Commons Sitting of 23 March 1863

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES—considered in Committee; Resolutions (March 20) reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Vaccination (Ireland) [Bill 70], Debate adjourned.
Committee—Marine Mutiny; Telegraphs [Bill 57].
Consid. as amended—Tobacco Duties [Bill 66].
Third Reading—Mutiny; and passed.
Bill withdrawn—Education of Factory Children [Bill 28].

THE RIVER SHANNON.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When Mr. Bateman's Report on the state of the River Shannon is to be laid before the House?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that Mr. Bateman's Report upon the state of the Shannon had not yet been delivered, and that it was probable some time would elapse before it was ready. When it was sent in, it would, of course, be laid on the table.

SERJEANT MAJOR LILLEY, OF THE INNISKILLEN DRAGOONS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the attention of the War Department or of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, has been called to a recent Court Martial held on the Paymaster of the Inniskillen Dragoons, and to the remarks of the Commander-in-Chief in India on the proceedings of said Court Martial, and on the state of the Regiment; also to certain allegations which have been made in the public press and elsewhere as to the confinement in close arrest and death of Regimental Serjeant Major Lilley, of the above Regiment; whether any inquiry has taken place, and what has been the result of such inquiry? He would further beg to inquire whether the Secretary for War was in possession of any information respecting the remarks of Sir Hugh Rose, when in command, upon the discipline, efficiency, and soldier-like conduct of the Inniskillen Dragoons, and whether a statement has not been made to the effect that the death of Serjeant Major Lilley was attributable to an excess of ardent spirits rather than to the severity of his confinement?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS, in reply, said, the attention of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief and of the War Department had been directed to the case in question. A full Report from India had been called for, and he understood it had lately been received at the Horse Guards. The matter was still under consideration, and no decision had been come to at present.

MR. SCARLETT AND THE GREEKS.
  EXPLANATION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Sir, I hope the House will allow me to express the regret with which I learn that my remarks the other evening were misunderstood by some of Mr. Scarlett's friends. So far from reflecting on his conduct, I may venture to say that, under great difficulties and with the most ambiguous instructions, no Minister could have acted with greater ability, judgment, and discretion; and, while I retract nothing from my criticisms on Lord Russell's policy, I am still happy to be able to add that it is the opinion of the Greek gentlemen with whom I have been in constant communication that Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Elliot, by their wise and prudent counsels, gave a great support to the admirable attitude of the Greek nation throughout these trying circumstances.

THE CAPITATION GRANT TO THE VOLUNTEER FORCE.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN GRAYsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the conditions of the proposed Capitation Grant will be soon laid before the House?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the regulations under which the Capitation Grant to the Volunteers would be distributed were in a forward state, and would very shortly be laid before the House.

NEUTRAL RIGHTS.—QUESTION.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the lend of the Government, If Her Majesty's Government have accepted, or are prepared to accept the proposal stated by President Lincoln in his annual Message to have been made to them by his direction, and which he understood was made as far back as October last, respecting the establishment of a Convention between this country

1745
and the Government of the United States, in order to examine and adjust complaints of the violation of Neutral rights.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, communications have passed between the two Governments in relation to a Convention on this subject. Her Majesty's Government have no objection in principle to such an arrangement, but difficulties have arisen in regard to details. Those difficulties are not yet removed; but I am not without hopes that the two Governments may ultimately come to an understanding on the matter.

THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—NOTICE.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERgave notice that he should submit his Financial Statement to the House on Thursday, the 16th of April, that being the second Government day after the recess, and it not being the usage to place any important business on the paper the first night after the re-assembling of Parliament. He also begged to give notice that in the event of the Report on the Tobacco Duties Bill being received that night without opposition, he should tomorrow move that it be read a third time at half past four, in order that it might at once be taken up to the House of Lords, so that the trade might be relieved from suspense as soon as possible.

ASSURANCES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 46.]—NOTICE.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he should not move the second reading of this Bill that evening.
MR. WHITESIDE: Does the hon. Baronet intend to bring on the Bill before Easter?
SIR ROBERT PEEL: No; after Easter I shall bring it on.
MR. WHITESIDE: After the Budget?
SIR ROBERT PEEL: No.

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

POLAND — THE TREATY OF VIENNA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to ask a Question of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the nature of the obligations with respect to Poland involved in the Treaty of
  1746
  Vienna. It was now rather more than three weeks since the House had, in the course of debate, pronounced its opinion on the state of affairs in Poland. On that occasion certain general pledges were given, by the noble Lord, as to the policy which the Government intended to pursue; and the House exercised considerable forebearance in not pressing the Government for immediate explanations on the subject. The time had now, however, come when they were entitled to ask the Government what they were doing. Since the debate on this question, events in Poland had made great progress. The intelligence of the recent defeat of General Langiewicz had been construed by the English press into a serious blow to the Polish cause; but he thought he could show that the event by no means deserved the importance which had been attributed to it. The area of the insurrection in Poland was now three times as extensive as it was when he had the honour of directing attention to the subject; and in estimating the defeat of General Laugiewicz it was neccessary to bear in mind the nature of his position. General Langiewicz had just crossed the Austrian frontier, and held command in, the south-west corner of Poland, and at no time did his operations extend beyond an irregular circle of from forty to fifty miles radius, or a total area of some 1,600 square miles. From General Langiewicz's head-quarters, as straight as a bird could fly, to Bar, in the east of Poland, where the largest number of insurgents was assembled, was a distance of 500 miles. Kiew was 200 miles further to the east. Again, from Skala to Konin was 200 miles. From Bar to Pinsk, in the north, was 250 miles, and to Vilno 500 miles. Polotsk, on the frontier of Lithuania, was 600 miles to the east of Konin. The meaning of those figures was, that while the Polish general, commanding an area of less than 1,600 square miles, had suffered defeat, the insurrection itself, which reigned over about 50,000 square miles, had been extending its area day by day. If the gravity of the rising were to be estimated by the numbers that took part in it, the result would be no less striking. And with regard to Polish affairs generally, he would take the liberty of cautioning the House against placing too implicit reliance upon the details daily furnished by the telegrams of the numbers of Poles disarmed, captured, or slain. There was a remarkable coincidence in two telegraphic despatches which

  1747
  were published in the leading journal of that day. One was dated Warsaw, March 20, and stated that Sokol, the Polish general in the north, was attacked by the Russians and defeated, with the loss of 400 killed and fifty-four taken prisoners. The other was from the Russian Embassy, and set forth that General Langiewicz, in the south had been defeated with exactly the same loss of 400 killed and fifty-four taken prisoners. Such a coincidence was certainly to be accepted as a warning against accepting too readily the statements which came—as he presumed this had done—through the Russian Embassy at Paris. So far from thinking that the defeat of the nominal commander-in-chief—and Langiewicz was no more, for there were fifty independent commanders in different parts of Poland, as perhaps under the circumstances was best for the cause—so far from thinking that the defeat of the nominal commander-in-chief involved the loss of the struggle, he believed that there was no ground whatever for discouragement. He had received information that a landed proprietor who had property worth £80,000 or £100,000 a year, which would be confiscated if the attempt failed, had joined the insurgents. So had a nobleman whose name was well known in England—Count Zamoyski; and so, in fact, was every one doing of character and position that cared for his country. So far from being disheartened by the news just received, he regarded it simply as an indication of the desire of the Russians to get hold of the nominal commander-in-chief—a desire, of course, which was easily gratified, owing to the small number of men under Langiewicz; but he could not believe that the loss of a single feather from the wing of the Polish eagle would seriously affect its flight. Neither did he see that there was any reason, in the actual state of things, for the hope which had been expressed in a leading journal that the Czar would make those benevolent concessions to a defeated people which the editor seemed to think the present was a fitting occasion to offer. With reference to the details of the recent debate, he (Mr. Hennessy) might remind the House that the question he desired to bring before the House was, whether under existing circumstances England had not a moral obligation resting upon her to interfere in the cause of Poland. It was admitted by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government that England had a right, under the Treaty of
  1748
  Vienna, to interfere; but if Russia violated that treaty to the injury of the Poles and to the danger of the peace of Europe, he asked the noble Lord whether to the bare legal treaty right there was not super-added a moral obligation arising from Lord Castlereagh and the Duke of Wellington having signed the treaty avowedly for the purpose of protecting the Poles and preserving the peace and security of Europe? What was the language used by diplomatists in dealing with this question? He knew of no diplomatist who was more worthy of attention than the noble Viscount himself; for though speaking in this House he had done what he did not think was often the case with the noble Lord—made use of expressions which were not perfectly accurate; yet in the despatches relating to the affairs of Poland, which were written in 1831 and 1832, but which were not published until 1861, he found that the word "obligations" was used very often, not only by the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg and by Count Nesselrode, the Russian Minister, but by the noble Lord himself. Writing on the 13th of April, 1831, to the noble Lord, who was then at the head of the Foreign Office, Lord Heytesbury said—
  "Upon the receipt of your Lordship's despatch of the 22d March, I thought it advisable not to lose any time in informing Count Nesselrode of the nature of the instructions I had received, and in touching upon the several points to which my attention was directed. This I did in the order in which they stood in your Lordship's despatch, beginning with the obligations imposed upon us by the Treaty of Vienna, and the necessity in which England, as well as France, was placed, to watch over the progress of the war in Poland, and to remonstrate in the event of any measures being adopted on its conclusion at variance with existing engagements."
  A despatch addressed by the noble Viscount to Lord Heytesbury, dated November 3, contained the following passage:—
  "The war being now over, and the authority of the Emperor as King being completely re-established in Poland, the time is come when His Majesty feels himself justified, both by his friendship for the Emperor of Russia and by the duty resulting from the obligations which he has contracted under the Treaty of Vienna, in addressing to His Imperial Majesty, in the most amicable tone, and with the deference which is due to his rights as an independent Sovereign, some observations as to the best mode of re-settling the kingdom of Poland under the dominion of the Emperor, on principles accordant with those on which its union with the Imperial Crown of Russia was originally formed, and in such a manner as may be most conducive to its future good government and tranquillity."

