, threw some stones at the crowd four or five times, and a pistol was thereupon fired by a man of the drumming party. Shortly afterwards a gun Was fired in the direction of those who were throwing stones that the stones were first thrown by the Catholic party; but he thought the shots would not have been fired if the stones had not been thrown first. He (Murphy) afterwards received a shot from a pistol or gun, from the effects of which he believed he was then dying, but he did not know who was the person who fired the shot that wounded him. It seemed, therefore, from this declaration that the unfortunate man, who was a Roman Catholic, admitted there was a not on his side by the throwing of stones, and that afterwards guns were fired. This declaration was in the possession of the Crown prosecutor; he (Sir Hugh Cairns) was far from saying that the throwing of stones justified having recourse to fire-arms; but if this declaration had been produced as part of the Crown evidence there would have been an end of any case of murder. That, however, was not the course taken by the Crown. The document was withheld from the jury by the prosecution; but, fortunately, that did not deprive the counsel of the prisoner from using it; he did produce it; but he (Sir Hugh Cairns) need not point out to the House the great difference between such evidence being produced by the Attorney General for the prosecution, and its being brought forward afterwards by the counsel for the defence. His question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Cardwell) would be, was it not the case that this dying declaration, in the possession of the Crown, was withheld and not laid before the jury as part of the case of the prosecution, but left to be produced by the counsel for the prisoner? Of course, when it was produced, there was an end of the charge of murder, and the only question remaining was one of manslaughter. But there occurred this remarkable fact on that question. The custom, for the sake of fair-
1984
ness, universally was, that in Crown prosecutions every witness whose name was on the back of the indictment should be examined on behalf of the Crown, and that the prisoner might have the benefit of that witness. He understood there were two witnesses named Hepburn and Morrough, whose names were on the back of the indictment, but who were not called by the Attorney General. There was a question at the trial as to whether Tate was the person who fired the gun or not, and there were discrepancies in the evidence which were commented upon by learned Judge who presided, but the jury thought the question of identity had been sufficiently proved, and they found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter. But a most remarkable fact occurred the next day. A trial took place of a man named Wright on a different charge, and it so happened that the Crown called as witnesses the two men Hepburn and Morrough, whom they had not called on the trial of Tate. The examination of these witnesses fell into the channel of the occurrences discussed on the previous day. Hepburn said he was perfectly well acquainted with Tate, and that he saw the man who fired the shot when Murphy fell, but could not tell who that man was. The conclusion from this was irresistible. If Hepburn had been produced at the trial of Tate, and given that testimony, it would have gone far to settle the question of failure of proof of identity. Morrough in the course of his examination said, "I know Samuel Tate very well. On my solemn oath Samuel Tate was not one of the men who fired. I was there, and throwing, and I have not been put on my trial." This witness pledged his solemn oath that the man convicted by the Crown was not the man who fired the shot. Supposing Hepburn and Morrough had been called on the previous day, no one could doubt what would have been the effect of their testimony. It would at once have concluded the trial of Tate, who must have been acquitted. These were the two circumstances to which he first wished to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary. What took place thereupon? Tate had had a verdict passed against him. Application was made to the Judge to arrest sentence, in consequence of the matter which had transpired at the second trial. The learned Judge (Baron FitzGerald) said, if the law advisers of the Crown did not undertake to do so, he should feel it his duty to call the

1985
attention of the Executive to the inconsistencies in the evidence, and to the testimony of Hepburn and Morrough on the other trial. It might be a question, the learned Judge added, whether this evidence would not have turned the scale in Tate's favour if it had been produced before the jury. It appeared clear from all the trials that there had been rioting on both sides on this unfortunate occasion. He apprehended that, consistently with the due and impartial administration of justice, the Crown should have taken proceedings, not only against those engaged on one side but also against those engaged in rioting on the other side. The Solicitor General for Ireland had been challenged to say why the Crown had not prosecuted some one on the other side; and the Solicitor General was reported to have said that if any person thought there was any one culpable on the other side, the courts of justice were open, and he might proceed against any such person by information. It was well known, however, that in Ireland no private individual would be allowed to take up what was called a party prosecution. The Attorney General would not allow it. With such an answer from the Attorney General, what would the country think of the administration of justice in Ireland? Here was a case in which the Attorney and Solicitor General went down from Dublin with a bar of four eminent counsel to conduct a prosecution against one side, with the purse of the nation to pay all expenses; but it was nothing short of a mockery to say to those who used the argument that you should prosecute both sides, the courts were open to any one who wished to prosecute on the other side. Was that a course the Government were prepared to endorse? In the second trial Wright was indicted for having feloniously wounded a man named McCann: the prisoner's identity was not proved and he was acquitted. Then came another trial of a remarkable kind. A number of persons were indicted for misdemeanour on this occasion. They were charged with walking in procession with colours and with rioting. It became necessary to empannel a jury. The jury who convicted Tate were all Protestants, and that should have convinced the Attorney General that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a verdict from a mixed or an entirely Protestant jury. But in the first place the counsel for the prosecution announced they were going to direct all the
1986
jurymen in the previous cases to stand aside; there was no great harm in that. In the next place it was intimated that all persons who were resident in Lurgan would also be challenged on behalf of the Crown. The justification for this was not very clear, as there was no pretence for saying that Lurgan was implicated as a town, because the not took place at some distance from the town, though the procession had passed through it. Well, the panel was called. This was a trial for a misdemeanour. In a trial for misdemeanour the prisoner had not any right to challenge, unless he could show some definite and distinct cause; although the Crown by its prerogative has an unlimited right of challenge. In a capital case the prisoner may challenge without cause. This being the case, how did the Crown act? Several Protestants were challenged by the Crown, and the jury eventually consisted, as he was informed, of ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants. The jury was so composed in a Protestant county, in the jury lists of which the proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics was as ten or eleven to one. According to the newspapers, before the ten Roman Catholics were put upon the jury, sixteen Protestants were challenged by the Crown and ordered to stand aside. He asked the Secretary for Ireland to tell the House why they were challenged. He did not for a moment supppose that the preponderance of Roman Catholics led to a different result from that which would have arisen if the jury had been composed entirely of Protestants. He took the jury men to be gentlemen of respectability, and he believed that notwithstanding the composition of the jury the prisoner had a perfectly fair trial. He was quite sure they conscientiously came to the conclusion they did, and that the conviction was a proper one; but what would the country think, and especially men of strong opinions and of strong bias, when they found that the Government had taken such a course in this prosecution? It was impossible to say that it was a justifiable course, and the middle and lower classes were likely to feel strongly in regard to the conduct of the Government. No one deplored more than he did occurrences such as had given occasion to these trials. Of late years he had observed a feeling unfavourable to such party demonstrations as had given rise to those disturbances growing stronger and stronger among per-

1987
sons of all shades of politics in Ireland, and nothing was more likely to increase that feeling than a just and impartial administration of the criminal law when any of those unfortunate events took place. At the same time if there was one means more calculated than another to reanimate slumbering passions of a party character it would be the course taken by the Government in this case, unless some satisfactory explanation of it were given by the right hon. Gentleman. They should have avoided anything which had even the appearance of being directed against, or unduly or improperly weighing against the one side or the other. Sir John Davies said, as the result of his experience in travelling through Ireland, that though the Irish were a very excitable people and felt very warmly, they yet had at heart an innate love of justice and fair play. He believed that was true still. He could not believe that the Government desired to bear unduly on one side or the other, but though he gave them credit for that, it was impossible not to see that what had been done, unless capable of explanation, could not fail to produce in the country feelings exactly the reverse of those which it was desirable should prevail.
MR. CARD WELLsaid, he cordially concurred in the concluding observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Heentirely believed that among the qualities of the Irish people there was none more remarkable than their love of equal justice and their disposition to obey the law when carried into effect with an impartial spirit. He sincerely regretted that when a charge was made against the learned Gentlemen who had conducted these prosecutions they should not be present to answer those charges themselves; but since it had fallen to him to answer for them he should proceed to reply to those charges seriatim, though he should regret if, in consequence of the shortness of time, there should seem any imperfection in the information he possessed. He believed, however, that he could give a sufficient and satisfactory answer to the accusation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The last statement made by the hon. and learned Member was, that upon a trial for not and unlawful assembly in a county where the great majority on the panel were Protestants, the legal adviser of the Crown so conducted himself as to obtain a jury which consisted of ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants, and it was understood to be im-
1988
plied that the objects of the Crown lawyers was to obtain a jury consisting exclusively or principally of Roman Catholics, in order that certain Protestants might not have the advantage of a fair trial. He would first state exactly, as far as he was acquainted with the circumstances, what occurred, and he would then leave it to the candour and judgment of the House to say whether any charge of that kind was substantiated. He was informed that the jury did not consist of ten Roman Catholics and two Protestants, but of four Protestants and eight Roman Catholics. Moreover, the Judge who presided, one of the most able and popular men on the Irish bench, was a Protestant, and all the Crown counsel, with the exception of the Attorney General, were likewise Protestants. With respect to the constitution of the jury, he would read the instructions sent by the Attorney General for Ireland to the Crown solicitor—
"Armagh, March 5.
"My Dear Sir,—I think it right to say, in proceeding with the cases connected with the outrage at Ballymacash, you should exclude from the jury every Member of the Orange Society, and every person who, from residence in the immediate locality, may be affected by prejudice or prepossession upon either side.
"Truly yours,
THOS. O'HAGAN."
Those were the only instructions given. They were given to the Crown solicitor, a Protestant, who, in striking the jury, was assisted by the sessional Crown solicitor, also a Protestant. Acting under that instruction the Crown solicitor and the sessional Crown solicitor, both Protestants, had taken particular care in summoning jurors. Upon the first trial the Crown did not exercise the right of challenge in a single instance, but the prisoner challenged every Roman Catholic on the panel, the result being that the jury by whom he had been tried was composed entirely of Protestants. On the second trial the same course was taken; the Crown did not challenge a single juror; and again, the person accused challenged all the Roman Catholics on the list, and had his case dealt with by a jury exclusively Protestant. "When the third trial had come on the Crown solicitor, in the proper discharge of his duty, and without further communication with the Attorney Genera], set aside some jurors whom he believed to be Orangemen and some who resided near the scene of the outrage, there being among the latter several Roman Catholics. Well, then, the case stood thus:—The twenty-four jurors who had served on

