Commons Sitting of 20 March 1865

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee —Lahore Bishopric.
Ordered —Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation*; Metropolitan Houseless Poor.*
First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* [82]; Metropolitan Houseless Poor [83].
Second Reading—Marine Mutiny*; Mutiny*; Public Offices (Site and Approaches)* [55]; India Office (Site and Approaches) * [56].
Referred to same Select Committee—Public Offices (Site and Approaches)* [55]; India Office (Site and Approaches)* [56].
Report— Land Debentures* [79]; Land Debentures (Ireland)* [80]; Pilotage Order Confirmation* [81].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (£175,650) *, and passed.

NIGHT REFUGES (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he has received a Return concerning some of the Night Refuges in London, similar to that ordered (on the 10th of February last) to be made from each Workhouse in the Metropolis, and whether he would be willing to lay that Return upon the table of the House?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, in reply, that there had been a document somewhat similar to the one referred to in the hon. Member's Question sent to the Poor Law Board, and if it was the pleasure of the House it could be laid on the table. It was not precisely similar to the Official Paper which he had recently presented to the House, and he could not himself answer for its contents.

  ARMY—THE RIFLE BRIGADE AND WHITWORTH RIFLES—QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  1921
  War, If he will lay on the table of the House the Reports of the Officers of the Rifle Brigade in reference to the Whit-worth Rifles with which the men of the Brigade are armed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that he had no objection to lay on the table the Report, or rather the substance of the Reports, made by the officers commanding the Rifle Battalions so soon as they were all received. At present, however, Reports had only come in from four or five out of the eight battalions armed with Whitworth rifles, and if these were produced before the others were ready, an imperfect view might possibly be given of the efficiency of the weapon.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he should be glad to know when the remainder of those Reports would be received.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not tell.

WEST INDIA AND PACIFIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY'S MAIL CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the two new Contracts with the West India and Pacific Steamship Company for carrying Mails to Jamaica, &c, will be laid on the table?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that only one contract had been entered into with this Company, of which a copy was laid on the table that evening. The contract was for the two services, and being terminable at six months' notice, had no clause suspending it until it had been one month before the House.

THE PATENT OFFICE—MR. EDMUNDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HODGKINSONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Official Report made to the Commissioners of Patents in January last by Mr. Hindmarch, Q.C., and Mr. Greenwood, Q.C., the Commissioners appointed to institute inquiries in reference to the Patent Office Accounts, and which Report was subsequently communicated to the Treasury.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would move for it, the Report would be produced, together with other papers relating to the same subject.
  1922
  They were at present before a Committee of the other House; and that would occasion a little delay, but the delay, he apprehended, would be a very short one.

  ROADS (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, Whether he intends to introduce, during the present Session of Parliament, a general Road Bill for Scotland; and, if so, when?
  LORD ELCHO,in reply, said, it was his intention before the recess to move for leave to bring in a general Road Bill for Scotland. A Bill had, in fact, been drawn up, but as it did not, upon examination, appear likely to pass, it was thought advisable to recast the measure. This explained the delay which had taken place, but he hoped the Bill might be printed and issued in time to allow of its consideration in Scotland before Parliament re-assembled after Easter.

  BRITISH PROPERTY IN THE CONFEDERATE STATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any and what steps are being taken to protect the property of British subjects purchased and paid for in the Southern States of North America before the commencement of the War where proof has been afforded of the bond fide nature of the transactions?
  MR. LAYARD: Sir, I presume that the Question of the hon. Member applies more particularly to cotton. This cotton comes under two categories—that which has been destroyed by the authorities of the so-called Confederate States, and that which has been taken possession of by the Federal authorities. As regards the former, the Government have been advised that foreigners owning property in a country which is subject to such a war as that now existing in the Southern States of America are liable to all the accidents which may befall the property of persons belonging to that country, and if that property has been destroyed for the bond fide purpose of preventing it from falling into the hands of the enemy, British subjects who may be among the owners have no right to complain of such destruction. At the same time they have been requested to preserve authentic evidence respecting property so

  1923
  destroyed. As regards the cotton seized at Savannah, full particulars have not yet been received by the Government. It appears, however, that a large quantity of the cotton has been removed to the North, and it is stated that it has been so removed under the apprehension that it might fall into the hands of the enemy. Upon these grounds there is no doubt that the Government of the United States have a full right so to remove the cotton; but Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Washington has been instructed to express a confident hope that no obstacle will be interposed to the claims of British subjects in respect of that cotton; that is to say, that every facility will be given to British subjects to prove their claim to British property thus removed by the Federal authorities to the North.

NAVY—GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to ask, What were the intentions of the Government in regard to Greenwich Hospital?
  MR. CHILDERS,in reply, said, he had last Session stated generally the intentions of the Government on this subject, and had explained that a joint Committee would arrange the details of the proposed measure, which would be brought before Parliament this year. The Committee in question was appointed, but one of its Members, Sir Richard Bromley, had been attacked by a dangerous illness, and had been for many weeks unable to attend to business. The Committee, however, had made its Report, which had been considered by the Admiralty and the Treasury, and he hoped very shortly to be able to state to the House the details of the plan, and introduce a Bill to carry them out.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY AND THE GAME LICENCES.—QUESTION.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Sir Hervey Bruce), he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he does not consider it would be advisable to give to the Constabulary, instead of the Excise, directions to prosecute such persons as shoot or sell game without a certificate or licence, as they have better means of obtaining information than the Excise, and already perform the duties of Revenue Police as regards spirits and fishery licenses?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that by the 6 Will. IV. the Irish Constabulary were prohibited from enforcing Acts for the preservation of game and fish, except in cases where there was reason to apprehend possible resistance or a breach of the peace. That prohibition had been withdrawn as regarded fish, but with respect to game the police were legally incapable of interfering in the manner suggested, and if they were authorized to interfere in the way proposed by the hon. Member, there would be danger of the Constabulary becoming gamekeepers, and that was a state of things that might lead to unpleasant results.

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

  GUNS FOR COAST DEFENCES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. HENRY BERKELEYsaid, that he rose to call the attention of the House to the possibility of a war with America, and to the absence of guns capable of protecting our coasts from the aggressions of a maritime power. It appeared to him that this country was not in a state to meet the occurrence of a war. It was a most dangerous thing to be without preparation. If they looked back to the last American war they would find that the disasters which happened were entirely caused by want of preparation. We had not ships, we had not guns, we had not crews to cope with those of the Americans. The consequence was that we lost frigate after frigate in the early part of the war, and the desertions of our sailors to the Americans were numerous. Just when the war was ending things were brought to the state of organization in which they ought to have been at the commencement. Look again at the difficulties with which Wellington had to contend at the time of the Peninsular war for want of preparation at home; if it had not been for the gigantic energy of the man the difficulties interposed might have proved almost insuperable. Wellington, at the end of the war, left an army complete in every department, such as England had probably never seen before, and which was admirable for the construction of its commissariat and of its waggon train. But

    1925
    what was done when that war was concluded? We let all the arrangements of Wellington go to the wall. We did not carry out any of the arrangements which he had made. The commissariat disappeared, the waggon train no longer existed. Nothing was talked of but paring down the army in order that the Estimates might cut a good figure in that House. Again, when the Crimean war broke out our Government was found unprepared. If anybody ever deserved to be impeached it was the Government of that day for their want of preparation, The disasters which befell the gallant British army on that occasion were without the least excuse. That fine body of men were left to die in the Crimea from actual starvation and privations, and the horses actually ate their own tails. Therefore, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to what the condition of the country would be if we were to drift into a war with America. It seemed to him possible, and even probable, that we might tide into a war with America. He must say he thought the American people were under a deep debt of gratitude to the Government and Houses of Legislature of this country for the perfect neutrality which they had preserved. If we had taken the part of the Confederates we should not only have been able to command the safety of the Canadas, but we should have stopped that spirit of "filibustering" which marked the Americans; we should have put a stop to the atrocious Monro doctrine, which was opposed to all International Law, and to civilization and civil liberty. A Federal American said to him the other day, "You could have thrashed us out of the shape of a nation if you had stood by the Confederates." He hoped the Americans would | feel the deep debt of gratitude they owed to us for having acted thus. He confessed he could not help thinking that we had taken that course which might eventually lead us into war. We were allowing the Federals to enslave the Confederates under pretence of freeing the blacks, and we might disgust both parties, and induce them to join their forces in order to attack the Canadas. If war should occur, in what state were we who had not a gun to our back? Our guns had been properly described by the Americans as mere pea shooters compared with theirs. What was the use of our 8-inch guns against 11-inch guns? Suppose there were war, and that the Kearsage, with her 11-inch pivot
    1926
    guns were off our shores, what would be the state of our ports? We had not a fort armed with a gun fit to beat off this sloop of war. We had nothing of the sort throughout England. What was the use of an 8-inch gun against an 11-inch gun, or Sir William Armstrong's toys? The Volunteer Artillery were men able to take their part in defending their native shores; they were well instructed in gun duty, and they wanted nothing but guns; but where were the guns? They were armed with old 18-pounders; and what was the use of these or the 24-pounders against 11-inched rifled guns carrying enormous shells? Perhaps he would be told that it was not wanted that the Artillery Volunteers should have guns of their own, that they only received playthings for the purpose of drill at present, but that when a war and invasion occurred they would then be put behind those notable fortifications in which the noble Lord at the head of the Government so much rejoiced; but in modern warfare every military man that he had met with said those fortifications would be worth nothing. All the Volunteer Artillery were to be put behind walls, but with regard to a war with America this would not do. It was not the invasion of this country, but the danger to British property and our trade, that was to be apprehended. Our harbours and roadsteads, where merchant ships might seek refuge, ought to be protected with an adequate gun, but we had yet to find that gun. Notwithstanding all the farce of trials between Armstrong and Whitworth, we had not an effective gun, though the trials had lasted five years. Lords of the Admiralty and officers of the Ordnance went down to Shoeburyness, but returned just as wise as they went about the experiments. Had other Governments taken the same course? They had not. Ours was the only Government that seemed to think we ought to rest satisfied without any defence at all till this farce had been played out. The answer constantly was, "You must wait for Armstrong or Whitworth." What excuse could be offered for leaving our shores and harbours unprotected when, at the very small expense of rifling our 32-pounder guns, we might command the protection of our harbours. There had been offers to rifle guns at a very small cost, and he wished to know why that had not been done? Because Sir William Armstrong would not have it so. They must look to Sir William Armstrong and Mr. Whitworth to know what was to be done.

    1927
    If we did glide into a war, we should have the cost of it doubled, besides suffering all that disaster and disgrace which must follow such bad management. In Bristol there was an admirable corps of riflemen, commanded by an excellent officer. There was likewise an admirable corps of artillery, commanded also by an admirable artillery officer, his hon. Friend the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Miles) could testify to that. Nothing could be more effective than both these corps. What had they got to practise upon? They had two or three old 18-pounder ship guns, which would not knock an old duck off her nest. They had also had presented to them four rifled 9-pounders, their range being about double that of the 18-pounders; and those latter pop guns were to do the work of defending the entrance to the port. There was a battery erected at the entrance of the port upon which large sums of money had been expended, but it was not adequately armed or supported for the protection of the trade. In the event of a war with America the same thing would probably occur in regard to Bristol as had taken place during the last American war when the enemy came into the Irish Channel, and were engaged uninterruptedly for two or three days destroying British property before a proper ship of war was sent round by the British Government to protect mercantile interests. He had heard old merchants say that they then expected to see the Americans in King Roads, making havoc among our ships, and that if they had gone there they might have done as they pleased. If that could have been done then before the use of steam it could be done with greater ease now, and it was doubly necessary to guard against it. He only mentioned these facts to show how deeply necessary it was for us to be prepared against such a contingency. He had brought the question of guns and the armaments of our coasts under the consideration of the House, and he trusted that some hon. and gallant Gentlemen more competent to speak upon this subject would rise in their places and say that he had at least made out a case for the consideration of the Government.
    MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that he thought the hon. Gentleman was quite right in calling the attention of the House to the probability of a war with America, and to the defenceless state of our coasts. He (Mr. Peacocke) could not think that the probability of a war with America had been
    1928
    at all diminished in consequence of the remarks made in the course of the debate upon Canada. He must say he heard those remarks with infinite regret. He believed it was not the mode of avoiding a war with a powerful and unscrupulous neighbour to tell him that we were unable to defend our colony, which was likely in such an event to be the first attacked. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) was a good authority upon military matters.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was against the Rules of the House to refer to anything said in a previous debate.
    MR. PEACOCKEobserved, that he had not said that those remarks had occurred in the course of a debate in that House. Well, he would simply say he heard that it had been stated, he would not say where or by whom, that Canada could not be defended by this country. It appeared to him that such statements were calculated to depress the courage and ability of the Natives to defend themselves, and he also believed that to tell the United States that we were unable to defend our colonies was not the way of warding off aggression from that country. At all events, he thought that they might consider the possibilities of a war with America, and that they could fairly argue as to the probabilities of such a war only by looking at the language used by the Ministers of America, as well as that of other authorities there. He would not allude to the wordy rhetoric of the multitude, but to the language used by persons in high authority in America. We heard the other day that General Dix, while commanding the Federal troops on the borders of Canada, absolutely ordered a force to violate the soil of Canada and to seize the refugees who had sought an asylum in that country. It was true the United States Government had not quite endorsed the language of General Dix, but it was equally true that General Dix was still retained in the command of the army upon the frontier. Again, on another occasion, in the harbour of Bahia, a pirate of the name of Collins, for he (Mr. Peacocke) could call him by no other name, thought fit to steal into the harbour at the dead of the night, and to sweep with grape shot an undefended and, he might almost say, unarmed vessel; to attach a hawser to her and drag her out of the harbour— an act as contrary to all principles of International Law as if he had dragged her from an anchorage in the Thames. A

    1929
    captain in the service of the United States having so conducted himself, what was the language of the American consul at Brazil (Mr. Webb) when his attention was called to the outrage? That gentleman said that though he regretted that this unjustifiable action had been committed in a harbour of Brazil, he regretted still more that it had not been committed in one of the harbours of England. He (Mr. Peacocke) did not know whether the United States Government had actually prompted this language of their Minister, but they had certainly partly endorsed that language by publishing this despatch, and Mr. Webb still remained the American Minister at Rio. Then, again, no less a personage than the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United States, Mr. Chase, in the classical language sometimes used in that country, observed that he desired to "give old Mother England a shake." He (Mr. Peacocke) did not know whether that language had been disapproved by the American Government, but Mr. Chase had not been dismissed—on the contrary, he had been promoted. Mr. Chase held at that moment the highest judicial position in the United States, and before him would be adjudged any questions of International Law that might arise between this country and the United States. Then, again, it must be recollected that no less a person than Mr. Seward, holding a position almost of greater political power than the President himself—in fact, he was the mayor of the palace—that gentleman had stated that he only waited for a favourable opportunity to arise to enforce the claims of the American Government upon this country for the ravages inflicted by the Alabama. They all knew what was meant by "a favourable opportunity." Now he (Mr. Peacocke) did not wish to raise any question as to the origin or career of the Alabama, but at all events it could not be denied that the Alabama left our shores an unarmed vessel. And when the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who was manifestly well primed with a speech that evening, thought proper to attack the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) for his connection with the Alabama —if the hon. Member (Mr. Bright) thought that our shipowners, merchants, and manufacturers were responsible for the ultimate destination of the goods they placed on board their vessels, and that they were bound against all contingencies, the hon.
    1930
    Gentleman (Mr. Bright) ought at least to have directed his philippics against other Members of that House as well as the hon. Member for Birkenhead. There were other Gentlemen mixed up in these transactions who were Members of that House as well as magistrates and deputy lieutenants of counties, and perhaps they would explain to the hon. Gentleman what that meant. There were Englishmen who had made collossal fortunes by the sale of arms and ammunition to the United States Government. Why should not the hon. Member for Birmingham draw up a Bill of indictment against his own constituents, who he knew had carried on, and were still carrying on, a very considerable trade with the United States?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was out of order in referring to a former debate.
    MR. PEACOCKEsaid, the rules of the House allowed him to ask the hon. Gentleman why he did not draw up a bill of indictment against his own constituents for carrying on this trade of munitions of war with the United States. He did not know that it was a fair and impartial observance of the principle of neutrality to refuse a single unarmed vessel to one belligerent, and to furnish tens of thousands of men and hundreds of thousands of stand of arms to the other for the purpose of enabling them to shoot down men who were struggling for independence and freedom. The hon. Member for Birkenhead ought rather to be held up as the greatest pacificator who had appeared on their stage during this struggle; and he (Mr. Peacocke) would tell them why. He presumed that hon. Members were sincerely anxious for the pacification of America and for a termination of this struggle. Now, it was evident that the American civil war could not be terminated but by one of two ways —by the extermination of the South or by the exhaustion of the North, and the consequent recognition of the independence of the South. Now, it was perfectly clear that in order to exhaust the Northeners, they must be made to feel the losses and privations of war. Up to the time when the Alabama appeared on the stage the New England States, who were the chief promoters and instigators of this war, had enjoyed an absolute immunity from its losses. But the Alabama —to an infinitesimal extent, no doubt—did inflict some injury on those States. When the people of the New England States were called