  1749
  Here, then, we found the noble Lord repeating the phrase formerly used by Lord Heytesbury—the "obligations" imposed upon England by the Treaty of Vienna. Count Nesselrode answered this despatch at great length, and seemed to think that the several parties to the Treaty of Vienna did not incur the same obligations—for instance, that though Russia might have incurred obligations under the treaty, England had not done so; to this the noble Lord very fairly replied as follows:—
  "It is hoped that upon reflection the Russian Government cannot fail to see all the inconvenient and dangerous consequences which would flow from thus establishing different degrees of obligation among the Powers who have equally signed a general treaty."
  When the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) in 1831 called attention to the affairs of Poland, the noble Lord said the Government were prepared to fulfil the "obligations" which England had contracted under the Treaty of Vienna, but he refused to tell what they were doing or to publish the papers. There could be no doubt, therefore, according to the noble Lord himself, that a moral obligation was contracted under that treaty, and that it was the duty of England to interfere, of course by diplomatic action and in concert with the other Powers, on behalf of Poland. It was an important fact that throughout the whole history of English diplomacy in regard to Poland the noble Lord had always refused to act in concert with the other Powers. He refused in 1831, when solicited by France to address a joint note to Russia—and here it might be remarked, in passing, that in his despatch asking for the co-operation of England the French Minister spoke of the Poles having the "guarantee" of the Treaty of Vienna. We now knew that at the time of the Crimean war the same overture for joint action in regard to Poland was made to England by France, and was again rejected by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Now, for a third time the noble Lord had the case of Poland in his hands; and the House would probably like to know whether the French Government had solicited the co-operation of England in diplomacy; and, if so, whether its request had been refused. In a recent remarkable speech delivered in the French Senate, M. Billault reviewed the policy of the noble Lord in 1831,
  1750
  and denounced "many words and little actions" as a mode of treatment which should no longer be applied to Poland. That was in fact exactly what the noble Lord's policy in regard to Poland had actually been, and he was glad that M. Billault had publicly condemned it. The speech of the Imperial Minister was said, on the highest authority, to be an accurate interpretation of the policy of the Emperor. M. Billault had, moreover, thrown out a hint which was of great importance — he had hinted that a Congress might be necessary to settle the question of Poland. Were they to believe that the word "Congress" would have been used in M. Billault's speech if it were not considered a matter of serious importance? He would certainly not have ventured to do so if the Emperor was not prepared to recommend such a measure. He should like to know from the noble Lord whether an application had been made to him to address a joint note to Russia with regard to Poland, and whether, if that had been refused, the noble Lord was prepared to reiterate the old exploded argument which he used in 1831, when he declined a similar proposal—namely, that he relied on the benevolent intentions of the Czar? He (Mr. Hennessy) had no faith in the "benevolent intentions" of the Czar. The Czar himself told Count Zamoyski that his future policy in Poland would be one of terror and extermination; and certainly he had kept his word as far as he was able. If the noble Lord praised the Czar and the Grand Duke Constantine in the language held in that House not long ago, the impression would be created that our Government had attempted in 1863 to repeat the course it took in 1831. But he (Mr. Hennessy) ventured to say that the people of this country would be sorry to hear that the Prime Minister was about to follow his old policy—a policy which in his opinion was a mean policy, unsuited to the position of England, and most dangerous also to Europe. If France were left to take up this question by herself, the balance of power and the peace of Europe might be jeopardized. These evils would be averted only by a joint action between the two Powers. If France went alone into this matter, there might possibly be "a rectification of frontiers." On that, which was the lowest ground, the noble Lord ought to be cautious how he refused to co-operate with the French

  1751
  Government. He begged, therefore, to ask the noble Lord whether it was his opinion that no moral obligation existed on the part of England with regard to the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna affecting Poland?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman gave notice of a very short and simple Question, but he did not give notice of his intention to go into a dissertation as to the relative prospects of the Russian army, and of the Poles who are acting in resistance to that army. I shall not follow him through that dissertation, nor say anything that will imply any opinion as to the probable results and termination of that contest. Everybody has equal means of judging for himself. When, on a former occasion, the hon. and learned Gentleman mooted the question of the obligations resulting from the Treaty of Vienna, I understood him, as I think the House roust have done, to imply that there was in that treaty an obligation upon Great Britain to make war—to interfere forcibly in the affairs of Poland. My answer was, that there is no such obligation. There is a right if she thinks fit to exercise it; but there is no engagement entered into by Great Britain in that treaty which imposes on her the obligation of interfering, by force of arms, to give effect to her interpretation of the articles of that instrument. To that interpretation I entirely and completely adhere. I maintain that it is a just exposition of the effect of the treaty. I said, that where a treaty between different Powers does not contain an express stipulation guaranteeing, on the part of any or all of the Powers, any particular arrangement established by the treaty, there is a right on the part of each contracting party to enforce the arrangement if it thinks the object within its means of doing so; but there is no obligation, unless there is a specific stipulation such as I have named. But the hon. and learned Member now entirely shifts his ground and talks of a moral obligation. But instead of it being a moral obligation to interfere by force of arms, by the quotation he has made from a despatch of mine to Lord Heytesbury he shows that the interposition, which I then contended we were under an obligation to make, was one of a totally different kind from that which he urged on a former evening. What is the despatch which the hon. and learned Member quotes? It is a despatch in which I said that the insur-
  1752
  rection being over, and the Russian Government having re-established its authority in Poland, Her Majesty's Government, in fulfilment of the engagement contracted by them under the Treaty of Vienna, proceeded to represent in friendly terms to the Emperor of Russia considerations as to the arrangements he should make on the restoration of tranquillity in Poland. Well, that is a very different obligation from that which I understood him to argue for on a previous occasion. That obligation was fulfilled in the sense in which it was quoted; because the British Government did at that time make a friendly representation to the Emperor of Russia, urging what they thought it fitting for the Emperor to do with regard both to the obligations he had contracted by treaty, and to what was right and just with respect to the Poles themselves. In that sense I accept the interpretation of the hon. and learned Member; and when the proper time comes to lay before the House the papers showing what has been done and is doing, I am persuaded the House will perceive, that as far as any obligation upon the British Government to make friendly representations to the Emperor of Russia on behalf of the Poles goes, that obligation has been completely fufilled. With regard to the question which the hon. and learned Member has put, as to the communications going on between the French and English Governments in reference to the manner in which any representation should be made, I am sure the House will feel that it would not be useful, even if it were fitting, for me to enter into details as to that which is now passing on this subject. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman reproaches us, and me especially, with not having during the Crimean war consented to a proposal—if such proposal had been made—to transfer the seat of operations from the Crimea to Poland, I think the decision of Her Majesty's Government was the only rational and sensible decision that could have been come to. The war began in a Turkish question; it began for the purpose of protecting Turkey from invasion and attack by Russia. We were occupied, in conjunction with France, in obtaining the security of Turkey from Russian aggression. And be it remembered that that war commenced by a quarrel between France and Russia on a Turkish matter—that, in truth, it was France which began the war, or, at least, the dispute out of which the war originated. France, there-

  1753
  fore, was not a party entitled to ask us—before we had obtained in the Black Sea that security which we thought necessary—to relinquish our half-accomplished enterprise, and embark in another operation totally unconnected with the origin and cause of the war. I contend, therefore, that we acted properly in saying, "Let us finish what we have begun—namely, the protection of Turkey—and when that is ended, we may then see whether there is any ground for engaging in a new dispute with Russia on a question wholly distinct from that which gave rise to the first." We were perfectly justified, then, in not agreeing to suspend those operations in order to embark in a totally different matter. With regard to the still earlier period of 1831, there were at that time considerations which induced us to decline entering into what promised to be likely to lead to serious differences between England and Russia. We did make the representations which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted, and although, unfortunately, they were not attended with the success we could have wished, still we did as much as diplomatically we could do. And I beg the House to bear in mind—because it is well to recollect it in the course of these discussions—that the hon. and learned Gentleman now confines his interpretation of the Treaty of Vienna to this:—that we have an obligation, in cases in which the interests of Poland are concerned, to interfere diplomatically on behalf of that country. I believe, Sir, we shall convince the House that we have done our duty in this case, and that our efforts have at all events done some good to those on whose behalf they were made.