1989
the former trials were very properly excluded from the third. The Roman Catholics who had been called and who had not served on the first or second trial could not be challenged by the prisoner, inasmuch as the charge against him was one of misdemeanour; and the consequence was that the third jury was composed of eight Roman Catholics and four Protestants, all of whom were selected in the most legitimate way—unless, indeed, it were established that the Crown ought to have taken a course which, in his opinion, it had no right to adopt—namely, to set aside a number of men otherwise perfectly competent to discharge the duties of jurors, on the express ground that they were Roman Catholics. To the verdict of the jury so constituted his hon. and learned Friend opposite said he took no exception; and he (Mr. Card well) might add, on the still higher authority of the eminent Judge who tried the case, that it was impossible upon the evidence adduced to have come to any other conclusion than that at which they arrived. Was it, he would ask, right, under these circumstances, to come down to the House of Commons and charge the law officers of the Crown in Ireland with having shown a disposition to place Roman Catholics on juries in that country to the undue exclusion of their Protestant fellow-subjects? The next charge made against the Irish Executive by the hon. and learned Gentleman was that the culpability in connection with the melancholy occurrence in question being attributable to both parties, the Government had contented itself with prosecuting the Protestant offenders, while against Roman Catholics no prosecution had been instituted. Now, if it could be proved that any of the offenders who ought to have been brought to justice had been allowed to go unpunished, he should admit that some good ground for the accusation of his hon. and learned Friend might have been established. Nothing of the kind could, however, be shown, the reason why persons had been prosecuted on one side and not upon the other simply being that the demonstration which had led to the sad events of which the hon. Gentleman spoke originated with one, the Protestant, side; that the lives lost were those of Roman Catholics, and that the guns fired were discharged by their Protestant opponents. Another reason why no prosecutions had been instituted against the other side was to be found in the fact that no informations had been sworn upon
1990
which additional indictments could be based; but if his hon. and learned Friend would undertake to bring forward any particular instances to justify the charges which he had made, he (Mr. Cardwell) would be prepared to deal with them when they came before the House. His hon. and learned Friend went on to say that there were two witnesses whose names stood on the back of the indictment who were not called upon originally to give evidence; but who having on a subsequent occasion, when the charge of attempt to murder was being disposed of, been placed in the box, made statements which, if they had been adduced on his trial, might have led to the acquittal of Tate. Now, he felt assured that his hon. and learned Friend, in referring to that circumstance, did not mean to impute to the law officers of the Crown in Ireland that they had been guilty of the incredible meanness of keeping back a witness because they believed his testimony would be favourable to the accused. He (Mr. Cardwell) could not, however, allow the statement to pass without a clear and emphatic denial, because if he were to do so an erroneous impression as to the course which had actually been pursued by the law officers of the Crown might be created.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he should be sorry to have his language misunderstood. What he did say was this—assuming that there had been an error of judgment in this matter, he thought it was important that some explanation should be offered as to how such a circumstance could have happened; and he added that he thought the evidence of the two witnesses being withheld was a most important feature in those proceedings.
MR. CARDWELL: The course which had been taken in the instance in question had been adopted with the unanimous concurrence of all the counsel engaged for the Crown—five of whom were Protestants and all of whom were men of eminence. The practice as recognized in Ireland, was, he might add, as he was informed, strictly observed in the case. The informations of both the witnesses alluded to were sworn before the trial, and were placed in the hands of the counsel for the prisoner, as well as in those of the counsel for the Crown. Everything, in short, which the latter knew in reference to the statements which might be anticipated from those witnesses was known also to the former. The witnesses, moreover, were in attend-

1991
ance, and ready to he called if the counsel for the prisoner had expressed a wish that that course should be taken. They were not called, however, and on the following day and upon another trial, happened to give evidence which the counsel for the prisoner contended would have been material on the previous trial. All he could say was, that that evidence would be brought under the consideration of his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and, that being so, it was obvious that it was inexpedient he should enter into it at the present moment. He should, therefore, content himself with repeating that the usual practice in Ireland had, so far as he was aware, been followed out in the case, and with repudiating the supposition that the law officers of the Crown in that country could descend to such an expedient as that of keeping back testimony which might be important for the defence of a prisoner upon his trial. Another charge which had been made was that those who advised the Crown in the prosecution of Tate, having before them the dying declaration of the deceased man Murphy, ought to have known that there was no sufficient ground for preferring a charge of murder, and consequently that they ought not to have allowed that charge to be preferred.
SIR HUGH CAIENSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated the point quite accurately. Whether a charge of murder ought to have been preferred was a matter of opinion. The objection to the course pursued was that, a charge of murder having been preferred, the dying declaration of the deceased was withheld from the jury. It was, no doubt, open to the Attorney General for Ireland to persevere in the charge of murder if he thought proper to do so, but he should not have opened such a charge without accompanying it by a statement of all the evidence which could be produced.
MR. CAKDWELLsaid, he had no information from his learned friends with respect to that part of the case, and, of course, he could not state what had influenced them in the course they had taken. But, as he (Mr. Cardwell) understood, the serious part of the charge was that the dying declaration of the man Murphy showed there was no foundation for the accusation of murder, and that such a charge should not have been preferred. ["Sir Hugh Caiens:—That is a mere question of opinion.] He was able
1992
to say, however, that the dying declaration was before the Judge and the jury, although he did not know why it was put in for the prisoner instead of for the Crown. In reviewing the evidence the learned Judge had stated the case with the utmost openness and impartiality. He contended that there was nothing in the constitution of those who conducted these trials which could lead the people of Ireland to entertain the mischievous and calamitous impression that there was any disposition on the part of the administrators of the law to hold the scale of justice otherwise than in a firm and equal poise. He entirely concurred in the concluding observations of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, and assured the House that it was the earnest desire of the Government that the conviction that the law would be administered equally to all classes should be fully impressed on the people of Ireland, and that their efforts would be unceasingly directed to effecting that object.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, wherever the life of a fellow-creature was involved it was the glory of the criminal law of England that whoever the man might be that was placed at our bar of justice, every opportunity should be afforded him to obtain a fair trial. He was happy to bear his testimony to the fair and honourable conduct of the Crown prosecutors generally, and to the just and impartial verdicts usually pronounced by the juries of the north of Ireland. But that was not precisely the question at present before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had taken good care not to answer the particular charge made by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns). The Crown no doubt had a right to put a man on his trial who it was believed had committed murder, and to take away his life if he were guilty. But he never heard, in his position of public prosecutor, that he should be at liberty to put a man on his trial for murder when he knew that he had not committed that crime. Now, what were the facts of the case? There were two men of the name of Humfreys, and one man of the name of Tate, charged with the crime of firing the shot that killed the person whose life was lost. If they had all been tried together, then the two witnesses whose names were on the back of the indictment, if produced, would have negatived the charge as against Tate, and, perhaps, have fastened it upon the two Humfreys. But that was not the

1993
course that was taken. The unfortunate man who was killed had in his dying moments, and possibly after he had received the consolations of religion, made a declaration—every word of which he (Mr. Whiteside) believed to be true—to the effect that Tate, the prisoner, was not guilty of the crime of murder. That declaration was taken before a magistrate of the Crown, and was returned by the magistrate to the Crown solicitor. That dying declaration distinctly stated that no shots would have been fired had it not been for the unfortunate circumstance of stones and bricks having been first thrown at the persons who were walking in the alleged procession. The deceased man, Murphy, it was said, knew the person of Tate perfectly well, and did not in the smallest particular inculpate him. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, stood in that House the sole representative of the Irish Executive. But that was not the right hon. Gentleman's fault. He (Mr. Whiteside) was sorry that the Attorney General for Ireland was not in that House, because he believed that a more amiable or honourable man did not exist, nor was there one for whom he had a higher respect. But it was the unfortunate position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that for the first time this quarter of a century there was no Attorney General for Ireland in the House to assist the Chief Secretary in his arduous labours. Neither he nor his hon. and learned Friend near him had any intention of attacking the right hon. Gentleman; but as his hon. and learned Friend represented the capital where those scenes occurred he thought it his duty to call attention to the subject. He (Mr. Whiteside) contended that, whoever might be the prosecutors on such an occasion, they were bound to have submitted the dying declaration of Murphy to the jury before whom Tate was tried. They were bound to do so by every principle of honour, and for the sake of humanity and justice. The position of the Crown prosecutor in such a case was not that of a man who was seeking a victory, but an officer of the State who was bound to see justice administered fairly and impartially to all Her Majesty's subjects. Any evidence which he thought made for the prisoner he was bound to submit to the jury. If he (Mr. Whiteside) were the prosecutor, and were in possession of such a dying declaration, he should feel himself bound by
1994
every principle of justice and fair play to lay it before the jury. The excuse of the Solicitor General was that the document did not tend to inculpate the prisoner—no, it tended only to exculpate him. That was a most unfortunate argument for his learned Friend to use. When a man was put on trial for his life the whole truth ought at least to be made known. He was deeply pained to hear from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) that the officers of the Crown had taken the course they did, not in haste but deliberately and after a consultation.
MR. CARDWELL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. I stated that I had received no communication from my learned friends upon that part of the case.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was glad to find that he was mistaken. With regard to the witnesses whose names were on the back of the indictment—who had been examined before the Grand Jury, and whose testimony went to exculpate Tate and inculpate the other two men—why were they not called at the trial? It appeared the counsel for the prisoners did not see their names on the back of the indictment, and so far they were excusable for not calling them. He agreed with his learned Friend that the counsel for the Crown were not bound to examine witnesses whose evidence would damage their own case; but they were bound—at least that had always been held the rule—to produce them that the other side might examine them. That was what he called English justice. The two witnesses who were kept back were of the same faith as the person who lost his life, and, therefore, were not likely to be biased in favour of the prisoner; but they were not examined, and the jury, contrary to the usual practice, gave the benefit of the doubt against the prisoner, and found him guilty of manslaughter. On the next day the two witnesses who had not been called, being wanted for another trial, gave their evidence clearly exculpating Tate, who had been found guilty of manslaughter the day before. The Judge, on hearing their testimony, remarked upon the new discovery, and said he should represent it to the Lord Lieutenant. But that was no answer to the charge of keeping back evidence that ought to have been produced. Surely the liberties and lives of the people of Ireland ought not to be dependent upon the opinions or will of the Lord Lieutenant, but

1995
upon the due administration of the law. He (Mr. Whiteside) now asked the Government whether they intended to punish that man Tate, who had been convicted only because important evidence was withheld, which, had it been produced, would have led to his immediate acquittal? He was assured that it was the universal opinion in the neighbourhood that the man was as innocent of having fired the shot as any Member present. He could not doubt that the Government would hasten to rectify the mistake that had been committed. In a former trial Mr. Justice FitzGerald had judiciously sentenced the processionists to the heaviest punishment; and he had very properly observed to the other party that they should also be punished for taking the law into their own hands. In respect to the point of challenging the jury, he (Mr. Whiteside) when prosecutor exercised his right of challenge on one occasion in Belfast. He was called on in that House to explain his conduct in that affair, and he hoped that he should never be impugned in such a subject again. But what was done in the case immediately under consideration? The right was exercised with so liberal a hand that the Crown prosecutors had actually set aside half of the panel; sixty were challenged out of the 120 that had attended. Of these twenty-four were jurors who had acted satisfactorily in the preceding cases. Now, if the Attorney General had good cause for this extensive exercise of his right to challenge he was fully justified in taking that course; but in a highly civilized country, when 120 respectable men attended to have it stated that sixty of them were deemed unfit to try a case was he thought one of the most alarming precedents in the administration of justice. He submitted that the points urged by his hon. and learned Friend had not been satisfactorily answered. He regretted that the two law officers for Ireland were not in the House. If they were likely to be here his hon. and learned Friend would have postponed the consideration of this question. If, however, he had postponed it until those learned functionaries were present he should have postponed it to the Greek Kalends. The right hon. Gentleman opposite conducted with the greatest courtesy and kindness the important business with which he was charged, and he trusted that he would ever be received with that courtesy and consideration in Ireland which were always proffered to a
1996
distinguished stranger. Indeed, it appeared to be a principle with the Liberal Government opposite, that as regarded the high offices of Lord Lieutenant and Secretary no native need apply. The office of Chief Secretary, however, could not be in more honourable hands than those of the right hon. Gentleman; and it was only to be desired that he would be soon relieved of his arduous labours in the legal business of the country by having the able assistance of the Attorney General for Ireland in that House to bear his portion of them.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) 146,044 Laud Forces, exclusive of men employed in India.
MR. T. G. BARING,in rising to bring forward the Army Estimates, said he would ask permission to reserve any observations he had to make with respect to that part of the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon which referred to the expenditure for army services in 1859–60 till the accounts for that year were finally made up, and it was known whether there was a necessity to come to the House for a Supplementary Estimate. Of this he would assure the Committee, that no part of the Vote of Credit for China expenditure should be applied in supplement of the ordinary army expenditure for that year. So far as he was personally concerned he did not feel in the slightest degree annoyed at the course which had been taken by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who had invariably treated him with the greatest frankness and courtesy, although he ventured to think that it would have been more convenient if the observations with respect to the Estimates had been deferred till after the statement he had now to submit to the Committee. He would allude to those observations in their proper place, and he should speak with great diffidence in doing so if he had himself prepared the Estimates. But that was not the case, for they had been most accurately and carefully framed by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War.
The number of men he had to propose of all ranks was 146,044, which was a nominal increase of 775 men on the numbers voted for 1860–61. But it was to be re-