    1931
    upon to make the smallest sacrifices for the war, their leaders speaking of it as a sacred war undertaken for the liberty of the negro, they refused to shoulder a musket, and even provided substitutes for themselves in the ranks of the army at 800 dollars each paid them in greenbacks. The Alabama inflicted but trifling losses upon the New England States; but what were those compared to the privations and Bufferings inflicted upon the Southerns? Their stores had been ransacked, their cities set on fire, their homesteads burnt, and, worse than that, their families were handed over to a licentious soldiery. The other day General Sherman marched unopposed through the State of Georgia because the whole of the people of that State capable of bearing arms had been enrolled in the ranks of the Confederate army. Now, when we found a nation composed of seven or eight millions of whites so unanimous in carrying on the war for the purpose of achieving their independence, he (Mr. Peacocke) said it was impossible to subdue them, although they might be exterminated. If the latter be the humane policy of the great Peace party, it was possible that it might arrive at that result. He maintained, however, that such a result would be most repulsive to the feelings of the people of this country. He thought the people of England wished to be on good terms with the United States as with every other country; hut not to approach that country in the language of panic or alarm. He further believed that in this struggle our people entertained a generous sympathy for the sufferings and gallantry of those who were engaged in defending the Confederate cause.
    SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he presumed the hon. and learned Member for Maldon did not think that war with America was a desirable thing. They ought in that House to be extremely cautious about the style of language they adopted. If the United States had grievances to allege against this country, which might be very true, the less said about them here the better. On the other hand, if we had a grievance, or the Confederates had a grievance to complain of, those who were really desirous for peace between the two countries must be cautious in the eloquent summoning up of those awkward pieces of history which, in his opinion, could have no effect in producing peace and goodwill between the two Powers. Therefore, he did not intend to pursue the
    1932
    course of argument which had been used that evening, although it would be easy, no doubt, to adduce circumstances tending to produce irritation. At the same time, he should be glad to know from the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War (the Marquess of Hartington), who appeared to be the only military authority of the Government at that moment in the House, whether we had a gun which would suit the purposes described by the hon. Member for Bristol? He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that whether this was a question of Bristol or Quebec, it was the duty of the Government to take quietly and silently those precautions which would at all events have the effect of at least protecting the subjects of Her Majesty from military insult. He thought that that might be done without producing delicate' and dangerous despatches tending to produce that result which we wished to avoid. He assumed that the hon. Member for Bristol did not wish there should be a repetition of the same mistake as in the case of the 100-pounder Armstrong guns, by which 1,068 guns, after having been constructed, were found of no use whatsoever. Nothing could be more absurd than making costly guns unless the Government were satisfied that the plan of them was good. At the same time, it was desirable to know that we were in possession of an arm for the service of our ships and forts on which we might rely in case of necessity.
    MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that he understood that the complaint of the hon. Gentleman opposite was this—that we had erected fortifications around our coast at an enormous cost of some millions of money, and that after all none of them were thoroughly efficient, and that some of them were mounted with old guns upon old rotten carriages. They were told the other evening that a similar state of things occurred at Quebec, where there were many old guns mounted upon rotten carriages, which were certain to break down upon the first discharge. Now, the same thing prevailed not only along our coast but on almost all our military stations. At Malta we had old obsolete guns; and at Gibraltar and the Channel Islands we had obsolete guns. But, worse than all, we had obsolete projectiles. We had not been doing what every other nation had been doing—furnishing our fortifications with steel projectiles. The old cast-iron projectiles were of no more use against armour-plated ships than a number of Butch cheeses. A friend

    1933
    of his informed him last year that he had the curiosity to make inquiries amongst the British manufacturers of steel projectiles as to the work they were doing, and requested returns of the different nations for which they were executing orders. The result of those returns was the discovery of the fact that those manufacturers were working for every nation in Europe—even for Denmark—except their own Government. It appeared that up to that time they had not furnished any of those projectiles to any, either of our ships of war or military stations. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War asserted, as a reason why we had not obtained powerful guns, that Blakeley's gun was too expensive. That was an extraordinary statement, but it was a statement which appeared to have been cheered by some of the supporters of the Government. The noble Lord also stated that we must wait until war was declared, when we would have means at our hand, with a large Estimate, to procure the guns as rapidly as would be requisite to meet the emergency. Now, in regard to that statement, what was really the fact? One of the best of our establishments could not turn out a 600-pounder rifle gun in a shorter time than twelve months. If, then, we were hurried into a war, we should be twelve months before we could obtain any powerful guns. Besides, it should be recollected that those establishments had generally contracts to execute for foreign Governments; and it could not be expected that they should neglect the work they might be engaged in for those Powers for the sole purpose of serving Her Majesty's Government. But they knew what all that meant. It meant this, that if we were to lay out all the money necessary to put the country in a proper state of defence the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to bring forward this fine Budget which we heard so much about. We should, in fact, have no surplus to dispose of, and the Government could not go to the country with the popular cry that they had been able to reduce £3,000,000 of taxation. That was the position in which we were. The people of England must understand that if we were to have these rumoured reductions we could not place the nation in a proper state of defence. We might have the good fortune to avoid war, but if we should have the misfortune to fall into war we could not prevent the anticipation of the greatest disasters if this evil, so loudly
    1934
    complained of, were not immediately remedied.
    MR. MONSELLsaid, that the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate the difficulty of the Government with regard to guns. He believed the House and the country were quite prepared to go to any expense to provide an efficient weapon; but, as had been proved two years ago before a Committee of which he was Chairman, the Government had rushed into an attempt to produce a large number of guns without sufficient inquiry and investigation, and the result was the expenditure of an enormous sum of money, almost altogether uselessly. He was sure the House would agree with him that course should not be followed. He understood that since the Report of that Committee had been laid on the table experiments had been going on for the purpose of arriving at the best result, both as to rifling and calibre, and especially with reference to the contest between Sir William Armstrong and Mr. Whitworth, to get the best sort of gun that could be produced. The only fault he could find with the Government was that these experiments had not been pressed forward as rapidly as they might have been. He was informed that for a considerable time there had been, for some reason or other, very few experiments at Shoeburyness. He thought, till the Report relative to the comparative merits of the Whitworth and Armstrong ordnance had been laid on the table, they would not be in a condition to form a judgment as to what the Government ought to do for the future. He hoped the noble Marquess would not proceed with the Vote till that had been done. He should like to hear some statement with regard to the experiments which had taken place with the Palliser gun. He understood that by means of the insertion of two tubes in a 68-pounder it would be turned into a 110-pounder rifle gun, and that old guns might be adapted to that model for £100 each, whereas a new gun on that principle would cost £500 or £600, and these guns would then be very efficient for such purposes as were pointed out by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Henry Berkeley). They were perfectly effective for piercing any iron-clad ships possessed by foreign Powers at a distance of 300 or 400 yards. But what he chiefly rose for was to entreat the Government not to run into the rash and wanton expenditure which occurred with regard to the Armstrong gun, but to bring their experiments to a conclusion as

    1935
    speedily as possible; and when that had been done he was sure every Member would be very willing to grant any sum that might be required for the production of as large a number of the most approved guns as might be wished.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not rise for the purpose of following the hon. Members for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley) and Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) into the consideration of the probability of this country entering into a war with America. I listened with great interest to the debate which took place the other night upon the defences of Canada, and it seemed to me that most of the speakers who addressed the House did so with a due sense of responsibility upon them, and admitted, as we must all admit, that, while there is a possibility of our being engaged in a war with America, the probability of such a misfortune is very remote indeed. I do not think it necessary, therefore, to follow the arguments of the hon. Member who first spoke to-night (Mr. Berkeley). There is only one part of the subject to which I think it necessary to make any reference. The hon. Member repeated the complaints which he made last year—namely, that the Artillery Volunteers of this country are only armed and drilled with 18 and 24-pounder guns, and he repeated very correctly the answer which was given to him last year, and which it seems to me is a good answer this year. That answer is, that it is necessary that the Artillery Volunteers practise and learn their drill in the localities where they reside. Where no batteries exist they are erected, and the guns and ammunition are sent to them for the purpose of instruction only. In case of war, the Artillery Volunteers would be moved to any works where their presence might be required, and it by no means follows that they would use the guns now in their possession. In fact, it is certain such would not be the case. The hon. Member also says our coast defences are not in that state in which they ought to be, in order to repel any attack which a cruiser, such as the Kearsage might make. I do not mean to say that either our old or new batteries are as yet thoroughly armed. The new batteries, as far as they are finished, are, I believe, armed. The House is aware that those batteries which will mount the heaviest guns, and which are intended as our sea defences, at Plymouth, Spithead, and other places, are not yet finished, and not in a state to re-
    1936
    ceive their armaments. These armaments will be of a very heavy description; but surely, whatever may be the opinion of the House as regards the state of forwardness of our naval armaments, the House would not wish the Government to incur any large expenditure in preparing armaments for forts not yet ready to receive them, especially when it is agreed on all hands that many important questions are still pending with regard to the principles to be adopted in our heavy ordnance. As to the new works which are finished and the old works, I deny that they are in such a state as to be unfit to protect our coast against the attack of an ordinary wooden vessel. The 110-pounder and 68-pounder guns are perfectly efficient against wooden ships of that class. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) asked what had become of a number of 110-pounders. As I have mentioned before, although we fully admit that the 110-pounder is not an efficient gun against iron-clad-ships, yet we are not prepared to admit that it is not a good gun for a great many purposes, and one of those purposes for which it is most efficient is to repel the attack of wooden vessels. If the hon. Member for Bristol wishes to assert that the whole of our seaboard is not covered with batteries, and batteries armed in such a manner as to resist the attack of iron-plated vessels, I entirely agree with him; I think it is not likely that we ever shall have every part of our coast and every harbour where a vessel can take refuge armed so as to resist the attack of iron-plated ships. I have always understood that one of the great purposes of our fleet was to protect our shores; and I do not think it was ever contemplated—indeed I never heard it contended for—that the whole of our coast should be protected by batteries in such a way as to resist the attack of iron-plated vessels. I maintain that our batteries are armed with guns perfectly useful against the attack of ordinary wooden cruisers. Now, Sir, the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) asked whether we had a good gun. I can only give him my opinion upon that point, and I do not wish the House to take it for more than it is worth. I have stated in moving the Estimates that we have very good guns, the 12-ton and 20-ton guns, made upon the coil principle, and I believe these guns more powerful than any in the possession of other nations. I do not per-

    1937
    sonally believe that we shall ever get a very much better gun. There are, however, so many questions undecided, and so much difference of opinion among the highest authorities, that I think it is very probable we may know much more upon this subject this time next year than we do now. In reply to the hon. Baronet, I can only Bay we have a good gun. We have only made guns and fitted them as actually required for ships fitting out this year, and we are making a comparatively small number for our land defences, waiting to complete the armament of our sea defences until the questions now under consideration shall have been more fully decided. As to the statement of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. H. Bailie) that twelve months are required to make a 600-pounder, I do not think that is correct. I believe there are several establishments in the country that could make a 600-pounder in half that time; besides, I think it extremely improbable that we shall ever require any large number of guns of that size. The 12-ton guns are quite sufficient for the purpose of piercing an iron-clad vessel; and I therefore think it will seldom be found necessary to have a gun heavier than that. I do not believe that I ever said anything that would induce the House or the people of this country to think that we intended to stop where we are at present, or to delay the arming of our navy and forts till war broke out. I said that we were scarcely in a position now to incur a large expense, with our limited knowledge; and, as an argument for not incurring such an expense, I mentioned that there were establishments in the country which would be able to turn out a large number of guns if an emergency appeared imminent. The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) stated that, in his opinion, there had been unnecessary delay in the experiments which had lately taken place. I admit that there has been a great deal of delay in the experiments between the Armstrong and the Whitworth guns. I explained on several occasions what was the cause of that delay, and I do not think it can in any way be attributed to the Government. The delay was entirely on the part of one or other of the competitors, and I believe principally caused by Mr. Whitworth, in not producing his gun and ammunition at the specified time. The trial, as the House is aware, was placed in the hands of a Special Com-
    1938
    mittee; and all through the proceedings the Government avoided as much as possible interfering with the Committee, and allowed them to carry on the trial in their own way and in their own time. I do not mean to say that remonstrances have not been addressed to them as to the length of their proceedings; and they were frequently urged to make their Report. I trust their Report will be received in a short time, and I wish the hon. Gentleman had not brought forward his Motion till that Report was received. It will require a great deal of consideration, but it would be unnecessary and unwise to postpone the Votes on the Estimates till that Report is received. As to the trial of Captain Palliser's guns, the hon. Member is quite right in saying that it has been exceedingly satisfactory. A few have been made upon his principle, and they have shown an extraordinary power of endurance. It has been thought desirable, before the final adoption of these guns, to have some further experiments, but there is every reason to suppose that the guns lined on Captain Palliser's principle will be most effective. I cannot say how far the guns would be efficient against ironclads, but there is no doubt they will be most efficient for our land defences, where they are not called upon to contend against ironclads. I believe the guns which have been ordered for experiment will be ready in a short time; and if the results should be as satisfactory as those which have already been obtained, the Government intend to proceed to a considerable extent in the conversion of our old cast-iron guns into rifle guns on the Palliser principle.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should give no opinion on the question of the guns, with which he felt himself incompetent to deal; but the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley) and the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) had referred in their speeches to a matter which would have been more appropriate to the debate last week—namely, that on the defences of Canada. He supposed the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) wished on this occasion to enter a protest against the language and tone which had been adopted by the leaders of his party in that House the other evening. He should not again enter into the question of the claims put forward by Mr. Seward on account of the Alabama, but if the hon. Gentleman had read the despatch of Mr.

    1939
    Seward he could not understand by what means he could persuade himself that those claims were being kept in reserve to be asserted by Mr. Seward in such a manner as to threaten war to this country. The hon. Gentleman said that Ministers and officials of the United States threatened this country with war. It was true that Chief Justice Chase had unwisely threatened us with a shaking, and that an official in Brazil had written a foolish despatch. But surely it was unworthy the dignity of the nation that we should go to an enormous expenditure in defending our colonies because one or two Ministers had used words which ought not to have been spoken. If we were made answerable for all the expressions used by Ministers sitting on that Bench and on the other, we should be at war with almost the whole human race at this time. They had no reason to feel alarm about war on grounds like these. With regard to the order of General Dix, that was undoubtedly a very hasty order, but was issued under the supposition that it was necessary for self-defence; and notwithstanding the very natural excitement which prevailed in America on the subject, as soon as the order came to the knowledge of the Government at Washington it was immediately disowned. Some allowance should be made for excited feelings on such occasions. Some years ago, when the Canadians expected an attack from American territory, the British commander did not wait for the attack, but he acted, seized a ship on American waters, and he justified the step on the ground of self-defence. General Dix did issue an order which was opposed to International Law, but the American Government at once disavowed it; and what more could they have done? He should not have risen at all, but for one remark of the hon. Gentleman, because it was just one of those remarks that were calculated to cause ill-feeling between this country and foreign countries, and especially between us and our kindred in America. The hon. Member said that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) had been the real peacemaker, because he made the troubles and calamities of war to bear upon the inhabitants of New England, who, by reason of their buying substitutes, would not otherwise have felt these calamities and troubles. No statement could be more untrue. If the hon. Gentleman only put himself to the trouble of personally inquiring he would find that
    1940
    there was scarcely a family in New England, especially those in an upper station, in which one or more of its members had not fought with courage or died in this war. The hon. Member would find that the misery and distress which had been caused by this war in New England were so great that even he, if he were there, would sympathize with it. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not deny that the South had shown the same courage. No people bad ever shown more. He had never made any such charge against the South as that which had been brought by the hon. Gentleman against the North. He only always wondered how in such a cause they could have displayed such qualities; and if we were to draw any moral from this war it was this, that no amount of self-devotion and self-sacrifice in a wrong cause could succeed. The hon. Member ought to be ashamed of making so unfounded a charge against the people of New England. As far as the House was concerned, perhaps, this language did not signify much, but it was this kind of charge, which affected character and motives, that caused ill-feeling between this country and other countries. He was afraid, unless some protest was made against the use of such language, it might be supposed on the other side of the Atlantic that it expressed the feeling of that House. He perceived that the hon. Member for Galway left the House when the hon. Member used this language, and that even the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was no longer in his place, so that the language he used must be regarded as expressing his own solitary feelings, and perhaps those of one or two eccentric Members of the House.
    SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, it was his intention to have moved to-night for the production of the drawings of the intended defences of Canada; but having seen them, he was enabled to say they were so simple and so efficient that an examination of them at the War Office would be quite sufficient to convince any hon. Gentleman of their expediency. He had no hesitation in saying that he believed the plans for the works intended for Canada were most skilfully prepared, and he did not think a better system of defence could be adopted; but to make that defence complete no time must be lost in placing gunboats upon the Lakes and on the St. Lawrence. He could not understand how it would be possible to defend Canada,