COMMAND PAY IN CAVALRY REGI MENTS.—RESOLUTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to move, That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address, to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that the same command pay shall be granted to Officers commanding regiments of Cavalry as is now given to Officers commanding regiments of Infantry. The hon. and gallant Member said, that his reason for moving his Amendment was, that ever since 1806 every officer commanding an Infantry regiment or the Horse Artillery had received the allowance, while it was not paid to the Cavalry; and he appealed
1754
to the Secretary of War to do justice in the matter. The amount in question was only £500 a year; but this had nothing to do with the justice of the case.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that the same command pay shall be granted to Officer's commanding regiments of Cavalry as is now given to Officers commanding regiments of Infantry,"
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that the hon. and gallant Member had shown his good sense and judgment in making a very short speech on a subject which, in fact, lay in a very narrow compass, and he should imitate his example of brevity. The sum which was at issue was about £920 per annum. The pay of a lieutenant-colonel of infantry amounted to 17 s. per diem, and 3s. command money—making together 20 s. a day. A lieutenant-colonel of cavalry had 23 s. per diem; he had no command money, but was subject to some deductions—the stoppage of 8½d. for the keep of four horses, making 2s. 10 d.; so that the exact amount received was 20 s. 2d. per diem. The only difference, therefore, between the daily pay of the lieutenant-colonel of infantry and the lieutenant-colonel of cavalry was the sum of 2d. He admitted that there were certain expenses which lieutenant-colonels of cavalry were subject to which lieutenant-colonels of infantry were not, and he was not, therefore, altogether prepared to justify the equity of withholding from the lieutenant-colonels of cavalry the difference. The Estimates had passed for this year, and it was not worth while to bring up a supplementary Estimate. What he proposed was this:—He would undertake to consider the question during the present year; and unless the opinion he had expressed underwent a change, he should, if he had again the honour of moving the Army Estimates, undertake to propose that the change suggested by the hon. and gallant Member should be made.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was quite satisfied, and was very much obliged to the right hon. Baronet.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CHINA—GENERAL BURGEVINE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement of General Burgevine respecting the causes of the late mutiny of the Chinese drilled troops, published in The Friend, of China of the 17th of January, 1863, has been received at the Foreign Office, together with the protest of all his Officers, forty-five in number, against the attempt of the Chinese authorities to obtain his head by the offer of 50,000 taels, or for his secret apprehension, and threatening to resign if he is is murdered? His hon. Friend (Mr. Layard), in answering the Question he put the other evening, denied all knowledge on the subject and charged his correspondent with untruthfulness. The following day (Saturday) the China mail arrived, and brought a confirmation of the accounts he had received by the previous mail, and which led him to put his Questions. General Burgevine published his statement of the causes which led to the mutiny, and his own conduct, which had been arraigned. He stated, that on the 2nd of January, 1863, his troops in garrison at Sung-Kiong were absolutely without subsistence for the want of pay for a lengthened period. On the 2nd of January he went to Shanghai to receive the pay from the Government banker, Takee, who said it was ready to be paid; but, instead of receiving it, he met with the "grossest abuse." On returning to his troops he found they had affixed proclamations in the city, threatening to take the lives of the Mandarins and pillage the city. Fearing these consequences and for the safety of his European officers, General Burgevine pledged himself to obtain their pay in two days, and started a second time for Shanghai, taking now with him a few men of his body guard. He found the money ready packed, and he took it; but an altercation again ensued, and he unfortunately struck Takee, the banker. The Chinese local authorities immediately issued a proclamation charging him with treason and robbery, and deposing him from his command and offering a reward for his head. This official act excited the indignation of his European officers, and on the 10th of January they issued the following Protest, signed by forty-five Europeans, and which appeared in the Friend of China, and other
  1756
  Shanghai newspapers of the 17th of February, 1863:—
  "We, the undersigned officers of the Ward Forces, commanded by General Burgevine, do hereby protest against the late actions of the Chinese authorities in his affairs."
  "We are perfectly satisfied that he has always acted in a straightforward and open manner, and he has never been accused of the slightest offence against the military laws recognised by European Powers: we do not now, nor did we ever, consider ourselves liable to punishment by any others.
  "In reference to the late occurrence in Shanghai, we know nothing more of that affair, than that it was absolutely necessary to obtain the money immediately, for the preservation of the force, and the safety of the European and Chinese officials.
  "We also protest against the brutal attempt of the Chinese authorities to obtain the head of General Burgevine—50,000 taels being the sum offered for it, or for his secret apprehension. Should such a thing take place, we solemnly pledge ourselves, not only not to serve the Chinese authorities any longer, but would make such representation to the Imperial Government at Pekin as would lead to the just punishment of his murderers.
  [Signed by nine Majors, thirty Captains, three Lieutenants, three Gunners and Drivers, Clerks and Storekeepers.]
  "Sung-Kiong, January 10th, 1863."
  These events must necessarily cause a very painful feeling in the minds of many families in England; for Her Majesty's Government, having permitted naval and military officers and other British subjects to take service with the Emperor of China, their lives were never safe from the caprices of the corrupt local officials, over whom the distant Pekin Government had really little control. He must beg his hon. Friend for the future to be more cautious in accusing his correspondents in China of want of truth, founded upon the ignorance of the Foreign Office of events known to every European in China.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he was afraid he could not give his hon. and gallant Friend a more satisfactory answer than that he had given upon a former evening. It was only that morning that the Foreign Office had received a despatch from Mr. Consul Meadows, enclosing the article from The Friend of China to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred. He could not say whether the facts therein stated were true or not; but it appeared that General Burgevine, having had a slight difference with his banker, broke open his till and took away his money. Whether the General was justified in that proceeding he could not say. It was also announced that the local Chinese authorities had offered 50,000 taels for his head; but

  1757
  whether that offer was known to, or sanctioned by, the Chinese Government he had no information. The Foreign Office had received no official information but; when they did receive any, he would do his best to give a satisfactory reply to the hon. and gallant Member. He might add that all the correspondence relating to China was now upon the table of the House. The hon. and gallant Member had reprimanded the Foreign Office for their ignorance, and made a complaint that the truth of his informants had been disputed. The fact was, that the other evening he (Mr. Layard) had ventured to warn the hon. and gallant Member against relying too implicitly upon information he received from China; and he did so because he remembered that last year his hon. and gallant Friend made a statement in that House of some terrible atrocities committed at Shanghai, and read a letter stating that prisoners had been given up by English officers to the Chinese authorities, and were put to death in their presence. He was persuaded that there was no truth in the statement, because he believed it impossible that English officers could have been guilty of such conduct; but a circular was sent to every Consul in China enclosing the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and asking for information. In reply, the Foreign Office received distinct and positive assurances that not a single word of that statement was true, and he defied his hon. and gallant Friend to state the name of the writer of that letter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had also told them that the Taepings had established a customhouse, and had published tariff regulations; but the Consuls in China all denied that any tariff regulations had been published by the Taepings. He thought, therefore, he was fully justified in cautioning the hon. and gallant Member against putting too implicit reliance on correspondence he might receive from China.
  COLONEL SYKESexplained that the letter which he had referred to had been first published in India.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Original Question again proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £956,365, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of
1758
the Manufacturing Departments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, inclusive."
Question again proposed, "That the Item of £35,871, for Establishments, be reduced by the sum of £2,000."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the reduction of £2,000 he had moved from this Vote was the amount of salary paid to Sir William Armstrong. That Gentleman had resigned his office; and as the Secretary for War had not told them how he was going to apply the amount of salary that would be thus saved, there could be no reasonable objection to the reduction of the Vote. He understood that there was some idea of creating a new office, to be held by a general officer, whose duty would be to inspect the various Government establishments. He (Sir H. Willoughby) thought that the only effect of such an appointment would be to shut out the only daylight which the system admitted. He objected to the continual increase in the amount of charges for the nine establishments included in the Vote, which in less than ten years had grown from £15,500 to nearly £30,000. It was expedient, in his opinion, to put some limits on these establishments. There had been a very large decrease in the Vote for Stores, and, as a natural consequence, the charge for establishments ought to be reduced. Colonel Boxer, the head of the laboratory at Woolwich, and a most valuable public servant, had stated that in three months he could supply as much shot and shell as had been expended in the siege of Sebastopol; and therefore, with such resources, it was difficult to conceive why, in time of peace, the establishments should be increased. In the last four years the Elswick Company alone had been paid upwards of £700,000, and £1,100,000 had been paid for iron ordnance. The expenditure was enormous, and he wished to know when it was to be reduced. He agreed in the opinion of Mr. Hawes and Mr. Godley, that to a certain extent Government manufactories were desirable; but that they ought to be watched carefully, and that the public should be assured that they got the value for the money expended. He wished to know what was the amount of the forfeit to be paid under the indenture of 1859 to the Elswick Company, and whether it was now intended to suspend the operation of the gun factory? It would also be very desirable to know the cost of these arma-

1759
ments. What, for example, would be the cost of a 100-pound shot fired at the Taepings? A 100-pound shell at present costs 17 s. This would give some idea of the cost to the nation of firing these shot at half-savage nations. However well managed these manufacturing establishments might be—and he gave full credit in this respect to certain departments at Woolwich—they were maintained at an enormous cost. But we were very much in the dark as to what those establishments really cost. In 1860, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Arbuthnot, in their evidence, said that the accounts of the store and manufacturing departments were not in a satisfactory condition. The country was kept in the dark because there was no balance sheet—he meant no general balance-sheet. There were balance-sheets for portions of the departments, but not for the whole; and on the 9th of July, 1862, Colonel Boxer admitted that he had never made out a complete balance-sheet. Again, when the Accountant General was examined, he stated that the accounts of 1860–1 had not then been audited. There ought to be duly certified balance-sheets submitted to an independent audit, otherwise the authorities were working in a circle. He moved this reduction because he thought it a reasonable and a wise one, and also because he thought it right that the attention of the House should be called to the costly nature of these establishments. The word "balance-sheet" was not enough; there must be a balance-sheet framed on proper principles, for he had seen plenty of such documents which were not worth a farthing. In the balance-sheet of a private firm allowance was duly made for rates and taxes, insurance, depreciation of plant, and interest on capital; but these items did not usually appear in Government balance-sheets. He believed that the end of the present system was approaching, and he hoped that the Committee would agree to the reduction which he now proposed, of £2,000 on account of establishments.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the Government ought to be able to show a regular debtor and creditor account, and their establishments ought to be conducted on the same principles of account as commercial men conducted their private establishments. The reduction in the establishments was not in proportion to the reduction in the Votes; for there was a large reduction in this Vote, but the
1760
reduction in the establishment was only one seven-hundredth part of the reduction in the Vote; and in this and the following Vote the reduction was greater than the difference between the total amount of the Estimates for this year and for last year:—that was to say, that the whole reduction of £1,000,000 shown in the Estimates was in these two Votes. He confessed that he looked upon the explanation that had been given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, with respect to the reduction in these two Votes, with alarm. He saw in them greater cause for alarm as to future expenditure than in all the rest of the Estimates. It was not shown on the Estimates, but the right hon. Gentleman told them that only £5,000 was taken this year for the production of ordnance, the Government having — very wisely—decided to suspend the production of rifled ordnance until it was decided which was the best. The Committee would see that this was only the postponement of a service, and that the postponement must swell the Estimates hereafter; for if Sir William Armstrong or Mr. Whitworth, or any one else, should produce a gun superior to that now employed, it would have to be adopted, and the expenditure involved up to that time would have to be incurred over again. He did not know what number of guns were required for the fortifications now in course of construction, but he believed that the cost of them would not be covered by the fortification loans, but would be chargeable to army grants; and he should like to see a general Return of the number required, to the furnishing of which he did not see there could be any objection, although it might be inexpedient to state the armament of any particular place. There was a Return from the Ordnance Department, showing that the number of guns completed up to the 1st of March, 1862, was 1,935, of which number one-third were 110-pounders; but it was evident from the recent experiments at Shoeburyness, that guns of far heavier calibre would have to be adopted; and not one of these was provided for in the Estimates—indeed, as yet they had got only experimental guns. All these facts went to prove that those who looked for a speedy and permanent reduction of the Army Estimates would be disappointed. There was a difference between the Estimate for the present year and the expenditure for 1858–9 of