1997
membered that in the number of men voted last year, the embodied militia were not included. The right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon had mentioned this as if it had not been the usual practice, whereas the embodied militia were always omitted from the numbers, and had been omitted in the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He thought that he could prove that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct when he stated that the nominal increase of 775 men was equivalent to a real decrease of 9,000. In order to give as clear a statement as he could of the numbers proposed to he voted, and for which provision was taken in the Estimates of 1861–62, as compared with the year now closing, he would compare the average of the numbers actually borne, as appeared from the Adjutant General's returns for the year now closing, including the embodied militia, with the numbers for which provision was made in the coming year. By taking that comparison the Committee would clearly see how we stood during the past year, and how we should stand during the year now about to begin. Commencing with the whole British army—in 1860–61 the average number of regular troops borne acording to the Adjutant General's returns, including Staff, was 228,020. The average number of militia embodied during the year was 9,569, making a total of 237,589. Against these numbers the total number to be borne during 1861–62 is estimated at 212,773, showing a decrease of 24,816. In order to explain this decrease and advance a step further he would take the number of men borne during the year 1860–61, paid out of the Indian revenue. In that year there were paid from the revenues of India, in the East Indies, 72,712; depots at home, 15,058; being a total of 87,770. In 1861–62 there would be in the East Indies, 62,041; depots, 6,638; total 68,779, showing a decrease in the numbers paid out of the revenues of India of 19,041. He had added 2,000 to the number of troops in the East Indies, given at page six of the Estimates, because all the regiments expected to return from India in the course of the year were borne for numbers upon the British establishment, but only a part could of course be reckoned in the estimates of cost. Pursuing the calculation still further he would state the numbers borne and paid for out of the imperial revenues in each year. For 1860–61 the average number of men was 149,819; provi-
1998
sion was taken in the present Estimates for 144,044. The real decrease upon the British establishment, therefore, was5,767, instead of 9,000 as stated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He would now go on to compare the numbers in the colonies and in the United Kingdom. In 1860–61 there were in the colonies and China 55,883; in 1861–62, 51,717, showing a decrease of 4,166, and there remained a total of 93,936 employed in the United Kingdom, including the embodied militia, for 1860–61, whereas the total for 1861–62, with no militia, would be 92,327—showing a decrease of 1609. The numbers in the United Kingdom would be, as he had said, 92,327, to which adding the Indian depots—more than 6,000—would give 99,000 as the average for the United Kingdom for 1861–62, and as the regiments from India arrived we should be still stronger at the end of the year. In order to make the matter more clear, he would give the Committee the number of battalions for the two years. On the 1st of April, 1860, there were 40 in England, 57 in India, 33 in the colonies, and 9 in China. In 1861, the numbers would be respectively 49, 51, 34, and 5, being an increase of 9 battalions at home, and there would be a further increase when the New Zealand affair was settled. In comparing the force of the two years in the United Kingdom no doubt the diminution in 1861–62 would be larger than he had yet stated; because the Indian depots were larger last year than they would be this. But he thought that the substitution of regular troops for militia, and having more battalions of regular infantry in this country would quite make up for a small decrease in numbers. He did not say that with a view to disparage the militia, because no one could ignore the admirable state of discipline to which those regiments had been brought by the energy and attention of their commanding officers, and by the good conduct of the men. On the other hand, no hon. and gallant Gentleman who had commanded a militia regiment would deny that regiments of militia never could be perfectly equal to regiments of the Line. The Committee would see that, in addition to the strength of battalions of the Line in this country, they would have a larger reserve of militia regiments than they had at commencement of the year, and that the perfectly trained men who would remain available would form the nucleus for raising the force to the same strength again, if

1999
necessary. The number of militia disembodied in the course of the year would be 5,500 artillery and 12,800 infantry. So much for the numbers for the year 1861–62, which appeared to Her Majesty's Government to be sufficient, and yet not too great for the position which this country occupied in the world. The right hon. and gallant Member anticipated that there would be an excess on the numbers voted, and he founded his statement upon the actual numbers on the 1st of February last. He could assure the Committee that the subject had received the careful consideration of Lord Herbert and of the Commander-in-Chief, and that no difficulty was anticipated in so regulating the numbers as to bring them within those for whom provision was made. Hon. Members were aware of the state of a regiment which came home from India, and as part of the force was coming back from India he did not anticipate any difficulty in keeping the number within the Estimate which he hoped would be voted by the Committee.
Having explained as clearly as he could their position as to numbers in the coming year, he thought he ought to explain briefly how the reductions would be made. There would be a reduction in India of five battalions of infantry and of one regiment of cavalry coming home. There would be a reduction in the strength of infantry and cavalry regiments in India, and there would be a reduction in the strength of the depôts of Indian regiments at home. The cavalry regiments would be reduced by one troop. No officer would be placed on half-pay, as the supernumeraries would be absorbed as vacancies occurred. That would explain the reduction of 19,000 men in the force paid by the revenues of India. No men would be discharged in India, as it was anticipated the regiments would reduce themselves quite as quickly as was desirable. With respect to the colonies, the force would be reduced by the recall of five battalions from China, and increased to a small extent by troops sent to New Zealand. There would be a slight alteration, which it might be convenient to notice. The Malta Fencibles, whose pay was extremely low, would be changed into artillery, with an increase of pay. The change was very popular in the corps, and would make the force much more effective. At home the alterations would be as follows:—A regiment of cavalry would come home from
2000
India. The cavalry regiments would be reduced by twenty-five men and twenty-eight horses in each regiment. Provision would be made for six-eighths of a new garrison brigade of Royal Artillery, the two batteries coming from China forming part of the brigade. It was possible that four batteries of Horse Artillery would come from India in the course of the year, and if that should be the cage, the formation of the brigade of garrison artillery would be postponed, and by a different arrangement the money would be sufficient to provide for the four batteries of Horse Artillery which returned. There would be a small increase in the Royal Engineers during the year, two companies being added in order to form a depot at Chatham. The military train would be reduced by one battalion. With regard to the infantry, the reduction in the number of men upon the establishment of regiments employed in China must be set against the battalions coining back from India and China. Those regiments were increased on the breaking out of the Chinese war, and, the war being concluded, they would be brought back to their original strength. There would be an increase in the establishment of two battalions employed in New Zealand. There would be a decrease of one second assistant-surgeon in all the regiments at home. It was found that two assistant-surgeons had not enough to do, and therefore had not sufficient opportunities of improving in their profession. There would, however, be an increase in the number of Staff surgeons in order to provide for detachment duty and ball practice.
With regard to that part of the whole expense of the army, which depended upon the numbers of men voted, he would follow the right hon. Gentleman's example, and take together Votes 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10. Votes 2 and 3 were for pay, allowances and miscellaneous. Vote 4 was for the embodied Militia. Vote 9 was for clothing, and Vote 10 was for provisions. In 1860–61 the total of those Votes was £7,479,363. In 1861–62itwas£7,410,346, showing a decrease of £69,017. That comparison would not entirely accord with the sums voted for 1860–61, and for this reason—that from the estimate for clothing for 1860–61 was deducted, as would be seen at page 84 of the Estimates, a sum to be received from the Indian Government amounting to £200,000. That sum was not a payment for supplies furnished to In-

2001
dia in 1860–61; it was simply a repayment for former supplies. A Committee of the House which sat last Session recommended that the system should be altered, and payment made at once. It was the last time such an item would appear; but in a comparison of this year and last that sum of £200,000 must be added to the clothing Vote for 1860–61. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon said, that he did not think sufficient money had been taken to provide for the numbers to be voted. But the rough calculation of the right hon. Gentleman himself proved, if it proved anything, that the money was sufficient, and moreover the return of expenditure upon the Votes which he was reviewing for the last year in which the accounts were made up, gave an average of £54 per man, which was about the sum proposed to be voted for the ensuing year. He did not think, therefore, that the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman would be realized. This year a very advantageous change has been made in the preparation of the Estimates of the War Department. They were now prepared by that branch of the department which controlled the expenditure during the whole of the year, and much greater accuracy, therefore, might be expected in the preparation of them.
He would now advert to those changes in regard to expenditure, and in the administration of the personnel of the army, which were of sufficient importance to be noticed in a general statement. A Report of a Commission on the recruiting of the army had recently been laid on the table, and in accordance with its recommendations it was proposed to make a change with regard to enlistment. The Commission pointed out what had been pointed out before, that it was equally advantageous to a man in India, who had served his ten years, to take his discharge and come home at the expense of the public, and* then re-enlist, as to re-engage on the spot, and remain with his regiment. It was proposed, therefore, to give to a man who re-engaged at the expiration of his time, very great advantages as compared with those who took their discharge and subsequently enlisted. It was also proposed to give to those men a furlough on their return to this country, or on the first convenient opportunity. It was also proposed to reduce the bounty to £1, making it up to the soldier, however, by allowing him a larger
2002
quantity of necessaries. How far the War Department would be able to go in this respect, however, had not yet been decided. In regard to the food of the army he had not much to say which would be new to the House. The system of slaughtering cattle and baking bread by the commissariat—which worked admirably—had been extended, as well as the system of providing the soldier with a certain quantity of groceries for a 1½d stoppage which had answered so well that it had been put in practice at the camps, in the Mediterranean, and the West Indies. This tended to, an alteration in the pay and stoppages of the soldier, and to the introduction of an uniform 6d. stoppage, thereby giving the soldier the same net pay in all parts of the world. With respect to clothing it was proposed, instead of a tunic lined with serge, to furnish the soldier with a waistcoat, and a tunic unlined, which would be available for hot and cold climates. Measures had been taken to simplify the patterns of clothing, and to diminish the number of different sorts of cloth, and it was expected that when the cloth was not of so. many different qualities the supply would be improved. The clothing manufactory at Pimlico was well worth a visit. The rapidity with which large quantities of' clothing were turned out was remarkable. A short time ago the clothing for seven battalions was sunk in the river and destroyed, but the manufactory made up the. deficiency in a fortnight, and would have turned it out much more quickly but for-some difficulty with respect to the facings.
The health of the army had been exceedingly good during the year, and the low rate of mortality stated by the Secretary for War last year had been maintained. Abroad, also, the rate of mortality had been below the average. In China a medical officer of rank, Dr. Rutherford, had been attached to the army, simply for the sake of providing for its general health, and in consequence of the care taken during the campaign the mortality of our troops there hardly exceeded that of Aldershott, or other home stations. The effect of the new medical warrant had been to attract a much higher class of candidates for the medical service of the army, and, in fact, medical men now complained that the army drew away all the best young men of the profession.
There had been several reductions in the Staff at home. Two appointments hitherto held by Lieutenant-Generals has