    1941
    even if the proposed fortifications were, nearly completed during the ensuing year, without insuring the command of the Lakes, on which we had not at present a single gunboat. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War had admitted that there was a delay in getting a report of the two rival guns—the Armstrong and the Whit-worth. Now, they were both so good that in his opinion the Government might have ordered a certain number of both. They had been told that the difference between them was not very material, and that if they had either they would be in possession of an efficient weapon. If that were the case they might as well order some of one kind or the other at once. The noble Lord had said that we possessed a good gun — the 12-ton gun. If so he thought we might reasonably multiply the twenty-six or thirty which were being prepared by five or six, so that we might have a sufficient number to enable us, at all events, to be prepared for the worst. He was not one of those who believed we should have war with America, but he thought it was but right to be prepared for every emergency. His hon. Friend had said that at Malta and Gibraltar we had not a single gun on a new pattern; but in this statement his hon. Friend was incorrect. The majority, it was true, were old, but there were some new guns at those places. With regard to the defence of our coast the noble Lord had said that we could not pretend to defend it at all points; nothing so absurd was ever contemplated. We might, however, defend some of our best commercial harbours, and if this were not done the Government had no right to bring forward an Estimate of £300,000 year after year for this purpose. On coming to that Vote he should take the opportunity of asking the noble Lord what amount it was really proposed to expend, and where, because he believed that the commercial classes of this country ought not to be any longer misled and induced to believe that they were contributing towards an object which the Government did not intend to carry out.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had placed himself in an onerous position—he had undertaken to be a prophet in his own country. He hoped his prophecy might come true, because he had undertaken to say that in his opinion the probability of war between the Northern States and this country was exceedingly remote. He should
    1942
    be very much pleased if that were the result, but, nevertheless, he did not think the present aspect of affairs was one which would justify this country in relying upon the prophetic visions of his noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had gone further still, for in referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) that Gentleman had told the House that there was nothing threatening to this country in the attitude of the Northern States. Now, that appeared a somewhat strange assertion, and he must be permitted to say that his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in adverting to what he considered as evidence of a state of feeling in America which might possibly lead to the lamentable result of war. The general feeling of a country was to be judged from what fell from the lips of its leaders; and, though he should not look for highly classical expression in a country endowed with republican institutions, and which had not the advantage of that civilization enjoyed by this country, yet, making allowance for the somewhat peculiar phraseology indulged in by gentlemen on the other side of the Atlantic, quite enough had been said to lead this country to believe that a strong feeling of hostility towards this country existed not only among public men, but among the masses of the population, who in the United States were the great controlling power. Any Government in this country, therefore, which should shut its ears to all that had been said on the other side of the Atlantic, and neglect the precautions necessary to avert a possible, not to say a probable contingency, would fail in the discharge of one of its most obvious and greatest duties. His chief object in rising, however, was to repeat what he had ventured to affirm on a former occasion upon which he had not been able to extract an expression of opinion from any Member of Her Majesty's Government. He had always found that the only chance one had of getting at such an expression of opinion was by pressing the subject on their attention, and with that object he would repeat what he had said on the occasion to which he had alluded. It was this—that it was perfectly hopeless for this country to attempt to defend Canada against invasion from the Northern States by land. It was a waste of time and money for two reasons—for he contended that this was not a military question, but one of common sense, upon

    1943
    which every one was capable of forming an opinion. In the first place, it was impossible for this country to furnish a number of troops sufficient to defend a frontier of such enormous extent, more especially when the vast force which the United States would be able to bring to bear was taken into account. Neither would this House vote the money that would be requisite. He did not see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, but he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not sanction any such proposal. Was the House prepared to find the money for the fortifications which should be erected and for the troops which were to man those fortifications, as well as to take part in the operations in the field? And how were the Government going to work? Why, they proposed to begin with a trifle, a mere drop in the ocean—£50,000 for the construction of fortifications for the defence of the frontiers of Canada. How long did they calculate it would take to complete those fortifications, and, when completed, would any Member of Her Majesty's Government say where the troops were to be found to man them? The noble Lord had said that the probability of war was very remote. But the Government by proposing a Vote of £50,000 had admitted the possibility, if not the probability, of such an event. Well, then, in that event, did the Government anticipate that the Northern States would be kind enough to wait until they received an announcement from Her Majesty's Government that all the requisite fortifications were completed at the rate of an outlay of £50,000 a year, and that we were now prepared to receive them with due honour? or rather was it not more probable that a war, if war was to be, would take place long before the preparations for it on the Canadian frontier were completed? Well, then, what consistency was there in the conduct of Her Majesty's Government when, on the one hand, they proposed a Vote of £50,000 for fortifications, and on the other a reduction in the number of our troops? What had been said by his hon. Friend was quite true—that all our Estimates were trumped up ad captandum to suit the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the purpose of the moment, and all that the interests of the country demanded was kept out of sight. The only way in which Canada could be defended was by sea—that is, by our possessing a complete maritime superiority over the Northern States, by completely
    1944
    blockading their ports and reducing the country by the process of exhaustion. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government would reconsider the question before they took the Vote of £50,000.
    CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that he regretted that the American question had been mixed up with that of gunnery. This Bogie cry was not now set up for the first time; they had heard it before, it used to be an invasion by France, when it was now a war with the United States, on any other Bogie which might be wanted to frighten them into giving a Vote. The real question for them to consider was, was England now in a state of defence which she ought to occupy? They had heard a great deal of the enormous expense of guns. The expense of gunnery was a matter of policy. If the Government looked forward to a prospect of years of peace they should take a small Vote. If they anticipated war they should ask for a large one, and avail themselves of the best gun of the period. The Armstrong gun had its origin in the Crimean war; the 40-pounder gun was the result of the war with Austria; and the 110-pounder was the result of the Trent affair. Sir William Armstrong having been ordered to make that gun, did so, and it was the best gun that was attainable at the time. Since that period numerous experiments had gone on at a great expense, and from these experiments (at Shoebury-ness), and the experience gained from the war at the other side of the Atlantic, they found that armament which in 1859 was excellent was no longer of any use. They were now asked to do nothing until they got a perfect 600-pounder, or some imaginary gun. Now, he recollected many years since having been sent for by the Ordnance Department, and he was asked to make a perfect rifle with perfect machinery. He was somewhat astonished at the order, and took time to consider his answer. He consulted with some of the best men of the day, but they, like himself, were obliged to come to the conclusion that such a thing was perfectly impossible, as gunnery, like every other science, was improving from day to day, and that they might as well try to arrive at perfection in ballooning. A Committee was, nevertheless, appointed to make a perfect rifle with perfect machinery; and after going on for years the same rifle was now used as was then. What would have been said had we waited for this perfect rifle in-

    1945
    stead of arming our troops the best way we could? Gunmaking would go on improving as other sciences improved. The success of gunnery did not depend on an Armstrong or a Whitworth, but upon those who manufactured the steel and iron all over the world. It was said that Mr. Whitworth originated the steel shot, but steel shot was thought of long before Mr. Whitworth was dreamed of, and that the manufacturers in Prussia, by improvements in their manufacture, enabled him to make it. What was the real complaint? The real complaint was, not that they had not made 600-pounders to be placed in their forts, but that if any disturbance should arise they had not a gun to put into the navy to meet the enemy. By that he did not mean that they were unable to arm iron-clad line-of-battle ships of 6,000 tons, but that they could not even send a floating battery to sea with a proper armament in her. It was unfortunate that the question of guns had been strongly mixed up with party considerations. Lord Derby's Government, when General Peel was in Office, having selected the Armstrong gun, it was at once called the "Blue" or Tory gun, and the successors of that Government sought another gun, and selected the Whitworth gun, the "Yellow" or Reform gun. They would never have heard of this latter gun had not its inventor been a member of the Reform Club, and advertised it in the billiard-room and smoking-room there, and his friends pestered Minister after Minister in favour of this gun, and Committee after Committee was appointed till it seemed as though the War Office would never come to a conclusion. He hoped they would now have a final settlement of this question, and come to the conclusion to have the best available gun of the day, and to have a sufficient number, sinking the little petty matters that had arisen between man and man, club and club, but getting that which was most useful to the country.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS IN CHINA.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    COLONEL SYKES,in rising to call the attention of the House to the alleged inability of the British Government to enforce Orders in Council and Ordinances by Superintendents of Trade, relating to British subjects in China, said, that he did not see the Under Secretary of State for
    1946
    Foreign Affairs in his place; but as the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was always in his place, was present, he would probably give a more explicit reply than the House could hope to obtain from the Under Secretary. The statement that the Government could not enforce these Orders in Council and Ordinances for the control of British subjects in China would, if it went abroad, necessarily have a mischievous effect. China swarmed with freebooters, filibusters, rowdies, and deserters from ships who were seeking their fortunes in that empire, ready at all times to take service on one side or the other, and to keep up the existing anarchy. His object was to make it understood that the Queen's Orders in Council could be and would be enforced. Parliament authorized the issue of these Orders for the control of Her Majesty's subjects within the Chinese dominions, or 100 miles of the coast thereof; and in January, 1855, by virtue of the powers vested in him, the Chief Superintendent in Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, issued an Ordinance, declaring among other things, that any British subjects taking part with the Government or the rebels would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by not more than two years' imprisonment or by a fine of not more than 5,000 dollars. This Ordinance was in operation during the whole time that our officers — Sir James Hope, General Stavely, General Brown, Captain Dew, and others—were slaughtering the rebels, so that by siding with the Chinese Government those officers actually committed a misdemeanor, for which they were punishable, under the Ordinance, as he had mentioned. When it was found necessary to assist the Emperor of China an Ordinance was published in Her Majesty's name granting permission to Captain Osborn and Mr. Lay to enlist British subjects, not for the service of the Emperor of China, but expressly for service under Captain Osborn and Mr. Lay only. The House would not fail to remember the dreadful events which followed from the perfidy of the Futai, the ally of Captain Gordon, under whose guarantee the princes of the rebels surrendered at Soochow only to be assassinated, and yet Captain Gordon, who professed at first the greatest indignation, remained in the service of that assassin. Her Majesty's Government, however, upon learning the facts, with very proper feeling issued an Ordinance that

    1947
    all British subjects should withdraw from the service of the Emperor of China and of the Mandarins. It had been argued, most incorrectly as he believed, that the orders did not apply to all British subjects in the service of the Mandarins or of the Emperor of China, but to officers only holding Her Majesty's Commission, but he submitted that it was unquestionable by the plain meaning of all previous Orders in Council, that those orders did apply to all Her Majesty's subjects, and therefore the orders ought to be enforced. The question then remained, were there any British subjects now in the service of the Emperor of China or of his Mandarins. The Consuls were quite aware of their powers, and only required stimulating to put those powers in force. Nothing was required but an expression of will on the part of Her Majesty's Government to induce the Consuls to act upon those powers. What had been the effect of enabling the Mandarins to drive out the rebels? He held in his hand a narrative written by a merchant in Shanghai who, finding since the occupation of the silk districts by the Imperialists that the supplies of silk were diminishing, made a journey through those districts in order to discover the cause of such diminution. An extraordinary statement had appeared in a leading journal to the effect that since the rebels obtained possession of the silk-producing districts there had been a gradual diminution in the supply of that article, while from official Returns it appeared that from May, 1860, when the rebels first obtained possession of those districts, the supplies of silk had gone on annually increasing until the Imperialists regained possession by the aid of Colonel Gordon and his force. The gentleman to whose narrative he had referred stated that he was informed that under the Tae-ping rule the country seemed happy and flourishing, and from personal observation in other districts where the rebels exercised authority, the people of those districts had nothing to complain of in the working of Bentham's theory of the greatest good for the greatest number. The gentleman he referred to next proceeded to ascertain whether the mulberry trees were as numerous as before, knowing that unless those trees were maintained the supply of silk must fall off. Burgevine, it is said, when he transferred his services to the rebels, recommended to the Commander-in-Chief, Chung Wang, that he
    1948
    could punish the British for their breaches of neutrality if he were to destroy the mulberry trees, and therefore interrupt the production of silk; but Chung Wung refused to adopt this advice. The country around Soochow, and in the province of Chekiang, was a garden and thickly inhabited; but now the country was a desert, the houses had disappeared, and the inhabitants had all fled from the Imperialist victors, whom they dreaded as tigers. At a distance of about 27 li from Soochow this gentleman came to a place which was formerly a custom-house station, but was now occupied by a portion of Gordon's old force. There he found seven British subjects, Colonel Doyle, Major Murphy, Major Lawless, and four others, who were engaged in drilling an artillery force of some 500 men for the Futai's service. There were twenty heavy guns of foreign manufacture, large quantities of English gunpowder, 45,000 rounds of shot and shell, in possession of the force, notwithstanding the Ordinance of 1855, which made it a misdemeanor in any British subject to supply warlike materials to either party. This gentleman further stated that he found the anti-foreign feeling was reviving; indeed, subsequently to his visit these very troops assaulted. their officers, and Major Doyle, and three of his officers, in self defence, were obliged to fire upon their assailants and killed three of them, for which act the Futai dismissed them from his service. At Soochow the traveller found a Dr. Macartney, formerly of the 99th regiment, superintending the manufacture of shot, shell, and rifle bullets, and thus it might happen that the merchants of Shanghai would have to seek shelter on board our ships from an enemy who used against them the rifle bullets which Dr. Macartney had taught them to manufacture. At Ningpo, under the very eyes of the Consul, Major Cook, and other officers, were engaged in the service of the Mandarin. Then, when the traveller came to look for the mulberry trees which were so important for the production of silk, he found that in the conquered districts from which the rebels had been expelled, they had been cut down by the Imperialist troops— that accompanied Colonel Gordon in his victorious career—for firewood ! The Consuls could prevent the violation of Her Majesty's Ordinances if they wished it. They had power if they chose to exercise it, a proof of this is given in a Consular

    1949
    Ordinance, dated Amoy, 1st January, 1865, issued by the Consul at Amoy. It directed that the passengers in British vessels without passports should not be allowed to land without express permission from the Cousul. It was also ordered that persons arriving in that port in British vessels, unprovided with such passports, must be detained on board by the captain until the case was reported to the Consul, who should give or withhold his permission as he might think fit. That was leaving the liberty of British subjects in the hands of diplomatic agents with a vengeance. It was declared, also, that masters and consignees of British vessels were responsible for any passengers landed in violation of the regulations. It was also declared that any foreigner or Chinese leaving the port must have their passports vis°d before going on board. In many other places in China there were British subjects as well as other foreigners, and their withdrawal had been recommended from the service of the Emperor of China. He had reason to know that a despatch to that effect had reached the Foreign Office in 1863. In June, 1863, the Ministers of the four great Powers had agreed to recommend to their Governments the withdrawal of their subjects from the service of the Emperor of China. He was not aware whether that agreement was still in existence, but as a matter of policy it ought to be acted upon; and he, therefore, begged to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether, in the name of humanity, our Consuls ought not to be called on to withdraw all British subjects from the service of the Emperor of China and the local Mandarins, who were serving in a military capacity and manufacturing materiel of war, in all probability to be used against ourselves ultimately, from the feelings which were now being manifested by the Chinese Government and its officials?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that though the question had not been addressed to him, yet, as it involved a matter of law rather than one of policy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to reply to it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed entirely to overlook the nature of consular jurisdiction in China, or any other foreign country where such a jurisdiction had been conferred by the local Government, in assuming that Consuls had the same means at their control for the enforcement of the laws they had to ad-
    1950
    minister as were possessed by the authorities of the country in whom the territorial jurisdiction resided. In this country the Government had at its disposal the police, the posse comitatus, and the army, if necessary, for the the enforcement of the law; but a Consul had no power except what he derived from the cooperation of his countrymen, or that which might be conferred on him by the Government of the country in which he lived. Under these circumstances, it was clear that, if the law were violated, Consuls in no case could proceed except upon information properly before them, or proper evidence that a breach of law had been committed. It was impossible that they could send a roving Commission all over China to find out who might be or might not be disobeying the law, and to summon them, whether they were in the service of the Emperor or not, to answer for offences of which no one had accused them. The Consular Courts had the same duties to perform as other courts in criminal cases—they had to receive information properly verified, and to decide according to law; but they were not to go about all over China trying to find out all possible offenders. The Government of this country could not be held responsible for the discovery and punishment of all British subjects who might commit offences in any part of China. When these subjects were within the consular jurisdiction and were properly accused—on proper evidence—then it would be time enough to inquire whether they had offended against the Ordinances. It was quite impossible that these Ordinances could be executed all with equal efficiency over a great empire like China — they could only be enforced in those places where our Consuls were resident.