1761
exactly £2,000,000. Part of the increase was to be accounted for by the difference of the manner in which the accounts with the Indian Government were kept. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: And the militia is included.] So it was in the expenditure for 1858–9. After allowing for the difference in the mode of keeping the Indian accounts, the actual excess shown in the Estimates of the present year, over the expenditure of 1858–9, was between £1,100,000 and £1,200,000; and not one shilling of that excess was caused by any item of expenditure for the regular army; it arose from the manufacture of ordnance stores, rendered necessary by modern discovery. The increase and improvement of ordnance necessarily involved expense; and he feared that the expenditure on account of ordnance, which in 1858–9 was £600,000, was more likely to reach £2,000,000 than to be reduced to £600,000. He did not perceive the probability of the Government being able to make a reduction, nor did he think that the country was in such a state that it could not provide for any necessary expenditure; but if expenditure was not absolutely necessary, there was no degree of prosperity which could justify the Government in incurring it. His present object was to show that the apparent reduction in the Estimates proceeded from a postponement of services which must fall upon future Estimates, rather than from a real reduction in the Estimates themselves; and to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of a debtor and creditor account being kept for the large manufacturing establishments.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he submitted to the contract Committee, with the sanction of the late Sir Benjamin Hawes, a form of Return for the Enfield establishment, and it was approved by the Committee; but in reporting the products of the establishment the form of Return had been adopted only in one year; so that it was impossible not only to compare the products in point of cost with those made by private contractors, but the cost of the establishment and its productions from year to year.
SIR MORTON PETObelieved that any Government were not in a position to command the skill requisite for the carrying on of their extensive establishments. When the Armstrong gun was invented, it was thought that this country would
1762
possess a weapon which all the world beside would be without. Great secrecy was observed, and Sir William Armstrong was made a Government officer. But now, after expending £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, and erecting factories at Woolwich and Elswick, Sir William Armstrong had resigned, and the Government had to pay him a very large sum for his manufactory in the North; he possessed the means of supplying ordnance to the whole world, and the Government had thus lost the skill which they heretofore considered necessary for the superintendence of that particular branch of their works. This was a point that ought not to be lost sight of if the Government were determined to be their own manufacturers; but if they would only learn when to buy and how to buy, they need not manufacture at all, but would have-all the manufactories of the world at their command. As it was, the country would soon present the anomaly of a Government unable to trust any of its private manufacturers, who at the same time would be supplying all the rest of the world. All that the Government need do was to have specifications clearly drawn out, and to select contractors of high character, reserving the right to strike off their list those that did not deal honestly. This they had done satisfactorily in regard to the building of marine engines, and in no instance had they been disappointed. A manufacturer must have skill to purchase and to organize labour, and no man would do these so well for Government as he would for himself. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, that as soon as the Government had appointed a successor to Sir William Armstrong, and had made up their minds as to the best kind of ordnance, there would be a large expenditure; and in another year it would be found that the Estimates had not been reduced at all, because this year there was not the same ratio of stores that there had been previously. The only reason that the Estimates of this year were less than the Estimates of last year was, that the Government found themselves at fault with regard to the manufacture of ordnance, and they very properly hesitated before committing themselves further. He trusted the hon. Baronet would divide the House, because it was time a check was placed upon these establishments.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHobserved, that the manufacturing branches at Woolwich were well conducted in themselves, but

1763
required to be harmonized with each other. In appointing an officer to superintend all the establishments, the Government were taking a very necessary and useful step; and he believed they had chosen a very good man for the post. At the same time, while approving the appointment, he believed that the funds wanted for it might be procured by making a reduction in the staff. He was surprised to hear hon. Members talking as if the Government ought to give up manufacturing altogether. With improvements continually taking place in gunnery, it would be most unwise and unsafe to intrust the manufacture of ordnance entirely to the trade, who had neither the same interest in nor the same means of conducting experiments and keeping pace with the progress of the times. He did not believe that gun-carriages could be made in any private factory equal to those at Woolwich; it was a notorious fact that the trade could not manufacture gunpowder calculated to produce the same results as cheaply as the Government. It would therefore be very unwise to trust entirely to the private trade for the production of commodities which the private trade was not accustomed to produce. The Government establishments could keep pace with the improvements which were from day to day being effected; but the staff employed ought to be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the quantity required from them.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Committee would observe that upon the Vote under consideration there was a diminution upon the establishments this year, as compared with the last, of £435,000; and upon the next Vote which was for Warlike Stores, there was a dimunition of £698,000. The complaints, therefore, that had been made with regard to increased items for Establishments and Government Works did not apply to the present Estimates. With respect to the Manufacturing Departments, the Estimate for last year for the Supervising Establishments was £36,500, whereas for this year it was £35,800, showing not a very considerable diminution, but certainly not an increase. They had now only to deal with the Estimates for the present year. He did not undertake to make prospective Army Estimates. Next year they would have to consider the Estimates for that year, and would then see whether upon the whole there would be an increase as compared with the present year. It was sufficient
1764
if he showed that the Vote that he asked for would leave them with sufficient guns and sufficient stores in the magazines, and that the military service ran no danger of being crippled; and on the authority of the military advisers of the War Office he was enabled to state that those would be sufficient. With regard to the general question of Government manufactories, there were two conditions, which, if it was not necessary, it was, at all events, important, should be fulfilled when an article was manufactured, not by Government, but by a contractor. The first was, that the article manufactured should be capable of easy verification by inspection; and next, that it should be of a sort for which there was a demand by the general public, and was not exclusively consumed by the Government. If hon. Members would cast their eye down the list of articles mentioned in this Vote, they would see that the articles manufactured were exclusively those for which there was no general demand in the country, but which were used exclusively by Government. A manufacturer, before he could lay down plant or machinery for which there was no demand by private individuals, but which was exclusively used by Government, said to the Government, "You must give me a security that my money will not be thrown away; you must guarantee me a certain annual amount of orders; or you must advance money to me for the machinery and plant." Experience showed, that whenever private contractors contracted to furnish Government with articles of which Government was the only consumer, they must in effect be subsidized. If the Government wished to provide itself with a certain number of yards of cloth or cotton, or a certain number of pairs of shoes, there was no such difficulty, because those were articles in general demand, and he could not conceive any justification for a Government setting up manufactories of such articles. But it was different in the case of guns, or gunpowder, or muskets. Those were the general principles that appeared to him to govern the question of Government manufacture. He confessed that when he entered upon his present office, his opinions were that it was expedient for Government, in all cases where it was possible, to employ private contractors; but yielding to pressure of facts, he satisfied himself that it was not so easy as hon. Gentlemen seemed to think, to obtain a regular and cheap supply from

1765
private contractors. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) said he (Sir George Lewis) had omitted one difficulty under which the Government laboured—namely, the difficulty of obtaining skilled assistance. But he did not admit the justice of the remark. Colonel Boxer, Mr. Anderson, Colonel Dixon, and other heads of departments, were most accomplished manufacturers; and though their pay was not high, their labour was great, and he believed them to be able to compete in skill, with any private manufacturer in the kingdom. He therefore thought that no advantage would arise from giving up the manufacture of ordnance in the Government factories; and that if they did, the guns supplied would not be so perfect in execution, and that no economy would result to the public. Gentlemen connected with the accounts department of the War Office, stated before the Ordnance Committee last Session that they believed that guns of a certain class (12-pounders), produced in the Woolwich factory, cost the Government about 50 per cent less than those supplied by the Elswick Company. He did not wish to make himself responsible for the principle on which the statement was founded, and it was difficult to make a fair comparison between that which was manufactured in a Government factory and that which was manufactured in a private factory; but he had formed the opinion that no advantage would be derived from closing the Government factories. He now came to the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby), who said the system of accounting was very defective. He must take the liberty of entirety disputing that assertion. [Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY observed, that he quoted from the evidence of Mr, Anderson.] Mr. Anderson's evidence was given three years ago. Mr. Anderson was no doubt thoroughly master of the system of accounts, and when he stated that at that time they were defective, he no doubt stated what was correct. But at present the accounts of the Government departments included in the Army Estimates were audited in the most complete manner. They were audited for the year ending last March, and they could at any moment be laid on the table. They exhibited not only the cash account but the capital account. At the same time they exhibited a statement of all the articles in store, and they also showed how much of each sort was manufactured
1766
in the course of the year, and what was the cost of each article. Nothing more complete could be furnished. Perfect; securities were taken for the custody of the stores. The person in charge of each store had a list given to him of the articles when he took charge, and he was called upon to account for the articles. Every year a survey was held at all the stations, when not only was the condition of the stores ascertained, but certain stores were counted as samples of the correctness of the stock in hand; that was to say, stock was taken not completely but in the way of sample, and every five years there was a complete stock-taking, and every single article was examined, and was compared with the lists. These checks applied to the foreign stations as well, and the War Office was at any time able to furnish an account of the stores at any foreign station, such as, for instance, the station at the Ionian Islands. He thought that in this respect at least it was impossible to say that there was any neglect on the part of the Government. As far as the skill shown in the manufacture and the mode of accounting for the article produced went, no reasonable objection could be made; the general principle of having Government manufactories was, of course, a matter always open to discussion; but the practical issue of the hon. Baronet's proposal was to reduce the column for establishments by £2,000. The proposal was based on the fact that the office lately held by Sir William Armstrong had become vacant. Now, the vacancy of an office did not necessarily constitute economy. The usual course when an office became vacant, unless it was a sinecure, which the office lately held by Sir William Armstrong certainly was not, was to fill it up. However, he was ready to admit that some economy could be effected in the case of the office now vacant; and he had in contemplation a plan by which a saving could be effected in the gun factory, and at the same time an appointment might be made by which an inspection of the different establishments at Woolwich could be effected which did not now exist. At present, the head of each factory inspected his own work—a system which, though no serious inconvenience could be said to have resulted from it, was hardly consonant with the idea of a proper control over those who expended large sums of public money. He therefore proposed to appoint a military officer as inspector of the artil-