2003
been reduced to Major-Generals' commands—the Inspector of Infantry, and the command at Shorncliffe. One Major General, at Dublin, had been reduced, and five Major-Generals' commands had been reduced to Brigadier-Generals' commands—one at Shorncliffe, three at Aldershott, and one at Dublin, and the office of Assistant Adjutant General of the Brigade of Guards would be abolished. These changes had been made with the entire concurrence of the Commander-in-Chief, and this would show that those intrusted with the administration of the army did not lose sight of economy. Another alteration had been made in regard to Staff appointments. Hitherto, when a Major had been appointed to the Staff he was put on half-pay; it was now proposed that he should be seconded. Colonels of the Royal Artillery holding certain large commands would receive command money with the rank of Colonels on the Staff. The War Office had decided to carry out the scheme proposed by the Duke of Cambridge before the Committee on the Organisation of the Army last year. With regard to the entrance of officers into the army, every young gentleman before entering the army would be required to pass a year at a military college in learning the practical rudiments of his profession and some portion of its scientific branches. The education would be physical as well as mental, and every young officer, when he joined his regiment, would be able at once to discharge the functions of an officer without having to learn his drill. This would very much do away with the necessity of keeping young officers at depots, which it would be generally allowed was an advantageous change.
He had now to make such observations as were necessary upon the remaining Votes. In the next, that for the Volunteer Service, an increase of £.38,000 was proposed for the yeomanry. They were to be called out this year, and everybody who had any knowledge of the yeomanry would allow that unless they were called out for permanent duty occasionally the force would soon fall away. A Committee had been recently appointed of yeomanry officers, among whom was the noble Lord who had lately occupied the chair of that House (Lord Eversley) in conjunction with cavalry officers, and it was expected that they would be able to recommend considerable reductions in the expenses of the yeomanry without impairing its efficiency. There
2004
was an increase in the charge for the Volunteers this year compared with the last of £27,000, which consisted of pay and allowances to adjutants. He would make but few observations on this occasion upon the subject of the Volunteer force, as the whole question would shortly be brought before the House by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho). He was happy to be able to state that there was no symptoms of the Volunteer movement flagging. During the past year 40,000 men had been added to the force; and at the present moment we had 217 battalions, 130 of which were administrative battalions, formed of corps which had in the course of last year joined together to have the benefit of the services of an adjutant. There were now 1,500 corps, and 140,000 men. Many of the battalions had arrived at a state of very great efficiency, and some of them, he believed, were fit to act with the regular troops. One of those battalions, which was very strongly represented in that House—namely, that connected with the Inns of Court, and composed of gentlemen of the long robe, was perhaps more remarkable for its efficiency than any other of those corps. In the course of the year there had been assemblages of the Volunteers at different places. The gratifying circumstances of the occasion on which Her Most Gracious Majesty reviewed 21,000 men in Hyde Park were still fresh in the recollection of all who witnessed the stirring scene. Scotland had used all its exertions to rival, if not excel, the displays in this country; and at Edinburgh the Queen had inspected as many as 22,000 Volunteers. In Lancashire and other counties similar demonstrations had taken place, and more than 30,000 Volunteers had had the advantage of being reviewed by general officers, who had reported favourably of their efficiency.
He next came to Vote 6 for the War Department. In that Vote there was a small increase, chiefly arising from the annual increase in the salaries. In constructing the War Department out of several different offices, each having the management of a different branch of the service, great difficulties had to be overcome. Ever since the new department was formed the attention of successive Secretaries of State had been directed to the perfecting of its constitution. Much evidence was taken on that subject last year before a Committee of that House, and a

2005
plan proposed by the Secretary of State for War was laid before it and approved. He had only now to state that Lord Herbert was now engaged in carrying out that plan with all the care and caution that were necessary in dealing with so large an establishment as the War Office, the object being to have at the head of all the great branches of army administration officers practically acquainted with the departments over which they had to preside, and brought into immediate contact with the Secretary of State, who was responsible to Parliament. Provision had been taken for the appointment of a Director General of Ordnance, who would have the general superintendence of the manufacturing departments at Woolwich, and would advise the Secretary of State in relation to the artillery. The Accountant General's Department would, he hoped, with the assistance of a Treasury Committee, be very shortly placed upon a satisfactory footing. Before leaving the subject of the War Office he ought to state that the system of minuting which was prominently brought under the notice of the Committee had been curtailed, and would yet be curtailed still further.
The Votes for the matériel of the army next followed; and he would observe that the detailed accounts to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon had referred had been quite accidentally omitted from the Estimates. They were now laid upon the table and printed. He would take the Votes 7, 8, and 11 together, the first of which included the salaries of the manufacturing establishments, the second the wages, and the last warlike stores. The total amount of the Votes for matériel in 1860–1 was £3,627,327; and here, as in the case of the clothing Vote, he had added a credit from India amounting in this case to £300,000 which was deducted from Vote 11 in the Estimates for 1860–1. The corresponding charge for the year 1861–2 would be £3,459,723, thus showing a decrease of £167,604. The whole of our regular forces, the militia, embodied and disembodied, the Volunteers, and the pensioners had been armed with the Enfield rifle. A quantity of the same weapons had been supplied to the colonies, and the regular troops at home and in the Mediterranean had been provided with the interchangeable rifle, so named because the separate parts of each rifle so exactly corresponded as that any part of one rifle
2006
would equally fit another. Thus, in an action where many arms were broken a complete rifle might be formed at once from broken parts of the damaged weapons. Mr. W. Richards's carbines' had been exceedingly well reported of from India as being a very efficient arm for cavalry. He might there mention that in a very short period a trial would take place of the comparative merits of the Whitworth and the Enfield rifles. The Armstrong gun had excited much attention both in the House and the country. He could not accept the figures given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, as to the charge for the Armstrong guns, which he had stated at less than £460,000. He would only state to the Committee that the cost of the ammunition, the carriage, and the other appurtenances for the Armstrong gun was greater than the actual cost of the gun itself; and at least £800,000 of the present Estimates would be applied for those guns and their accessories. At the beginning of the financial year 1860–61 the number of Armstrong guns issued for service was 169. In the year about to close there would have been 776 more "proved" and, in most cases, also issued; making a total of 945 Armstrong guns manufactured up to the 1st of April, 1861. In the course of the year ending the 1st of April, 1861, 300,000 rounds of ammunition would likewise have been produced for that description of ordnance at a cost of £220,000. At the commencement of the next financial year the value of materials and of guns in process of manufacture is estimated at £230,000. The whole of the field batteries of the Royal Artillery at home had either been supplied with Armstrong guns, or the guns were in store ready for issue when convenient. To the navy there had been issued 16 100-pounders, 42 40-pounders, 6 25-pounders, and 13 12-pounders, and it might perhaps interest the Committee to know that, though Sir Baldwin Walker could not be intercepted, his ship, the Narcissus, was fully supplied with Armstrong guns. Provision had been taken in the Estimates this year for the manufacture of 1,057 Armstrong guns of the following calibre:—330 100-pounders, 280 40-pounders, 197 25-pounders, and 250 12 pounders. This was independent of a large sum taken to provide for the manufacture of a muzzle-loading gun for the navy, which was to form the naval

2007
broadside, this species of gun not being altogether settled at the present moment. Of late the price of the Armstrong gun had much decreased. The practice of buying part of these guns from the Elswick Ordnance Factory, and of manufacturing others, had been found of great advantage for it established a wholesome competition and gave the Government some check as to the price. The Elswick Company had behaved with great fairness. The prices had necessarily been experimental at first, and in one instance they told the Government that the price which was being paid for a certain description of gun was too high, and voluntarily suggested a reduction. The original price of the Impounder was £250; it was now £120. The price of the 40-pounder was at first £350; it had now been reduced to £285; and the cost of the ammunition was likewise being reduced. The experimental character necessarily attaching to the manufacture of the guns had added largely to the expenditure. It might be supposed that when once a 12-pounder had peen tested and proved you had nothing to do but to make bigger guns on the same scale. But it was found that the same proportions would not answer for the 40-pounder; it was only by constant experiment that the proper proportions were arrived at; and nothing could be more interesting than the beautiful contrivances by which Sir William Armstrong had gradually overcome all these difficulties. A good deal had been said respecting the guns used during the recent operations in China. Those guns were inferior in range, accuracy and power to the 12-pounders now issued. They were hastily equipped, without any of the improvements which were now being applied, but still the practical test furnished of their efficiency was eminently satisfactory, and the manner in which they were worked did the greatest credit both to the officers and men engaged. An article in the Mechanics' Magasine purported to give an extract from the report of an officer who served in China, but the information furnished to this periodical was quite inaccurate. The statement was—
"That though the Armstrong guns under the most favourable circumstances gave very accurate shooting, the casualties to our outlying riflemen Were so serious that the guns were obliged to be withdrawn at the most critical part of the action in which they were engaged."
If there had been any foundation for so extraordinary a statement it would certainly
2008
have found its way into The Times, but there was not a word of truth in it, and no casualties of the kind ever occurred. The article also alleged
"That the old service guns had to be advanced in place of the Armstrong 12-pounders, which were pronounced generally inferior to the French rifle gun for purposes of actual warfare."
This statement was said to have emanated from Major Hay, an artillery officer in command of one of these batteries. "Now, the only foundation for such an allegation was, that occasionally part of the lead stripped from the shells when fired. No casualty occurred from this cause, but it was reported that inconveniences might arise in firing over the heads of our troops. There was not the slightest difficulty, however, in meeting that defect, either by the use of zinc or by fixing the lead to the shell by a kind of mortice. What Major Hay really said as to the general efficiency of the guns was that,
"Oil all occasions when required the guns, their screws, &c, were as clean, and in as good working order, as when in England.… Their precision of fire, and the actual results obtained by them, cannot for a moment be doubted. They were the admiration of all."
And, again, "As compared with our present guns, the superiority of the Armstrong gun is manifest;" to which he added that they were "superior to the French guns in accuracy and rapidity of fire." Captain Milward, who was in charge of another battery, writing after the disembarkation at Peh-tang, reported all the guns to be "in excellent preservation, and fit for work," and added,
"This is the eighth time the battery has been embarked or landed since leaving England, each time in boats, mounted and dismounted, never once landed at a wharf, and at Odin Bay landed in a surf. During the whole of these operations no serious damage has occurred to guns or carriages."
In regard to the use of the guns in actual service the same officer wrote—
"The battery in action at Singho, on the 11th of August, fired an average of 18 rounds per gun, at 1,200 and 450 yards, besides two shells at 2,100, all with the most excellent effect. The concussion fuzes acted admirably; the practice was entirely against cavalry in open order, and quite prevented their forming for a charge, which they attempted more than once. The effect of the shells was all that could be desired; the two fired at 2,100 yards dispersing a large body of cavalry instantly."
And, again—
"At the capture of the Peiho Forts (August