  INDIA—BOMBAY BACK BAY SHARES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Indian authorities with regard to the Back Bay Shares at Bombay, and to move for any Correspondence between the Governor of Bombay, the Supreme Government of India, and the Home Government, relating to any proposed increase of Salaries of Officials in the Bombay Presidency. Owing to the large exports of cotton from Bombay there had recently been an enormous accession of prosperity there, upwards of £70,000,000 hav-

    1951
    ing been sent to the Presidency as the balance of trade. Two years ago the Government of Bombay made an arrangement with a company there for the reclamation of a considerable portion of land in the neighbourhood of Bombay. That Company was called the Back Bay Company, and the bargain was that the Government should have one-third of the land reclaimed and the right to 400 of the shares to be issued by the company. They were £1,000 shares—£500 paid up. But after the Company was formed and proceedings were begun for the reclamation of the land, orders came from the Supreme Government that it was improper for the Bombay Government to traffic in shares, and that they were to be given up. The consequence was that these 400 shares were put up to auction, and they realized a premium of £1,160,000 which, instead of being carried to the profit of the Government, went to the profit of the Company. He asked the Secretary for India for some explanation of this strange proceeding. The Government was aware, from the history of previous companies, such as the Elpbinstone Land Company, the £1,000 shares of which sold for £3,800, the Victoria Land Company, the shares of which went up to £700 premium, and others, what enormous profits were made, and he wished to know how it was that they had not made a better bargain. He thought if the Government believed it was wrong to traffic in shares they ought to have made up their mind in the first instance; but as they had gone so far as taking one-third of the land they ought to have asked for a larger portion. It would have been particularly convenient for the Government to receive the money, which they might have obtained in the face of the deficit which there was stated to be in the Indian revenue. Perhaps his right hon. Friend the Secretary for India would take this opportunity of giving the House some account of the computed estimates of the receipts and expenditure for India, and also state when he proposed to make his financial statement regarding that empire. In answer to a question put to him on a former occasion by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), his right hon. Friend was understood to say that he would produce the Oude papers when making his financial statement. If the right hon. Gentleman had made that answer he presumed they must do without the Oude papers till July or August. [Sir CHARLES WOOD: I never
    1952
    said so.] The subject of the enormous amount of speculation which had been going on in Bombay for the last three or four years was one to which he could not refer without regret, because it occurred to him that if there was a proper land system there—if they could purchase the fee-simple—the Natives would have laid out their capital on the soil of India, which investment would have returned them a large profit, and would have been of great benefit to England from the quantity of cotton which would have been cultivated. He would ask his noble Friend whether he would lay on the table the correspondence which had passed between himself and the Supreme Government, and the latter and the Government of Bombay, with regard to the request on the part of the Government of Bombay to be permitted to raise the salaries of the officials in that Presidency. It was known that in consequence of the enormous influx of capital into Bombay, prices there had increased, and that the officials could no longer live on their salaries. He was told that to meet that state of things, an increase of salaries amounting to £500,000 a year had been proposed, such increase being deemed absolutely necessary in order to obtain the services of efficient officers; for, so great was the demand for cultivated men at high salaries, it was feared that some of the best officials would leave the Government service. But the Supreme Government would not allow the Government of Bombay to make an augmentation that was so necessary; and he was informed that his right hon. Friend had confirmed the decision of the Supreme Government. He was further informed that from other parts of India a similar request for permission to increase the salaries of the officials had been made, and he asked whether his right hon. Friend would lay on the table all the papers relating to this subject. The question of the land tenure of India was now more than ever deserving the attention of his right hon. Friend. It was important to procure raw material for this country; but under the present system of land tenure in India it could not be expected that capital would be laid out on the soil. During the Russian war, when we were precluded from getting hemp from Russia, the production of jute as a substitute was stimulated in India, and since that time jute had continued to be a large item in the exports from our Indian empire. It would

    1953
    be the same thing with cotton were it possible in the portion of India to which he alluded—the western regions—to cultivate it with success; but no person in India was willing to spend his money in permanent improvements on land which did not belong to him, which he only held on a thirty years' tenure, and of which the rent might be raised to any amount at the end of that period, it being further, in the power of the owner to take advantage of all the improvements which had been made by the cultivator.
    SIR CHARLES WOOD: In the questions which he has put, and the remarks by which he has accompanied his questions, my hon. Friend has travelled over a very wide range; but I do not think it would be consonant with the wish of the House —seeing that it is desirous of proceeding with the Army Estimates—that I should on this occasion enter into a long discussion on the land tenure of India, which is one of the questions that he has raised. I have no objection to lay upon the table the papers to which be has referred. My hon. Friend thinks that agriculture can only be improved in India by Englishmen buying land and cultivating it themselves, and attributes the backward state of Western India to its not being done. I will, however, take the liberty of reading a few sentences from a letter of Sir Bartle Frere with regard to what is going on in Bombay, and the House will see that the description which my hon. Friend has given of the state of that Presidency cannot be quite correct. Sir Bartle Frere, writing of the country near Nassick, says—
    "Except the natural features of the country, there was little by which I could recognize it, or tell where I was. Sheets of cotton, grain, and oil-seed cultivation had replaced what I knew as uninhabited jungle. Wherever I have been off the road I have found villages which had been established within the last ten or fifteen years on land which had been waste for generations."
    With reference to what is being done in the way of application of machinery he says—
    "The cotton district begins eighty or 100 miles west of this, and at each railway station near this I see that small factories with steam-driven ginning and pressing machinery are being set up by Bombay speculators."
    This is the mode in which I think improvement in India can best be carried on. My opinion is decidedly this—that it would not be an advantageous proceeding for Englishmen to engage in the
    1954
    cultivation of land in India. I believe the ryots can do that very well, and that Englishmen will be doing much better by setting up factories and machinery for turning to use the raw material cultivated by the ryots. With regard to the Oude papers, I did not make the statement referred to by my hon. Friend. On the contrary, the Oude papers have been on the table for a considerable time; but, as I have stated more than once, there were some documents missing. They, however, have been received since, and all the papers promised to the House will be printed and delivered with as little delay as possible. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's remonstrance, his complaint is that the Government of Bombay was not allowed by the Government of India to speculate in shares. Now I must say that I think the Government of India was perfectly right. I quite admit that if the Government of Bombay had taken shares and sold them it might have made a considerable sum of money; but in that case the object for which it was asked to take those shares would have been entirely frustrated. The original proposal was that the company were to reclaim a certain portion of land called Back Bay, assigning a portion to the Government. That was agreed to, but the shares did not go off very well. When it was found that the shares were not going off very well the Government was asked to take them, in order that a permanent support might be given to the project from the Government being shareholders in the concern. The Government of Bombay wrote to the Supreme Government asking that it might be permitted to comply with that request. The Government of India replied, in effect, "We don't think it proper for a Government to take part in a speculative project of this kind. Therefore don't do it." The ground on which it was desired that the Government of Bombay should take the shares was that the company might have Government security for the permanent management of the Company; and, therefore, if the Government had taken the shares and sold them, that object would have been frustrated. I am glad that the scheme has been successful and hope it will continue so.
    Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES—considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Original Question again proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £5,434,567, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the General Staff, and Regimental Pay, Allowances, and Charges of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31at day of March 1866, inclusive."
  COLONEL NORTH,who had a Notice on the paper to move—
  "That the present allowance of one shilling a day increase of pay to lieutenants of seven years' standing be extended to all subalterns of seven years service in the army,"
  said, that by the rules of the service the seven years' standing of a lieutenant entitled him to an additional 1s. per diem to his original pay of 6s. 6d., thus making his pay 7s. 6d. But if an ensign should be twenty years in that position it would not count for anything if he should not become a lieutenant. There was one ensign who had been in the service ten years, another had served nine years, and another seven, and there was a total of 100 cornets and ensigns who had completed their fifth year. The ensign of ten years' standing, if made a lieutenant to-morrow, would not receive the additional 1s. pay until after serving seven years as a lieutenant, and he was of opinion, considering the duties they had to perform in all parts of the world, that all subalterns ought to receive an additional 1s. of pay after a service of seven years. The cavalry lieutenant, no matter how long he might have served, never received an addition of pay. Another great grievance in respect to the cavalry had reference to the adjutant's pay. The adjutant of a cavalry regiment received l1s. 6d. a day, out of which he had to purchase two chargers and pay 1S. 5d. a day for their forage. Thus he received only 10s. 1d. a day. An adjutant of an infantry regiment received 3s. 6d. a day besides his pay as lieutenant, which latter amounted to 6s. 6c?., making a total of 10s. a day. The adjutant of an infantry regiment also received an allowance in lieu of forage. There were other differences in favour of the infantry lieutenant, and he, therefore, hoped that some satisfactory explanation might be given of the difference in the allowances to the two classes of officers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman next adverted to the pay
  1956
  of privates, which was 1s. a day, and 1d. for beer money, being 1s. 1d. in all, besides free kits, trowsers, and other things on enlistment. From that sum was taken at once 8½d. a day for rations, extra messing (tea, coffee, vegetables), and washing. Beer was to be put down at 1d. These made 9½d. together, and left the soldier 3½d. a day out of 1s. 1d., and out of this he had to pay for barrack damages, washing sheets, hair cutting, and keeping up his kit. Another most serious item was known by the name of hospital stoppages, perfectly ruinous to married soldiers. After the free kit was worn out the soldier had to provide himself with foragecap, shell-jackets, three shirts, razors, shoe and cloth brushes, mits, soap, sponge, and havresack. No allowance was made for the great increase in the price of articles at the present day. In 1862 the soldier paid for a cotton shirt 2s. 10 d.; in 1863 he paid 2s. l1d.; in 1864 3s. 2ld., and in the present year 4s. 3¼., and yet there had been no addition to the soldier's pay. The Secretary for the Navy told the House the other night that there had been an increase of pay in the navy amounting to nearly £250,000. The police of London had also received a considerable addition of pay, and the Government would commit a great error if they shut their eyes to the fact that sooner or later they must increase the pay of the soldier; for the salaries of servants, labourers, and of every class were becoming higher. A labourer in his county received 1s. 8d. a day, besides assistance, and during harvest time the pay was generally doubled and beer allowed. The labourer's children were able to go bird-keeping, for which they got 4d. or 5d?. a day. Besides all that, there was scarcely a parish in the country districts in which there was not a private charity from which, and from their garden plots and clubs, labourers received relief of one description or another if they had large families and little means. In fact, when the cases of the soldier and labourer were compared, it was impossible to say that the soldier was at all adequately paid. He was sorry that by the rules of the House he could not bring forward the question of increase of pay to the subalterns of the army in the shape of a Motion, but, considering the great expense to which young officers were put, he hoped the matter would be taken into consideration by the proper authorities. Last year a great fire broke out in the neighbourhood of Aldershot, and some troops were sent to the spot and were

  1957
  occupied there three or four days. The officers applied for some extra pay for the service performed and for the destruction of their clothing. The men received 9d. a day, which was a most miserable sum, considering the damage to their various articles, but no attention whatever was paid to the request of the officers.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, that in answer to a question which he had put to him on a former occasion, the noble Marquess had stated that he found on inquiry that no orders had been given a great number of years back by the authorities either of the Horse Guards or the Commander-in-Chief's Department with regard to the exclusion of Roman Catholics from any branch of the service. He was convinced that in making that statement the noble Marquess made it frankly, sincerely, and without any reservation. But within twenty-four hours afterwards it came to his knowledge that while the noble Marquess's statement, made on the authority of the officials of those two offices, was literally and perfectly correct, yet that such orders had been issued and acted on by the heads of departments in the army, without the sanction of the highest authority, distinctly excluding Roman Catholics from certain branches of the service. He would rather refrain from expressing his sentiments upon such orders thirty-five years after the emancipation of the Catholics; but he trusted the noble Marquess would be able to give them an assurance from the highest authorities who commanded the army, that adequate measures would be taken to prevent such orders being given by subordinate officials without the consent of the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary of War.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he rose according to notice, to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it would not facilitate recruiting for the Army, if appointments in the Civil Service up to the value of 25s. per week were thrown open to those soldiers, who, after eighteen years' service with good character, chose to qualify themselves for the above appointments. He must observe that while the price of every description of labour had greatly increased within the last few years, the pay and prospects of the soldier remained precisely the same. That state of things, of course, operated adversely upon the recruiting of the army, a point upon which he would not now enter, as it had lately been gone into fully. He was quite content to accept the admission that re-
  1958
  cruiting was not proceeding as satisfactorily as could be wished. But he might remark that the army was constantly losing the services of its best men after, comparatively speaking, a very few years. With regard to the ten years' men, when the first period under the new Act expired, there was great apprehension as to so many well-trained soldiers leaving the army. That feeling was somewhat allayed by the discovery that a great number of them re-enlisted. But subsequent experience showed that it was all the worst men who had re-enlisted, whereas all the best had gone, and easily found employment elsewhere; so great a value did employers attach to men who, to their other qualifications, added that of previous service with good character in the army. But the case was still worse when they came to the noncommissioned officers. He was informed that there was hardly a young non-commissioned officer of about thirty who could not obtain a situation worth 25s. per week; and consequently men of that class were very often lost to the service, on whom the officers had so much to depend for maintaining the discipline and efficiency of the army. He was sure, therefore, the noble Lord would agree with him that if any means could be devised for retaining these men in the service, it would be most desirable to adopt them. He was glad to learn from the noble Lord the other night, that the Government had in contemplation some mode of holding out other inducements to non-commissioned officers besides the remote chance of becoming quartermasters. He thought it would be very advisable to throw open to soldiers of eighteen years' good service, and who chose to qualify themselves for them, appointments in the Government offices up to the value of 25s. per week. He did not wish to insinuate that these appointments ought to be given exclusively to soldiers. On the contrary, he would have soldiers go through the same test as other candidates for such situations. The test might even he heightened if it was deemed expedient; but he said that that test once passed, then, cateris paribus, a soldier ought always to be preferred to a civilian. As to the fitness of soldiers for such employments, he appealed to the experience of those who knew how they discharged the duties of porters, messengers, and similar functions. Supposing that they had enlisted at between eighteen and twenty-two, the most usual age, they would not be more than thirty-six or forty

  1959
  when they came to their new vocation—a time of life which surely could not be regarded as too advanced. He was aware that there was one obstacle in the way of the change he suggested—namely, that these appointments were usually looked upon as part of the patronage in the gift of the Government. There might, he knew, be some difficulty on the eve of a general election in giving up that patronage; but, the change once made, he did not think it would afterwards be regretted by any one. The hon. Member for Cork had spoken depreciatingly of this kind of patronage, and said he could get no one to take the places in the Post Office sent to him by Government to dispose of; but, for himself, he felt convinced that if appointments of this kind were given to deserving soldiers the change would be appreciated by the army, and he trusted that the Government would not refuse it a trial.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYbelieved that the proposal of the hon. Member who had just sat down would offer a great encouragement to the soldier to behave well. He recollected an occasion when a vacancy occurred in the portership of Chelsea Hospital, and the Governor asked the Paymaster General to appoint a soldier, but the reply of the latter was that the place was part of his patronage, and he gave it to his own butler. Now, that he thought was a great shame, for the men of the army had a just claim to such a vacancy. Lord Llanover, when at the head of the Office of Works, set an example in this matter, for which great credit, and the thanks of all interested in the soldier's welfare, were due to him. He began the system of giving the offices in his patronage to deserving old soldiers; and many of the men now employed as park-keepers, who had medals on their breasts testifying that they had served their country well, owed their appointments to that nobleman. That system might beneficially be carried much further, because there were many offices at the disposal of the Government which might be perfectly well filled by meritorious soldiers and sailors. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel North) had referred to the increased pay granted to the navy to the amount of a quarter of a million; and he might also have added the advantage given to the sailor who had his rations found him, and might save the whole of his pay, whereas the soldier had to bear the expense of his own food. Moreover, without depreciating the services of our
  1960
  sailors, the soldier was exposed to much greater privation, danger in various forms, and ought at least to be treated as liberally by his country. Men who served in the army often lost their health, and also their lives, from the entire want of those sanitary arrangements, that good food, and all those comforts which the sailors of the navy generally carried about with them, wherever their ships went. He wished to direct the noble Lord's attention to the leave of absence of officers of the Indian army. As soon as an officer put his foot on board a ship for England he lost his Indian pay. It was natural that when the voyage home occupied two or three months an Indian officer should be debarred from coming home, but why should this regulation exist when he would spend three or four months with his friends upon a six months' leave? The revocation of this prohibition would be felt as an enormous boon by officers serving in India. In his opinion neither officers nor men should be kept in unhealthy climates more than seven or eight years. Even if it were necessary to retain a regiment in India for ten or twelve years, the individual soldiers should be allowed to come home on six months' leave in seven or eight years. It was said that transports were to be built by the Government for the conveyance of troops, and he did not know why the navy should object to have a few soldiers on board a Queen's ship. He wished also to point out the practice that existed in India of delaying to pay soldiers according to their rank. The commanding officer of a regiment in India had lately found it necessary to appoint ten acting sergeants, yet they would not be paid as sergeants until the discharge of the others was notified to the authorities at home. If a soldier were promoted to be corporal or sergeant, and did the duty, why should he not receive the pay at once without waiting for the notification of the discharge of his predecessor at home, often six or eight months?
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend (Colonel North) in the remarks he had made. He was glad to see two or three reductions in the Vote, which had all been from time to time recommended by that (the Opposition) side of the House. The reduction of the depot battalions, for example, must be gratifying to every soldier. He was glad likewise to see that the Estimates for the movement of troops was reduced this year from £70,000 to £50,000.