1767
lery and other articles manufactured at Woolwich. He had no wish to keep up establishments beyond the point which was absolutely necessary, but the Committee should bear in mind, that with respect both to these manufactories and to the army itself, it was important to have a framework which admitted of being called into operation when a sudden emergency arose. What was now passing across the Atlantic showed how an enormous expense might be created by the want of an adequate machinery ready at hand, and one of the advantages which we possessed was that we had such a machinery, capable of being called into activity whenever it might unhappily be needed. He promised, however, that everything should be managed on the most economical standard, and with this explanation he trusted that the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment. If a division were taken, he hoped the Committee would support the original Vote.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he thought the right hon. Baronet had not succeeded in showing the Committee that it had any real control over the Estimates of that Department. If the reduction now made in the Vote for stores did not involve any sacrifice of efficiency, the corresponding Vote of last year must have been greatly in excess of the public requirements; and if it were true that since the Estimates were prepared an order had been given for 100 Armstrong guns of large size, what became of the reduction? The right hon. Gentleman took a considerable sum this year for guns; yet a Committee had been appointed to determine what was the best gun for the service, or rather, as it would now appear, only to decide between the Armstrong and Whitworth guns, of which the specimens submilted may be of hitherto untried patterns. That was a practical confession that Sir William Armstrong, after all the costly experiments he had made, was not satisfied with the weapon that had been supplied to the service, and was still going on experimenting. The inquiry before the Committee ought to be thrown open to all inventors, and then we might ultimately secure the best gun for the country. It was most important that we should not accumulate a large stock of weapons that were practically obsolete. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to adopt a new system of inspection. Now, it was necessary, before they passed the Vote, that they
1768
should know exactly what was intended. It was given in evidence before the Ordnance Committee of last Session, that a system of independent inspection was under the consideration of the War Office some years ago; but the late Lord Herbert afterwards addressed a letter to the manufacturing establishments at Woolwich requiring the inspection to be conducted by the persons who were from day to day charged with the responsibility for their manufactures. Any inspection to be effective and real mast be made in the departments where the different processes were carried on, otherwise it would be impossible to tell whether the guns and shells manufactured had flaws in them or not. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in what branch of the manufacturing departments at Woolwich the want of the proposed system of independent inspection had been experienced. In the only branch in which it had been tried, it had broken down. If inspection were to be more than a name, it would cost much more than £2,000 a year. There must, in fact, be a numerous staff, with an inspecting officer for every one of the departments.
MR. MONSELLwas afraid the hon. Gentlemen who were so anxious to go to dinner, hardly appreciated the importance of the subject before the Committee. The real question was, whether they should completely revolutionize the existing system? It certainly seemed to him that unless the statement which the hon. Baronet had made, and which he (Mr. Monsell) now confirmed, could be refuted, it would be absurd to change a system which had been completely successful during the Crimean war, and in spite of difficulties of the most formidable character. He must call upon his right hon. Friend to name the instances in which the slightest failure had taken place in the inspection carried on under the present system. Was the opinion of Lord Panmure, who had seen the working of the existing plan during our great contest with Russia, of no moment? Or was the late Lord Herbert no authority? That noble Lord, when he first considered the question, admitted that his prejudices were in favour of the proposal now made by the Secretary for War; but subsequent investigation had satisfied him that the proposal was dangerous and bad. The right hon. Baronet was going, in fact, not only to create a useless place for some

1769
military officers, but to multiply the existing expense on account of inspection four or five-fold. He hoped the Committee would not imperil a system which he contended was a perfect success.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was of an entirely different opinion as to the working of this system. He had the greatest respect for the opinion of Lord Panmure and the late Lord Herbert, but in the present instance he believed they were both wrong. No doubt, the incapacity displayed in the Crimea was the cause of serious military disasters, and the Government were now acting wisely in reversing that policy and placing distinguished military officers at the heads of the several departments, who were well acquainted with the best mode of working them. In the course that he was following he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman was doing that which was for the welfare of the country, and he did not believe that there was a single military man but would back him.
SIR GEORGE LEWISwas certainly rather surprised that the very modest proposal he had made with respect to alterations at Woolwich should have met with condemnation in the House. That it should have been condemned at Woolwich seemed very natural—he was quite prepared for disapprobation from the heads of the Woolwich departments; but that Gentlemen who had the control of the public purse should meet with censure a proposal for the simple inspection of the articles produced in the Government manufactories at Woolwich did fill him with surprise. With regard to the carriage department and the laboratory department, the persons charged with them inspected the produce of their own manufactories. He believed them to be highly honourable men, skilful in working, diligent and industrious; and he was perfectly prepared to say that no serious practical evil had arisen. But the Committee must see that was a system which did not contain within itself the elements of perfect control, and a time might arise when serious practical inconvenience might occur. With regard to the gun-factory, he believed there had been some imperfect external inspection; but it had been very little, and it could not be said that no practical inconvenience had been felt. His proposal was not a revolution, nor did it contemplate an additional expense of £30,000 or £40,000. All he asked was to be allow-
1770
ed to take £2,000 a year, which was set free by the resignation of Sir William Armstrong, and he would undertake that the whole of that £2,000 should not be exhausted by the system of inspection which he proposed.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the speech of the hon. Gentleman opened up a new question, which ought to be submitted as a distinct issue to the Committee. He should divide the House on the principle, that whenever a fair opportunity presented itself of reducing the public expenditure without injury to the public service, it should be eagerly seized upon.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 94: Majority 49.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £838,369, Warlike Stores.
COLONEL SYKESasked, who paid for the shot and shell supplied to the Chinese Government.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, any stores supplied from this country would be paid for, and the amount received by the British Exchequer.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £810,941, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, inclusive."
MR. CHILDERScalled attention to the large expenditure upon the new barracks at Chelsea. For three years the total sum which the work was estimated to cost had been stated in the Votes at £140,000; but this year, for the first time, the amount had been raised to £187,000. The reason assigned was that there had been an excess on the cost of the foundations. But these had been put in long ago, and surely the excess was discovered before this year. The arrangement as to the building of these barracks was very unbusiness-like. Instead of this erection being placed under the authority of an officer of Engineers, a premium was offered to architects, and the successful competitor was allowed a percentage on the outlay. The Department then appeared to have gone to sleep, and let the

1771
architect do what he liked; and what was thought to be the last year of the expenditure arrived, when the House was told that an additional Vote of £47,000 would be required on account of the unusual cost of the foundations. For this oversight the architect was, of course, responsible; but then he obtained an additional commission on the £47,000. Again, the House had been told in previous years that the total expense of the barracks at Colchester, so far as the Government were aware, was £80,000; but now the cost appeared to be £92,000. There was an item of £15,329 for huts at Gibraltar, on which last year there remained to be voted £4,500 and nothing more. Yet this year £6,000 was asked for on this account. Last year there was what was supposed to be a final Vote for improving the defences at Malta; yet it now appeared, that instead of £172,000, the outlay in this respect was £196,842. Such changes as these ought not to be made without full information being afforded to the House. There was another item upon which further information ought to be given. Without wishing to impute any other than straightforward conduct to the right hon. Gentleman, he must say that the manner in which the Votes for improving the defences of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick appeared to have been drawn looked as if concealment were the object in view. Last year £10,000 was asked for as a total Vote, and now they were told that this £10,000 was only the first instalment of an expenditure of £100,000—this expenditure, too, having been resolved on without communication with the local Government, whose first knowledge respecting it was obtained from the inquiries respecting the land. Greatly improved as was the form of these Votes, he complained that still they did not honestly show the amount to which it was intended that they should pledge the House.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he had hitherto abstained from speaking on the subject of the fortification Votes; but now, considering the enormous sums to be expended on fortifications, he thought it important to ascertain that proper precautions were taken to secure the health and comfort of the troops placed within them. Last year he was at Eastbourne, at one end of which town there was an old redoubt, which had been repaired for the reception of troops assembled for the purpose of rifle practice. £5,000 had been spent upon
1772
this work. This redoubt had been occupied a short time since by a garrison of 135 Scots Fusilier Guards, and he (Colonel North) had been informed that the arrangements of the place were so bad, that accommodation of a certain necessary kind did not exist within the fort, so that the arrangements which had to be resorted to by the soldiers at night were too disgusting to be described. He trusted this state of things, which could not have existed for a single day in any gaol in England whilst the right hon. Baronet was Home Secretary, nor in any workhouse, would speedily be remedied, as he (Colonel North) understood a detachment of the Guards were about to be sent to the same place. One day he heard the men complain of the water. On inquiry he found that the men were compelled to drink rain water, which was often both foul and scarce. In consequence, he waited on the secretary of the local water company, his impression being that there must be some great engineering difficulties in the way of supplying the fort, or that the charges were exhorbitantly high; but he found that the company would lay on the water for £28, and supply it at 1s. per thousand gallons, and only charge for the quantity actually consumed. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would not lose an hour in putting an end to this disgraceful state of things.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the large amounts which were being expended, or were about to be expended, upon public works in some of our colonies, especially at Ceylon, the Mauritius, and Nova Scotia; and also asked for information as to the places at which the amounts proposed to be taken for military schools and chapels, accommodation for married soldiers, sanitary services, and other similar purposes were to be expended.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHconcurred with the hon. Member for Lambeth as to the right of the Committee to receive information on this subject. It appeared to be the desire of the Government to reform the east face of the Tower of London, and £10,000 was the amount taken for this work. This seemed to be wholly unnecessary, because the Tower could scarcely be considered as a work of defence, and was merely used as a great store warehouse; it was all very well to repair, but this was altering the character of the work, and was a whim that should not be indulged. At page 47, under the