2009
21) the guns and carriages stood the firing, which was rapid and continnous, very well indeed. … On the whole I can safely report that little alteration for the better can be made in the gnn, which has acted in every respect up to my anticipations, both in travelling and firing."
It is true that on two or three occasions the vent pieces had been blown out. That was a serious defect, but it did not prevent the gun continuing firing, and this defect had since been remedied by Sir William Armstrong in the most simple manner, so that it was now rendered impossible for the future. The only other defect of any consequence arose from the difficulty of manufacturing proper fuzes, but this also had been, he believed, satisfactorily met. In point of strength the Armstrong gun had stood what he believed was a perfectly unique test. A 12-pounder gun was fired 200 times according to the following programme:—10 rounds with service charge of I 1½1b. of powder, and single ser- I vice shot of 12lbs.; 10 rounds with same charge and a projectile equal to two service shot; 10 rounds same charge and a projectile equal to three service shot; and so on, gradually increasing up to 100 rounds, the last ten of which were fired with a projectile equal to ten service shot, and of such a length as to protrude several inches beyond the muzzle. The second 100 rounds were fired with double charges of powder, and with projectiles increasing as before, until they reached ten times the weight of the service shot, and again extended beyond the muzzle of the gun. The gun remained uninjured to the last, and would be issued for service. A 40-pounder of the strengthened pattern had also been tested in a similar manner, and had endured without injury 100 rounds fired with service charges, and projectiles progressively increasing in weight from 40lb. to 400b., the latter forming solid cylinders, which filled the bore to within three inches of the muzzle. These were ' tests which had never been stood by any gun before, and the Ordnance Select Committee were, therefore, right in saying,
"It may be safely assumed, from the proof, that the Armstrong 12-pounder possesses a degree of strength far beyond any requirement of the service, and that it is practically impossible to burst it by fair means."
It had been stated that a 100-pounder Armstrong gun that was tried at Portsmouth had turned out a failure; but this was not correct; the gun was not sent to Portsmouth to be fired, as it had been somewhat
2010
injured in proof by a shell bursting at; its mouth; but it so happened that it was fired; but it was not as a trial. The gun was returned to Woolwich with no further defect than before. A similar statement had been made with respect to a 100-pounder Armstrong gun at Shoeburyness; that bad been sent there only for trial, to ascertain if the copper ring at the bouche might be dispensed with. A rather extraordinary experiment had been recently made as to the effect of shot upon the Armstrong gun. A 9-pounder cannon was brought within twenty yards of an Armstrong gun and an ordinary brass fieldpiece, and fired on them. The Armstrong gun which had been damaged before in proof was smashed, and the brass-piece rendered unserviceable. But as no batteries of artillery were ever known to come within twenty yards of each other, the experiment had no practical value; and as they were obliged to go within twenty yards of the Armstrong gun to hit it at all, it showed that it was very difficult to do so. An experiment that had been made with Armstrong and smoothbore cannon against two Martello towers on the Sussex coast had proved very satisfactory. The guns were placed at the same distance against two Martello towers of exactly the same construction, the smooth-bore pieces having the advantage in the weight of shot. From the Armstrong guns 170 rounds were fired:, from the smooth-bore 271. In the tower against which the latter were fired no practicable breach was made, but the wall of the tower exposed to the fire of the Armstrong gun was reduced to a complete ruin. A trial had also recently been made with a segment shell from a 25-pounder Armstrong gun at two iron embrasures, and in a few rounds all the lay figures representing the gun detachment were struck. He did not think he had anything more to state with respect to these pieces; and he would only further remark upon the store Vote that the arsenals were well supplied, and the steam reserve was complete as to guns, ammunition, and stores. This Vote had been largely increased of late years. Nor was this wonderful; the old kinds of weapons were much cheaper than the improved ones, and the ammunition for them was cheaper also. The old Brown Bess musket cost only 30s.; the Enfield rifle cost £2 15s. or £3; a 32-pounder gun cost £56; an Armstrong 40-pounder £285; the ammunition

2011
for the 30-pounder 9s. per round; for the Armstrong gun 16sd. 8d.; and there was not only the increased cost of the different arms, but the constant changes in them. But he hoped the expense was now diminishing. When the first cost of replacing one kind of arm by another was once over the expense would be very much reduced.
The Vote for works and fortifications for the present year was very small, and the items would be better discussed when the Vote itself was before the Committee. It was the opinion of the Secretary of State that the expenditure on fortifications should be kept as low as possible; and that in many cases it would only be necessary that the sites of proposed works should be in the possession of the Government, that the works might be constructed as occasion required. The real decrease upon this Vote as compared with 1860–1 was £47,000—although there was a nominal decrease of £437,000—a charge of £390,000 having been transferred to the fortification loan. This fact, which, indeed, was patent upon the face of the Estimates, had not, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon supposed, escaped notice, for it was naturally alluded to in The Army and Navy Gazette some time since.
In Votes 13 and 14 for Barracks and Civil Buildings, in which there was a. decrease as compared with last year of £44,541. He would only mention in respect to these Votes that provision had been made for extending the school of gunnery at Shoeburyness; it was also proposed to establish in Lancashire a school of musketry, like that at Hythe; this would be a great convenience to officers, and saving of expense to the public on account of the travelling expenses of officers Btationedin the north of England. The improvements already introduced in barracks and hospitals would be continued, and the Committee would readily believe that so long as Lord Herbert presided over the War Department, in no respect would the exertions made to improve the condition of the soldier be diminished. As to that condition he would read an extract from the Report of certain artillery officers who had very recently visited the Continent and reported upon the state of foreign armies. Those officers said that
"Although in one or two instances a few alterations and improvements suggest themselves which we consider might be advantageously in-
2012
troduced into our service, still, on the whole, the condition of foreign soldiers is immeasurably inferior to that of our own; it would not be difficult to mention a large number of advantages un-known to the former which the latter enjoy; commencing with the voluntary enlistment system as opposed to conscription, we might show successively how the personal liberty of the British soldier is better cared for, how the discipline by which he is governed is not only based upon a broader foundation of justice, but is enforced in a far less oppressive and irksome manner, and how his rights, whether as a soldier or -citizen, are secured to him with a certainty and impartiality unknown in Continental armies. We have already noticed the absence of any attempts to ameliorate the position of the foreign soldier, to provide him with amusement during his leisure hours, and of any particular regard for his personal welfare and happiness except where his military efficiency is concerned:—when to this we add that our men are better paid, better clothed, and better fed than those of either France, Sardinia, Austria, Russia or Prussia, we shall have said sufficient to show hove considerably the balance is in favour of the British soldier."
With respect to the Votes for non-effective charges it was not necessary to make any observations, as they depended upon causes over which the House had no control; but he might mention one matter which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel)—the state of accounts with the Indian Government. A Committee which sat last year had called attention to the inadequate sum paid by the Indian Revenue to meet the dead weight charges imposed upon the Imperial Revenue for the large number of men employed in India. A Committee, consisting of officers selected by the Secretary for India, the Secretary for War, and the Treasury, had met, and had recommended that instead of the present system, by which, under Act of Parliament, £60,000 a year was paid for those charges, a sum of £3 10s. per annum for each effective man in India should be paid out of the Indian revenue. That would give in round numbers £200,000 in aid of the Imperial exchequer. To that proposal the Secretary for India in Council had agreed, and it would be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury to introduce a Bill to give effect to that arrangement. It was also proposed to get rid of the complicated accounts between the India Office and the War Office, and that a sum of £10 per effective man in India should be paid in lieu of the detailed charges for depot and other expenses incurred in this country on account of troops serving in India now paid out of the revenues of India.

2013
That change would save an immense amount of unnecessary correspondence and delay in the settlement of the army accounts.
Having gone through the Estimates to the best of his ability, he had only to notice the general result. As the right hon. Gentleman (General Peel) had said, there was not, he admitted, a real decrease of £185,795, but he would proceed to explain that so far from there being, as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, an increase as compared with the Estimates of last year, the real decrease was larger than that which appeared upon the face of the account. The apparent decrease was £185,795, to which must be added £500,000 of Indian credits in 1860–61 which he had explained upon the clothing and store Votes, and which raised the decrease to £685,795. On the other hand, the sum of £390,000, being the charge for fortifications transferred to the loan, must be deducted, leaving the real decrease this year at £295,795, as compared with the Estimates of 1860–61. He had only to add that the Estimates had been framed with every regard to economy consistent with the efficiency of the public service. He thought Parliament would not consider a less number of men than were asked for to be necessary, nor that it would be right to interpose any needless delay in completing the improved ordnance for our navy, and, therefore, he thought the Committee would agree that the Estimates proposed were not larger than in the present circumstances of Europe it was proper to submit for army services in the year 1861–2. The hon. Gentleman then moved that the number of troops in the United Kingdom for the ensuing year be 146,044 men.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was glad to hear the opinion of the distinguished officers referred to as to the superior advantages enjoyed by the British soldiers over those in foreign armies. But he wished to draw attention to some peculiarities and errors in the Estimates now laid before them. There seemed to be discrepancy between the reduction of money and the reduction of men. He thought also that the Indian and the home accounts had been mixed up together in a most injudicious manner, and then deductions made in a manner utterly confusing. It did not appear to him (Colonel Dunne) that the hon. Gentleman had answered the objection of his hon. and gallant Friend. Ap-
2014
parently the hon. Gentleman asked for 146,044 men in this year against 145,269 of last year, or an increase of 775 men. But it was necessary to take the reductions made in this country and to compute them together with the reductions made in India. It appeared from the statements of the hon. Gentleman that six regiments were coming home and the Indian establishment was to be reduced by 16,856 men. Of these at least 10,000 would be transferred to the home establishment. If the six regiments of infantry, and, at the same time, since regiments of cavalry and the artillery were brought home this still left 6,856 men to be reduced in in India in some way or other. About 5,000 or even 6,000 of the Militia force would be actually reduced. But how did the hon. Gentleman explain how the remaining 10,000 men were to be reduced? The ordinary casualties of the year would, of course, reduce the army if no recruiting took place; and Mr. Sidney Herbert next stated the addition to the army each year at about 18,000 men. But the hon. Gentleman, while he proposed to reduce the army by 15,000, asked in his Estimate for recruiting for a sum sufficient to raise a much larger number than would be required. The hon. Gentleman asked £40,000 for recruits. But each recruit costing £4 10s. he could not see how he arrived at that £40,000. How were the men raised to be disposed of? or if recruiting was to be stopped where was the necessity for the Vote? Either there was too much for recruiting or too little for the pay of the troops. The hon. Gentleman had said that the Estimates were framed with a due regard to ecomony. He (Colonel Dunne) did not think this was the case. He thought quite the reverse. He wished to keep the army effective; but he found that while there was a reduction in the effective part of the army, there was an increase in almost every item for the staff and civil service of the army. Last year £13,000 was taken for supernumerary officers of regiments; that was increased this year to £15,000. He thought the system of leaving officers on the strength of regiments who were appointed to the staff, as now proposed, most objectionable, as it obviously afforded an opportunity for favouritism. The system of the reduction of officers had been most capricious and varied at different times. It acted most unfairly. Formerly when cavalry regiments returned from India the