  1961
  Every military man who looked at the condition of the soldier and the little inducement held out to recruiting felt apprehensive with respect both to the number and quality of our recruits. It was only in the War Office that no anxiety existed. He had recently an opportunity of learning the opinion of many officers on this subject, and he believed that apprehension with regard to the future prospects of the service were entertained everywhere except at the War Office. It might not be possible to give a large increase of pay to our soldiers, but there were many economical reforms that would cost little, yet would do a great deal of good, by holding out additional advantages to those who wished to enter the service. The Government, for instance, from a mistaken economy, withheld from the non-commissioned officer the good conduct pay, which, as his service increased, was granted to the private, while it substituted a commuted allowance of 2d. a day additional to the former pay of non-commissioned officers. The latter might receive an addition of 5d. per day to his pay if he remained long enough in the army; and why, he would ask, should the non-commissioned officer be restricted to a commuted allowance of 2d. a day, and not receive the additions which he merited by service and good conduct? In fact, it was a premium to good men not to become noncommissioned officers, while it was the obvious advantage to the service to hold out such advantages that every soldier should strive for promotion. He believed the whole sum saved in this way was not more than £25,000 a year. Every soldier was aware of the difficulty of inducing the ten years' men to re-enlist. He would add his voice to those who recommended that a soldier should receive a higher rate of pay during his second period of service. If the War Office would take a few general officers and commanding officer of regiments, and be guided by the advice of a Board so formed, means would be found and suggested by experienced men, which enabled the country to obtain the service of these men without any large addition to the Estimates. He was informed that for a sum of £10 many of the cavalry soldiers now in India and entitled to their discharge could be retained in the service. For want of this outlay the country was put to the expense of £26 passage-money home, and an equal sum for passage out, on his return,
  1962
  if he enlisted in England. The soldier came to England, received bounty-money, and re-enlisted in a regiment for India. Thus, rather than pay £10 in India, the Government thus incurred an expense of £52, besides the bounty-money. He observed that while those serious questions affecting the recruiting of the army were neglected, instructions were issued from the War Office on the most trivial subjects, as for the due transfer of keleidoscopes and magic-lantern slides from one regiment to another. These were puerilities that proceeded from civilians, and not soldiers. He regretted to say, and it was well known that one cause of the difficulty of procuring men was the unfair practices that prevailed in granting pensions to soldiers—every evasion was practised in regard to the payment of pensions. It was with a feeling of disgust that he read the other day in one of the newspapers of a poor man—Corporal Hackett—who had committed suicide. He had been corpora] in the 60th regiment, and had two clasps, and had recently been discharged. His conduct had been so meritorious that he had been by his officers, recommended to a Colonel Beresford (a Colonel of Volunteers he believed), who had obtained for him some employment at a wharf. He had contracted bad health in India, and a pension had been given him of only 7d. a day, and, to make it worse, that was only a pension for three years. Of course he could not say that the smallness of the pension caused his death by inducing him to commit suicide, but he must have felt the injustice with which he was treated, and every man in the House must condemn it. He (Colonel Dunne) knew a man who had been in the West Indies with the 19th regiment, and came home with heart disease; yet he only had a small pension for a year, and consequently was forced to go to work, and he dropped down dead. He also knew a man who was twice wounded in the Crimea, and who got bronchitis; but he was refused a pension upon the ground that he had the seeds of the disease when he enlisted. He had heard of a man who had a good character, and who had been wounded, getting one of these temporary pensions, and afterwards walking about the streets of Limerick where he acted, as stated by a gallant Friend opposite, as a warning to people not to enlist. A sum of £4,400 was granted yearly for rewards for good conduct, but the £400, which was not drawn in consequence of a portion of the

  1963
  army being in India, and was paid there, was disposed of he knew not how, but at least was not expended in rewards to the army at home or in the Colonies, although actually voted for that purpose. Surely this is a paltry and injudicious saving, for such things acted powerfully upon soldiers. He was quite certain they would get recruits if they would only keep faith with the soldier. The hon. Member for Cumberland had made a suggestion, which he hoped would be carried out as far as possible. The late Secretary of State for War had paid great attention to the health of the army; but what was the present state of things? Not long ago in Bermuda yell wfeer brokeut. It had done so in 1853, and then certain recommendations of a sanitary kind were made; but on the second visitation it was found that not one of the precautions necessary had been carried into effect. The hospital was perfectly unfit for the reception of the troops. The precautions recommended would have saved the troops; but the sanitary condition of Bermuda was just as bad as its defence. He observed a Vote for the payment of a person to revise the mass of orders and regulations issued at various times to our army, and he thought it very important that the Code of Military regulations should be digested and cleared of all contradictory orders from the time of William III. downwards, so that there should be but one code of military law; but he did not understand why that duty should have been intrusted to a gentleman who, certainly, was a very successful novelist, but of whose business qualities the only proof afforded was that he had been secretary to some association of needleworkers. He thought the matter should have been intrusted to military men, a Board for the purpose should have been formed of officers thoroughly conversant with the details of the service, of experienced clerks from the different War Departments, and of army agents. These regulations comprised details on every possible subject, from the pay of a soldier to the conduct of troops on board ship, and to those of the army in the field, no civilian could ever understand them; and the appointment should have been made for the advantage of the public service, and not for the purpose of jobbery. Efficiency he held, as regarded the army, was much better than mere money; but what money was granted by Parliament should be well applied.
  MR. POLLARD - URQUHARTsaid, that he could corroborate the statement which had been made as to the inconvenience suffered by officers from India in not being allowed to land at Constantinople for fear of infringing the regulations. He hoped the arrangements would be revised with a view of securing greater comfort. He thought what had been said by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir Harry Verney) well entitled to the attention of the War Office. He also hoped the Government would favourably consider the suggestions which had been made for a slight increase in the pay of subalterns after a certain number of years' service.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that he thought the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War must have a very good memory, or must be very careful in his note-taking, to be able to recollect all the questions which were asked of him, and he suggested that questions should not be cumulative, but each be answered as it was put. He was not quite sure, that the noble Lord had answered two questions he had formerly put to him—first, in reference to the balance of £533,433 of extra receipts that ought to be deducted from the general Estimate of the year; and secondly, with regard to the proportion of officers to men in weak as well as in strong regiments, and whether in the reduction of men, a ratio ought not to be preserved in putting officers on half pay. He thought the pay of subaltern officers insufficient. Unless an officer had means of his own he could not support himself with that respectability that every officer in the army was expected to sustain. The pay of officers in the British army was, indeed, higher than that of officers in the French army; but in this country everything was higher in price. It was very desirable with respect to filling up vacancies in the European troops in India that a considerable amount of bounty money should be paid as an inducement to re-enlist rather than allow acclimatized men to leave the army. Such men could go through another ten years of service vigorously.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the answer which it had been suggested that he should give to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North)—namely, that the allowance to officers of seven years'

  1965
  standing in the infantry but not in the cavalry formed part of a system for which it would be difficult to give any other reason than that it had always existed, was not exactly the reply which he was about to make. He found that the pay both of infantry and cavalry soldiers had received successive modifications since 1797. Originally the pay of cavalry soldiers was considerably higher, but in 1806 various alterations were made with a view of more nearly assimilating the pay of both branches of the service, and allowances were made to infantry officers including the 1s. per day to lieutenants of more than seven years' standing, which were deliberately withheld from the cavalry. There was obviously some difficulty in answering the appeal of the hon. and gallant Member, because it was impossible to contend that the rate of pay received by subalterns in the British army was liberal. Still, it must be recollected that there were few, if any, professions in which a young man was able to make a good living, and that there were other things, such as social position, excitement, prospects of honour and distinction, which, irrespective of pay, made the position of an officer greatly sought after. He should be very unwilling to lay too much stress on the argument he was about to use, knowing that officers were attracted to the army by motives much higher than those of pay, but still it could not be denied that any Government would lay itself open to very severe observation which proposed to raise the pay of officers at a time when the supply of good officers was quite equal to all the requirements of the service. It was scarcely worth while, he thought, to discuss the minute differences of pay between various branches of the service, bearing in mind that when alterations were recently made in the cavalry, those alterations tended not to the improvement of pay, but to the reduction of the price of commissions, by which means, as Lord Herbert anticipated, a class of men with moderate means, who before had been deterred by the expensive mode of living kept up in the cavalry, were attracted to that service, and no difficulty was now felt in obtaining a supply of excellent officers for the cavalry any more than for the infantry regiments. It must be remembered that if some ranks in the cavalry did not enjoy allowances which were granted to the infantry, they possessed some compensating advantage in
  1966
  the fact that promotion, generally speaking, was quicker in the cavalry. So with the adjutant. In the cavalry, unlike the infantry, he was not forced to burden himself with extra expense in obtaining his rank, being entitled to keep two horses in virtue of the commissions previously held by him. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham), he had stated the other night what it was the wish and intention of the War Department to do with regard to the employment of pensioners and non-commissioned officers. They had already introduced a considerable number of them into their own office, but the change was one which must be carried out very gradually. Some of these new clerks had been employed to some extent in the civil branches of the War Department, and, as far as the experiment had been tried, he believed it had worked very successfully. It was the wish of the Department to employ as many men as possible belonging to the army, with a view not only of encouraging a most deserving class of non-commissioned officers, but also because it was believed that it would be more economical to employ them than a number of highly paid establishment clerks. The experiment would be fairly tried, but he could not promise the House that any great number would be suddenly appointed. It would give his noble Friend (Earl de Grey and Ripon) and himself great pleasure if other public offices could be induced to follow the example of the War Office, and employ military men; but it was hardly a matter upon which any pressure could be exercised, because, however desirable it might be to employ soldiers in such positions, there were, of course, a great many other persons deserving of employment, and no general rule could be laid down on the subject. At the War Office and at the Horse Guards he had already stated that, as far as was consistent with the interests of the public service, a preference would be given to military candidates. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) had referred to several points connected with the army in India, especially as regarded leave of absence. Those observations ought properly to be addressed to the India Office, because directly a regiment reached India the War Department, as far as financial

  1967
  matters were concerned, ceased to have anything to do with it. The hon. and gallant Member for Queen's County (Colonel Dunne) stated that money would be saved if soldiers could be induced to re-enlist out there by the offer of a higher bounty. As a matter of fact, a very high rate of bounty was offered both in India and the colonies to soldiers about to return home, with a view of inducing them to re-enlist out there. It was quite possible that the offer of a still higher rate of bounty might induce men to re-enlist in greater numbers, but on this point the Indian Government must be assumed to be the best judges. For the granting of pensions, the War Department was in no way responsible. That duty, he thought wisely, had been separated from the administration of the army, and intrusted to the Chelsea Commissioners, who acted independently of any Government or Government Department, their business being simply to interpret the different warrants under which pensions were granted; and, as far as he was aware, they did so in a fair, if not a liberal spirit. The gravest assertion which he had heard made that evening was the one made by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne),—namely, that in spite of the severe yellow fever which at one time raged at Bermuda, no precautions had been taken to guard against its return. He was quite aware of the fact that yellow fever had again broken out, but he heard for the first time that it was in consequence of the neglect of proper precautions.
  COLONEL DUNNE,in explanation, said, that it was not "in consequence" of the neglect of precautions, but because the precautions taken were insufficient.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had never heard before that any precautions recommended at Bermuda had been neglected, and hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would point out any shortcomings which there might have been in this respect. For, however anxious the late Lord Herbert might have been on the subject, his noble Friend now at the head of the War Department would yield to none in his anxiety to enforce sanitary regulations in the widest sense. With regard to the appointment of a gentleman for revising the military regulations to which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) had referred, the only regulations now under revision were those referring to the finances of the War Office,
  1968
  which related to the pay of the army, and were to be found in warrants which had been issued during a great many years. These had formed so complicated a mass of instructions and regulations as to be almost unintelligible to anybody but the clerks in the War Office who had spent their lives in the study of them. It seemed to the Government that the great object to be attained was to put these regulations into the simplest form, in order to avoid, as far as possible, any mistakes or misinterpretations which might be made in reading them, and the Government thought that no person was so likely to put these instructions into an intelligible form as a gentleman of legal education. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) said the appointment ought to have been given to an officer, but the education of an officer, of all persons in the world, would the least fit him for such a task. The duties of an officer consisted of superintending his regiment and in studying military affairs, and were not connected with the payments and allowances to the army. It might be said that there were many clerks in the War Office competent for the task. There were many clerks in the War Office who could make the regulations intelligible to those who knew the objects, but the desire was to make them intelligible to anyone who took up the book, and to enable the military man at once to see what allowances he was entitled to, if any. That seemed to him (the noble Marquess) a task that could be performed by no one but an intelligent and able lawyer, who, from his education and previous training, was the fittest person to codify them. At least, it would be performed better by such a person than either an officer or a clerk at the War Office. The codified regulations had not yet been published, but he was in hopes that when they were it would be seen that the appointment which had been made was not a bad one, and that the regulations would prove of great convenience to the army, as well as be the means by which a great amount of labour would be saved in the War Office. It had been stated that this was a permanent appointment, but he (the noble Marquess) need scarcely assure the House that that was not the fact. Mr. Hughes had been employed as any lawyer might be, for a particular undertaking, and when the work was completed his duties would cease at the War Office. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had

  1969
  stated that be had not answered the question put to him the other night as to a certain discrepancy in the Estimates. The statements in the Estimates showed only those sums which passed into the Exchequer through the books of the War Office, and the capitation grant was paid direct to the Exchequer, and therefore both sums did not appear in the account given in the Estimates. With regard to the reduction of officers which an hon. Member had referred to, the Government did not think it desirable to make any reduction. In reference to the question of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), he could only repeat the answer which he gave the other night, and which, to the best of his information, was perfectly correct. No orders were ever given from the War Office or the Horse Guards limiting the recruiting for the Royal Artillery to any class of Her Majesty's subjects throughout the country. If the hon. Member would put him in possession of the facts which had come to his knowledge, he (the noble Marquess) should think it his duty to institute an immediate inquiry, in order to ascertain who had taken upon himself a responsibility which he was not warranted in doing by any order from the War Office.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the different financial allowances were known to all the officers. He gave credit to the noble Lord for simplifying the regulations, but not for the choice of the person to perform the task. A lawyer did not know so much of military finance as a clerk in the War Office, or as an officer who spent half his life in studying the matter. He would ask the noble Lord whether there had been any recent order by which adjutants of infantry were to be also instructors of musketry in cavalry, and that without any additional pay?
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, the circumstances to which he had alluded were simply these. In 1855 the Earl of Donoughraore commanded a regiment of Tipperary Artillery (the Earl himself was his authority for the statement), and it would be in the recollection of many present that that regiment was remarkable for the good conduct of the men—so much so that at one period it was contemplated to enrol the whole regiment as a body of the Royal Artillery. That proposal first met with the approbation of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, but it was thought there would be a difficulty in getting the officers to go along with the men. It would be seen, however, that there were other motives at
  1970
  work. In 1855 the officer charged in Ireland with the duty of superintending the whole recruiting for the Royal Artillery came to the head-quarters of the Tipperary regiment to beg for recruits for the Royal Artillery; but having learnt in a conversation with the noble Earl in command that the regiment consisted almost entirely of Roman Catholics, the recruiting officer said he was very much surprised that he should be sent to ask for recruits from that regiment, as he had strict orders from the officers in command of the Royal Artillery not to take a larger proportion of Roman Catholic recruits than one in six, and he was consequently every day rejecting eligible recruits. Earl Donoughmore was struck with such a monstrous statement, and his first exclamation was that if that were the case he did not think he would be justified in allowing his men to volunteer for the Royal Artillery, unless they did it with the knowledge of this circumstance. Owing to the remonstrance of the officer, however, and the anxiety to get volunteers, the noble Earl, actuated by a patriotism which did him honour, especially when contrasted with the sectarian bigotry of the Royal Artillery authorities, thought the crisis of a great war was not the moment for discussing such differences as these, and he reserved to himself the right of bringing this matter forward at a later period, and at the same time took the precaution that if his men volunteered into the Royal Artillery they should be kept together and treated in such a way that their religion would not be greatly interfered with by the rules of the army. The noble Earl allowed the volunteering to go on, and a very considerable number were enrolled in the Royal Artillery. He was in a position, if necessary, to give the name of the officer who made this statement. He thought these facts clearly proved what he had stated—that such orders were given and acted upon. And if these orders were not given by the authorities commanding the Royal Artillery, he thought the House would feel, and the country would feel, that it was absolutely necessary they should know on whose responsibility such orders were given, and whether they could be given and acted upon again. Another reason which induced the Earl of Donoughmore not to bring the subject forward at the time was that he felt, and naturally so, that the professional prospects of the officer who made the statement might be injured. He might also state that the