1773
head "Various Stations," regimental schools and chapels and other works were mentioned. He (Sir Frederic Smith) should be glad to see the places specified by name where these works were to be constructed. The next item upon which he would remark was that of £450,000 for the defence of commercial harbours. He thought this was a very proper outlay, and that the works proposed were most important and most necessary. But he believed, that if this outlay were required, it had better be made at once. The whole cost intended to be expended was £450,000 — a sum of £206,000 had been voted, but only £121,900 had been expended. In consequence of this mode of procedure, the expense of superintendence was greatly increased. It would be much better to expend the money at once, and have done with it. He should also like to know of what materials these forts were to be constructed. If they were to be built of earth or stone, considering the increased power of modern artillery, a great mistake would be committed; but if they were to be constructed of iron, no one would complain of the system. He found also an item for additional accommodation at the Cape of Good Hope. For whom, he would ask, was this additional accommodation required? Then, again, there was the re-appropriation of the barracks at Warley, £10,000. He remembered the re-appropriation of Warley barracks three times over. Would the right hon. Gentleman state why this appropriation was to be made, and what was about to be done? Another item to which he wished to draw attention was that of £8,000 for the alteration of drainage and the utilizing of sewage at Aldershot. His experience in a Committee of this House last year had convinced him, that unless the circumstances were exceedingly favourable, no attempt to utilize sewage by its application to land would pay, and he was sure that in the case of Aldershot any expenditure with that object would be money thrown away.
SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he also desired to make a few remarks upon the dilatoriness of the Government with regard to the erection of forts for the defence of commercial harbours, and he would particularly instance the case of Yarmouth. The late Lord Herbert in 1859 promised that two batteries should be erected to protect Great Yarmouth, and his consti-
1774
tuents had been led to expect that that promise would at once be acted upon; but, up to the present moment, the batteries had tot even been commenced. Lord Herbert had, moreover, admitted that the roadstead at Great Yarmouth was of the utmost importance, and that he did so was not to be wondered at when it was borne in mind that no less than 600 or 700 vessels frequently took refuge there in certain winds; that the same winds might bring an enemy into the harbour; that it was easy of assault by gunboats, and that is commerce in the north seas had greatly increased of late years. No port on the east coast was so defenceless, no port was so easily defensible, and for no port had so little been done. The Defence Committee, he might add, had recommended that, in addition to building new batteries, the old ones at Great Yarmouth, which were in a dilapidated condition, should be repaired, and Lord Herbert, supported by the best professional anthority, had so far acquiesced in that recommendation that land had been purchased for the purpose of carrying it into effect, which was now in. the possession of the Government. He should wish, under these circumstances, to know why that port was left in its present defenceless state, and upon what ground the present Secretary for War refused to act upon the decision of Lord Herbert and the Engineers by whose opinions he was influenced? The hon. Baronet, in conclusion, moved that Great Yarmouth should be included in the Vote as one of the commercial harbours of the country, at which works of defence ought to be erected.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as the Motion involved an increase of the Estimates, it could not, in accordance with the rules of the House, be put.
SIR HARRY VERNEYdesired to press on the right hon. Baronet the expediency of establishing institutes for soldiers, and suggested that the old hospital at Aldershot might with advantage be converted to that purpose. He thought, he added, that it would tend to the promotion of the health, morality, and efficiency of the men encamped at Aldershot, if they were during the summer months to be placed under canvas as far as possible.
COLONEL SYKES, with reference to the note appended to the item of "Gibraltar," that "the change of site had caused an excess over the original Estimate," complained that greater care was not exercised

1775
in the first selection of a site for the purpose.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Vote under this head last year was £995,000, and this year £810,000, being a diminution of £184,000, which could not be easily accomplished in this branch of the expenditure. Formerly these Votes were printed in a single column, showing the amount proposed to be voted in the course of the year. In consequence of the reasonable demands of the Committee, columns were added showing what was the original Estimate, how much had already been voted, and what additional sum was required. Unfortunately, it happened that Estimates were not unfrequently inadequate, and indeed it was almost impossible that the predictions which officers made of the amount required for works of the kind should invariably be realized. Unforeseen events occurred in the progress of the works. A change in the head of a department caused a change of intention. With an officer newly appointed new views were taken, fresh recommendations were made, and the plan originally submitted was departed from. This was not only the case in public affairs, but in private works, and any hon. Gentleman who had any experience in building would remember how he sometimes changed his mind in the progress of the work. He feared, that until they arrived at a period of ideal perfection, they could not expect to have immutable Estimates. He could certainly assure the Committee that the Estimates had been prepared with great care; and although it was difficult to insure perfect completeness, there was no intention to deceive. As to the barracks at Chelsea, he was free to admit that they will probably cost £47,000 more than the original Estimate, but it was an exceedingly good barrack, in the building of which modern improvements had been introduced; so that it was more commodious, more healthy, and far superior in every respect to the old barracks, such as Knightsbridge. As to Colchester, there was an excess of £2,000, but that was upon a total of £80,000. As to Walmer, it was converted into an Indian depôt, and the expense might be deemed to be met by the capitation grant. With regard to Nova Scotia, the Vote was for the expenses of fortifications at Halifax and St. John's. The fortifications at Halifax were looked upon as principally fortifications for naval pur-
1776
poses. It was one of our principal naval stations in the Northern Ocean, and the fortification of it was a matter of Imperial interest. With regard to St. John's, it was the place at which the troops were landed, and some expenditure there was of importance. It was for the Committee to consider whether they would vote these sums. He was quite aware that it was questioned whether we should spend any money on fortifications for the Colonies. He could only say, for his own part, that he was most unwilling to propose the expenditure of a single hundred pounds for the fortification of the Colonies which did not appear to be of Imperial interest. If Gentlemen were prepared to lay down the principle that they thought it desirable or that they were willing to entertain the question of emancipating the Colonies or handing them over to some foreign Power, he could understand the proposition; but it was hardly possible to renounce the duty of providing, to a certain extent, for the military defence of the Colonies as long as they formed an integral part of the Imperial dominions. There was one point to which he thought it right to advert, because he misled the Committee last year by a statement that £10,000 or £15,000, which was then voted, would be sufficient to complete the defences of the Mauritius. He was at the time under that impression; but on conferring with Sir John Burgoyne he found it was impossible, without more money, to place those defences in a state of tolerable efficiency. He therefore proposed this year an additional sum of £15,000, with the prospect of a further Vote to the extent of £34,000. With regard to Eastbourne, they were not regular barracks, and he would inquire whether it was possible to discontinue that item of expenditure. With regard to Great Yarmouth, he proposed this year to take a Vote for fortifications in the commercial harbours of the Mersey and the Humber; so that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Stracey) would see that the east coast was not neglected. He did not propose to take any Vote to fortify Great Yarmouth, for it was impossible for the Government to undertake to fortify the whole coast. The principle on which they had gone was to fortify our arsenals and those places wherein our military and naval strength resided, and to make them safe against the sudden attack of an enemy. With regard to the Tower, the expenditure for this year was

1777
£3,000, and the receipts from the Tower armoury were £2,636 for the year. Though of no great importance for defensive purposes, yet the Tower was connected with so many historical associations that the Committee, he thought, would not grudge the sum required for necessary repairs and alterations, especially as so large a portion was covered by the receipts.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. Baronet with regard to Eastbourne Barracks was very unsatisfactory. He should make further inquiries; and if he found that nothing had been done, he should bring the subject before the House in a distinct form.
SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, the War Office had undertaken to defend Great Yarmouth by building two batteries, and he thought they were bound, in good faith, to carry out that undertaking.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanation as to the expenditure proposed for colonial fortifications. Last year the House, with the complete assent of the Government, agreed to Resolutions affirming that the self-governing Colonies ought to be called on to provide for their own defences. Earl Grey and Lord Herbert were examined before the Select Committee on this subject, and both of them stated that a large part of the expenditure on colonial fortifications was entirely wasted, and that frequently the sums voted were not fairly chargeable to the Imperial Exchequer. He himself, had moved a Resolution on the subject, but he had not pressed it, having been satisfied by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that the Government were of the same mind as himself. Having looked very carefully through the Army Estimates, he was not at all satisfied with what the Government were doing this year to carry out the Resolutions agreed to last Session. It was proposed to vote £14,300 for fortifications and store-buildings in the Colonies which were self-governing. There was an increase in the item for Halifax, Nova Scotia. He should like the House to notice the fact, that, of a sum of £10,000 voted for those fortifications last year, only £1,891 had been expended. He was told that it was the intention to bring the whole outlay up to £100,000; but as only £1,891 out of the £10,000 already granted had been actually spent, the House had now an opportunity
1778
of expressing an opinion that this was not a proper application of British money. He did not think that in the Estimates before them, the right hon. Gentleman was carrying out the previously expressed intention of the House of Commons; and he therefore begged to move the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £10,000.
MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he had before taken the trouble of setting the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) right on the subject of the fortification of the Colonies, but found that he immediately got into the wrong path again. The hon. Gentleman set himself up in a manner to excite the reverence of the Colonies as a roan of wonderful integrity and extraordinary disinterestedness. There was a foreigner who came to this country once, and whom, no doubt, many hon. Members had heard performing on the fiddle—he meant Paganini. He had only one string, and on that he played many tunes. The hon. Member for Montrose was more fortunate, for the Scotch fiddle he played on had two strings. There were two questions that he had taken under his particular patronage—namely, subsidies to ocean steamers and fortifications in the Colonies. Upon these strings he played the same tune every Session. He would ask whether the possession of a representative government was the gauge by which they could judge of the duty of a Colony to pay for her own fortifications? At Halifax there was a very large dockyard without a dock. There was a harbour there, and the place was a great military position; but he believed that no harm would be done to the people of Nova Scotia if the whole town was burnt. It consisted principally of wooden houses; and the only improvement it had undergone in his time was that which had succeeded several large fires. He complained very much of those continual discussions about the Colonies in an assembly where they were not represented.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he thought that the conduct of the British Government on the occurrence of the Trent affair showed that this country was not disposed to repudiate her obligations towards the Colonies; but it was quite a different question, whether we were bound to maintain the fortifications in all these Colonies; and he should therefore support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote. Those who held the doctrine that the Colonies should be defended by this country, and were