2015
two Lieutenant-Colonels and Majors were reduced—sometimes only the latter. At present it is said the Majors are to be left and the second Lieutenant-Colonels reduced. "Why is this distinction made? Two Lieutenant-Colonels—Colonels Ainsdier and Tyler—have been lately reduced. Colonel Tyler has been reduced as Major before, and has seen service in almost every campaign in India. Why should be now be reduced as Lieutenant Colonel? He has already been reduced as Major; but now were he Major and not Lieutenant Colonel he would by the change lately made be retained on the strenth of his regiment. I ask the House and the country are these recollections and changes fair to military men whose professional prospects are dependent on such fantastic caprices? He regretted to see the depot battalions retained. They had been condemned by almost all highly experienced officers, and among others by Lord Sea-ton, who was, perhaps, the highest authority on the subject, and who had written a pamphlet against the system. The £62,480 for recruiting was an increase on last year of £6,054, and on the entire expenses of the recruiting staff there was a considerable increase. If they could recruit during the whole of the Crimean war with the staff they then had he could not see any cause for that increase. Then, also, hospital expenses had been raised. No doubt it would be said that this was in order to promote the comfort of the men; but a case had not, in his opinion, been made out for the increase of the Estimate. These expenses used formerly to be paid out of soldiers' stoppages; not that he (Colonel Dunne) approved of stoppages for any purpose, whether for hospital, for food, for forage, or for clothing; stoppages were bad in principle. The soldier ought in all cases to know what he was going to receive instead of the amount depending upon accident, the state of his health, or in any other requirement. This system also led to a most objectionable multiplication of accounts and an increase in the civil department of the army. The pay of the number of clerks employed on account of stoppages would nearly compensate for their amount. He would pass over the vote for the administration of martial law* but he could not pass over that for the movement of troops* Our troops were now for the most part concentrated in large camps, at Aldershott, the Curragh, and elsewhere; there was, con-
2016
quently less movement of troops than usual; yet these economical Estimates showed an increase of £42,000 under that head. The next extravagance was the Staff. In 1815, when the number of men Was upwards of 800,000, and when the Commander-iii1Chief, the Duke of York, received the pay of a Field Marshal, which was about £6,000 a year, the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief amounted to £19,870 a year. Now, with only 146; 000 men, and his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge not receiving much more than half the sum paid to the Duke of York in 1815, the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief was £14,920. Then the cost of the civil department appeared monstrous; £201,823 was out of all proportion. It was true that the Ordnance had been separate from the army head-quarters; but even allowing for that, he could not see why the amount now asked for should be so great. He then came to the appointment of Inspector of Cavalry. To this there could be no objection; it was a special service, and this duty was essential to the preservation of the efficiency of the army. He also approved of there being a Director of Artillery. But he could not see the use of a General Inspector of the Guards; it was unworthy of that distinguished body to need the inspection of General Officers. As to the Inspector of Infantry, the Committee would be surprised to hear that he never is allowed to inspect a regiment of infantry; his duties were confined to the inspection of dep6ts. If depots were ab-abolished the occupation of the Inspector would be gone; and if not why were the Generals of districts not as competent to inspect a depot of infantry as an infantry regiment? He thought that the present enormous Staff ought to be reduced if economical principles were to be carried out. There was an immense Staff of Inspectors of Volunteers which appeared increased from last year in the present Estimate. Why could not the Volunteers be inspected by the Generals commanding the districts; or by field-officers detached from regiments in those districts, as were those who inspected the yeomanry force? That could be done without any expense at all. He did not think the Estimates had been framed in that spirit of economy which had been promised by the noble Lord to a deputation of Members of that House, very few of whom he (Colonel Dunne) saw present now that the Estimates were brought on for discussion. In fact, the House would

2017
find an increase almost on every item which even if, on each considered, small, yet added up came to a considerable sum. He had already suggested a reduction of at least £250,000, and, he thought, fulfilled his promises of pointing out to the hon. Gentleman a sum four times the amount of the stoppages from the ill-paid cavalry officers for the forage of their horses, and yet he had not even touched on those establishments and manufactories under the War Department, in which, he believed, there was a wide field for our army. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the clothing of the army. Now last Session he (Colonel Dunne) had moved for a return which would have shown how much the Government paid for the coat of a soldier. That return had never been made, the reason being, he believed, that the Government were so badly informed on the subject they could not make it. He had been informed that the new clothing cost 40 per cent more than it did formerly. But the Government seemed to him to know nothing about it; and yet this department was under the super intendance of able officers, who, he did not doubt, could at once give any information required. The hon. Gentleman had talked about the Armstrong guns, and he was perfectly right in saying that we must go to a great expense for those guns. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Impounders only, as if there were no other guns; but he had said nothing about 9-pounders. Were there not 9-pounder Armstrong guns to be used, and guns of various calibre already made? With regard to rifles, in 1853 a new rifle was adopted, and every year since enormous sums had been expended in the manufacture of rifles. He believed that ever since the union of the Ordnance and War Departments no less a sum than £4,000,000 must have been voted for the purchase of rifles, or for the cost of the manufactories and machinery for making them. He would like to know what had become of all the rifles? There ought to be more than enough for an army of double our force. No doubt a great many might have been lost in the Crimea and in India; but a return ought to be laid on the table of the House every year of the number of rifles lost. What was called the Reserve Fund was likewise a matter deserving the serious attention of the House, and he hoped some account of that fund would be laid before the House. The House, perhaps, was not
2018
aware that during and since the Crimean war the War Department, while appointing Commissioners and holding out to the public that it was about to abolish or at least discourage the existence of sale and purchase of commissions in the army, was actually at the time itself selling commissions, and then formed what they called a reserve fund, very useful for their own manipulations of commissions, but of very doubtful utility either to the service or the country. The Committee on the Organization of the Army, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Carlisle, came to the conclusion that a fund of this kind might be attended with danger if it were not brought under the supervision of that House. He had run hastily through these Estimates on the present occasion, but as there came to be voted he should take the opportunity of examining and discussing many of them in detail. Neither his judgment nor his professional feelings—call them even prejudices-—would lead him in the least to recommend the smallest decrease in the efficiency of the service; but he thought that if the country voted larger sums for that service at least it had the right to see that those sums were efficiently and economically expended; and still further, the War Department was bound to give the House all information on the subject which could not prejudice the public services.
MR. W. WILLIAMS,after complimenting the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War, on the able and clear statement he had made to the House, said he wished to ask whether there was any other nation that paid so much for war establishments as England in a time of peace? Why was England burdened with such enormous cost for military establishments? No country in Europe had any idea of attacking us; nor were we called upon to assist any other nation in any quarrel in which they might be engaged. Great pains were taken to impress on the public mind that we had something to fear from France; but our military force was greater than that of of France. The right hon. and gallant General, the Member for Huntingdon, recently stated that we had a military and naval force consisting of 600,000 men, including that in India and the colonies. With our Volunteers and the Irish constabulary we had a military force of 380,000 in the United Kingdom. Now, what was the force of France? Not

2019
long since the Emperor had stated in an official document that it amounted to 400,000, of which 20,000 were gens-d'armes. 100,000 men were away in different parts, leaving the actual force in France at 300,000. Now, was it likely, under these circumstances, that the Emperor of the French had any idea of invading us? Even if he did, it was proved beyond dispute in the debate on the Navy Estimates that our men and ships were double those of France. He was sorry to observe that the present Government was the most extravagant that had ever ruled over this country. Taking the proposed Army Estimates of £14,600,000, and comparing them with those of former Governments, he found that in the last year of the Duke of Wellington's Administration they amounted to £7,900,000; under Lord Grey to £8,110,000; under Lord Melbourne to £7,800,000; under Lord John Russell in 1851 and 1852 £8,823,000. Taking the seven years he had referred to of previous Administrations, the average amount of the Estimates of those years was £6,600,000 less than was required for this year. Some explanation ought to be given of this enormous increase. He looked upon the Yolunteers as of immense benefit to the country, and as our great means of defence. With them we did not require such an immense standing army. If he had thought it would be of any use in the present temper of the House he would move for a large reduction of these Estimates. But he did advise the House to make a stand against this enormous expenditure. He believed, if these Estimates were referred to a Committee of five independent Gentlemen, who would thoroughly investigate them, millions might be saved without in the least diminishing the efficiency of the army. He thought it was a most unjust course on the part of the Government to borrow money to erect fortifications.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he had observed that the ideas of the hon. Member for Lambeth with regard to the numbers of our army became more expansive every year. How the hon. Member could make out that we had nearly 400,000 men under arms he was at a loss to conceive. Although he (Colonel Dickson) had not been in the House so long as the hon. Under Secretary for War, he would take the liberty of observing that in making his statement he had displayed an amount of ability which showed that his right hon.
2020
Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no occasion to throw his protective ægis around him; but great as was the ability which the hon. "Under Secretary had displayed he had failed to convince him (Colonel Dickson) that in framing these Estimates the Government had paid the slightest regard to considerations of economy; and it was not because he happened to sit on the Opposition benches, but as an independent Member he felt it his duty to protest against the expenditure, which he thought was totally unwarrantable and unjustifiable when it was considered in proportion to the number of men they had. He was not in favour of reducing the number of the army by a single man; that he believed would be the worst of all false economy; but he had looked back to the Estimates of 1853 and 1854, when they were admitted to be on the eve of the Russian war, and he had compared them with the expenditure of the present time. He had not done this because he entertained so Utopian an idea that they would be able to return to the smaller expenditure of former years; for as the nation increased in wealth and in power, and as it became senssible of the necessity of making better provision for the comfort of the men, the expense must of necessity increase; but he did not see why the increase should have been so great as it had been, or why, in 1853 and 1854, they should have paid £9,700,000 for 119,881 men, and why, in 1861 and 1862, they should be called upon to pay £14,600,009 for 146,044 men. Instead of there being a reduction of £186,000, if they added to the Estimates for the year the cost of fortifications and some other little matters, they would find that the sum they would have to provide for the military establishments would amount to nearly £16,000,000. This was a state of things which he thought it was high time they should put a stop to. In his statement the hon. Under Secretary alluded to another branch of the subject, which was fairly past the consideration of the House—that was their warlike stores for land and sea use. Whilst they could always improvise men they could not want the stores, and therefore they must always keep a large stock, and lose no opportunity of adopting all the implements which from time to time were made in warlike improvements; but he found in the Estimates of 1853 and 1854 that the cost for stores for land and sea use was £374,697, and now it was put down.

2021
at £2,200,581. This was an increase he saw no reason for. Again there was an increase of £39,472 in the costs of the departments of the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State. They had been given to understand that the formation of the office of Secretary of State for War would lead to economy in the departments; but he found that, including the charge for postage, the united office cost £80,000 more than the offices of the Secretary at War and the Ordnance Office in 1853–4. Of course, the increase of expenses on account of the Volunteer corps no one would begrudge, if it was kept within any reasonable limits. They had been told that the cost of the army might be closely calculated by adding two "0's" to the number of the men. That might be; but why, he should like to know, were they this year to pay at the rate of £100 per man, when in 1853 and 1854 they paid £75 per man? The additional £25 per man made a difference on the whole of £4,000,000, which would make a very nice little deduction from the income tax, which they would neither be willing nor able much longer to pay. They were only asked for 775 more men, and yet the items for extra provisions, fuel, forage, &c, came to £178,457, or above £250 per man. He merely referred to this as showing the extravagant manner in which these Estimates were made up. The hon. Under Secretary had said he proposed to decrease the cavalry. He hoped the Government were not serious in this. A cavalry soldier cost a good deal of money to make, and when made ought not to be lightly cast aside. Moreover, there was no necessity to decrease the number of men; all that was required was to decrease the expense; and if his hon. Friend the Under Secretary would refer to a light publication (as there had been references to several publications during the evening), namely, Punch, he would see there a woodcut representing the state of the navy which was equally applicable to the army. It was not the fighting men but the thinking men who were so expensive. The hon. Gentlemen took great credit for the clothing establishment; but say that it took a fortnight to fit out seven battalions, that did not speak very well for it, as private establishments would readily do that in a week, and had done it in less. He heard with great regret of the idea of establishing a school and college for young men. This system was,
2022
he thought, a monstrous one—it was following too much the foreign plan; and the fact of its being compulsory on young men to enter these colleges would deter many from joining the army at all. The great Duke said that he wanted gentlemen, and he would undertake to make them soldiers. This college he (Colonel Dickson) thought was a mistake. He hoped the Estimates would be well canvassed. Where the reforming band of fifty were he did not know. The country was getting sick of the expenditure which was going on, and if the same apathy was continued by the House he thought it would be a good reason for extending the suffrage.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to ask for an explanation of one point in the hon. Gentleman's statement. The Estimates showed a net decrease of £185,000 compared with the expenditure of last year; but they had been told that the decrease was really much larger, because there were sums amounting to £500,000 to be written off from the Indian credits of last year. He wanted to know what this meant. In Vote 9, for the clothing department, the sum voted last year was £524,000, but the sum required here was but £325,000, and the difference, £200,000, was set off as a credit for clothing supplied to the Indian Government. This, it appeared, was to be done no longer. Hitherto we had provided a larger quantity of clothing for our own army than was required, in order to send some of it to India. But was it intended that in future the Indian Government should get its own stores and clothing directly for itself, instead of getting them through the medium of the War Office? If so, that would be no real saving. He wished to know whether the Treasury had authorized any shifting of these accounts from the War Department to the Indian Department during the past year.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid the statement made by the Under Secretary for War was so clear that it left room for but few questions. He would, in the first place, congratulate the War Office on the improvements they are represented to have made in their mode of keeping the accounts and correspondence. He had given notice at the close of last Session of his intention to move for a Select Committee early in the present Session to take into consideration the defective mode which existed in the War Department of conducting the accounts and correspondence; but if