  1971
  same principle was acted upon in the Royal Artillery to the present day, as was shown by the fact that in volunteering a short time ago from the Foot to the Royal Horse Artillery all the volunteers who were Roman Catholics were rejected. That such was the case he was ready to prove, and to mention time and place if necessary. It was very curious to trace the origin of that peculiar prejudice in the artillery service. He had been told that long ago—? prior to the period of Roman Catholic emancipation—the idea was that although Catholics were admitted to the service they should not be admitted to rifle corps. There were then only two corps armed with the rifle, the 58th regiment and the Rifle Brigade; and possibly it was thought that if all the Roman Catholics turned out, armed only with smooth-bores, the rifle regiments might be able to put them down. In the year 1858, when every regiment in the service was armed with the rifle, that religious exclusiveness was in force to a considerable extent with regard to what were still called rifle corps. He would, he might add, refrain from making any comments on the facts which he had stated. He could scarcely trust himself to do so. He hardly knew how to characterize a course of proceeding which, thirty years after the passing of the Emancipation Act, had for its object the exclusion of any class of Her Majesty's subjects from Her Majesty's service. Emancipation had freed the higher classes of Roman Catholics from almost all the disabilities under which they laboured, and he had yet to learn that it would be regarded by that House as sound policy to shut out their poorer fellow-countrymen from the objects of an honourable ambition. He, however, entertained the utmost confidence that the matter would be fully investigated by the War Department, and that a full explanation of the circumstances would be given as the noble Lord had promised.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the answer which had been given by the noble Lord to the two questions which he had put to him was anything but satisfactory. There was no satisfactory explanation of why lieutenants of cavalry were deprived of an increase of pay after seven years, in the reason that in the year 1806 some grievous injustice was done to the cavalry. Then he asked why it was that the cavalry adjutant had not the same pay as the infantry adjutant. It was said that while the infantry adjutant had only one horse,
  1972
  the cavalry adjutant had two; but he (Colonel North) could not understand how that accounted for the inconsistency. As to there being no difficulty in getting officers, he could only say that he recollected when he had made a similar remark to one holding a very high office his reply was, "There are a great crop of fools growing up in the country."
  MR. COGANsaid, that he thought the Committee must have been very much startled by the revelations which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), and had no doubt that the impression which they would produce in the country would be very great, There were very few hon. Members, he believed, who could have supposed it possible that any subordinate officer in the army would have ventured, against the authority of the Horse Guards, to take a step such as his hon. Friend had described, calculated as it was to cause not only dissatisfaction, but disaffection. Great credit was, he thought, due to the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) who had enabled his hon. and gallant Friend to bring the matter before the House; and he must say that the dissension which such a state of things was likely to produce among our own population appeared to him to be a far more fertile source of national weakness and danger than that possibility of an American war which had so recently formed the subject of discussion. He had no doubt, however, that, in the hands of the War Office, the grievance complained of would be inquired into, and a remedy provided. The case demanded that there should be a searching investigation, and that the severest censure should be passed upon the officer, whoever he was, who had presumed to draw distinctions so invidious between Her Majesty's subiects
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, it appeared to him very strange that the existence of such a state of things as this in the army should be unknown to the headquarters of the Royal Artillery and to the noble Lord; and it was still more strange that the noble Lord should be still uninformed, upon this second occasion, as to the existence of this alleged practice. He further wished to ask the noble Lord for information as to the expired service men in India, and whether the noble Lord would lay on the table a statement of the number of time-expired men during the last year in India; of the number who

  1973
  had taken advantage of the discharge, and had received their passage money; and of the number now in this country. He wished also to ask why it was that a paper similar to that which had, under the authority of an Act of Parliament, been presented with regard to the Naval Estimates, contrasting the actual expenditure for the service with the amount voted, and containing other valuable information, did not accompany the Army Estimates.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, it would, of course, be perfectly superfluous to state after what the noble Marquess had said that there could be no doubt of his ignorance of what had taken place. At the same time he might add that certain allegations had come to his own knowledge which, although he could not follow them up completely, still led him to the conclusion that such orders as those referred to had been at least indirectly issued in some quarter. He trusted steps would be taken to inquire into the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONrepeated that he had made inquiries at the Horse Guards and at the War Office, and had ascertained that no such orders had been issued from either of those Departments. He would, however, again assure the Committee that a thorough investigation into the circumstances mentioned should be instituted, and inquiries as to whether any officers of the Royal Artillery had taken upon themselves to do what had not been authorized at head-quarters. A Return of the number of time-expired men who had taken their discharge in India and the colonies had been moved for by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire, and would be presented as early as possible. The other paper to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Seymour) had referred was being prepared, and he would lay it on the table when it was completed.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsuggested that it would be more convenient that this account should be produced before the discussion of the Army Estimates commenced.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONadmitted that that would be convenient, but considerable time must necessarily be occupied in making up the accounts.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £1,205,800, Commissariat Establishment, Services, and Movement of Troops.
  (3.) £574,256, Clothing Etablishments, Services, and Supplies.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that he wished to inquire how much of the clothing of the army was obtained from the establishment at Pimlico, and how much was supplied by contract. He also desired an explanation of a note stating that the clothing of the Irish constabulary was provided for by the Government clothing establishment.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the information as to the quantity of clothing supplied by the establishment at Pimlico and obtained by contract, desired by the right hon. Gentleman, was, for the first time, contained in the appendix. The reason for the Vote as to the clothing of the Irish constabulary was that the contracts for the supply of such clothing were managed by the establishment at Pimlico.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the appendix showed only an expenditure of £44,783 upon tunics supplied by contract, which could hardly be correct.
  COLONEL DICKSONsuggested that some tunics might have remained in store from the previous years.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £609,900, Barrack Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
  (5.) £44,335, Divine Service.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that he wished to ask whether that sum included the charge for Roman Catholic and Presbyterian services?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that it did.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £26,300, Martial Law.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that he wished to ask the noble Marquess the Under Secretary whether the Queen's regulations were observed with equal strictness in all branches of the service, for instance, in the Guards as well as in the line; and also whether any Report had been made to him of commanding officers having used ungentlemanly language in addressing their men. It was not necessary for him to go into particulars, but he could, if it was needed, give instances, in which not only during actual operations, when it might be pardoned, but in time of peace, general officers had employed language which they ought not to have used towards their equals, still less towards their inferiors, who could not reply.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Queen's regulations applied equally to all corps in Her Majesty's service, and, as far as he was aware, were equally observed by all. No instance of the use of bad language by commanding officers had ever come to his knowledge, nor, unless it had been made the subject of a court-martial or a court of inquiry, would such a complaint come under the consideration of the Secretary of State for War. The Commander-in-Chief was responsible for the discipline of the army, and all such cases should be referred to, and would be disposed of by him.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that it was that of which he complained. He had repeatedly heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) say that the Secretary of State for War was responsible for everything that took place in the army; and he therefore looked to the noble Marquess the Under Secretary to give him a satisfactory reply upon every subject connected with our military forces. The Committee was now asked to vote a sum for the administration of martial law, and he was given to understand that that law was often violated by those who ought to set a better example.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was impossible to reply to statements so general as those made by the hon. Baronet. If the hon. Baronet would state publicly or to him in private what particular cause of complaint he had it should be inquired into.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he would give the noble Lord an instance in private. He would not do so publicly, as such a course would tend to the injury of the army.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that being connected with the army he thought it incumbent upon him to state that no language could be more unexceptionable than that heard at the mess. [Sir JOHN TRELAWNY: I did not refer to the mess.] The same observation would apply to the treatment which officers extended to the men under their command. Of course, exceptional instances would always occur, as they did in all positions of life, but, as a rule, no class of society was more exempt from the charge made by the hon. Baronet than were the officers of the army.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £246,544, Army Medical Establishment, Service, and Supplies.
  (8.) £786,400, Disembodied Militia.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he wished to call attention to the alteration that had been made this year for calling out the disembodied regiments of militia. Last year the noncommissioned officers were called out for twenty-eight days first for training, then the recruits were called out for fourteen days, and the rest of the regiment for twenty-one days. That was a very good arrangement, but this year the recruits were only to be called out for seven days only before the regiment. This alteration had the effect of drawing the attention of the adjutant and non-commissioned officers from the recruits to the rest of the regiment before the former were equal to the duties expected of them. The drill of a militia regiment he thought of less importance than its organization. He was glad to see that the War Office had shown a great desire to improve militia regiments, and with regard to the slight increase of expense he thought the money might be spent with greater advantage if the War Office had increased the number of staff Serjeants than by increasing the number of days for calling out the regiments. The extra seven days would cost nearly £500, whereas ten staff Serjeants might be appointed who would be of greater use in keeping the regiment in a better state. He approved of their reducing the strength of the regiment to 500 men rather than making them 700 or 900 strong. He hoped the noble Lord would next year go back to the fourteen days' drill of the recruits, because increasing the staff Serjeants would be more conducive to the efficiency of the service.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was informed that adjutants of militia and Volunteer regiments had been in the habit of purchasing and letting their appointments for sums varying from £2,000 to £3,000, and he was desirous of knowing whether any measure had been adopted to put a stop to such a practice.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the alterations with regard to the drill of the militia referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dickson), had been made solely upon the recommendation of the militia officers. It was stated that the reduction which had been made in the amount of drill had proved very injurious to the training and discipline of the various corps, especially where they had to go through a certain amount of musketry practice. Almost all of the

  1977
  commanding officers were of opinion that the seven days' extra training was of the greatest advantage to the men. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dickson) had agreeably surprised him by stating that drill was soon learnt, as such was not the view usually taken by hon. Members sitting near that hon. and gallant Member. He learnt from the Reports of the Inspector General of Militia, and of the various officers in the Line who had inspected these militia regiments, that a great deal had been done in the way of training them, and he believed that many of those regiments had attained such a state of efficiency, not only in point of numbers, but in point of drill, that they would be available in case of necessity. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that a fortnight's preliminary drill for recruits would be most desirable and would be of great service, and although it could not be given them this year, with a week's more training of the whole regiment on account of the great expense to the public, he hoped next year the proposition would be carried out. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) he was sorry to say he was aware that in some instances large sums had been given by militia and Volunteer adjutants for their appointments. It was a practice not only not sanctioned by the authority of the War Office but exceedingly injurious and in direct contravention of regulations and of military law. Last year the War Office issued a circular to all the lord-lieutenants directing them when vacancies were to be filled up to call upon the commanding officers to assure them that the new adjutant was not recommended by the retiring officer. This was all they could do, as transactions of this kind might be so managed as to make it almost impossible to prove them. If the commanding officers did their duty in selecting proper men to fill the office of adjutant the object of any illegal bargain between the incoming and the retiring officers would in all probability be frustrated.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he thought the remedy was not so hopeless as the noble Lord appeared to imagine. He thought the remedy was by the War Department keeping a list of persons competent to fill the post of adjutant in a regiment, and when the recommendation of the lord-lieutenant was sent up, for the War Office to select the first man on the list. There could be no doubt that the
  1978
  system would continue, unless some effective check, similar to that he suggested, was adopted.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he considered it would be impossible to stop the sale of the commission, and this was a warning to those who talked so much to that House about stopping the sale of commissions. The practice had notoriously been winked at for years. He, therefore, complained of the War Office issuing the circular referred to by the noble Lord. Everything was worth just what it would fetch, and if it was worth anything somebody would find means to purchase it. The remedy proposed by the hon. Baronet would not stop the practice complained of, and it would throw an unjust amount of ill feeling on the officer who attempted to stop it. It would be unjust to those officers who had purchased if they were now to turn round and stop the system. It was a system plausible to argue upon, but it was not so easy to stop. It should have been done leng before this—in fact, it was now too late to attempt it.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, the Volunteer force was yet young, and he trusted the practice, if it existed at all, would be discouraged in every possible way by the War Office. As it was at present quite exceptional it might easily be put an end to. The fact was that the adjutant held a post of so much importance to the commanding officers that the selection ought to rest with the latter, and if they took sufficient care in their selection the practice might be stopped. He trusted the War Office would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny). When once appointed there was no getting rid of him. Like taking a wife, it was for better or worse, except that in the latter case there was the Divorce Court. You could get rid of your wife if you disagreed, but you could not get rid of your adjutant. The whole conduct, well-being, and efficiency of a regiment depended upon the adjutant. The commanding officer had to rely almost entirely upon him, and it was quite right that commanding officers should be allowed time to look out for the best man, and obtain, if possible, one who perfectly suited them.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid that the whole matter ought to be left to the discretion of the commanding officer. The purchase and sale of adjutancies was a most mischievous practice; and he had done everything in his power to prevent it. But it

  1979
  was a practice which had crept in, and the reason was that the War Office sold commissions of deceased officers itself; and the crime, the vice, or the folly of the practice was by their connivance at least.
  MR. C. P. GRENFELLsaid, hon. Gentlemen seemed to be unaware that these appointments were in the hands of lord-lieutenants, and he believed that all lord-lieutenants who had set their faces against the purchase of adjutancies in the militia, had been able to put a stop to the practice. He did not believe that the War Office had in any way connived at the practice. He believed that the sales took place with the permission of the commanding officers, who in this way got rid of adjutants who displeased them.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he could not see what lord-lieutenants had to do with the matter, if the person interested gave his undertaking that, neither directly nor indirectly, had he received any money consideration. A friend had consulted him as to what he should do in relation to a change of this kind, and all he (Colonel North) told him was to read his certificate, which declared that neither directly or indirectly had money passed, and if after reading that, he chose to take money he was not a fit associate for any gentleman.
  MR. BASSsaid, he wished to observe that while in the army a regular purchase system prevailed, yet in the militia and Volunteers such a system ought to be unknown. He regretted that the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had pledged himself that the sale of adjutancies did not take place in the Volunteer corps. Although both buyer and seller declared upon their honour that they had not been parlies to any sale or purchase, yet it was a fact that such things did occur. It appeared, therefore, that there was a conventional mode of getting rid of a sense of honour, and it would be well for the noble Marquess to consider by what means he could render such gentlemen conscious of a sense of honour and duty in that direction.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that upon referring to the portion of the Army List devoted to the militia, he found a note that all appointments to second-lieutenancies and ensigncies were suspended, and that vacancies were shown by stars. Upon further examination, he found that in some regiments there were hardly anything but stars. He would wish the noble Marquess to state the number of vacancies among the officers of militia regiments. Any re-
  1980
  giment which was without a sufficient number of officers could not be said to be in a satisfactory state. It was just the opposite to the principle which prevailed in Canada, where it was said there were no men, but a sufficient number of persons were qualifying themselves for officers. Perhaps the noble Marquess would state why the suspension of appointments had taken place.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that being in command of a militia regiment, he could speak upon the point referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. In his regiment until lately he had but two subalterns, but within the last week or two he had succeeded in getting three more officers. The cause of the difficulty was that no young man would enter as an officer into the militia unless he had a certain amount of fortune. That difficulty was not confined to Ireland, but was equally felt in this country. In reply to the hon. Gentleman he begged to say that these appointments did not rest with the lord-lieutenants, but with the War Departmant.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he admitted that there were many vacancies for subalterns in the militia. The lord-lieutenants gave various explanations of the cause, but probably the main cause was that stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that a certain amount of private fortune was necessary. Something also was due to the great competition for commissions in the Volunteer service, which had no doubt diminished the supply for the militia service. The fact that those numerous vacancies in the militia existed was to be regretted, because he agreed with the right hon, and gallant General that a corps could not be in a satisfactory state without a proper complement of subalterns.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £91,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the yeomanry which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, inclusive."
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that he wished to ask, whether the War Department intended to consider the necessity of making such changes in the Yeomanry as would make them fit to act as an auxiliary cavalry force to the Volunteers and the militia. Some changes were necessary in drill, in