1779
prepared to grant large sums for that purpose, would do well to consider whether the construction of fortifications was likely to effect the object they had in view. Since the year 1815 over two millions sterling had been expended on fortifications at Bermuda, and yet there was not one fort there capable of resisting the attack of two French frigates. Sir John Burgoyne stated, in his evidence before the Committee, that the works at the Mauritius would require a further expenditure of about £300,000, and a garrison of 6,000 men. With such a number locked up in them these fortifications were elements rather of weakness than of strength. He believed that the true way to defend our colonial empire was to maintain command of the sea. Before the Committee agreed to that Vote, they ought to consider whether they were not about to involve themselves in an expenditure which was worse than fruitless.
MR. DODSONsaid, that the arguments used in favour of the Amendment might be well founded, if applied to the erection of small fortifications to be held by small garrisons; but such was not the proposition submitted to the Committee. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Mills), that the maintenance of our colonial possessions depended on our naval supremacy; but that was a reason not for opposing, but for supporting the Vote—for, in order to retain that supremacy, it was necessary to have arsenals and dockyards in different parts of the world where a fleet could, in case of necessity, be refitted. Works and fortifications of the kind proposed, so far from scattering, tended to the concentration of our troops. If this country was engaged in hostilities in India, it would be found very convenient to have a considerable force at the Mauritius, which could be made available as the necessities of the case might require.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, his only objection to the Vote was that it was much too small. He thought the experience acquired last year, when troops were sent to the colonies, demonstrated the necessity that existed for having fortifications such as those which had been referred to in the course of the discussion.
SIR GEORGE LEWISassured the Committee that the items composing this Vote had been carefully revised with a view to their reduction. He had been described by the hon. Member for Mon-
1780
trose (Mr. Baxter) as having stated, in the last Session, that it was not advisable to erect new works in the Colonies, or to make very expensive additions to existing works. By new works he must have meant works in places not at present fortified, and he believed that it would be found that it was not proposed by this Vote to fortify any place not yet fortified. With regard to the additions, he believed that what was proposed, so far from being extravagant, was of the most moderate description. The charge in Part 1, for "New Works Abroad" over £1,000, was £72,000, which could not be deemed an excessive sum when the objects in view and the cost of building were considered. Then, in Parts 2 and 3, the outlay for new works, additions, and repairs under £1,000 each, was only £9,800 in the former, and £15,057 in the latter case. About £2,800 was spent on Canada, and £884 on Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. As we had a considerable force in those parts at present, that expenditure was really very reasonable. The new works at Halifax and St. John's would be of great service for military and naval purposes. It was not in the power of the Government to compel the Colonies to pay these sums; and if the Committee would not vote the money, there was no prospect that it would be forthcoming elsewhere.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he must take the sense of the Committee on the matter.
MR. BUTTsaid, that to refuse to defend the Colonies was in effect to abandon them. If the Vote was rejected, the House should either compel the Colonies to construct works or leave them undefended. Having given them self-government, the House would not, by taxing them, raise again the question out of which the North American war of independence had arisen. If the Colonies were attacked, this country would have to protect them, and it was therefore an act of prudence to construct fortificatious by means of which the defence of our possessions would be effective.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £800,941, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, inclusive."
The Committee divided: — Ayes 43; Noes 75: Majority 32.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £172,201, Military Education.
COLONEL NORTHasked, why it was that marks for good conduct did not count in the final examination of cadets. He thought that they should not only count, but should take precedence of all other marks. He thought, also, that in the selection of prizes a sword or something of that sort would be more valued than books.
SIR GEORGE LEWISadmitted the importance of good conduct, but said there was great difficulty in giving it value in an examination.
MR. W. WILLIAMSinquired, how it happened that the payment to the Lieutenant Governor of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich had been increased from £500 to £1,000.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the real increase was only £200. The remaining £300 was paid by way of compensation for allowances.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHobserved, that the Lieutenant Governor had now double the amount of duty and responsibility which he used to have. He noticed that the expenses of the Council amounted to £8,174. Why were the Indian Government not called upon to contribute more than £360 towards that amount?
SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that any change by which the Indian Government should contribute a larger sum would have his entire concurrence.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARhad been told that the new buildings at Sandhurst were damp, and that the cadets had suffered in consequence.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the cadets were under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, and not that of the War Department.
MR. W. EWARTasked what steps had been taken to introduce gymnasia into the army.
SIR GEORGE LEWISpointed out that there was a Vote for an instructor of gymnastics, and also one for sanitary purposes.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £85,441, Surveys, &c.
MR. WYLDinquired why the Ordnance Survey for England was not completed, and that were the intentions of the Government with regard to the recom-
1782
mendations of the Committee of last year in reference to the survey upon a larger scale.
SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that the 1-inch map was finished for all England, with the exception of a few of the northern counties, and the survey in those counties was now being completed. There was a large part of Scotland in which the survey was incomplete. The 6-inch map for Ireland had long been perfected. With regard to the survey of England on the 25-inch scale, which was limited at present to the six northern counties and a large part of Middlesex, the Government had decided that that survey ought to be continued. No Vote was asked this year for that purpose, but it was their intention next year to propose one.
COLONEL DUNNEwanted to know whether the advantages of the 25-inch scale were to be extended to Ireland, and whether the expense of the survey for England was to be placed upon the county rates?
SIR GEORGE LEWISbelieved that it was proposed to extend the survey to Ireland.
MR. AYRTONunderstood that there was nothing in the present Vote which pledged the Committee to the 25-inch scale, his opinion of which was, that it would be perfectly useless.
MR. SCULLYbelieved that a 25-inch map would be a work of great national importance, and hoped that when the survey for England was perfected, a map of Ireland upon the same scale would be prepared.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £88,135, Miscellaneous Services.
COLONEL DUNNEcomplained of an increase from £830 to £1,215, in the pay to the staff for the German Military Settlers at the Cape of Good Hope, and inquired how long this charge was to continue.
SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that these men were sent to the Cape at the termination of the Crimean war, and he could hold out no immediate hope of the charge being removed from the Estimates.
COLONEL DUNNE, referring to the item of £1,000 for medals, asked how it was that medals which had been earned years ago by soldiers, had not yet been delivered. He thought that this was a disgrace to the country.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would specify to what particular medal his observation applied, he (Sir George Lewis) would inquire into it.
COLONEL NORTHobserved, that the officers of the First Bengal Fusiliers, and the whole of the Artillery, had not yet received the medal for Delhi, which was captured five years ago.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £213,177, Administration of the Army.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYasked for an explanation of the rule on which the Government acted towards officers of the Staff. Those officers were said to hold their offices for five years only; but several exceptions to that had been made in favour of particular officers at home. He wished to know whether these matters were regulated upon any fixed principle; and, if so, what was that principle? There were three officers now holding high offices in the administration of the army to whose appointment it was distinctly understood the rule would be applied.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the rule was as the hon. Baronet had stated. One of the three officers to whom, he supposed, reference was now made was the Commander-in-Chief. Was that not so? [Sir JOHN TRELAWNY: Yes.] Well, he had never understood that that was an appointment which should come within the rule of being tenable only for five years. He thought it quite unreasonable and contrary to the spirit of the rule that it should be applied to his Royal Highness. The other two officers also holding situations at the Horse Guards had held their offices a sufficient time to contravene the rule. They came, strictly speaking, within the rule.
COLONEL NORTHobserved, that it was always understood that the Secretary of State for War had the power, and would exercise it, of continuing those officers so long as he deemed necessary for the public service.
MR. W. WILLIAMSnoticed several items in this Vote which had never appeared before. For instance, there was allowance for forage to the Commander-in-Chief, £976. This was the forage for forty horses. His Secretary also received £244 forage money. On referring to former Estimates he found that neither Lord Hill, the Duke of Wellington, nor Lord Hard-
1784
inge had such allowances, which, he held, were altogether preposterous.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the same allowance had been made to the Commander-in-Chief last year.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would certainly take the sense of the-Committee on the Vote, although he was sorry to do so, from the high respect he entertained for his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
COLONEL NORTHpointed to the fact that the Estimate last year was £4,432, which included this allowance, the sum being identical with that to be voted this year, with the exception of £9 9s. 6d. for an additional day in leap-year. Every officer in the army was allowed forage.
SIR GEORGE LEWISassured his hon. Friend that there was nothing new in this Vote. His Royal Highness had precisely the same allowance for forage last year as the Estimate proposed to allow this year. The Estimates were made out with greater detail this year, but the pay and allowances for forage amounted together to the same sum as last year.
MR. W. WILLIAMShad referred to the Estimates for the last five years, and found no such charge for forage.
GENERAL LINDSAYasked, if it was not the fact that the Commander-in-Chief, although made recently a Field Marshal, received exactly the same pay as before, and that the allowance for forage appeared in previous Estimates under another head, while this year it was included under this Vote in order to bring the whole more clearly before the Committee.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that statement was quite correct. All officers of a certain rank received a certain amount of forage. When the Duke of Cambridge was made Field Marshal he would, according to the regular scale, have been entitled to higher pay and allowances; but he understood and agreed to the arrangement that he should not claim any additional pay or allowances, but only receive the increased rank of Field Marshal. His Royal Highness received identically the same allowances that were enjoyed by his predecessors in office.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYcalled attention again to the rule which laid it down that Staff officers should be changed every five years. He referred to the questions which had been asked upon the subject of re-appointments by the hon. Member for King's County (Colonel Dunne) on the

1785
Military Committee, which recommended the change of system; and unless he received some more satisfactory explanations with regard to certain exceptions to the rule than had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, he should move a reduction of the Vote by £5,569, being the salaries of certain Staff officers who had been re-appointed after five years' service contrary to the recommendations of the Committee.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought he had given a very distinct answer to the question already. He had said, and would again say, that he never understood the rule to be applicable to the office of Commander-in-Chief. The offices of Quartermaster and Adjutant General came strictly within the rule, but it was, in his opinion, competent to the Commander-in-Chief, with the consent of the Secretary of State for War, to abstain for a limited time from enforcing the rule in extraordinary and important cases. He could only say he considered himself answerable for the discretion that had been exercised in the cases referred to, and that he was perfectly justified in the re-appointments.
LORD HOTHAMconsidered that the recommendation which had been made by one of the Military Committees, and adopted by Lord Herbert, was most unwise with regard to the officers in question. It was much to be regretted that the proposition should have been laid down so broadly, that all Staff officers should be changed every five years. There were two offices especially in which a change every five years would be fatal to their efficiency. He did not know whether the Military Secretary was included in the rule; but, to be efficient, the Military Secretary should know every officer in the army, and that was a thing which would require grout experience. If they were to change the Secretary every five years, what chance would the Commander-in-Chief have of doing justice to the army? for it was upon the information which the Military Secretary gave him he had to rely. Then as to the Adjutant General; he might be called the court of appeal of the army, and ought to have served in every part of the world, so as to know the duties to be performed in every station in which a part of the army might be placed. If he were changed every five years, he would not know his business. He, for one, thought that the Secretary for War had exercised a most wise discretion in the course which he had
1786
taken in this matter; and if he wished for good and efficient officers in the situations just alluded to, he would disregard the recommendations of the Committee; for so long as he found an officer efficient, he would do good to the whole army by continuing him in his post.
COLONEL DUNNEquite agreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken that, with respect to the Staff at headquarters, it would be most injurious to lay down any such rule. But the object which he had in view when on the Military Committee was to prevent the evasion of the rule by the transfer of officers from one staff to another.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—
(8.) £25,933, Rewards for Military Service.
(9.) £77,782, Pay of General Officers.
(10.) £464,895, Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers.
(11.) £172,157, Widows' Pensions and Compassionate Allowances.
(12.) £32,843, Pensions and Allowances to Wounded Officers.
(13.) 33,776, In-Pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
(14.) £1,142,702, Out-Pensioners of Chelsea Hospital.
(15.) £144,964, Superannuation Allowances, &c.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to know whether any decision had been come to with respect to the superannuation of barrack-masters. He trusted there would be no civil appointments to this office in future.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, barrack-masters were not soldiers. [Colonel DUNNE: They ought to be.] Whether it was desirable to appoint old soldiers or not was another question. As civil officers, however, they came under the rules of Civil Service Superannuation.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that if soldiers were appointed barrack-masters at forty, fifty, or sixty years of age, they had very little chance of superannuation under the Civil Service regulations.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(16.) £32,786, Disembodied Militia.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
Resolutions (March 20) reported.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the Secretary of State for War was understood, on the Vote for the Volunteer Force, to say that there were only 40,000 bayonets in the country for its defence. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: Of the regular army.] He was glad to hear the correction, because he had met officers belonging to the militia who regarded the statement as a slur upon that branch of the service. There were 95,000 militia of all ranks who were supposed to be trained.
SIR GEORGE LEWISwas quite certain he had added the words of "the regular army" to the statement in question. What he said was that there were only forty battalions of the regular army in the country. He might have added the Yeomanry if he had been recapitulating the force available for the defence of the country.