2023
the heads of that department were now engaged in the necessary reform he should wait to see the result. On the whole he should assent to these Estimates, and as he approved of the number of men it was proposed to have, other items of expenditure must to a certain degreee follow. But he should object to some of the details when the time came; and that some economy might be effected in these matters by the House of Commons was evident from the reduction they had obtained in the remounts of the cavalry. Now, in a few days, they would have to come to the Votes on fortifications. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would then give the House some details as to what had been done with the £2,000,000 voted in August last. He should ask whether it had been partly or wholly expended, and whether the works yet had been commenced or the plans approved; because, if they had not been extensively carried on, the House might now decide to stop their progress, and he would try to induce the House to do so. Seven months had now passed since the £2,000,000 were voted for those fortifications, and a particular account should be given of them, for in August next he supposed the hon. Gentleman would be asking for £2,000,000 more. There were some items in the Estimate to which he entertained objections; but, on the whole, he was prepared to give it his support. It was his intention, however, to give notice of a Motion to reduce the item for the movement of troops by £70,000, as he did not see why more should be paid under that head in the ensuing financial year than in that which was just closing. He was glad to perceive that some reduction had taken place in the cost of cavalry horses, and he attributed this good result to the Motion for a Return which he had made some time since. As for the Armstrong guns, the report we had heard of their failure in China proved, he rejoiced to find, to be perfectly unfounded; but in the experiment made at Woolwich, it appeared from a statement of the hon. Gentleman, in reply to questions about it, that one of those guns was destroyed at a distance of twenty yards. The construction of those guns was indeed a wonder, and quite worthy of this country and of that ingenious man who had invented them; but it would be as well, before incurring enormous expenses for their manufacture, to ascertain what their defects might be, be-
2024
cause if they were more brittle than ordinary guns, Sir William Armstrong ought to provide a remedy in time. Their powers in throwing shot and shell had been sufficiently proved, but what remained to be proved was the amount of their resistance to injury from shot fired at them. He trusted the War Department would give their attention to this important matter.
MR. T. G. BARING,in reply to the various questions that had been asked, said that the House would probably be of opinion that minor points connected with the Army Estimates might be more advantageously discussed when the time came for voting the items in detail. With regard, however, to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County (Colonel Dunne) he could only assure him, on the part of his Department, that there was no wish to withhold information, and that the Return he asked for would be presented before the clothing Vote was taken. He was sorry to hear that in the opinion of the gallant Officer the Member for the county of Limerick (Colonel Dickson) to educate officers for the army at a college was objectionable. Such an education, however, was similar to that which most hon. Members had received at Oxford or Cambridge, and to the course of education undergone by distinguished officers in the Indian service; and he could not see, therefore, why it should be unsuited for officers in Her Majesty's service. He admitted that the Estimates of 1861–62, as compared with those of 1853–54, exhibited an increase; but he contended that the calculations based on this comparison had had not been fairly presented to the House. The number of men voted to a great extent influenced the whole of the remaining items. In 1853–54 the men voted were, in round numbers, 120,000; while in 1861–62 they were 146,000. The total Estimates for the former year was about £9,500,000, and, observing the same proportionate rate of increase, they should in 1861–62 have amounted to £11,000,000. He had, therefore, to account in the coming financial year for an excess of £3,500,000 over that amount. But on looking into the particular Votes, he found an increase of £2,400,000 for warlike matériel, consequent in a great measure in the changes which had unavoidably been made in small arms and ordnance. For provisions the increase was £580,000, as between the two Estimates; but the Com-

2025
mittee must bear in mind that this increase mainly arose from the improvements which had taken place in the condition of the soldier, and which were really equivalent to an increase in his pay. Seeing that the rate of pay for agricultural and almost every othre description of labour had of recent years undergone so great a change it would be absurd to maintain that that of the soldier should be kept at a standstill. The votes of the House of Commons had also from time to time necessitated an augmentation of our expenditure for military purposes; for instance, there was an increase of £35,000 in the pay of sergeants in consequence of such a vote. In conclusion, he had simply to express a hope-that the Committee, with a view to the convenience of the public service, would allow him to take the Votes for the number of men, and that for pay and allowances, which it was expedient should be passed that evening.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he did not wish to reduce the number of men in the army, but he did wish to reduce the expenditure. As to the proposition that young men should be obliged to go into a college for one year's probation before entering the army, he looked upon that proposition with considerable alarm, though he quite admitted that everybody of any experience in the army was anxious to do away with the depot battalions. It was not the Military Departments, but the Civil Departments, that were eating them up, by causing increased Estimates. Under the old system, when we had four times the number of men that we now had under arms, the number of clerks employed was only a sixth that now employed, and their pay and allowances were very large. Since the change which had been effected in the War Office in 1855, the number of clerks throughout the service had been considerably augmented, and they, and not the officers of the army, it was who were eating up the money voted by Parliament. A captain did not receive nearly so much as a second-class clerk, nor an ensign as a third-class clerk. There was one office which had been made during the past year, that of précis writer to the War Office, and this increased the expenditure £1,000 a-year, though similar officials in the Foreign Office were not remunerated in so handsome a manner. There were also things put down in these Estimates which should not be charged as
2026
military expenses, such as £15,000 a-year for police, aides-de camp to civil Governors, £3,000 or £4,000 a-year, besides forage for horses, and the Staff of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. One word as to the movement of troops, for there was a very large increase under that head. He could not understand why there should be this enormous expense for the movement of troops at home. We had also a very large increase under the head of recruiting, though the recruiting was bonâ fide stopped. Then, again, there was an increase in the expense of the hospital department. He should be very sorry to object to anything which would ameliorate the condition of the soldier, and he could not help saying, in passing, that no other army ever went on foreign service so efficiently equipped, especially as to the medical department, as the army we had sent to China. But the China war was now over. Under the head of medical staff alone there was an increase of £10,323, and on the hospital Vote there was an increase of £40,000. The charge for the administration of martial law was also high. He agreed that the army should be kept in an as efficient state as possible, and he repeated that he believed that the only place in which to make a reduction in expenditure was in the Civil Departments. When the new War Department was created, the Government gave a pledge that they would furnish a full and detailed account of its duties and the probable expense, but that statement had never been laid before the House. As to the clothing of the soldiers, nobody could deny that it had very much improved but it had also very much increased in expense.
MR. HENLEYcomplained that the Under Secretary of State for War had lumped together the non-effective and effective services, than which no more effectual method of throwing dust in the eyes of the Committee could be devised. In the year 1853–4 our army numbered 120,000 men, and the charge for the effective service was about £7,500,000. This year we were to have 144,000 or 145,000 men at a charge of something like £12,500,000 for the effective service. Thus, while the increase in the number of men was only 21 or 22 per cent., the increase of charge was 60 per cent. This extravagance ran through every branch of the Estimates. When the different army offices were consolidated the country was promised in-

2027
Creased efficiency, and very naturally some economy was also expected. Instead of the latter anticipation being realized, however, the expense of the War Department had risen from £120,000 to £195,000, or about 60 per cent. He did not think that we had a man too many in the army; but if that army was to be maintained at a constantly increasing charge he was afraid that in a little while the country would become dissatisfied with the expense, and a rush would be made to cut down the number of men to a dangerously low point as the only mode of diminishing the expenditure. He had seen such things happen before, and he did not wish to see them again. He did not think that the increase of charge could be entirely accounted for by the change of our ordnance. He thought that a good deal of it was the result of the extravagant habits which the War Department had contracted during the Crimean War. We were then borrowing millions of money, and we did not care what we spent. We had a great object to achieve, and we spent money recklessly to achieve that object. Expensive habits once formed were not easily eradicated. The Government and heads of Departments knowing more about these matters than anybody else were always able to explain away any disagreeable details; but the country would soon get sick of this, for the people did not like paying taxes, and they would call for a reduction in the number of men. He, for one, deeply grieved that this should be so. There was stated to be a decrease upon the Estimates this year of £185,000, but that decrease was rather apparent than real, as it arose from there being no Vote for the militia and the fortifications being charged to another account. It was very easy for the Government to defend the items in that House, but the country would look to the general result; and, in his opinion, some economy might be effected by more judicious management.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, everybody seems to be agreed that the number of men asked for is not greater than the interests of the country require, and all who understand military matters admit that the number of men in a great degree governs the aggregate expense of the army. Everybody, I think, is also agreed that the extended application of science to instruments of warfare, that is the introduction of great improvements in cannon—muskets, and other things used in military opera-
2028
tions—must, during the period of transition at least, cause a very great increase of expense. Now, if hon. Members look at these Estimates they will find that a great portion of the increase as compared with former periods arises, first, from the addition to the number of men; and, secondly, from the change of the implements of war. But, besides that, hon. Gentlemen ought to bear in mind that certainly no Session passes, and not many months in any Session pass, without Members getting up and proposing good, but at the same time expensive, changes in arrangements connected with the army. One Member presses upon the House the necessity of improving the barrack accommodation for the soldiers; another says the clothing is defective in quality and ought to be improved; a third states that the hospital accommodation is not what it should be; and others that various other changes ought to be made to render the condition of the soldiers more fitting the improved temper and habits of the times. All these alterations, good though they may be, are attended with more or less increase of expense, and when they come to be put together in a great aggregate they tend of course to swell the Estimates. But I do not think that anybody will be of opinion that these augmentations of expense are not usefully incurred. We are now told that the Civil Departments are extravagantly conducted, and those military Gentlemen, who see the increase of expense and who want to turn off the attention of the House from the fact that a great part of that increase arises from military considerations, wish to throw the whole blame upon the Civil Departments. They say there is a most extravagant increase in the Civil Departments. That is a matter which the Committee will consider when we come to those Votes. If they can show that there are augmentations in the Civil Departments which are not required for expediting the public business it will be for the Committee to interpose. With respect, however, to the consolidation of the Military Departments I must beg leave to say that there never was a greater improvement made in the organization of any branch of the public service. In former times there was a Secretary of State who combined the War Department and the Colonies. There was a Secretary at War who also had charge of the Accountant's Department of the Army, There was a Commander-in-Chief who also had the Medical Department under him.

2029
The Treasury had the Commissariat, and there was a separate Ordnance Department. I need not say that there was a confusion and a clashing between these different departments which proved exceedingly embarrassing to the public service. The consolidation of these departments under one head—the Secretary of State for War—has been an immense improvement in the administration of our military affairs. It may for the moment have rendered necessary an increase in some of the branches of the Civil Departments; but I venture to say that when the matter comes to be looked into the House will find that, even if there has been a temporal increase in some parts of the administration, the efficiency of the military service has been immensely promoted by the introduction of the new system.
MR. MONSELLdid not think that the noble Lord had entirely answered the judicious remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that the real cause of alarm was this gradual increase that was going on from year to year in those military Estimates. As the right hon. Gentleman had observed, for the sake of the service and of avoiding the revulsion of feeling which ' must arise if that system were to continue, they ought well to consider every single item in those Estimates. They were all agreed that the number of men was not too large at present; and the Under Secretary for War had well accounted for £2,500,000 increase in connection with the increase in the number of men. But there was one part of his remarks not so satisfactory. He stated in round numbers that the increase in warlike stores demanded for this year would amount to about £2,500,000. Now that enormous expenditure had been going on, not for one or two, but for four or five and even six years, and as there had been no expenditure of those stores, there must be an enormous accumulation of them. When they were about to create those establishments at Woolwich, which had been entirely successful, one of the arguments which had the greatest weight -with the House was that by having this enormous productive power in their hands they should be able to get up their stores in a few months even if they were low. Therefore they had now got the means of producing enormously almost every species of warlike stores; yet still, after a large expenditure had gone on for several years,
2030
they were this year called upon for a larger sum by about £160,000 or £200,000 for those establishments than last year. Before they voted that sum they ought to have a full explanation as to the state of their stores at present, and the productive power of the establishments. They ought to hesitate before allowing this enormous expenditure to go on from year to year. He sincerely believed if this enormous expenditure were to go on increasing in this way there would be a tremendous revulsion, and that before long they would be left without a sufficient supply of money voted by that House to meet the wants of the country.
MR. CONINGHAMwas convinced that the statement made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), that the present Estimates might be regarded as our peace establishment, would sink deeply into the public mind. Whatever might be the opinion of the country as to Parliamentary Reform, there was but one opinion that the expenditure had reached that point where it must be stopped. The Under Secretary for War said that it was satisfactory to have a Government establishment for the manufactory for Armstrong guns; but the Government had also entered into a contract with the Elswick firm. The arrangement was however so extravagant that the prices had been reduced. He was certain that if all the contracts entered into by the War Department were similar to those concluded by the Treasury it would be impossible to conceive arrangements more profligate and wasteful. He was not inclined to leave the country defenceless, but he was convinced that our military forces might be maintained in an equally efficient state as at present with a largely reduced expenditure.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYthought that great credit was due to the Under Secretary for the ability he had shown in explaining the Estimates to the Committee. From comparison it appeared that we were now spending £3,500,000 more than was required by the increase of men since 1853–54. Part of that enormous increase, no doubt, arose from the public manufacturing establishments. He did not agree that we had saved anything by the Government factories. Governments were the worst manufacturers and agriculturists in the world, and all they wanted should be supplied by private individuals under a system of open competition. The coun-

2031
try really could not afford so large an expenditure. They could not increase the taxation. Were they prepared to add to the National Debt? He wished that the country should be kept in a proper state of defence; he did not think we had too many men at present, nor that we overpaid them, for wages were general on the rise; the clothing of the army was better now than formerly, but he suspected that it cost us a great deal more money than when it was supplied by the colonels. But he was a sanguine man, indeed, who could look forward to such a state of prosperity as we had enjoyed of late years. He believed that much greater economy might be exercised in both services, without impairing their efficiency.
MR. LIDDELLwished to make a remark upon the observations of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham). The statement of that hon. Member was liable to misapprehension. He seemed to infer that we had entered into so bad a contract with the Elswick Company that we had since reduced the terms for making the Armstrong guns; but he (Mr. Liddell) would remind the Committee that the reduction in price was volunteered by Sir William Armstrong himself.
MR. T. G. BARINGexplained that when the Elswick Company found they were able to produce guns at a cheaper rate, because they were now of an uniform shape, and not subject to so many alterations as formerly, they voluntarily made the reduction The contract was not an extravagant one; but it was very creditable to the company that they had given the Government the benefit of the greater economy in the production of the weapon.
MR. WALPOLEobserved, that it was said by an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House (Mr. Coningham) that this was to be considered a peace Estimate. He was afraid that statement would cause considerable alarm as to the prospective expenditure of the country. What he understood the Under Secretary for War to state was something different from what the hon. Member for Brighton understood. He (Mr. Walpole) understood the hon. Gentleman to state that the charge for military stores, which had so much increased, was owing to the transition state through which, as the noble Viscount said, they were passing. He wished to ask whether, when they had passed through that transition state, these Estimates ought not to be reduced in a year or two by
2032
say £2,000,000? He wished, also, to ask another question. In the Report of the Army Organization Committee there was a fund mentioned called the Reserve Fund, which arose from the sale of commissions, which was disposed of and properly applied by the Secretary of State to the relief of what he might call the dead-weight expenses, of which no account was rendered to that House. The Army Organization Committee had recommended that a proper account of the distribution of that money should be appended to the Estimates; and he wanted to know when that recommendation would be carried into effect?
MR. T. G. BARINGreplied, that it was the intention of the Secretary for War to furnish an account of the Reserve Fund. He had examined the Vote for stores for the coming year very minutely and carefully, and he anticipated that a considerable reduction in the Vote might be made in 1862–3, and a still greater reduction in the following years.
MR. H. B. JOHNSTONEcomplained of the inconsistency of hon. Members on both sides of the House who demanded expensive reforms and improvements in the army, and then grumbled when they had to pay the bill. Reduction of expenditure was a popular cry on the hustings; but he begged the Committee to remember how much it cost to render our army and navy effective at the time of the Crimean war, owing to the miserable state into which those services had been allowed to fall. Considering the state of the Continent we ought to be prepared for every contingency; and he trusted that as we were now getting a good article in the shape of weapons the country would not grudge the price.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that considerable expense had been rendered requisite of late years for putting the military departments into a proper state of perfection. When he went into office under Lord Derby there was hardly a gun among the Ordnance stores that was fit for field service. He thought the Votes ought not to be further proceeded with at that hour.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONtrusted that the House would proceed to Vote the men and their pay and allowances that evening.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,780,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay and Allowances of Her Majesty's Land Forces, at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India,

2033
which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April 1861 to the 31st day of March, 1862, inclusive."
COLONEL DUNNEmoved that the Chairman report Progress. He said the understanding with the noble Lord at the head of the Government was that he only wanted to vote for the men, in order to enable the Government to introduce the Mutiny Bill. If they passed this Vote they would be precluded from debating the Estimates any more with a view to economical reductions. He submitted that further time should be given for the discussion of the details.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had made no such engagement. The engagement he proposed applied to Monday last, not to to-night at all. It was absolutely necessary that the present Vote should be taken for pay and allowances to officers and men. It did not apply to the Civil Department, to the stores, or to any of those matters which had chiefly been discussed to-night. The Committee, having voted the men, could not refuse the money with which to pay them. He should take the sense of the House on the question.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 122: Majority 100.
Original Question again proposed,
COLONEL KNOXcontended that if they agreed to this Vote they would be prevented making any considerable reduction in the Estimates. He objected to the amount for depôt battalions.
MR. T. G. BARINGinformed the hon. and gallant Member that his objection applied to Vote No. 3, and not to the present one, which was No 2.
COLONEL KNOXconsidered it was monstrous to go on discussing such enormous Estimates at that advanced hour of the night. He objected to the increase of the item for the medical staff, and moved that the Vote be reduced by £50,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,730,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay and Allowances of Her Majesty's Land Forces, at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment from the 1st day of April, 1861, to the 31st day of March, 1862, exclusive"
MR. T. G. BAKINGsaid, that these charges also formed part of another Vote.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, it was quite evident that the Committee could not properly discuss those Votes at that hour of the night. He had certainly understood the arrangement entered into with the noble Viscount in the same way as the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne). He told hon. Members if they went on voting this money away without due consideration, all idea of economy would be utterly useless. Surely the noble Viscount could not say that it was necessary the whole of this enormous sum of nearly £5,000,000 should be voted away at that moment, when the hour of midnight had passed.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHthought the Government ought not to proceed further to-night. The Vote was nearly £5,000,000 and it ought to be divided into portions.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwould be very unwilling to ask the Committee to decide at once on a matter which might be open to discussion. The money was much wanted. He would propose to take a Vote for one-half on account.
Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman then put the Vote
(2.) £3,000,000, on account, Pay and Allowances, Land Forces.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. AYRTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplated paying this annuity to the company, or closing the contract in a manner more beneficial to the public? From inquiries which he had made as to the value of the annuity, he found that continuing the annuity would be paying more than if they paid the amount in ready money. He hoped, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look through the evidence, which disclosed great laxity in the manner in which the business had been transacted. The ex officio director seemed to have acted quite independently, just as he liked, without the sanction of any Treasury Minute.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the remarks of the hon. Member referred to matters which the House

  2035
  was hardly yet in a condition to decide. He deprecated any attempt to impute blame to the non-political civil servants of the Government. The responsibility for their actions he maintained ought always to be fixed on the political heads of the Department, and he hoped that principle would always be maintained. As this Bill was a restitutio in integrum of the original contract, of course all the powers originally reserved to the Government would remain in full force, and it would be the duty of the Government to consider carefully what course would be the most advantageous to be pursued in this matter. Of course it must not be presumed that they had a foregone conclusion as to the policy of continuing the annuity.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the officer of the Treasury to whom the hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded, though he might not always have had the sanction of a Minute of the Treasury, had acted throughout in communication and with the sanction of the political heads of the Department.
  Bill read 3o and passed.

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISmoved a Resolution, on which to found a Bill for the purpose of continuing for ten years the coal duties and the port duties on wine now levied by the officers of the Corporation of London. The coal duties consisted of a 4d. duty, which the Corporation considered part of the City estate: an 8d. duty which had been appropriated under an Act of Parliament, and the proceeds applied by direction of the First Commissioners of Works, and which would shortly expire; and another duty of a 1d., which would also shortly expire. He proposed to continue these duties for ten years—the proceeds of the 9d. tax to be paid into a fund to be devoted to metropolitan improvements—the purposes to be hereafter defined by Parliament, but more especially with reference to a recommendation of a Committee of last Session which sat on the Embankment of the Thames. These duties were at present levied over twenty miles round a central point in the Metropolis; but he proposed to confine the area to the metropolitan police district.
  MR. AYRTONobjected to this mode of proceeding. It was usual to indicate the
  2036
  nature of a Bill before going into Committee to move the Resolutions.
  SIR GEOBGE LEWISbelieved he had followed the universal practice in regard to this subject. If the House wished the debate to be adjourned he should not object, but he saw no necessity for that, as the Bill could be debated on the second reading.
  MR. PULLERcomplained that several towns in Hertfordshire would still be left liable to the tax, when they had nothing whatever to do with the London coal or London improvements. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the area of the district still left liable to a tax.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the only case in which a Resolution was at once moved was in eases where the revenue was affected. The House was taken by surprise. The Resolution was a most objectionable one, and he should oppose the Bill on every stage.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDthought the complaint that the House had been taken by surprise was not warranted.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARwas glad that the area was to be confined to the metropolitan police district; but he thought that as the money was to be exclusively devoted to metropolitan improvements, it, therefore, ought to be limited to the Metropolis alone.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, the measure would operate prejudicially on an important industry in the north.
  Resolved,
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue the Duties levied on Coal and Wine by the Corporation of London."
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Masset, Sir George Lewis, and Mr. Olive.
  Bill presented and read 1o; to be read 2o on Monday, 8th April, and to be printed [Bill 68].
  House adjourned at One o'clock.