  1981
  arms, and even in dress. The Yeomanry j was an expensive force. The drill was not sufficient to make the force equal to mounted riflemen, even if their arms were such as to justify such an expectation, which they were not, as with the carbines now in use it was almost impossible to hit any object. It was a subject that deserved the consideration of the War Department.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that last Session they were told by the noble Lord, that as this force was totally unnecessary for the defence of the country they would not be called out for the annual training. Accordingly last year no Vote was proposed in the Estimate for the expense of the usual week's drill of the Yeomanry; a Motion was made on the subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Beverley (Colonel Edwards), but the House affirmed the decision of the Government. A fortnight afterwards a deputation of Yeomanry colonels waited on the noble Lord at the head of the Government and pressed him to reconsider his determination. The noble Lord told them that, in consequence of the New Zealand war being brought to a conclusion, he should consent to the Yeomanry being called out as usual, and a supplementary Estimate was brought in for that purpose. It was rather a singular reason to allege for a warlike demonstration that war was at an end. He (Mr. Lawson) hoped the war in New Zealand was now really drawing to a close; and following the noble Viscount's argument, that was a sufficient reason why the House should now refuse to vote this sum for these antiquated and rather clumsy warriors. He, therefore, moved that the Vote be reduced to the sum of £43,117, which was as nearly as he could make out the cost of the week's permanent drill.
  Whereupon, Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £47,897, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Yeomanry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, inclusive."—(Mr. Lawson.)
  THE MARCHESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he thought the hon. Gentleman had not quite correctly stated the circumstances under which it had been proposed last year to omit this Vote. It was then said that although it was desirable that the Yeomanry force should be annually trained, still it was considered that as a matter of economy and without any loss of efficiency they might permit the training to
  1982
  be suspended for a year, in which, like the last, we were incurring a large expenditure for the war in New Zealand. However, after a very close division, and after hearing the representations of Yeomanry officers, the noble Lord at the head of the Government did think, considering that the accounts from New Zealand then appeared more favourable than the reality subsequently turned out to be, that he might consent to insert the Vote. It was anticipated then that ample provision had been made for the New Zealand war, though he was afraid it would be seen when the statement of excesses and deficiencies was laid before the House that the Votes had been exhausted. He did not understand the ground on which the hon. Member proposed to strike out the sum, as the hon. Gentleman had not stated any peculiar circumstances which should lead to the Yeomanry not being called out this year. If he thought the Yeomanry clumsy or useless, he ought to have moved to omit the Vote altogether; but he had not given any reason why the training of the Yeomanry should be omitted this year any more than any other. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poole, the War Office had not lately had under its consideration any proposal for changing the character of the Yeomanry force. The whole subject of the constitution and organization of the Yeomanry force had been considered two or three years ago, and the necessary improvements had been proposed. The Yeomanry force was essentially a cavalry force. The men composing it were not of the character of mounted rifle corps, and probably it would not be beneficial or agreeable to their feelings if an attempt were made to transmute them into mounted rifle corps.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that he thought there was a great deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poole, which did not go to convert the Yeomanry into mounted rifles, but to make such changes in their drill as would make them more efficient. In Hampshire, a cavalry corps had been raised by Colonel Bower, which he believed was regarded by Colonel M'Murdo as one of the most efficient forces ever raised, though he believed it comprised only two troops. Colonel M'Murdo had recently told him that he regretted there were not more corps drilled on the same principle, and that he had seen in France three cavalry corps which had been drilled on the model of Colonel

  1983
  Bower's corps, entirely from the circumstance of their manoeuvres at one of the Brighton field days having been remarked by some French officers who were present. The subject was certainly worth the consideration of the Government.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, in merely proposing the omission of the item and not of the whole Vote, he was following the example of the Government, who last year made the same Motion, and supported it by excellent speeches, which had induced him now to take the same course. If there had been any chance of success he should have been very glad to move the omission of the whole Vote. The next question was not whether they were useful or not, but whether the Yeomanry were wanted for the defence of the country.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that the noble Marquess had not answered his question about the improved arms—rifle carbines—for the Yeomanry.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he believed that some of the Yeomanry regiments were already supplied with improved carbines. The whole of the regular cavalry were not yet supplied with them; but as the arming of the cavalry proceeded, no doubt improved carbines would be issued to the Yeomanry.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (10.) £334,900, Volunteers.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he hoped that some arrangement would be made by which non-commissioned officers going into the militia would have the same advantages as those who went into the Volunteers.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, a circular was issued early this year by which both services were put upon the same footing in this respect.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was afraid that the circular had not been so interpreted.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £46,000, Enrolled Pensioners and Army Reserve Force.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to ask a question respecting the mysterious item relating to the Army Reserve Force. The number of enrolled pensioners was gradually falling off. But where were these army reserves? Who ever saw them? Under what terms were they enlisted? What were their numbers? They were
  1984
  told in the explanation of the Vote that they were gradually increasing. This was the very class of men whose services he should wish to see attached to the militia. He wished to know whether this Army Reserve Force was to be kept up as a separate body.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to know who commanded it? Was it General Falstaff?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the force was scattered all over the country, perhaps not more than ten or a dozen in any one place. The men were called out for drill ten days in the year, and perhaps there were from 1,000 to 1,500 of them. He quite admitted that the Act under which the service was raised was practically a failure, and he did not think the force was of much value. It was impossible to disband the men who already had been enrolled, but it was the intention of his noble Friend the Secretary for War (Earl de Grey) to inquire into the subject this year, when considering other subjects, including that of recruiting, and if some arrangement could not be made to render the Army Reserve system more successful after this year it would be abandoned altogether—that was as far as any increase of the force. The men were drilled by a regimental staff officer, so that there was no charge, therefore, for a staff force
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask for some information as regarded the number of enrolled pensioners and the number of the Volunteers, which were not stated in the Estimate.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the number of the Army Reserve this year appeared to be the same as it was last. There must be some casualties, and he should like to know whether any addition had been made to the force by recruits since last year.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he saw there had been some slight addition to the force since last year. He had omitted to mention the number of the Volunteers, and thought it might be satisfactory to the House to know them as compared with last year. On the 1st of December, 1864, the number of enrolled Volunteers was 170,615, as against 162,935 on the 1st of December, 1863. On the I st of last December the number of efficient Volunteers was 124,181, as against 113,522 on the 1st of December in the previous year. And what was still more

  1985
  satisfactory, the number who had qualified themselves for the additional 10.s. a year was 62,497 on the 1st of last December, as against 47,872 on the 1st of December, 1863. He thought that these figures showed a very considerable increase in the numbers, and a very gratifying progress in the efficiency of the Volunteer force.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation with respect to the appointment as lieutenant-colonels of the Volunteer force of a number of railway engineers and railway managers. He presumed that the object of the Government in those appointments was to have the services of the navvies in case they might be required, and to obtain facilities for the transport of troops in case of hostile invasion; but no communication on the subject had taken place between the Government and the railway boards, and the gentlemen who were to be appointed lieutenant-colonels had no power of themselves to render the assistance that he supposed was required of them.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the gentlemen alluded to were to form an engineer corps and to fill the same position in respect of the Volunteers, as the officers of the Engineers did in respect of the army, and the object of the Government was to have their services in case of emergency. No doubt the very eminent engineers and contractors connected with the railways might render very important service in the construction of works and lines of railway, and in affording assistance to the military authorities in the transport of troops. Only lieutenant-colonels and majors would be appointed in the first instance; but if the plan worked well the appointments might be extended to the rank of captain, and privates would perhaps be enrolled to serve under them, if it were found that corps could be raised composed exclusively of persons connected with railways.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that the noble Marquess had not referred to the appointment of railway managers as lieutenant colonels. What be wished to point out was that the Government had not consulted the railway authorities, who alone could afford them the assistance that might be desirable.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £972,900, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge of the Manufacturing Departments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, inclusive."
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that on the night the Army Estimates were introduced the noble Marquess the Under Secretary of State for War referred to a statement of his in connection with the Navy Estimates. He wished to set himself right with reference to it. That statement had reference to the cost of the armament for the new forts. He made it after as careful an inquiry as it was possible for him to have instituted, and he still believed that it would be borne out by the facts. He was sure the Committee would feel with him that it was most important that such a statement should not be made by a Member of that House without a most careful inquiry. He had stated that the 1,944 guns composing the armaments required for the several forts would cost £17,000,000. The noble Marquess had since stated that they would cost only £3,000,000, and he now asked the noble Marquess upon what calculations this Estimate was founded?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he would explain the basis of his Estimate. The hon. Member for Finsbury had stated that 1,944 guns would be required, and he would take those figures as correct. But of that number only about 1,200 would be required for sea defences. The remainder would be for land defences, and would be chiefly provided from the stock of guns already in existence, because, for land defences it was not necessary to have the guns of such large calibre and such great weight as those to be used against iron-plated ships. Of the 1,200 guns for sea defences, some would be 7-inch guns of 140 cwt. There would be a few positions in which 22-ton guns would be required; but, as he had stated in an earlier part of the evening, there would be only very few positions in which such a weight would be wanted. The 12-ton gun had proved itself capable of piercing with a steel shot any iron plate we knew of as being used on a vessel. The greater number of the guns would most probably be guns of from 9 tons to 12 tons weight; but, taking a 12-ton gun as representing the average armament for sea defences, the cost according to present prices— £100 per ton—would be for 1,200 guns

  1987
  £1,440,000. It was, however, probable, if certain experiments at present in progress should turn out to be successful, that this amount would be reduced to but little more than one-half that sum. With regard to ammunition, the hon. Member for Finsbury was no doubt correct in saying that 200 rounds per gun was the ordinary supply; but it did not by any means follow that the 200 rounds of shot need be all of steel shot, because batteries in the position of those on which the armaments were to be placed would have to act against other ships besides iron-plated vessels. It is believed that not more than half the number of rounds of shot per gun need be of steel. The price of steel shot might hereafter be reduced; but taking it at the present rate the cost per round of ammunition for a 12-ton with steel projectiles would not exceed £10 per round. At this rate the cost of the ammunition for 1,200 guns would be £1,200,000, which added to £1,440,000, the probable cost of the guns, made £2,640,000. The gun carriages and traversing platforms at £100 a piece would cost in addition £120,000, which, added to the £2,640,000, gave a total of £2,760,000. That sum comprised only what was necessary for the sea defences. The armaments for the tend defences might to a great extent be composed of our cast-iron guns and the 110-pounders already in our possession.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he found allocated to the forts at Spithead in the Report of the Commission, and the plans formed in consequence, 915 guns; at the Needles, 81; at the Isle of Wight, 71; at Plymouth, 262; Pembroke entrance, 43; Portsmouth, 200; the entrance of the Thames, 110; the Medway, 172; Dover, 45; and Cork, 45 —in all 1,944. The number in France was 2,044. He would take the average cost of these 1,944 guns at £4,066 per gun, the size being 9-inch bore, ll-inch, and 15-inch, and the cost obtained from manufacturers of the highest standing who had supplied not only our Government, but the most important Governments on the continent. Hon. Members must be aware that the cost of the gun depended very much upon its size, and he had made his calculation upon the assumption that of these 9-inch, 11-inch, and 15-inch guns, there would be one-third of each kind. It would be remembered that, with regard to these Spithead forts, for which nearly 1,000 guns would be requisite, he had originally moved that
  1988
  the decision upon them be deferred, and so important was the matter considered that it was deferred for a year. It was when they came to the discussion again that the House, upon the earnest recommendation of the Premier, and the statement by the Secretary to the Admiralty on the part of the Government that they had at last discovered a gun of so great a calibre that even at the distance of the 2,000 yards, which separated the forts from each other, a ship, though iron-clad, could not by possibility pass under such guns and escape, that the construction of the forts was sanctioned by the House. He thought, therefore, he was justified in taking it for granted that large guns would be mounted upon these forts, that it was intended to make their armaments effective, and that the noble Lord would never propose that these forts should be erected at Spithead, at the entrance to the Thames, and other places, unless the guns should be effective for the purpose for which they were built. He had taken pains to ascertain what other Governments were doing in this respect, and he found that the Russian Government was ordering guns for forts placed in a similar position. He would now tell the Committee that he held in his hand information which could not be gainsaid, because he had it direct from the manufacturers for that Government themselves. One manufacturer was at the present time making 220 guns for the entrance of their harbours, and their size was 8-inch, 9-inch, and 11-inch. Those guns were bored, but they were not rifled, and the average price was £3,525 per gun. He did not believe that any guns could be constructed of a kind to be used in such a position unless they wereeither entirely of steel, or their inner case of steel. And now with reference to the price of ammunition, &c. He found that the guns would throw steel projectiles of 5001b., 6001b., and 7001b. The average would therefore be 6001b. The cost of this 6001b. steel projectile would be £16 10s. The charge of powder, according to the proportion generally used, would be 1201b. for a 600-pounder, and its cost would be £3 10*., taking the cost of powder at 7d. the pound. Then, taking cartridge cases, patent wads, tubes, &c, at 30s., the entire cost would be £20 per round. Now, taking the cost of our 1,944 guns at what the Russian Government paid for theirs, £3,525 each, the total cost would be £6,852,600. Then 100 steel shot of 6001b., 100 ditto shell at £20 per round—

  1989
  200 rounds and equipments — would cost £7,776,000, making a total for guns, ammunition, &c, of £14,628,600. Now, he was sure the Committee would feel that he had not been very far wrong in his previous Estimate of £17,000,000, which was based on calculation for larger guns, if the Russian Government were ordering such guns as he had described. It was too much to say that the defences at Portsmouth were land defences in any sense of the word. There were positions in the Isle of Wight in which it might be possible to say that the guns there were land defence guns. What those at Freshwater Bay were intended to be he could not tell. He could not say for what purpose they were ever placed there. He had taken guns of the smaller as well as the larger calibre into account, and had also taken it for granted that if we were voting money for sea defences we were not to have them less effective than the Russian Government at the present time. He was prepared to give the data to the noble Lord, and he hoped that the Committee would feel that he was justified in the statement which he had made the other evening.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to inquire how it was that the Government asked in so vague a manner for large sums for guns and small arms. Unless their calculations were based upon the fact that the army would require so many cannon, naming weight and size, and so many thousand stands of small arms, naming rifles, bayonets, and swords, they were proceeding only on guess work. A sum of £93,000, deducting the value of materials in hand, was asked for guns. Well, then, how many were required, what were the guns to weigh, and what would be the cost of the metal? They had not a word of such information. If they had contracts for these things, they should see their way, they should know that they would have to pay a certain sum according to the contract price. The French Estimates showed these details. They contracted for all the arms for their 400,000 men, and he supposed the French were not armed in a manner inferior to ourselves. The same was done with reference to their large guns. Unless he obtained some explanation from the noble Lord, he should move the omission of £93,000 for the gun factories.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £93,556, for materials at
  1990
  the Royal Gun Factories, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Colonel Sykes.)
  MR. COXsaid, he wished to ask for information as to the increase of £10,000 in the Vote for the Royal Small Arms Establishment, of which no explanation was given in the Estimate.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, and assured the House that not only was £93,000 required for the Royal Gun Factory, but much more.
  MR. WATKINwas referring to the armament of the Spithead forts, when
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to order, ruling that he could only speak on the item "materials for gun factories," upon which an Amendment for its omission had been moved.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that upon an item in the Vote for the gun factory there appeared to have been nearly £58,000 more upon the Estimate than had been expended, and he wished to know what assurance they had that they were not now required to vote a larger sum than was required. He thought they were really proceeding in the dark with the Votes, as they bad no such paper as that to which he had already alluded showing the differences between the Estimate and the actual expenditure. It would be thought more satisfactory to the Committee, if, before they again met, they should have some paper placed in their hands showing some reason for those extraordinary discrepancies between the Estimate and expenditure.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he wished to appeal to the Chairman to know whether, the total of the Vote having been the subject of discussion, he was out of order in referring to the remarks of his hon. Friend (Sir Morton Peto) respecting the Spithead forts.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if the Amendment had been for the reduction of the total Vote, the hon. Member would have been in order in speaking upon the whole Vote; but as the Amendment was only for a reduction on a particular item, hon. Gentlemen must confine their remarks to that item until the Amendment was disposed of.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was true that the French Estimates professed to show the exact number of guns, small arms, swords, and other warlike stores which were to be procured by the money voted in each year; but he did

  1991
  not think that the French Chambers obtained any great amount of information from this statement; because on reference to the Estimates for successive years he found that the number of guns and arms of all sorts procured always remained at exactly the same figure and price, whereas the audited accounts showed that these figures were not correct in any way whatever. No doubt it was the fact that the Estimates were prepared by the heads of the manufacturing department upon the basis of a certain number of arms which it was proposed to manufacture. But it had never been the practice to adhere very closely either to the number or the description of these arms; and at this moment, when all these points were so unsettled, it was more than ever difficult to bind themselves at the beginning of the year to manufacture a particular kind and number of guns during the year. Such an Estimate, if laid before the House, would either compel the authorities to adhere to a particular kind of gun, although some more useful kind might afterwards have been invented, or else the information would be of little use. Perhaps in future years, when this branch of the Estimates rested on a more certain basis, further information might be given to the Committee, but in no case would it be possible to give an Estimate which should not be departed from without great inconvenience to the public service. Moreover, it had always been thought objectionable to publish in this manner the exact number of arms which they proposed to manufacture. It would be inconvenient to do so on account of the knowledge that would thereby be afforded to foreign countries, and in many instances it would be inconvenient also that it should be known by the privat trade that the Government intended to manufacture a certain quantity and description of arms themselves, leaving the rest to be contracted for. The matter should be investigated, and, if possible, some kind of appendix, such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour), should be prepared for the information of the House. As it was necessary to limit themselves to the item of the gun factory, he would take another opportunity of replying upon the general Vote.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that as he did not desire to restrict the discussion he should withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had complimented the noble Marqeuss on the general clearness and fulness of the Estimates, but here there seemed to be a falling off in this respect, because while formerly it used to show what proportion of arms was intended for the naval and what for the military service, this was now no longer the ease. They never gave the exact number of guns; but the practice had been to give the amount for the navy and the amount for the army. He begged to ask the noble Marquess for some explanation as to certain Votes on page 7. The first matter he wished to have some explanation on was with reference to the laboratory at Devonport. He wished to know whether it was intended to transfer the stores at Devonport from the charge of an artillery officer to the Store Department. If so, such transfer would be in opposition to two Minutes of the War Office, strongly recommending that the stores should be under the charge of an artillery officer.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he wished to observe that the noble Lord who represented the War Department stated that the cost of arming the forts would be £3,000,000, while the hon. Member for Finsbury said it would be £17,000,000, and had brought forward a calculation based on the proceedings of the Government of Russia to show that it could not be less than £14,000,000. The number of guns to be placed in the forts was 1,944, and the noble Lord stated that he had in stock 744 of the guns, thereby reducing the number wanted to 1,200. But the Committee would like to know where these 744 guns were, what was their calibre, whether they were of iron or steel, and whether they could be had without being paid for. The noble Lord, having reduced the number of guns to 1,200, assumed that they were to be only 12-ton guns; but when the fortifications were first voted the assumption was that they were to be armed with ordnance equal to any that could be placed in position by any Government with which England might have to compete. The hon. Member for Finsbury referred to the example of Russia, and told the Committee that 1,944 guns such as he described would cost a certain sum. The hon. Member also took the service of ammunition for each gun at 200 rounds, and it was to be supposed that no Government preparing for defence would make an estimate for a less service of ammunition, Were they,

  1993
  then—in order that the Budget might answer to certain calculations —to delude themselves into the notion that £3,000,000 only would be required? The hon. Member's calculation appeared to be correct, and he hoped the noble Marquess would give some explanation.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he fancied that the battle of the guns was likely to be as remarkable as the battle of the gauges, and though he abstained from taking part in it, yet he was prepared to believe, from what he knew of the management of the War Department with respect to small arms, that its management with respect to big guns could not be satisfactory. If he thought he should meet with any support he would move that the Vote in regard to the manufacture of small arms should be omitted, not as not being necessary, but as not being properly spent by the Government. A Committee was appointed in 1862, and they reported that of three descriptions of small arms one was superior, and yet the Government had gone on manufacturing those arms which the Committee rejected. Now that was not the way to go on, and if it were pursued by any firm or person in this country they or he would soon become bankrupt. He believed that the officers employed by the Government were very efficient men, but he could not understand why the Government persisted in manufacturing an arm which was considered inferior to other arms, and he thought that they had a right to ask whether it was intended to continue the manufacture of the rejected arm, or to adopt the arm recommended by the Committee appointed by the Government? The noble Marquess said, as he understood, that the Government had gone on manufacturing the arm which had been condemned because the best description of breech-loader had not been discovered. But surely it would be wiser to make rifles of the best pattern known than to go on making more of a rejected pattern. If it was a question of increased cost, he could understand the course taken by the Government, but no outlay would be required for new machinery. Last year the Secretary of State said that it was perfectly competent for Mr. Lancaster, whose patent had expired, to apply for a renewal, to which no opposition would be offered by the Secretary for War, and it was only the other day that it was represented that whenever the Government made use of any patent they would make a fair bargain with the
  1994
  patentee; but in spite of these assurances the Attorney General was instructed to resist the renewal of the patent, and the Government put the patentee to an expenditure of £700 or £800 in costs, for the sake of saving 1s. royalty per barrel. This was not the way to encourage inventions for the public good. If the Reports of Committees, costing the country £7,000 or £8,000 a year, were to be treated as mere waste paper it would be better to strike the Votes for those Committees out of the Estimates. For the sake of saving 1s. per barrel royalty it was hardly worth while to break faith with Mr. Lancaster or with statements made in that House. Being Chairman of the National Rifle Association, his attention had been called to the various descriptions of small arms, and at competitions at Wimbledon, as the mass of Volunteers were armed with the Government rifle, the Council were obliged to exclude the use of the Lancaster and fine groove rifles from competition with the Enfield rifle, on account of their superiority to it as arms of precision. The experience of that Association in its competitions at Wimbledon was thus found to corroborate the decision of the Select Committee, condemning the one arm and recommending the manufacture of the other. His only desire was to see the public money spent on a good arm instead of on a bad one.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that seeing there was a change in the statement of the account of manufacturing there, he wished to know the total of the number of guns produced at the Enfield factory last year, and also whether the Government contemplated to increase the weight or the strength of the barrel of the Enfield rifle.
  THE MARQUBSS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury appeared to base his calculations on the number of guns required being 1,944. If he would refer to the Report of the Commission he would find that 900 of the heaviest guns was the total number recommended by the Commissioners. From that number would be supplied the guns intended for Portsmouth and its defences. Therefore, a very considerable quantity of guns for the land defences was comprised in that number. He could not state exactly how many guns would be mounted on the Spithead forts, but certainly in comparison with the whole 900 the number would be very small. Those forts would doubtless have to be armed with the very heaviest arm we could

  1995
  make, and some of them would require 20 or 22-ton guns. The hon. Member based his calculations entirely on what he said the Russian Government had done in that matter, but it did not necessarily follow that we should have to pay as large a sum as Russia for guns. Still, it was quite possible that our guns might be more expensive than he anticipated, and undoubtedly it would be so if it was found necessary to adopt the Whitworth or any other more costly arm than they were now manufacturing. But, as he had previously stated, he believed we had now got a very good gun, and certainly in comparison with others it was not a dear gun. The 12-ton gun was capable of piercing an iron-clad vessel, and he did not know why we should in ordinary cases have a larger gun than one that was found sufficient for the purpose. He believed that about 1,200 naval guns would be required at an average of not more than 12 tons. The 7-ton was also capable of piercing an iron-clad. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin), he thought that for land defences, our stock of cast-iron guns would, in many positions, be perfectly sufficient. We had a considerable number of 110, 40, and 70-pouu-ders, which were very good for many purposes, and it was not at all probable that it would be requisite to manufacture a large number of guns for land defences. Probably, Captain Palliser would be able to furnish at a cheap rate a gun of sufficient power for all land defence. As to ammunition, he had not stated that it was intended to supply only 100 rounds for the guns, but that it would probably not be necessary to supply more than 100 rounds of steel shot for each. They did not give any statement this year respecting the sums to be expended on labour and materials at Enfield, because they had not been able to base their calculations upon a certain number of arms which they proposed to manufacture. With respect to Enfield rifles, they really did not yet know what it was they were likely to manufacture during that year. The Report of the Committee on the Enfield and breech-loader had only just been received, and it was not yet decided whether the whole or the greater part of the force at the Enfield factory should be employed in the conversion of the Enfield or the manufacture of some other arm. It had, therefore, been thought best to ask the House for a round sum for the manufacture of whatever might be undertaken.
  1996
  £10,000 more was asked than the sum asked last year, because there would probably be a conversion of arms on a large scale, or perhaps they would have to manufacture a new breech-loading arm, which would, no doubt, be more expensive than a muzzle-loading one. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) asked why they had not adopted the Lancaster system of rifling for the Enfield arm, and what they intended to do this year. The fact was that since the debate of last year, and since the decision had been come to to adopt as soon as possible a breech-loading arm for the army, a very small quantity of rifles had been manufactured at Enfield, and their manufacture would be discontinued altogether at the earliest period. When it was clear that a breech-loader of some description was desirable, it became advisable to refrain from the manufacture of muzzle-loading arms. They had, therefore, confined themselves principally to manufacturing the breech-loading carbine for the cavalry, the pattern of which had been approved, and also a certain number of smooth-bore guns for the Indian Government. They proposed this year to go on manufacturing breech-loading carbines for the cavalry, and if that did not give sufficient employment to their hands till the conversion of the muzzle-loaders commenced, they would continue to manufacture other arms which it was not necessary should be of a breech-loading character. With regard to the Lancaster breech-loader, he regretted that the noble Lord had not given him notice of his intention to bring forward that subject, because he did not recollect the circumstances under which the Government opposed the renewal of Mr. Lancaster's patent. He was under the impression that it would not be necessary to oppose the renewal of his patent, and was surprised to learn that it had been opposed. He would, however, be happy to explain those circumstances to the noble Lord if he would give a notice relating to that question for a future day. He hoped that the noble Lord and the House would not object to vote this sum of money on the faith that the Government would as soon as possible proceed with the conversion of the muzzle-loading into the breech-loading weapons. The factories at Devonport and Portsmouth were not intended for the manufacture of new stores, which was confined to Woolwich, but for the repairs of stores. It had been represented that these repairs were conducted

  1997
  at a greater cost than if they took place at Woolwich, and an inquiry was going on to see whether one system was more economical and efficient than the other.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished that the noble Lord would tell the House the number of Enfield rifles made during the last year, and the rate at which they were now being made. Last year the noble Lord said 1,000 a week were being made there, of which 700 were the three-grooved long Enfield pattern. He was afraid this condemned article was being manufactured at the rate of 700 a week. Since the Report of the Committee in 1862 not fewer than 100,000 had been made sufficient to arm all the troops in the service; and if the Government succeeded in converting it into a breech-loader, they would be converting an inferior arm instead of that recommended by their own Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the noble Lord talked of the Enfield rifle being a "condemned arm," but, although the Lancaster rifle might be superior, the Committee of 1862 reported that the Enfield rifle was still a better arm than that supplied to any troops in the world. At many ranges of firing the difference between the Enfield and other rifles was scarcely perceptible, He could not give the noble Lord the exact numbers, but he believed that the number of Enfields made during the past year did not exceed 20,000, and that no rifle of that pattern was being manufactured at present. The factory were engaged in making either Mr. Westley Richard's breech-loading carbine or the artillery carbine.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that when he used the term "condemned arm," he used it as compared with other arms in their own service. He admitted that our troops were better armed than any other troops in the world, but the Committee upon four points, including precision when clean, precision when foul, and simplicity of management, reported in favour of the weapon which the Government would not make. What he complained of was that the Government persistently manufactured the least good of the three arms adopted in the service.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it appeared to him that the Enfield factory was getting into this position—that they were keeping up a large staff whilst the Committee were deliberating upon the kind of arm that should be adopted. He did not wish to hurry any immature conclusion
  1998
  upon the matter; but it appeared to him that the Committee had lost time. Would the noble Lord lay on the table a Return of the number of arms of all kinds made at the Enfield factory during the past year? He would add that he did not think the Enfield rifle deserved to be called a "condemned arm." It had a fault—a want of sufficient strength of metal in the barrel. But he believed the Enfield rifle to be the best arm in general use in any army in the world. He would ask whether that had been considered, because whatever arm they were about to adopt that fault should be avoided—and he trusted that this defect would be amended in the new breechloader.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask when the promised Report of the Rifle Brigade experiments with the Whitworth rifle would be laid before the House. The House ought also to have the papers connected with the renewal of the patent for the Lancaster rifle, in order to see if the patentee had been fairly dealt with.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to know whether tenders had been received for the conversion of the Enfield into a breechloader, what system of conversion had been decided upon, and the names of the firm whose tender had been accepted?
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he had not understood the remarks of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) to be condemnatory of the Enfield rifle. His noble Friend had only stated that the rifle in use was the least perfect of the three patterns in the service, and that the Government had, notwithstanding, persisted in making 100,000 of them.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, there was all the difference in the world between a small arm that was the best weapon of war and an instrument for merely throwing projectiles accurately. He feared that the Lancaster rifle might not wear, and that it would not do for long and heavy work. A strong and coarse weapon was wanted for the soldier in active service.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the number manufactured of the Enfield rifle would best be seen when the Enfield balance-sheet was laid on the table, and could not be shown accurately before. As to the strength of the barrel of the Enfield, the Committee had been engaged in experiments and investigations as to the qualities most to be desired in a military weapon, and no doubt additional strength of barrel was considered very important.

  1999
  The question was, could that additional strength be had, preserving the length of the arm, except by adopting some smaller bore? He could not give an answer at present to his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) whether the correspondence relative to the Lancaster patent would be produced. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Seymour), he thought every step in this matter had been taken with as much rapidity as possible. The Report of the Committee recommending the adopting of a breech-loader was received in July last. There were several proposals to alter the Enfield rifle. It was necessary to consult the trade on the subject, and there was a competition for the best plan of conversion. The manufacturers required some time to submit their plans. Then they required some time to alter the rifles that were given to them, and after that it was necessary that experiments should be made to test them. No greater expedition could be used in this matter consistent with obtaining satisfactory results.
  MR. SURTEESsaid, I wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War whether the report is true that a considerable number of carbines, of the Westley Richard's pattern are about to be issued to the cavalry, and, if so, whether they will require capping; because, if such should be the case, I consider it will be a very great defect.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that in the Westley Richards and carbines the percussion arrangement was separate from the ammunition.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURobserved, that any breech-loader would be defective that required capping.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (13.) £485,000, Warlike Stores also agreed to.
  Motion made and Question proposed, that the Chairman do now report progress put, and agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to express a hope that when the next Vote was taken detailed explanations would be given by the noble Lord as to the fortifications proposed to be constructed in Canada, and the number of men required for them. At present they knew nothing about these fortifications, or where they were proposed to be constructed. The Report they had before them was of a useless character. When we made our own coast preparations
  2000
  there was information, but here there was none. They should have some sketch of what the Government intended to do; and he hoped the noble Lord would be prepared, when the House again went into Committee, to give full information.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had been about to make a similar request. Great interest was felt in the question, and he hoped the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would see that this, perhaps the most important qustion that would be brought before them this Session, was discussed at an early hour, when there was full attendance of Members, and not during the dinner hour.
  SIR MORTON PETOsuggested that a special day should be fixed for the discussion. The question was one affecting the public mind very much.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We propose to go on with the Array Estimates on Thursday next, and this Vote will be the first taken. The hour at which the discussion will come on is not altogether within the control of the Government. It depends a good deal on those hon. Members who have preliminary Motions. I hope, however, that a general understanding may be come to, and that the House will at an early hour go into Committee.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to know whether Colonel Jervois's Report would be produced. At present they had only his covering letter enclosing his Report. He presumed that the production of the plans proposed for the fortifications would be inexpedient.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the Government had been already found fault with for giving so much information, although he did not think any harm had been done; for there was really nothing in the printed Report of Colonel Jervois that the Americans were not already fully acquainted with. But the Report now alluded to was certainly of a perfectly confidential nature, and it would be very unwise to produce it. It was not intended to lay upon the table any other Report than that already produced, which contained the substance of the recommendations on which the Government intended to act.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he thought it would have been much better for the Government to lay on the table a short statement of those fortifications which they considered necessary, instead of entering into all the reasons why they

  2001
  considered them to be necessary—details which had excited a good deal of distrust here, and probably a good deal of discouragement at the other side of the water.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

  METROPOLITAN HOUSELESS POOR.

    BILL ORDERED. FIRST READING. [BlLL 83.]
    MR. C. P. VILLIERS,in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to continue the Metropolitan Homeless Poor Act, said, as this Act passed as an experiment last Session, had answered its purpose admirably. and had proved most acceptable to all the districts in London where it had been tried. He therefore proposed to extend its operations for another year.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to continue the Metropolitan Houseless Poor Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. VILLIERS and Viscount ENFIELD.
    Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 83.]

    LAHORE BISHOPRIC.
    Resolution considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to empower the Secretary of State for India in Council to make provision for the payment, out of the Revenues of India, of the Salaries of the Bishop and Archdeacon, and of other charges incidental to the establishment of a Bishopric of Lahore.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Order under "The Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act, 1863,"ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Sir GEORGE GREY.
    Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 82.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.