MARINE MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
(Progress 20 th March.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 28 (Power to inflict Corporal Punishment).
MR. WHITEsaid, he would not recapitulate his objections to this clause, but Would move that it be expunged.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 31: Majority 55.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 39 (Marking Deserters).
MR. COXmoved the omission of the clause. He considered branding even a worse mode of punishment than flogging.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 22: Majority 75.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° To-morrow.

TOBACCO DUTIES BILL— [BILL 66.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Amendments which
  1788
  he proposed were purely verbal, with one exception, namely, that when tobacco was warehoused for ships' stores, the drawback should be paid on admission to the warehouse, and not upon export.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow, at half past Four of the clock.

TELEGRAPHS BILL— [BILL 57.]

  COMMITTEE.
  (Progress 19 th March.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (For Underground Works in Metropolis and Large Towns Consent of Street Authority requisite).
  MR. BLACKBURNmoved an Amendment, the effect of which was to limit the power of telegraph companies to take up any road without the consent of the authorities in trust of that road.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 39, after the word "street," to insert the words "or public road."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Committee should remember that they were not now conferring powers; they were merely regulating the exercise of powers already conferred. This Bill was analogous to those Acts which contained general clauses to be embodied hereafter into special Acts. If the assent of every public body having power over the roads was to be necessary before those roads could be touched, there would be no need to come to Parliament at all. The object of coming to Parliament was to obtain special powers to execute certain works without the assent of the parties interested. Parliament had already granted these powers, and the Committee were now asked to apply to the exercise of those powers such regulations as they thought desirable. It would not be expedient that it should rest with some small board in the country to determine whether a line of telegraphs should be laid down between, say, London and Liverpool; what was desired was that care should be taken that all interests should be properly protected in laying down wires.
  MR. HENLEYwanted to know why the same regulations that applied to works above ground should not apply also to works under ground. He did not think that small corporate towns, or trustees of turnpike roads more than thirty miles long, should have a right to stop impor-

  1789
  tant lines of telegraph. He thought, therefore, that there ought to be an appeal to the Board of Trade.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, the different telegraph companies were all subject to stringent restrictions of one kind or another. Unless it could be shown that they had greatly abused their powers, it was unjust to add further limitations.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, if Parliament were to impose arbitrary conditions of a nature not at present known to the law upon companies hereafter to be formed, the effect would be to give a practical monopoly to telegraph companies already in existence. It was not impossible that in the present instance, as sometimes happened before Railway Committees, vested interests might be seeking to protect themselves by affecting zeal for the public welfare.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he neither held a share in a telegraph company himself, nor did any friend or relation of his hold a share; but he thought the proposed clause did extend to existing companies. As far as the clause itself was concerned, it either went too far or not far enough. Either the companies should have power to go where they pleased, or the rights of the road trustees should not be limited in any part of the country.
  MR. HENLEYcould not understand why, if this were a Bill to remedy inconveniences admittedly felt under the present system, the right hon. Gentleman should shrink from endeavouring to guard against evils of a practical character.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYcomplained of the roving commission apparently enjoyed by the telegraph companies. In the town of Preston, where he had some property, persons purchasing and intending to build upon land found the company's workmen putting up poles exactly in front of their drawing room windows. No notice whatever had been given of their proceedings. If Parliament had given improper powers to the companies, those powers ought to be properly regulated; if they had been surreptitiously obtained, they ought to be restrained. As the existing powers were so obnoxious and unfair, he trusted they would not be extended to new companies.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, it was not the fact that the powers which had been conferred upon the telegraph companies last year had been surreptitiously obtained.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, there was no
  1790
  doubt that some of the powers conferred upon the companies were excessive and unwarranted. It was obvious that with the forty-eight hours' notice now permitted by Parliament, it was only necessary for the promoters of the telegraph to watch a man away from his home on a visit, and when he came back he might find the posts stuck up in front of his house. Some years ago he had the honour of being chairman of a Telegraph Committee. The Committee granted the line, which was at that time opposed. Another Committee sat in the following year, and the powers then granted were greatly enlarged. A year or two passed, and a friend of his asked how the Committee over which he presided could have given such powers; and it turned out that the succeeding Committee had granted these powers on the understanding that they had been sanctioned by his (Lord Hotham's) Committee. Upon investigation, however, it turned out that this was a total mistake. The very reverse was the fact. He (Lord Hotham) represented the circumstances to the then Vice President of the Board of Trade; but the matter could not be remedied. After that he felt justified in saying he should not be very delicate in dealing with the powers of these companies.
  MR. REMINGTON MILLSsaid, that nothing was further from the fact than that the powers granted by the Bill which was approved by the Committee of which he was a Member had been unfairly obtained.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 45; Noes 67: Majority 22.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Depth, Course, &c. of Underground Works to be agreed on between Street or Road Authority and Company, or else to be determined by Justices or Sheriff).
  MR. DALGLISHmoved the insertion in the 13th line of the word "twenty-eight" for the word "fourteen," his object being that the former instead of the latter number of days should constitute the term of the notice to be given to trustees and public bodies generally when it was proposed that a telegraphic wire should be run through the properties under their control at a particular level.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he thought fourteen days' notice would be

  1791
  amply sufficient, inasmuch as the question whether a telegraphic wire under ground should run one inch above or one below a certain level was one of so little importance that it would, in the majority of cases, be decided by the surveyors of public bodies without there being any necessity of assembling the bodies themselves to pronounce a judgment upon it. He had acted on the best information which he could obtain; but if hon. Gentlemen thought that fourteen days' notice was too short, he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (No Telegraph over Streets, except above Houses, and with Consent of Street Authority).
  MR. HENLEYasked how it was proposed that the expenses of references to the Board of Trade were to be paid. Were the parties to come to London, or was a Special Commissioner to be sent to the spot? Both would be very expensive processes, and the Committee ought to understand from what funds the cost would be defrayed.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONreferred the right hon. Gentleman to the 24th and 25th clauses.
  MR. HENLEYsaw plenty of provision for the payment of the officials of the Board of Trade, but was there any provision for the payment of innocent parties who might be put to a great deal of trouble?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would allow the question to stand over, he would consider it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11 and 12 were also agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

VACCINATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 70.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was intended to supply the defects of various other Bills which had been passed within the last thirteen years. Within the last few years there had been a great falling off in the number of children vaccinated
  1792
  in Ireland, and he proposed to assimilate the law in Ireland to that in England, employing for the purpose the machinery of the Registration of Births and Deaths Bill, which had recently passed through the House. England was not the only country in which vaccination was compulsory, for in most countries of Europe there was a compulsory system. From the Census Returns he found that no fewer than 50,000 persons had died of small pox in Ireland since 1841; and in 1860 there was a diminution of 33,000 in the number of vaccination cases as compared with those of the previous year. The cost of the proposed measure would be very trifling. The Registrars of Births and Deaths would also act as Registrars of Vaccination. The Treasury would bear the expense of the books, but in cases in which the registrar himself was not the vaccinator he was to be allowed a fee of 3d. for making the registry. Under an existing Act dispensing doctors were allowed about a shilling a head for each child they vaccinated. There were about 200,000 children born in Ireland each year, and it was calculated that, of these, three-fourths, or 140,000, would receive gratuitous vaccination. The total expense imposed on each of the Poor Law unions (of which there were 163) by the Bill which he now proposed would be about £3 16 s. 8d.—a mere trifle compared with the benefits which it would confer on the country. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR EDWARD GROGANthought, considering the Bill had been so short a time in the hands of Members, it ought to be postponed till the opinion of the people of Ireland on its provisions could be obtained by their representatives.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, this was the third Bill on the subject which had been introduced within a very few years, and he thought it was quite unnecessary.
  COLONEL DUNNEbelieved the measure would mischievously disturb the existing arrangements. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR ROBERT PEELappealed to the hon. and gallant Member to allow them to proceed. The measure would be of great benefit to the poor of Ireland. The burden imposed by the Bill would be only

  1793
  1–21 of a farthing in the pound on the total valuation roll of Ireland.
  LORD NAASsaid, the expense of the measure was not the most serious objection to it. To attach a legal penalty to non-vaccination would tend to make that very important and necessary operation exceedingly unpopular. Moreover, the Act of 1858 had not yet had a fair trial. All that was wanted at present was, that the Poor Law Commissioners should take care that the dispensary doctors did their duty.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 37: Majority 21.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a Bill of a novel character at one in the morning he must expect to see it opposed. He thought there ought to be time for further consideration. He moved that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONthought it not courteous to the Irish people to bring in a Bill on the Friday and read it a second time on the Monday.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Debate arising; Debate adjourned, till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock