Commons Sitting of 14 March 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Mines nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES [R.P.]
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Grand Juries (Ireland); Bankruptcy; Judgment Debtors *; Bankruptcy Acts Repeal *
First Reading—Grand Juries (Ireland) [73]; Bankruptcy [74]; Judgment Debtors * [75]; Bankruptcy Acts Repeal * [76].
Second Reading—Court of Chancery (Ireland) [47]; Lyon King of Arms (Scotland) [44].
Considered as amended—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries * [61].
Third Reading—Metropolitan Poor [66].

BOARD OF TRADE REPORT ON PRIVATE BILLS—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, it had been the practice of the Board of Trade to prepare Reports on the various Private Bills introduced into Parliament, and this involved considerable labour and occupied much valuable time in the office. The expense, too, was considerable, amounting last year to more than £300 for work done out of the office; besides the cost of printing and distribution, yet the Reports were usually consigned to the waste-paper basket without being looked at. The preparation of such Reports was not required by any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, except those which affected tidal-waters or harbours, which were reported upon under the Harbours Transfer Act of 1862. It was proposed, therefore, that henceforth these only should be reported upon. He would therefore move that the Board of Trade present to the House a Report on the following Bills, being all those which were of the character he had mentioned:—Swansea Valley and Harbour Junction Railway, Solway Junction Railway, Carnarvon and Llanberis Railway, Caledonian Railway (Forfarshire Works), North British Railway (Abandonment, &c), Thames Embankment (Chelsea), Thames Subways, Paignton Water, Imperial Gas, Winestead Level Drainage, Gaslight and Coke Company, Witham Drainage, and Holderness Embankment and Reclamation.
Motion agreed to.

BANNS OF MATRIMONY.—QUESTION.
MR. MONKsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the doubts which have arisen as to the proper period for the publication of Banns of Matrimony during the time of Morning Service, and to the diversity of practice consequent thereon; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Measure for removing such doubts?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The subject, Sir, is under the consideration of the Government, but the course to be taken has not yet been decided upon. If the hon. Member will repeat his question in the course of a week or ten days I hope to be enabled to give him an answer.

PARIS UNIVERSAL EXHIBITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the very incomplete state in which the British portion of the Paris Exhibition is now placed; and, whether he intends to have it completed in a manner worthy of the commercial dignity and importance of this Country?
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished at the same time to know whether there is any reasonable expectation that the sum of £116,000, already voted, will be exceeded, and to what amount?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, the question of the hon. Member for Halifax seems to imply that the Secretary to the Treasury has the direction of the works at the Paris Exhibition. I am happy to be able to state that that is not the case. I will, however, read a statement which has been made to the Government by the executive British Commissioner—
  "The present incomplete state of the British portion of the Exhibition is necessarily so, because the work is not yet done, but is only in progress. At present the Exhibition is like a house which is not furnished, but it will be completed and properly decorated within the sum provided by the estimate, and on the 1st of April."
  That, I apprehend, is an answer to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope). Since that Report was sent to the Privy Council I have also received a Report from the person in charge in Paris, who says—
  "The English Exhibition is more advanced than that of any other nation, and it will be ready for opening on the 1st of April. The arrangement for the Exhibition of the objects is generally thought to be one that will give better opportunities of displaying them than the system adopted by any other country.
  MR. CRAWFORD: By whom is that signed?
  MR. HUNT: By Richard Thompson.

REPRESENTATION OF SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the purpose of the Government to bring before the House this Session a Reform Bill for the representation of Scotland; if so, whether the principles of representation to be adopted in the Reform Bill for England and Wales will be
  1802
  applied to Scotland; and whether any attempt will be made, to a greater or less extent, to adjust the number of Representatives in Scotland to the present wealth and population of the country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to Reform the Representation of Scotland; but when it will be introduced it is not in my power at the present moment to state. Probably in the course of a short time it may be in my power to give this information. With regard to the principles on which it will be framed, they will be the same as those we shall recommend for the representation of England; of course, with such alterations as the difference between the laws of the two countries shall render necessary. With regard to the question of increasing the representation of Scotland, I beg to say that subject is under our consideration. We are giving it our best consideration, and we shall decide that question upon its merits.

IRELAND—WATERFORD ELECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has taken any steps to investigate the two cases of Homicide which occurred at Dungarvan, and which formed the subject of the Coroner's Inquests held there; and, whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice O'Hagan to the Grand Jury of Waterford upon that subject?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MORRIS)said, in reply, that two inquests were held at Dungarvan upon the bodies of two persons who mot their deaths at the county of Waterford election. Those inquests were returned to the Crown Office, and through that office to the Crown solicitor of that circuit. On the 5th of February the depositions and the finding of the jury were laid before him, and on the 16th of February he gave instructions to the Crown Solicitor to the following purport:—
  "Without coming to any conclusion as to the legal character of the homicides, I think every inquiry should be directed to ascertain by whom the homicides, or either of them, were caused, and of identifying the individuals. The Crown Solicitor should communicate with the county inspector of constabulary to ascertain if any faith worthy person can depose as to identity; he should also apply to the military authorities for the names of the soldiers engaged at Dungarvan, and if any

  1803
  faithworthy person comes forward, or can be found, who can identify the individual soldier or soldiers alleged to have caused the death of O'Brien or Keily, a communication should be made to the colonel of the regiment to have the soldiers who were at Dungarvan paraded for the purpose of identification."
  He had received various communications from the Crown Solicitor subsequent to those instructions, and he felt satisfied that the Crown Solicitor had used every possible exertion to identify the individuals in question. With regard to the second branch of the question, Mr. Justice O'Hagan was reported in The Freeman's Journal newspaper to have said, in charging the grand jury on the 5th of March—
  "There were two cases of homicide arising out of the late election, in one of which the jury had found a verdict of 'manslaughter,' and in the other a verdict of 'wilful murder.' Bills could not be sent up to them at the present assizes in either of those cases, the occurrence of which he deeply deplored, and trusted that the cause of them would be made the subject of searching investigation."
  He thought it right to say that he attributed very little importance to the finding of the jury in one of these cases, in which they found a verdict of wilful murder. Although the counsel for the next of kin to the deceased closed an excited and exciting speech by demanding the highest verdict of the law, which was manslaughter, the jury, with a feeling of liberality which the learned Gentleman could not have imagined, actually found a verdict of wilful murder.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES BRIGHTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If, as a portion of Greenwich Hospital has been granted to the Seamen's Hospital Society for seamen of the Mercantile Marine, the Government will also grant a portion of the unoccupied space, upon the same conditions, for a public hospital for the reception of sick and diseased persons belonging to the borough of Greenwich?
MR. DUCANE, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that the Government had sanctioned a loan of a portion of the unoccupied part of the Hospital to the Seamen's Hospital Society, the Government, however, reserving the power to resume it if, in the event of a naval war breaking out, or any other contingency, the accommodation was needed in the interest of the seamen of the Royal Navy. It was
1804
thought that the Mercantile Marine had a strong claim for some further direct share in the benefits of Greenwich Hospital, to the funds of which it had largely contributed. The Government, however, were unable to admit that a similar claim could be urged with equal justice by any portion of the community which had no direct connection with Greenwich Hospital, and which had never contributed to its resources. To divert any portion of the building of Greenwich Hospital to such a purpose would be to sanction the application of the building to purposes directly contrary to the intentions of its founders, and would materially enhance the difficulty which might arise if on any contingency the Government should think it necessary to regain possession of the unoccupied portion in the interest of the Royal Navy. And, therefore, however desirable an object in itself the establishment of a local hospital for the borough of Greenwich might be, he could hold out no hope to the hon. Member that the Government would ever be likely to sanction any appropriation of the building of Greenwich Hospital for such a purpose.

NAVY—CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, as all the Chain Cables and Anchors manufactured in the Country are required, by the Act of 1864, to be tested to the Admiralty standard, the Board have terminated, or intend to terminate, the Contract between the Admiralty and Messrs. Brown, Lenox, and Co,, and to open-up to the competition of respectable makers the future supply of Chain Cables and Anchors for Her Majesty's Service?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in reply, that the contract with the Messrs. Brown, Lenox, and Co., with regard to cables, was only made in 1862, and the Admiralty had no intention to terminate it at this time. With respect to the contract for anchors, the usual notice would be given that it would not be renewed. As to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, he had to reply that Her Majesty's service was so amply stored with anchors at this moment that he should be sorry to fetter the judgment of his successor on the subject of throwing open the future supply to competition.

COLONY OF BRITISH HONDURAS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can communicate to the House any information with regard to the recent incursion of Indians into the Colony of Honduras, and to an action alleged to have taken place between them and a portion of the 3rd West India Regiment; and, whether his attention has been called to an extract from The Jamaica Gleaner, published in The Times newspaper of the second instant, containing serious imputations on the conduct of the English Officer in command on that occasion? He might explain that the imputation was that the Major in command, having about 150 troops under him, went into action with about fifty or 100 Indians, and beat a hasty retreat, leaving the ammunition, the medical stores, and the wounded behind him.
  MR. ADDERLEY, in reply, said, a raid of Indians was made into British Honduras in December last, when great depredations were committed, and more than one British colonist was carried off for ransom. Upon that Lieutenant Governor Austin sent a Civil Commissioner with Major Mackay and some troops to the spot. The Indians were met, and a collision took place, but it appeared that both parties retreated. There is no report that the wounded of the West India regiment were left on the field. A statement had certainly been made to the Government reflecting very severely on the conduct of the English officers concerned; but he did not like to state anything more then, as only one side of the case had reached the Government. But the War Office at once commissioned Major General O'Connor, the commander of the Forces in Jamaica, to institute an inquiry into the matter. Lieutenant Governor Austin, immediately on hearing of the occurrence, applied for reinforcements from Jamaica. Sir John Grant instantly sent one detachment of troops, and followed soon afterwards himself with a second detachment. The report from Sir John Grant was that everything was now tranquil in the colony of British Honduras, and that there was an ample force of troops there to meet any exigency.

BOARD OF TRADE RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would now beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, What is the reason of the delay which has occurred in the publication of the Board of Trade Returns for 1866, those Returns not having been in the hands of the public till the 1st of March of this year; and whether it is not possible to hasten the monthly Returns issued by the Board?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Sir, the accounts for the twelve months ended the 31st of December last were issued on the 2nd of this month; last year they were issued on the 27th of February. This delay of a day or two was occasioned by the necessity of a special reference between the Excise and Customs Departments. Generally speaking, the chief cause of delay is the difficulty of getting merchants to make complete entries and close their current accounts. If the same plan were followed with the annual as with the monthly Returns, of completing them on a certain day, without reference to outstanding accounts, something might be gained in time at the expense of accuracy; but then one year could not be compared with another. With regard to the monthly Returns, the growth of commerce makes their preparation a work of increasing labour. The Returns are received at the Custom House from all the hundred or more out-ports in a crude state, and have to be arranged, and their magnitude may be conceived from the fact that 1,000 entries are sometimes passed in a single day for a single article in one port alone, and that each monthly Return contains from forty to fifty pages of closely-printed calculations. The details have also been considerably extended for the purpose of giving the fuller information which the public have from time to time demanded. Formerly these Returns contained only totals; the monthly Returns now comprise values, and the countries of export and import of the principal articles, the aggregate of the expired months, and comparison for three years. The annual Returns contain the exporting and importing countries of every article, and a comparison of the trade with these countries for five years. The monthly Returns arrive at the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade about the 26th or 27th of the following month, and are kept there two days for the purpose of filling in the aggregates and printing. I

  1807
  doubt if this can be done more quickly With regard to the annual Return, the only alteration I can think of besides that of issuing the inexact form I have mentioned would be to publish separately that portion which relates to home consumption, of which the accounts can be completed earlier than the rest. I can assure my right hon. Friend that no time is wasted, and that the Departments concerned endeavour to meet the natural wishes of the public as far as is practicable.

POSTAGE TO INDIA.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to raise the rate of postage to India and the East, in consequence of an increase in the cost of the service?
MR. HUNT: Sir, it is intended to raise the postage to 9d., in consequence of the additional expense occasioned by the increased number of mails.

ENGINE DRIVERS' STRIKE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a statement which has appeared in the newspapers to the effect that the Engine Drivers of the London and Brighton Railway Company have given notice of their intention to strike; and whether, in the event of such strike taking place, he docs not think the subject would be a fit one for being inquired into by the Commission on Trades Unions?
  MR. WALPOLE, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the statement in question, and he had heard that there was considerable foundation for it. He had no doubt that the subject of such strikes would fall within the terms of the Commission, and that it would be inquired into by the Commissioners.

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

INDIA, CHINA, AND AUSTRALIAN MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that on a recent
  1808
  occasion he had asked a Question relative to the tenders for the weekly postal service to and from Bombay. The reply was that notice had been given to the Peninsular and Oriental Company for the early termination of the contract for conveying the mail to India, but he did not understand whether it was intended to terminate the contract for the mail to China. He believed that the service to China would come absolutely to an end in January next. The service to Australia would be carried on on the basis of the present contract, which was subject to a notice of two years. He wished, therefore, to ask, Whether any arrangements would be made, in the event of the contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company coming to an end, to continue the other two services, and whether any negotiations had been opened for the purpose of taking advantage of the French service, which was also connected with China?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Committee which sat upon our East Indian Mail Service, did not recommend notice to be given for the termination of the service between India and Australia at the same time. The paragraph in their Report relating to the subject was rather against the simultaneous termination of the two services. Her Majesty's Government had had the question under their consideration, whether they should give notice of their intention of terminating the contract between India and China and Australia at the same time. He had consulted the Chairman of the Committee on the subject. That Gentleman, who had given great attention to the subject, might be said to represent the views of the Committee, and he represented that it would be exceedingly unfortunate to postpone the establishment of the weekly mail to Bombay for two years. In consideration of the great desire of the trade that the weekly communication should commence as soon as possible, Her Majesty's Government had determined to give notice to terminate the Indian contract in the first instance. They had been partly induced to take that step without also terminating the Australian contract, because they thought the colonists themselves might desire to undertake the Australian service. Communications were now going on between the Colonial Office and the colonies with a view to some such arrangement. He believed that communications had taken place with

  1809
  the French Government, but nothing definite had yet been settled. Tenders for the new service had been prepared, and negotiations were going on with the India Office on the subject. The contract for the service east of Suez would lie with the India Government. The form of the tender had therefore been sent to them, and when it was received back it would be advertised.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask, whether it was true that it was in contemplation to raise the postage on letters for India and the East generally, in order to meet the increased expenditure upon the re-adjustment of the services. He asked the Question because this was a point which had been particularly dealt with by the Committee, and the Committee had protested strongly against the adoption of any such measure, for reasons which were fully set out in their Report?
  MR. HUNTsaid, it was determined, when the new postal service was commenced, to raise the postage to 9d. on the half-ounce letter, in order to meet the loss or increased expenditure expected to grow up through the increase in the number of the mails.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE— ELECTORAL STATISTICS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LOCKE: I rise, Sir, to
  "Call the attention of the House to the delay that has taken place in the production of the Papers on the subject of Reform, alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Tuesday the 5th instant, said he hoped to be able to lay upon the Table of the House in a few days."
  I wish to call the attention of the House to the uncertainty which exists with reference to the statistics which we were given to understand were prepared for the Cabinet, and which (a circumstance which naturally makes the House much more curious than it otherwise would have been) resulted in the retirement of three of the Members of the Cabinet. Two of those late Members of the Cabinet made statements in this House, and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) said that certain papers were submitted to the Cabinet, containing the statistics, on the 23rd of February. On the 25th of February the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to make his statement to the House as to the Reform Bill which the Govern-
  1810
  ment were about to bring in; but on the 24th of February, in consequence of those statistics not being to the taste of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, he sent in his resignation. Whether he did that on the 24th, which was Sunday, or on the 25th, I do not know. On the 25th, under these circumstances, of course the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not proceed with the statement on Reform which he had been about to introduce to the House, and which the House had expected. The right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Feel), and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, made their statements, and it appeared that the papers referred to—whether placed in the hands of the Cabinet, or read out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—had only been partially communicated to the noble Lord and the other Members of the Cabinet at first, but subsequently the noble Lord had an opportunity of looking at them, or part of them—how much of them I do not know—and the result was his resignation. Therefore it was that I thought it right that such important documents as those which contained the statistics upon which the Reform Bill was to be brought in should be submitted to the House, that we, as well as the Cabinet, might have an opportunity of judging with respect to the measure which was to be based upon them. I therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman a question, and perhaps I had better repeat the exact words that were used, because very much in this matter appears to depend upon the precise words uttered by those who take part in the question. On the 5th of March my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what would be the course of public business, and I followed before an answer had been given to my hon. and learned Friend. I asked—
  "When the papers referring to the electoral statistics, submitted to the Members of the Cabinet, and alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne), would be laid upon the table?"—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1370.]
  The right hon. Gentleman gave me this answer—
  "I have given direction for the preparation of the papers, and I hope in a few days they will be in the hands of Members."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1370.]
  Now, I consider that answer was clear and distinct as to the identical papers alluded

  1811
  to by the noble Lord. There could be no doubt about the question, and none of the public journals, I believe, differ in any way upon it or upon the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. From that it was fair to infer that directions had been given—there could be no question at all about preparing the papers, which were all ready—that directions had been given by the right hon. Gentleman to produce the papers for the satisfaction of the House, and that they would be laid upon the table at once. However, they did not appear; and therefore it was that, on the 11th of March, I renewed my Question to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him—
  "Whether the Government would lay on the table the statistics referred to by the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbourne) as having been laid before the Cabinet a fortnight since?"—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1648.]
  This was the right hon. Gentleman's answer—
  "No papers have been before the Cabinet which have not been laid on the table of the House. There is no new information. I believe that the House is in possession of all the information the Cabinet have. I have given instructions that for the convenience of Members certain information shall be prepared and, printed, but I regret that it is not yet ready. I am unable to account for the delay, but I will make inquiry as to the reason. It has probably arisen from the desire to impart some new information."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1648.]
  That struck me at the time as being an extraordinary statement, and so it appears to have struck the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), because he made some observations upon it. It was stated likewise by the right hon. Gentleman—and this appears in the reports of the leading journals—that there was nothing new in the papers. That called up the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Stroud, the noble Lord observed—
  "It is necessary, in order to make my own statement clear, that I should say that I understood, when certain figures were laid before the Cabinet, that they were figures which had been obtained from the Departments for that purpose, and that they were new. So I understood them; but, of course, in that I may have been mistaken. They were exceedingly scanty, and few in number, and the investigation of which I spoke was mainly directed to comparing these figures which were sums total with the more detailed information contained in the voluminous Returns laid before the House last year."—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1649.]
  It appears, then, that the right hon. Gen-
  1812
  tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford are at direct variance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, in the first instance—when he is asked to produce the papers, which are clearly designated as the papers containing the statistics which were laid before the Cabinet, or read to the Cabinet, or partly read to the Cabinet, and which were subsequently submitted to the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, and which caused him to resign his office—the Chancellor of the Exchequer says most distinctly that he will produce those papers which contain those identical statistics. When his attention is again called to the matter about a week afterwards the right hon. Gentleman says, "No, there are no now papers at all. Those figures which you mentioned are merely figures which are now upon the table of the House, scattered amongst nobody can say how many Returns," Whether that is so or not it is impossible for me to say; but, at all events, it appears that the noble Lord the Member for Stamford has not read the voluminous Returns amongst which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says those figures are to be picked out. The noble Lord says that he understood that the figures submitted to him on that occasion were entirely new. I think the House has a right to have a clear explanation upon this matter. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to say, in the first place, "I do not intend to produce those statistics at all; it was a Cabinet matter. I introduced them to the Cabinet, but I am not going to introduce them to the House," he might have done so, and the House could have dealt with the matter as under those circumstances. But the right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that the statistics should be produced, afterwards telling us that there were no new statistics to produce, although a late Member of the Cabinet distinctly says that there were, and that he understood the statistics shown to him to be new. I want to know, therefore, why it is that they have not been produced, and whether a satisfactory reason can be given by the right hon. Gentleman for not placing them on the table? It is necessary, for the satisfaction of the House, that such an explanation should be given as shall lead the House to a clear understanding of what was the real nature of the case.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: AS my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to speak on another subject at a later period, it is better, perhaps, that I should answer the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The real fact of the matter is this. The figures spoken of were very few indeed. My noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranbourne) analysed them for his own purposes, and divided the totals among the different boroughs. The figures which were given to my noble Friend were derived from papers already on the table of the House; that is to say, the old figures obtained in the different Returns were arranged to show, as has been shown in the newspapers, the number of male occupiers in the various boroughs. However, the papers will be in Members' hands shortly. It is necessary that they should be carefully corrected, and they have to come back from the printer's to be revised; but they will probably be in Members' hands to-morrow. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) have moved for papers, which will also be supplied, and which will really put much more information into the hands of Members than the noble Lord the Member for Stamford had before him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There are two questions which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not on exactly the same subject as the last Question, but in reference to the same chapter of information, and they refer to points which are very material for the convenience of the House. I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Printing of the Reform Bill will be so expedited that it may be in the hands of Members on Tuesday morning? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes, it will.] That is very satisfactory. The other question I have to put is this: It will be recollected that in the blue book of last year there is a statement of the numbers of male occupiers, at different values of occupation, for every borough in the country. Those numbers include the persons who pay their own rates directly and those for whom the landlords pay rates, or who pay them in fact as part of the rent to their landlords. Those Returns draw no distinction between these two classes of persons, so that we have no ground upon
  1814
  which we can show how many of the occupiers are direct ratepayers, and how many are compound householders, or holders under Sturges Bourne's Act, or under the Small Tenements Act, or other Acts bearing upon the point. The question I want to put is one of great interest, and it is, whether the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to lay before the House any information affecting the division of those two classes into direct ratepayers or compound householders for each of the boroughs in the country? I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer this when he rises presently. Another point which I wish to mention is in reference to the procedure of this evening. Nothing would be more contrary to my own inclination, or to the inclination of my Friends around me, than to endeavour to interpose or intercept the progress of business; but, with reference to the proposal to enter into the discussion of the Navy Estimates to-night, the state of things is peculiar. The Navy Estimates of the present year are not common Navy Estimates; they involve a considerable increase of charge; and, besides that, they involve a considerable commutation of charge. They not only suspend certain descriptions of work now in progress, according to the plans of the late Government, according to the Estimates of last year, but they bring into view other descriptions of work of a very extensive character, and of very great importance; of such a description as to raise the whole question of supplying the naval stations abroad, and the whole question of the number of men to be voted for the navy. That being one of the material circumstances of the case, we have also this, that in the House of Commons to-night we neither have the Minister who prepared these Estimates (Sir John Pakington) to move them, nor the Minister under whose responsibility they are to be carried into effect (Mr. Corry). I trust that my noble Friend the present Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox) will not suppose that I am impeaching his personal competence to propose the Navy Estimates. I have often heard him speak in this House, and I never heard him when he did not do great credit to himself and great justice to the subject he had charge of; but I speak of his position and responsibility with reference to this subject. It is within my knowledge that many Members on this side of the House wish to

  1815
  bring into full view, by the discussion on the Navy Estimates, which will necessarily be a long one, the various important subjects of which I have indicated the heads. In the form of the present Navy Estimates it is obviously impossible that this discussion can take place in the House unless in the presence of the responsible Minister. We are not situated as we were on the subject of the Army Estimates, where there was a special necessity for obtaining the Vote of Men with a view to the passing of the Mutiny Act. With regard to money, if there is any necessity for passing a Navy Vote on that bead, a Vote can be passed on account to meet any emergency. Notice could be given of such a Vote to-night, and it could be voted tomorrow evening. With regard to the number of men, there will be an opportunity next week, in the interval between the introduction and the second reading of the Reform Bill, to introduce the Navy Estimates, and then the subject can be fully debated. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is for the convenience of the House that we should proceed with the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) this evening. It is not necessary that we should object to the noble Lord making a statement, if the Government think the course of public business will be advanced by that. But it will be impossible for us to arrive at a Vote, as to the number of men, because the question turns upon and involves a number of matters which could not be dealt with except in the presence of the responsible Minister. Would it not, upon the whole, be for the convenience of the House that a day should be appointed, in the middle of next week, for the purpose of dealing with the Navy Estimates? I think I shall be justified in the suggestion I have thrown out by those who have given their minds to the subject and who have the intention of debating it.
  MR. WHITE: I do not share in the interest which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) seems to attach to the production of further statistics on the subject of Keform—in fact, I would much rather that we should have less figures and more frankness. We have reason to complain, not so much of the want of information as of the want of straightforwardness. Much as I love statistics myself, I am afraid we have had a plethora of them upon this subject. I complain, in common with many, of my brother Members around me,
  1816
  of the air of mystery—the un-English air of mystery—which has been indulged in by the Government in reference to this question. It was the remark of a distinguished statesman that a proper secrecy was the only mystery of able men, but that mystery was the only secrecy of weak and cunning ones. I do not say in which category the present Government may be placed; but if mystery be wisdom, they may be called pre-eminently wise. It was said some seventy years ago by the late Mr. Sheridan, that the English people had no faith in the "little Isaac" class of politicians—"roguish, but devilish keen." I trust the Government will not persist in this policy of mystery, and render Mr. Sheridan's remark applicable to them. In saying thus much, let me ask the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Ministerial side of the House to accept the assurance that I believe the party to which I have the honour to belong would be benefited by a twelve months' absence from office; and in that spirit I do not begrudge them the tenure of their pleasant places on the Benches opposite.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not intend, Sir, to trouble the House with any remarks upon the observations of the successor to Sheridan. With regard to the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), I must say I consider it unreasonable. He himself was a Member of a Government which for seven years regulated the destinies of this country, and during those seven years the Navy Estimates were always moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Clarence Paget). We did not hear then that it was unsatisfactory to the House that the First Lord of the Admiralty should not be present, or that the Minister of the Admiralty, who is responsible for the preparation of the Estimates, should not be a Member of this House. If therefore, Sir, the Navy Estimates could be moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty for seven years I cannot understand the grounds of the objections taken upon this occasion, more especially as my noble Friend the present Secretary (Lord Henry Lennox) is so perfectly competent to the task. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether the public business would be retarded or inconvenienced by the adoption of the course which he has suggested. In answer to that I have to say that considering that the First Lord

  1817
  of the Admiralty (if his presence be absolutely necessary to move the Estimates) cannot take his seat until the 25th of this month, I have no hesitation in saying that the course proposed would be most inconvenient to the course of public business, and would, moreover, seriously embarrass certain arrangements which have been made. The right hon. Gentleman talks much of the presence of the Minister of the Admiralty, who is responsible for the preparation of the Estimates. I have already shown to the House that it is not absolutely necessary that the First Lord of the Admiralty should move the Estimates; because for the last seven years this has not been done. But allow me, Sir, to remark that every Minister is responsible for the preparation of these Estimates. What was our proposal with respect to the business this evening? We proposed that the Estimates should be moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty; but when we made that arrangement it was thought that my noble Friend the Secretary would, according to all calculation and expectation, have had by his side my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), the late First Lord of the Admiralty, who would have been prepared also to have spoken upon any subject which the House might think required elucidation. An accident, the non-return of the writ, has prevented this proposal being carried out. I repeat, that when the objection was taken, notice of which, owing to the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was given us, the presence of my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty was certainly counted upon. Nobody, in fact, doubted that he would be present. I must say, therefore, that I do not see in the tone taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) upon this subject, exactly that temper which I should have counted upon, whatever might have been the struggles of party, with reference to the better conduct of the public business. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, that if no objection had been taken on the first night on which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) was prepared to move the Army Estimates, if he had been permitted to go on then, my right hon. Friend the then First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington) would on the Thursday following have moved the Navy Estimates, and we should not have been in the somewhat embarrassing position in which the
  1818
  House is now placed. I am perfectly aware that if hon. Gentlemen, acting from what they consider to be their duty, choose to control the necessary business of this House, it is impossible for us to resist an appeal of that sort, because Motion after Motion can be made. I think it undesirable that the Estimates should be moved unless there is a general concurrence in the House upon the subject. My opinion is, that it will be convenient for the public service that we should proceed as the paper indicates, but I must leave it to the House to decide.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the objection of my right hon. Friend. He did not mean to imply that the Estimates should never be moved by the Secretary of the Admiralty. When the First Lord of the Admiralty does not sit in this House, the Secretary is the recognised organ of the Department. His objection was, that it is unusual and inexpedient for him to move the Estimates when he is not the recognised organ of the Admiralty. When the First Lord has a seat in this House, it is he who should give the necessary explanations of matters of importance which may arise in the course of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to admit the force of that objection, because he says that he had counted upon the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington.) If that right hon. Gentleman had taken his seat, there would have been no objection to proceeding with the Estimates, because he is the Minister who is directly responsible to the House for their preparation, and could no doubt have given every explanation that was required. No one, I am sure, will doubt the competency of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Lennox) to deal with this subject. The House will be happy to hoar his statement if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his making it to-night will advance the public business; but he must not expect that a debate can be taken as if the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War were in their places, or that any vote, except on account, can be agreed to.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, it is so unusual a circumstance for me to find myself the subject of a debate in this House, that perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words with reference to what has been said by the right hon. Gen-

  1819
  tleman opposite. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his usual kindness, has wished to press my statement upon the House to-night. I was willing to make that statement, and should, under any circumstances, have prefixed it with an apology to the House that a person occupying so humble a position as I do should move such important Estimates as these. If the Opposition, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), had, out of regard for the state of public business, been willing to allow me to make my statement, and to follow it up by practical action in the shape of a Vote for the number of men, I was ready to undertake a task the magnitude of which no one who has not attempted to perform it can appreciate, especially when it is undertaken, as I may be allowed to say I have undertaken it, at three day's notice. Under the circumstances, however, I must respectfully decline to make a statement which is not to be followed by any practical action of the Committee. In conclusion, I have only to state that when my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) who will, I hope, be returned to the House in the course of next week—he having been eight years away from the Department over which he now presides, during which time matters have greatly changed—I may, perhaps, from the experience which I have gained in the last eight months, be able to be of some use to him. At all events, I shall be delighted to give to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire and his Friends any assistance that I can to elucidate the items of the Votes.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise for the purpose of explanation. I made no objection to the statement of my noble Friend (Lord Henry Lennox) being made if it were considered necessary or convenient by the Government. But I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered the rather important questions I put to him.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I think the first question was whether the Reform Bill would be in the hands of Members on Tuesday? Certainly, I believe it will. I have no doubt of it. The second question was, as to the distinction between the £10 householders—those
  1820
  who were rated and those who paid by their landlords. My impression is that such a statement can be made out. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), and will give the information if possible.
  MR. OSBORNE: I should be very sorry that it should go forth that this side of the House is unanimously of opinion that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty should not be permitted to proceed with the Navy Estimates, and take a Vote to-night. It appears to me that the public out of doors will not be satisfied unless the Navy Estimates are brought forward. Due notice has been given. My noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox) is the recognised organ of the Government on the subject, and the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) cannot possibly take his place in this House till Monday. [Sir GEORGE GREY: The discussion will all come over again.] But why not give the Government a Vote on Account of the Navy Estimates this evening? "We know that subordinates in this House are generally so sat upon by their superior officers that they have seldom a chance given them of showing their talents. The ability for perspicuity of statement possessed by my noble Friend is recognised by all. I am sorry, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on this occasion displayed such squeezable materials, and I think the House will do well to allow my noble Friend to make his statement, and, if necessary, to take a Vote on Account. We shall then be expediting the public business; at all events, we shall not be putting the country to any inconvenience. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put the noble Lord up, and that we shall go into the Navy Estimates forthwith.
  MR. HORSMAN: I think there is some misunderstanding as to the course intended to be taken by the Government, and as to what is the objection of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone.) It is very reasonable that the noble Lord should be permitted to make his statement and take a Vote on Account. If that is the intention of the Government no objection ought to be raised. But I understood the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire to be that the statement ought not to be followed by taking the Vote for the Wages of the Men, which

  1821
  would involve the whole policy of the Estimates. That, of course, opens a large question, and I think it may fairly be considered by the Government whether in the absence of their recognised organ in this House it ought to be pressed forward to-night.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: If, Sir, I am allowed to make my statement, and carry forward the Estimates as far as I can in the same position and under the same conditions as if the First Lord of the Admiralty was, like the late First Lord, a Member of the House of Peers, I am quite willing to go into the discussion; but I must respectfully decline to make any statement on sufferance.
  MR. STANSFELD: The noble Lord is labouring under some misapprehension. I can assure him that so far as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), and all of us on this Bench are concerned, we are most desirous that he should make his statement. Our difficulty is this. The House is aware that when the Vote for Wages has been passed it is not competent to any Member to discuss questions of general policy. Now, there are a number of us, some upon this Bench, and some sitting behind us, who are anxious to discuss general questions arising out of the policy of naval administration. We do not doubt the ability of the noble Lord to deal with those questions or to reply to us; but we should like to hear the views of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, as some of us may have something to say upon them. Therefore, it is not so much the absence of the present First Lord as that of the right hon. Gentleman who was First Lord when the Estimates were prepared, that leads us to hope that the Government will, at and rate, consent not to take a Vote for Wages to-night, and will give us the fair opportunity of discussing the policy of the Admiralty, of which they ought not to seek to deprive us.
  SIR HENRY EDWARDS: Should the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer be adopted by the House, we may have to wait till the end of the Session before an opportunity offers to discuss these Estimates, in the event of the first Lord of the Admiralty not being returned by his late constituency. The course taken by the Opposition appeared to him to have but one interpretation, and should the noble Lord be prevented making his I statement on that occasion the country would believe that the delay was caused
  1822
  by factious opposition. At the beginning of the Session the House was given to understand by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire that every possible effort would be made by those who sat on the other side of the House to assist the Government in carrying on the public business. But what had occurred since that assurance was given? Every measure brought forward by the Government had been, more or less, objected to. An objection was raised to the late Secretary for War (General Peel) bringing forward the Army Estimates, and now a similar objection was raised to the Navy Estimates being introduced by the noble Lord. After the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) upon this occasion the country would come to the conclusion that nothing was to pass this Session which the right hon. Gentleman and those who thought with him could possibly prevent being carried. He was much pleased to hear some time since the unanimous cheer from below the gangway when it was announced that the Government was to have fair play. He repeated, that if the House was prevented from going into the Navy Estimates that night, it would go forth to the country that those who sat opposite were the real obstructives, while those on the Government side of the House were doing their utmost to forward public business.
  MAJOR JERVISsaid, that there was a great difference between the case of the late Secretary for War introducing the Army Estimates and the present Secretary to the Admiralty moving the Navy Estimates. The House was willing that the right hon. Gentleman should explain the Army Estimates, which had been prepared under his directions, but he took no Vote for Men on that occasion. Taking into consideration the present state of the country and of Europe, he thought it un-advisable that any Vote should be taken in the absence of the present and the late First Lords of the Admiralty which would preclude future discussion upon important questions relating to the administration of the navy. He therefore hoped, if the noble Lord made his statement that night, detailing the general scheme and plan of the Government in reference to the administration of the navy, that no Vote for Wages would be taken.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken had inadvertently fallen into an

  1823
  error when he stated that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon had not been permitted to take a Vote for Men on the evening when he moved the Army Estimates. His right hon. and gallant Friend did take a Vote for the number of Men. He did not see why any questions in connection with the administration of the navy hon. Gentlemen wished to discuss could not be brought on that evening, notwithstanding the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. As his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already observed, for several years questions of the first importance in reference to the navy had been always discussed in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who with the Secretary for War had sat in the other House. It therefore appeared to him that whether the matter was looked at in the light of constitutional practice or of convenience to individual Members, there was nothing to prevent Her Majesty's Government from proceeding with the public business, and of taking a Vote in the ordinary course. He thought that the public convenience would be best consulted by the House permitting the noble Lord to make his statement.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he wished to suggest that the noble Lord should adopt a medium course by making his statement, but not taking a Vote that would preclude subsequent discussion. Could not a Vote on Account be taken?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: I am sorry to be again obliged to trouble the House, or to appear unyielding, but in answer to the question of my hon. Friend I have to point out that the discussion of those questions would not be in the least degree less open if I moved these Estimates than it would be if they were introduced by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry). I must most emphatically say that I can only consent to move the Estimates to-night on the same conditions as if my Chief was in the other House of Parliament.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon had prepared the Army Estimates which he had introduced, and therefore he was perfectly competent to give any detailed explanations which the House might require. But the First Lord of the Admiralty was not present to answer questions which hon. Gentlemen might wish to put to him on the subject
  1824
  of the naval administration. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord would not take any step which would prevent future discussion upon the subject.
  MR. HENRY BAILLIEsaid, he hoped that the Government would not bind themselves to follow the course of action dictated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The course for Government to pursue was to bring forward their Estimates and to move a Vote for the number of Men. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought proper to oppose the Vote for the number of Men they could do so.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
LORD HENRY LENNOX: Mr. Dodson—I hardly know exactly the position in which I stand, I thought that the Order for going into Committee of Supply was discharged, and that, consequently, the House would proceed with the consideration of other business; but I now see that Mr. Speaker has left the Chair, and I am told that for the sake of the public convenience I am bound to make a statement and move the Navy Estimates for the year. In making that statement I must, in a special manner, claim the indulgence and the clemency of this Committee, who I do not doubt will take into consideration the very short time I have had since I received notice from Her Majesty's Government that, in consequence of the state of public business, it was desirable that I should undertake this most onerous task. Before I plunge, so to speak, into the various Votes which form the Estimates for the year, I will give the Committee a short epitome of the sums required for the Naval Service last year, comparing them with those which we ask the Committee to grant for the present year, and will allude to the salient points in which the present Estimates differ from those of last year. In the year 1866–7 my gallant Predecessor and Relative, Lord Clarence Paget, asked the Committee to vote the sum of £10,434,735, and at a later period of the Session Four Supplementary Votes were added, amounting, in round numbers, to £46,500. One of these was an additional charge for an improved system of retirement for officers of the Royal Navy.

1825
Another was for the first three months' increased pay of the medical officers of the navy. The remaining sums were for the first instalment for building of a turret ship by Captain Cowper Coles, and the sum expended for completion of Her Majesty's ship Northumberland. Now, the sum which I shall ask the Committee to vote for 1867–8 is £10,926,253, being an excess of £545,000 over the original Estimate of last year, and of £491,518 over the whole sum voted in 1866–7, including the Supplementary Estimates for the Navy. The Committee must not for a moment imagine that the whole of that sum is required for the Effective Service of the Navy. The impression which has prevailed of late years, that the whole amount which is annually to be found in the Estimates is required for the service of the Navy, is an entirely erroneous one. For the Effective Service of the Navy there is this year required a sum of £9,067,758, that being an increase of £480,260 over the Effective Services of last year. For the Noneffective Services there is required a sum of nearly £2,000,000, and that includes many items over which the Board of Admiralty can exercise no control. There is, for instance, an item for the increase of half-pay and pensions, which, depending as it does upon casualties of life and health, are beyond our control. Then there is the Transport Department, the control of which rests with the War Office, for they alone decide what troops shall be sent out, and where and when they shall be sent, nothing being left to the Admiralty but to carry out those orders. From this cause, as may be imagined, the head of the Transport Department finds it very difficult to give any accurate Estimate at the commencement of the year of what sum will be required, the demand for transports being liable to change, from various causes, and to special and unforeseen demands arising from time to time. Another item of an exceptional nature is the sum of £50,000, being the first moiety of £100,000 towards the building of a two-turreted ship for the colony of Victoria. This, I need hardly say, was a question of colonial policy, and was granted because it was thought advisable to encourage that colony in spirit of self-reliance in its own defences for the future by assisting in providing it with such a vessel. Another £50,000 will accordingly appear among the Miscellaneous Estimates next year. I will now proceed
1826
to draw the attention of the Committee to the salient points of difference between the present and last year's Estimates. The principal increase in these Estimates is the excess of £528,000 over last year in Vote 10 section 2; but against this increase must be put a reduction of £175,000 in the Storekeeper General's Department. Before going into detail on these matters, I may remark generally that almost every Vote shows an increase, great or small, and I must ask the Committee to remember how difficult it is to prevent such an increase. When the national wealth is every day increasing, when every class of the community is raising itself in the social scale, and when costly inventions, both in shipbuilding and gunnery, are continually being made, it is almost impossible to keep the amount of expenditure within the limit of former Estimates. I can only assure the Committee that the most careful attention has been given to the subject by the Board of Admiralty, under the presidency of my right hon. Friend the present Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington), and no sensible increase in any Vote has been admitted without the closest examination and the most careful scrutiny. It will no doubt be interesting to the Committee to know the exact number of ships which the country had in commission at the time the Estimates were framed, and I have before me a list showing that that number was 154. The first Vote which I shall have to bring before the House, and which I am surprised to hear is likely to give rise to much controversy, states that the number of seamen, boys, and coastguardmen, required for the service of the year, is 51,683, and this shows a reduction of 285 officers and men over the number taken in 1866–7. The reduction among the commissioned officers is 134, and is the result of an arrangement made some sixteen months ago by the late Board of Admiralty with regard to the engineers. There is also a small diminution in the number of subordinate officers. The reduction in the number of commissioned officers is, as I have said, due to an arrangement arrived at sixteen months I ago by the Board of Admiralty for stopping I the entry of engineers, and was come to in consequence of the great number of those I officers in that service. The reduction in the number of subordinate officers is owing to a Minute suggested by one of the most distinguished Members—indeed, I may

1827
say, the most distinguished Member—of the present Board, Sir Alexander Milne, for the purpose of restricting the entries of naval cadets in the course of the present year. On coming into office that gallant Admiral found that the average entries of naval cadets had been of late 172 a year, and allowing twenty-six of these to leave, or at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, there would remain 166 in service; whereas the average number of lieutenants promoted was sixty, and the number of sublieutenants now in the service is 284, that is a four years' supply. In six years, at this rate, the number would have gone on increasing from the want of means of promotion, and at the end of that period there would have been found 430 of these young gentlemen on the list. Under these circumstances, my gallant Friend induced the Board to restrict for a time the entries, and that accounts for a slight reduction in the number of the subordinate officers. There is also a decrease of 145 among the petty officers and seamen; but, as those who have studied the question are aware, the relative proportion in the number of petty officers and seamen depends very much on the class of ships that are in commission. The number of seamen we ask for is 37,015, while last year it was 37,300, and the cost will be £1,990,862, the cost last year being £1,979,048; but adding the Supplementary Vote of £3,655, taken during last Session, for the first three months' increased pay to medical officers, the 37,300 men will actually cost the country £1,982,693, or £8,169 less than the 37,015 men will cost this year. I shall, of course, be asked how it is that a reduced number of men will cost an increased amount of money, and to that I have only one answer to make. The increase is due in a great measure to the generosity of the House, for last year there was a Supplementary Vote sanctioned for advantage of the medical officers, and another for an improved scheme of retirement for officers of the Royal Navy. Moreover, there are accidental circumstances which account for this increase, for there are more officers on higher rates of pay than there were last year, and there is a small increase in number of warrant officers. As the Committee is aware, the number of seamen is very liable to decrease, and the Board have therefore decided to add 418 to the number of boys, that being, as I think will be universally admitted, a very legitimate way of meeting the wants of the
1828
navy. The number of boys will thus be 7,418, and they will be thus distributed—4,318 will be employed in the fleet, 68 will be placed in troop ships, and 3,100 in training ships; and owing to the large amount of accommodation in our training ships stationed in the various ports, no additional vessels of the kind will be required to be fitted up for their reception. With regard to the Vote for the Men, it was the practice of my gallant and most successful predecessor (Lord Clarence Paget), when stating the number required, to make a statement respecting the moral and physical welfare of the seamen and the general popularity of the service. I will follow his example. It is with great pleasure I am able to make a satisfactory announcement under both these heads. The waste of seamen at the present time is under 10 per cent, which is less than it has been for some time past, and the number of continuous service men has largely increased. I hold in my hand a Return of the number of continuous service men in the fleet and coastguard at the present time. On the 31st of March, 1866, the number was 31,336; while on the 1st of January, 1867, it was 31,612, being an increase of nearly 300. That is a large increase in the time and very satisfactory, as showing the increased popularity of the service. The numbers of desertions, of crimes, and of punishments is always regarded as a fair test of the state of the navy. From official Returns it appears the average number of men borne in 1864 was 48,507, and in 1865, 47,474; and of these in 1864, 298, and in 1865, 289 only were flogged, and in the former year the desertions amounted to 1,583, as compared with 1,328 in the year following. I will read a table giving the proportion of deserters in the last few years. In 1862 it was 4½ per cent; in 1863, 3¾ per cent; in 1864, 3 per cent; in 1865, 2¾ per cent; in 1866, 2½ per cent; and in 1867 only 2¼ per cent. These may be minute details; but they show the Committee the satisfactory state in which the personnel of our navy now is. There is another point upon which Lord Clarence Paget always laid great stress, and which now presents an equally satisfactory aspect, and that is the increase in the good-conduct pay of the navy. I will not trouble the Committee with the figures; but the increase of the good-conduct pay this year has been very considerable. Another point is also satisfactory—the continued increase shown in

1829
the number of trained gunners. In 1861 the number was 2,268; in 1866 it was 5,786—showing an increase of 3,518 trained gunners. But it is not only the moral welfare of the navy to which it is my duty to call the attention of the Committee; its sanitary state has always occupied the attention of Parliament, and the health of the navy, according to Reports of year 1865–6, is most satisfactory. The rate of sickness per 1,000 was 31·4, being the lowest rate that has occurred within the last ten years, while the average ratio of those last ten years has been 35·1 per 1,000 men. The death-rate has also been the lowest for many years past—namely, 10·5 per 1,000; whereas the average for the previous ten years has been 15·5 per 1,000. Excluding deaths from injuries, it was last year only 8 per 1,000, which is l·l lower than the average rate of mortality among the healthiest class of our operatives. I must now touch upon a subject of a painful character; but it is one of paramount importance, inasmuch as it concerns not only the efficiency of our army and navy, but also affects the strength and vigour of the human race. We have provided a wing in the hospital at Plymouth for the reception of a certain class of patients, under authority of the Contagious Diseases Act, and have also provided accommodation for patients at certain garrison towns. Three of these are under the care of the Admiralty, and the others are under the control of the War Office. My right hon. Friend (General Peel), in moving the Estimates for the War Department the other night, told the Committee the steps which he had taken, and was about to take, in this direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), whose exertions in this cause are well known, and who is at the head of one of the best institutions of this kind in the metropolis, will confirm what I have to say respecting the favourable effects which have resulted from the legislation to which I allude. The Contagious Diseases Bill was originally introduced under the sanction of Lord Clarence Paget. Its operations were strengthened and its provisions extended last year, and now, under the Vote this year for the Prevention of Contagious Diseases, we ask for a sum of £1,500 in excess of that of last year. It is at Portsmouth that the least success has, up to this time, attended our efforts; but from this very circumstance we may draw a by no means unfavourable
1830
augury for the future. As yet there has been a great want of accommodation in that port, and owing to this and other causes little has been done, but better accommodation has now been provided; and in answer to inquiries as to whether at Haslar there had been any perceptible difference in the number of patients and the severity of the disease, I was informed that there had been already an amelioration in the character, and a diminution in the number of cases. From Sheerness, the report of the medical officer is that the disease is almost destroyed. In Plymouth, a wing set apart for these cases has been added to the Albert Hospital, towards which the Admiralty have subscribed a sum of money. There is already accommodation in this hospital for sixty of these unfortunate women, and there will be room for sixty more next June. Admiral Martin, the Commander-in-Chief on that station, writes from Plymouth, that the operation of the Contagious Diseases Prevention Act has been most encouraging. The disease is sensibly diminishing, and is greatly modified in its character. These cases used to amount to 7.¾ per cent of the patients at the Royal Naval Hospital; but by the last Returns there are now not more than 2½ per cent. Last year the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), when this Vote was before the Committee, drew a comparison between the system in force in France and that in this country, stating that in the former country the authorities endeavoured not only to cure the body of these outcasts, but also to try and save their soul. The hon. Member expressed his conviction that the House of Commons ought not to sanction any Vote of this kind unless some provision for the moral and spiritual improvement of these unfortunate women was made. It is my pleasing duty to state that the Admiralty have taken the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into consideration, and have sanctioned a gift of £100 to the Samaritan Fund at Portsmouth and also at Plymouth, and £50 at Sheerness. The chaplains will also attend at the hospitals three days a week. When progressing to convalescence the poor outcasts are taught household work, such as washing and ironing, at the hospital at Plymouth, and the pleasing fact remains as a testimony to the worth of the promoters, that a large portion of them have been reclaimed and restored to their parents or to society. I be-

1831
lieve that there is no sum of money in these Estimates that will be so well he-stowed as the £1,500 excess in this Vote. In Vote 2 there is a slight increase, but it depends upon the augmented price of provisions in the market, and is not therefore an excess over which the Admiralty have any control. The next Vote is for the Admiralty Office, and shows an increase of £2,363, and before I go further, I will express my astonishment that the Admiralty have not been compelled to ask for a much larger increase under this head. The accumulation of work at the Admiralty has, indeed, been so great and so rapid that nothing but the energy of the clerks, directed by the unwearied assiduity of the heads of departments, enables them to get through the work they have to do. In order to give the Committee some idea of the increase in the Admiralty correspondence, I will mention that in 1831 the number of letters dispatched was 30,000; in 1866, it was 75,000. In the Controller's Department alone, from 1860 to 1866, the number of letters has increased from 32,823 to 69,139. This will give the Committee some idea of the immense Increase of correspondence, in comparison with which there has only been a small increase of salaries and of clerks. Vote 5 for scientific purposes includes an increased sum for the school of Naval Architecture; and I have to state that this school is in a flourishing condition. It was actually started by Lord Clarence Paget. But the scheme was, I believe, originally sketched out by the Institute of Naval Architects, and Lord Clarence Paget, with his usual good sense, took up the idea, and set the scheme in motion. The School of Naval Architecture is now going on most favourably, and the small increase in the Vote, for which I have to ask, is in order to enable us to increase the number of students from twenty-four to the full number of thirty. I am anxious not to detain the Committee for a moment longer than is necessary; but I now come to a Vote upon which I wish, as far as I am able, to convey the exact sentiments of my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), who but for an unforeseen occurrence would have been in his place to-night. I refer to Vote 6, for the Wages of the Artisans employed in the Dockyards and Naval yards at home and abroad. After the recent debates in this House on dockyard expenditure, the very mention of this Vote seems to threaten a
1832
long discussion. But this question was so thoroughly ventilated when it was recently brought forward by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), that I hope it will be agreed that on that part of it which refers to whether the public money is properly expended, whether the artificers work sufficiently long, and whether the articles are produced cheap enough, I think it is not necessary for me to weary the House by entering into details on the present occasion. On this Vote, No. 6, there is a decrease. I am happy to think that at last I come to a decrease—however small—of £1,603. But while there is a general decrease on the Vote, there is a small increase in the amount required for rates, taxes, and police expenses. We have this year a decrease of 297 men in the number employed in the home dockyards and factories. The number in 1866–7 was 18,618, the expense being £1,065,194. In 1867–8 the number will be 18,321, and the cost £1,064,635. Unfortunately, that decrease in the number of men, following, as I venture to think, a law of nature in regard to these things, costs almost as much as the larger number of last year—the saving effected by it only amounting to £559. The next point connected with this Vote which calls for remark is the fact that although the number of men employed in home dockyards and factories is reduced, the number of those borne upon the establishments is slightly increased. Previous to 1850, it was the practice greatly to exceed the number allowed on the establishment; and, in 1864, the Board of Admiralty fixed the number of established artificers throughout the dockyards at 9,610, of which 8,714 were artificers; and at that time there were also first-class labourers who were entitled to pension. These men receive 2s. 2d. a day, and as they die out they are not filled up; but their places on the establishment are taken by artificers who are paid 4s. 6d. per day as wages. This is one cause of increase of cost; but it is only carrying out the policy laid down by the late Board of Admiralty in 1864, when they stated what in their opinion was the lowest point to which the established artificers ought to be reduced. The artificers who are thus placed on the establishment are taken from the apprentices in our dockyards or from the best of the workmen who have served there in the capacity of hired men. When any future Board of Admiralty takes into

1833
consideration the question whether or not it is advisable to keep the number of established artificers where it is now, one point that will have to be taken into account is, that this prospect of being absorbed into the establishment has been held out to these men as a boon which they are to look forward to the prospect of which has induced them to accept the wages given in the dockyard instead of higher wages offered by private firms. And here I may mention that during our official tour of the various dockyards last autumn, the Board of Admiralty was besieged—or, at least, had interviews—with deputations from every one of the trades employed in those yards. This, I believe, was the case with hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. All of those deputations urged upon us that as house rent and the cost of food, clothing, and all other necessaries had largely increased, their rates of remuneration ought to be raised. Nothing, I think, could be more distressing than to be unable to accede to their requests, for the appearance, the language, and the respectful manner of these men did much to enlist for their claims the favourable sympathy and attention of the Board of Admiralty. Since then, however, great depression has occurred in all branches of the shipbuilding trade, and the consequence of that is that the principles of political economy forbade our increasing the wages of these men when we could get plenty of competent workmen for the same, or even a less amount. But there is one class of men whose pay we have thought it right to raise. I mean the day labourers, and their position was a truly lamentable one. Their pay was so small that any man with a wife and family to support could scarcely subsist upon it; and the Board of Admiralty have, therefore, decided to raise their pay 1d. and 2d. a day, and also to allow the hired labourers the same advantage, thus placing them on an equality as to pay with the established labourers, a boon of which, by some strange oversight, they have up to this been debarred. I trust that no one in this Committee will grudge this increase, which amounts to about £7,700. The smallness of this concession, and the comparative largeness of the expense which it involves, may give the Committee some faint idea how very costly any change must be which raises the salaries of our dockyard employés. There is another class to whose case our attention
1834
was called, and whose claim was found to be perfectly unanswerable; and I believe that the sum of money required for extending to them the boon to which we think them entitled is so inconsiderable, that the Committee will not refuse to grant it. I refer to the masters of bonâ fide in sea-going hoys, which are engaged in conveying valuable stores between the different dockyards and victualling yards. These persons are responsible for the safety of most valuable stores when conveying them from port to port. Hitherto, there has been no classification among these officers, and men who have held this position for only a year or two receive just the same as those who have served in this capacity for a very long period. We propose to divide them into three classes, of which the pay shall be in the following scale:—Those who have served twelve years shall be increased to 7s. a day, and that of those who have served over six and under twelve years, 6s.; and those whose service is under six years will receive 5s. per diem—a boon which will be much appreciated by the recipients, and which, considering the responsibility resting on them, is not more than they ought to have. The next point to which I wish respectfully to draw the attention of the Committee is the very large sum which the country now pays for the service of these yard craft. In 1866–7 the amount of this charge was £110,422, and for 1867–8 it is estimated at £107,958, the cost for those two years combined being £224,380. This head of expenditure has been going on in the same ratio for years and years past, notwithstanding that in some instances railways have been brought down almost to the very doors of the victualling yards', affording, as it would seem, greater facilities for the transport of stores of a perishable nature in sending them by rail instead of by sea from port to port. With a view to clear up this matter I caused a Return to be prepared as to this branch of expenditure. It was, like all other Returns sent to the Admiralty, admirably compiled, and was given with the greatest precision; but it was so voluminous and minute in its details that it entirely confused me, and rendered me utterly unable to come to any more decided conclusion than that there was ample room for further inquiry. I therefore brought the question before the Board of Admiralty, and my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for

1835
War (Sir John Pakington), seeing the difficulty of sifting these things at a distance and getting at the truth about them in Whitehall, has decided to nominate a committee, composed of two gallant officers, Sir Sidney Dacres and Admiral Symonds, with two civilians, who will visit the dockyards and judge for themselves by careful inspection whether arrangements might not be made for effecting a diminution of expense, with, at the same time, increased advantage to the public service. Another matter is the unsatisfactory way in which the work in the shipbuilding yard is carried out under the system of day pay. Complaints have been made that we do not get a fair day's work for a fair day's wages. My right hon. Friend the present Minister for War and myself were much struck with some matters that were brought under our notice, and during our official tour, and also subsequently, we have had conversations with the various superintendents of the yards to see whether any other system that would be more economical and better for the interests of the country might not be adopted. Of course,' the quicker a ship is built the more economical it is. At Chatham and at Pembroke we found that there prevailed, in respect to the building of iron ships, a practice of day pay with piecework up to a certain point, allowing the men to earn 25 per cent more than their daily pay. This system has been, in different degrees, tried on the two vessels last built—namely, Bellerophon and Hercules. Both of them are iron-clads; and they were ordered by the Duke of Somerset. I hold in my hand a statement prepared by Captain Houston Stuart, the most intelligent and energetic superintendent of Chatham yard, showing the work that was performed on the Bellerophon and the Hercules, and illustrating the advantages of piecework as compared with daywork. By this Return it appears that the number of tons of material worked into the Bellerophon during the first 52 weeks of her progress was 1,716, while during the same number of weeks the amount worked into the Hercules by piecework was 2,767; the cost of labour in the case of the Bellerophon being £24,196, in that of the Hercules £30,899, the amount, of course, being larger in the latter case, because the men were allowed to earn more than their daily pay. The cost per ton for labour, however, which for the Bellerophon was £14 2s., was for the Hercules only
1836
£11 3s. 6d. It further appeared that the average number of tons of material per week prepared and worked into the ships, extending over 52 weeks, was in the case of the Bellerophon 33, in that of the Hercules 53 tons. The average number of tons per week worked into them from their commencement in the dock being in the case of the former 49, in that of the latter, by the extended system of piecework, 86; while the total number of days expended for all trades was on the Bellerophon 119,520, on the Hercules 137,250; the average number of days per ton being 69½ for the Bellerophon, 49⅔ for the Hercules My right hon. Friend the Secretary for War was very much struck by this statement, as I think the Committee will be, and there is every hope that the system will be introduced into our wooden shipbuilding, although whether it will ever be carried out with respect to that most unsatisfactory part of dockyard work, the repairs and re-fitting of vessels, I am much less sanguine. I now come to another point to which I wish to invite particular attention. When the present Board of Admiralty came into office they were very much surprised, on looking over the Returns of the expenditure in our dockyards, to see the large amount of wages of artificers and shipwrights which was annually set aside for the repairs of old as compared with the building of new ships. They consequently examined into the subject very closely, and the result is that we are enabled in these Estimates to effect an entire change in these relative proportions. All through the autumn submissions were sent in to us asking our assent to these costly repairs, in some of which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) would have delighted to revel. At length the Board of Admiralty decided that a line must be drawn, and that vessels which were no longer fit to fight or to run away should not be repaired at anything but a very small cost, and for temporary service. I have therefore the gratification of being in a position, to state that, whereas last year £240,000 were taken for the wages of artificers for building ships, and £290,000 for repairs—that is to say, £50,000 more for repairing than building—we ask this year £344,000 for building and £284,000 for repairs—in other words, an excess of £60,000 for building over repairs, instead of £50,000 excess for repairs over building. I only hope that this commencement in a direc-

1837
tion which I think is right will find favour with the Committee; and that if, owing to any accident to which Governments are always liable, the present Board of Admiralty should not long retain office, our policy in this respect will not be reversed by our successors. Next comes the question, as to what class of ships we should build. In dealing with this point, I must be permitted to allude to an answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington) at the close of last Session, which has been somewhat misunderstood. He, on the occasion to which I refer, stated that such was the condition of our reserve of small ships that there was the greatest difficulty in supplying the necessary number of reliefs to our squadrons on foreign stations. That statement at the time it was made was much commented upon in some of the newspapers, as conveying an animadversion on the administration of the late Board of Admiralty; but nothing could have been further from his intention. What my right hon. Friend said was merely a repetition of that which was embodied in a document signed by a distinguished officer who occupied the position of the First Naval Lord in the late Administration. Now, in proof of the correctness of this statement, I may mention that, if any accident were to occur to any of our vessels on foreign stations, we have at the present time only seven vessels ready to be sent out to supply their places. Two of these, the Mersey and the Phœbe, are large frigates and not suitable for that service, two of the others are sloops, Chanticleer, and Cameleon, and other three are gunboats, and these are all the vessels that the Admiralty have in the shape of a reserve if any disaster were to occur. There is, as hon. Gentlemen know, a constant demand for reliefs. I may here add that if there be any station in the world in which it is desirable that ships should not be allowed to remain for a long time without relief it is the African coast, because of the necessity which there is for change in order to preserve the health of the men. From that station the Commodore writes entreating us to send out two more vessels, inasmuch as he cannot otherwise dispense with the services of ships which, for sanatory reasons, it would be well to remove to St. Helena or Ascension. From the Pacific Squadron comes the same cry, and nothing can be done to comply with these requests until ships
1838
of a suitable size are provided, some of which I trust will some be in readiness. While upon this subject I may, perhaps, though only a subordinate Member of the Government, be allowed to say that it is in my opinion a grave question whether the time has not come for the House of Commons and the country to consider what is the absolute necessity or advisability of keeping up large squadrons in all parts of the world of small unarmoured ships, which, when a more formidable ship than they approaches them must, what is vulgarly termed, "cut and run." At the present day, especially when, very properly, the principle of nonintervention is in the ascendant, no captain of one of these vessels would take upon himself, in the event of any dispute arising between British subjects and the Government of a country in whoso waters his ship happened to be lying, to demand or exact immediate reparation. He could, in fact, do nothing until he received instructions how to act from Her Majesty's Government at home. Under these circumstances, I, for one, should feel the greatest satisfaction if the moment should arrive when Her Majesty's present Advisers or any other Government should deem it to be consistent with the interests of humanity and of the public service to modify or remove altogether the African coast squadron. By that means numbers of our seamen and officers would be saved from being-devoured by the frightful pestilence which is so destructive on those shores. There are many distinguished officers, who, having studied this subject carefully, and knowing well the position of the slave trade, aver that by keeping up a small force composed, say, of two or three large and swift ships at Gibraltar, ready to pounce down at any moment unexpectedly on the agents of the slave traffic, that odious trade which has greatly diminished might be kept in check. These are questions of national policy which the Admiralty have no power to decide. All that we have to do is, so long as it is the policy of the country to maintain the present large squadrons, to provide a sufficient number of vessels efficiently to relieve them when occasion requires. That being so, our attention has been directed to what class of ships it is most desirable we should construct in our dockyards; and I am happy to say that we deem it, on the whole, the wisest thing to carry out in some measure the

1839
policy of the late Board of Admiralty, and to lay down a certain number of vessels of the Amazon class. The Amazon was a most unfortunate vessel; but, though she came to an untimely end partly through the neglect of a young officer, the Admiralty think that that is no reason why this useful class of vessels should be discontinued. They are most useful vessels, have great speed, and have superseded the Roebuck class of despatch boats, which never exceeded 11 knots per hour. The Amazon class have realized 12⅛ and 12¼ knots, and they will carry instead of two 68-poundcrs some light guns, two 6½-ton rifle guns, and two 64-pounder rifle guns. Pour of these are being laid down by us in the various dockyards, and being somewhat altered from the Amazon, are known as the Blanche class. The next vessel which we have ordered to be taken in hand is destined to replace a class of vessels which are very dear to the heart of our admirals, the old paddle-wheel steamers; of this class two are in course of building. They are of 1,460 tons, have admirable accommodation for a small number of troops and supernumaries and for stores. If this class of vessel succeeds, there is no intention of building any more paddle-wheel steamers, as those being screws will be more economical. They will be known as Jano class. Many of the paddle steamers have been running for forty years, and have cost rather more than double their original value in repairs. It has also been thought expedient to lay down some gun vessels, known as the Plover class. Their burden is 678 tons, they carry throe guns—one 6½ton rifle gun, and two 40-pounder rifle guns—are built of wood, and have twin screws, which enable them to turn with great facility. They have also a very slight draught of water, and are consequently fitted for going up creeks and rivers which larger vessels could not enter. They are expected to run as near as possible 11 knots per hour, or at least two knots in excess of the class they are intended to supersede. The Board of Admiralty propose to build ton of these vessels in our dockyards. The next is a useful class of vessels suited well for a peculiar service—namely, the suppression of piracy in China. Our present squadron in the China seas consists of thirty-six vessels, and of these twenty are gunboats built at the time of the Crimean war. They were hurriedly built of green wood, and are now
1840
rotting away, and it is therefore necessary to push forward as speedily as possible a class of vessels to take their place. Let me not be misunderstood; these vessels will be suitable for other service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for War (Sir John Pakington) would never consent to build any class of ships which could be available for one particular service alone, as being vicious and uneconomical policy; and my right hon. Friend would not have sanctioned this outlay for relieving the squadron on the China station, unless the ships to be constructed were serviceable for the wants of the navy in other quarters. With this view we proposed to build ten gunboats of 460 tons; they are of a composite class, with iron frames and wooden planking. They will be of a light draught, and will require 120-horse power. There were in some of the Crimean gunboats, which have been broken up at Portsmouth, engines of 60-horse power, which, by taking two of them, will be of the required power, and rendered available for these vessels. All that it will be necessary to provide will be the boilers. A gentleman wrote the other day to The Times, pointing out what he designated as the extravagance of the Board of Admiralty, and stating that the Admiralty did not seem to know that various pairs of engines were rotting away at Portsmouth. So far from the Admiralty not knowing that these engines were at Haslar, they have for months past destined a use for them, and if the writer of that letter lives another year he will see some of those engines fitted, at a great saving of expense to the country, in some of these twin-screw composite gunboats. Besides these, there are in the course of completion this year, at Haslar, two other gunboats, the Orwell and Bruiser, which were ordered by the late Board. During the official inspection we observed at Pembroke and Chatham two small class wooden vessels far advanced, specimens of a class which had been tried and found wanting in the anticipated speed. They had, therefore, been left on the stocks, where they had remained for six years. One of these vessels was at Chatham—a gunboat of 425 tons and 80-horso power—the Newport, and there being a great want of surveying vessels, and this vessel being admirably adapted for the purpose, the Admiralty ordered its completion, and it is now being brought forward, and will be finished within the year.

1841
The amount of money which has already been spent on the Newport is £5,618, and the total estimate to finish it is £13,630. The other vessel, the Myrmidon, at Pembroke, is larger, being 695 tons in burden, and of 200-horse power. The money spent on her up to the present time has been £14,682, and the estimate to finish her is £27,682. There is a larger work on which my right hon. Friend has entered, and which, I dare say, will raise some discussion. At three of Her Majesty's Dockyards persons are confronted on entering with what may be termed the skeletons of magnificent men-of-war. These three, Robust, Bulwark, and Repulse, were laid down as line-of-battle ships; but when the change came over the spirit of modern warfare, the shipwrights were taken off their work, and the vessels remained incomplete on the stocks. One of them, the Repulse, has up to the present time cost £61,711, and if she were broken up she would represent a loss to the country of £27,500. The Board of Admiralty has, however, decided to finish her as an armour-plated ship. She will be an improved Zealous class, and when completed she will take her place among our men-of-war with every chance of success—in fact, Admiral Yelverton, in his Report of the Channel Squadron, declares his conviction that these wooden conversions form a most useful class, and expresses his hope that the Government will provide the service with more such vessels. I do not know whether I have trespassed on the attention of the House too long; but as the Admiralty has now been persistently attacked on all sides, I wish, if a good case for it can be made out, that it should be done by me; and, as a proof that these much abused dockyards are capable of carrying out great works, let me read to the Committee the following programme:—The estimated cost of ships to be built (including completion for sea) in the Royal Dockyards during the financial year 1867–8, is as follows:—Iron-clad ships, tonnage 3,136, cost £216,346; iron-clad turret ship, Monarch, tonnage, 2,072, £124,320; iron frigate, Inconstant, tonnage, 1,801, £72,040; converted ironclad frigate, Repulse, tonnage, 1,393, £83,580; wood corvettes, Juno and Thalia, tonnage, 1,139, £39,865; sloops, Blanche, &c, tonnage, 4,001, £142,936; gun vessel, Myrmidon, tonnage, 130, £4,290; twin-screw gun vessels, Plover, &c, ton-
1842
nage 4,248, £140,184; twin-screw gunboat, Cracker, tonnage, 4,345, £139,040; surveying vessel, Newport, tonnage, 212, £6,996; gunboats, Bruiser and Cromer, tonnage, 201, £6,030; tug steamer, Carron, tonnage, 167, £1,775; yard craft, Woolwich, tonnage, 100, £1,715. Total tonnage, 22,945; total cost, £979,117. I must say I think that if the result bears out that Estimate, which I know has been most carefully prepared, the most ardent critic of the Admiralty will not be able to say that the dockyards have not turned out some good work for the Queen's service and for the Nation's money. In Vote No. 7, for the Victualling Yard, there appears an increase of £771, owing to some new machinery, which I will explain when we come to the Vote. I next come to Vote 10, section 1, which is most important, and with reference to which I must notice the great energy and absence of prejudice displayed by my hon. and gallant Colleague (Sir John Hay), under whose supervision the stores of the navy are placed. There appears a small increase of £17,000, of which £8,000 is for capstans for the new ships, and £8,000 for oil, an increase occasioned by the increased size of the engines in our large ships. There appears a reduction of £100,000 for coals, owing to the Indian Government taking on themselves the expense of what fuel is required for the Indian transports, of which there are five, altough the ultimate saving on the year will not exceed one-fourth of that sum. [Mr. STANSFELD: There is a decrease in coal besides that.] You are quite right, but I had better not go into these minute details. The great reduction in the Storekeeper General's Vote is in the stock of timber. The establishment supply of timber is 60,000 loads, but that was fixed not in these days, when wooden shipbuilding is confined to small vessels, but in the high and palmy days of "the wooden walls." We therefore felt that now, when iron ships have almost entirely superseded wooden ones, an establishment supply of 60,000 loads was more than sufficient. The consequent reduction in the Storekeeper's Vote is £149,990. I now come to Vote 10, section 2, and. this shows an increase of £572,000 for iron shipbuilding by contract. On this, the Controller of the Navy's Vote, I should like to be allowed to say a word or two. But for this excess of £572,000, the Estimates would have presented almost perfect identity of amount with those of last

1843
year. Therefore, I would wish particularly to draw the attention of the Committee to it. Of this increase it will be found that £83,850 is for the progress of the cupola ship, Captain, now building by Messrs. Laird, Brothers, of Birkenhead, and designed by my gallant friend Captain Coles, who has been allowed to chose his own tonnage, his own specification, and his own builder, in order to give the country a fair trial of his system, on the results of which we may be able with safety to rely. I must say here, in my place in Parliament, that there never was any body of men called to discuss questions of this kind who have brought to their discussion a more favourable feeling as regards the turret system, than did the Board of Admiralty over which my right hon. Friend the late First Lord (Sir John Pakington) presided. Of course, the Secretary to the Admiralty has no power of himself in such matters; but I may assert that from the First Lord down to the Secretary, they were one and all, from the first day of their deliberations, willing and anxious to give, I will not say a partial, but certainly a most favourable consideration to the plans of my gallant friend, and in every way in their power to assist. Unfortunately, various circumstances occurred with reference to the specifications which caused some delay in the laying down of the Captain; but that was owing to no want of attention on the part of the Admiralty, who did their utmost, by agreeing to every wish expressed by Captain Coles, to facilitate the progress of this great undertaking. The next item is a sum of £344,000 for the building of iron-plated ships. This Vote will be spread over two or three years, as occasion may require. But it may be asked where is the necessity of building more iron-plated ships? I have always listened with great pain when numerical comparisons have been drawn between our own force and that of neighbouring Powers with whom we are on terms of friendly alliance. Such comparisons are always liable to arouse a feeling of mistrust and apprehension, while they give to this country a most fallacious idea of its own power. In corroboration of this view I will refer to the fact that two eminent statesmen, now unhappily no longer with us—Lord Lyndhurst and Mr. Cobden—the one in the House of the Lords and the other in that Assembly which will never cease to deplore his loss—spoke, within a very few weeks, the one in favour
1844
of an alarmist policy, the other in support of the maintenance of peace and good-fellowship; on every point did they differ, save this, that they both maintained the great inadvisability of making invidious comparisons of force, as tending to produce irritation on the one hand and misconception in the public mind on the other. But it is interesting to know what force such a nation as the French, who can in no way be considered wholly or even mainly a Naval Power, think it right and safe to keep up without in any way menacing the peace of Europe. The French Government have a fleet of forty-three ironclad ships. Of these they have sixteen first-class; but five of these went to sea, encountered a storm, and, according to the account given in a Foreign journal, came back like crippled ducks into the harbour whence they had issued. Four have been taken from the list of sea-going cruizers, and been adapted for harbour defence. There are four building. Of the second-class they have one built and seven building. Of the third-class they have twelve built, some very indifferent specimens, and three building. But the most remarkable feature is this—they have recently followed the example of the American Government, and have laid down in their dockyards four large wooden corvettes, which are intended to have very great speed, and to carry a very heavy armament. They are intended to be used for the defence of French commerce, or to attack the commerce of any country with which they may happen to be at war. The total number of vessels in the Navy of France is 365; in that of Spain, 95; in that of Austria, 70; in that of Italy, 82; in that of Russia 218; in that of America, 234. And let me here say one word with reference to the American Navy. I can only regret that I neglected to bring among my papers a copy of the very interesting Report made by the Minister of Marine to the American Congress, in which he gives the results of the year with regard to the navy of that country. It appears from that document, which entered into a much more minute and elaborate statement than that I have the honour of endeavouring to make, that the administrators of the American Navy have for the present no intention of following our example, and building large iron-clads after the pattern of those of this country. They intend to rely solely upon turreted Monitors, and upon those largo wooden

1845
frigates which Lord Clarence Paget last year, I venture to think, rather inaptly termed "improved Alabamas," which are to be used in any future war in which America may be engaged in protecting their own commerce, and in injuring that of their foes. [Mr. CHILDERS said, those vessels were about 3,000 tons burden.] They are of a rather larger tonnage than that. I understand about 3,700 or 3,800 tons. Now, from what appears in the newspapers, there seems to be a prevailing idea that our own coasts are poorly defended, and that it would be advisable at once to build some turret vessels after the American model for the defence of our coasts; but I think that that is the last class of ship of which we are in immediate want. In the first place, I believe that nothing is more improbable—impossible I had almost said—than that our shores should be invaded. Secondly, I cannot forget that Mr. Wells in his report to Congress deplored the fact that in Portsmouth alone there was three times the accommodation that the whole dockyards of the United States could furnish, and that the private dockyards of England were in the same ratio vastly superior to those of America. Still, notwithstanding this want of dockyards national and private—in the course of five months, during the late war, that country converted its wooden ships into a fleet of turretcd Monitors, sufficient to make a network, which would effectually serve to protect the long line of American coast from the most powerful enemy. If then America, with its limited means, could in so short a time produce such great results, what might not be effected by the spirit of Englishmen backed by the facilities derived from vast private yards, were so unhappy a contingency to arise? Under these circumstances I believe that this is a class of ships, the building of which may well be postponed. I may, perhaps, be asked, "Why do you add to your iron-clad fleet at all?" In reply I would ask, are the people and the Parliament of this country content that England shall stand still with regard to her navy, and allow all the other naval Powers of the world—be they great or small—attempt to pass her in the construction and in the scientific armament of their fleets? Upon this point I must, with no invidious motive, draw the attention of the Committee to the following figures:—In 1860–1 the sum of £582,805 was taken for iron-
1846
clad ships; in 1861–2, £935,932; in 1862–3, £966,141; in 1863–4, £630,203; and in 1864–5, £668,412. In 1865–6, £120,000 was asked for by my gallant Predecessor for building iron-clads; but that sum was not spent, and last year not a single farthing was asked for that purpose. Under these circumstances, unless the people of England desire that their fleet shall stand still, I think that the Board of Admiralty is justified in applying this year to Parliament for money for building iron-clads. The French naval authorities, whose example in this respect is followed by those of Austria and of Italy, make no unusual efforts at any particular time, but go on adding every year to their fleet, and year after year adopting the improvements suggested by science, and in the end those countries have obtained serviceable fleets. I am sure that that is the soundest policy that could have been pursued, and I only wish that it had been adopted in England. In this way she would not allow other countries to get gradually ahead of her. If we are to adopt the latest improvements, it is time, after two years in which nothing has been spent, that something should be done. I should be the last to act the part of an alarmist, to believe in the likelihood of any foreign invasion of our shores or in the probability of any direct attack being made upon the majesty of England.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the noble Lord appeared to forget that iron-clads were being built last year in the Royal Dockyards.
LORD HENRY LENNOX: I have already dealt with the dockyards. I am referring to the Vote for building ironclads in private yards. Having come to the conclusion—rightly or wrongly—that the time had come when we must build additional iron-clads if we wished the country to keep its position among the naval Powers of the world, the question arose as to the class of which the new vessels should be. We had only eighteen iron-clads of the first class, but of these four—the Warrior, the Black Prince, the Defence, and the Resistance—were not perfect specimens. Of the second-class there were two iron-clads afloat and one building. This was a class of ship that was much wanted, but then came the difficulty, what was to be the pattern, whether the new ships should be built on the broadside or the turret principle. We knew that there was a strong bias in the

1847
public mind in favour of the latter; but it was the desire of the Admiralty to get a comparatively small class of seagoing vessels. My gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), one of the first authorities on this subject either in the House or out of it, has gone fully into this question; and though by some it was maintained that the turret principle might be applied with success to small sea-going ships, yet one thing was clear with regard to this question, that as the Captain selected and designed by Captain Coles to test the soundness of his views was in course of building, it was not desirable to spend more money in building additional turret ships until the completion of that large vessel. The Controller of the Navy—and every one who has occasion to transact business with Admiral Robinson will be able to testify to the clearness of his head, the calmness of his judgment, and the consideration with which he listens to suggestions from every quarter—has, in conjunction with Mr. Reed, undertaken to design an iron-clad ship, of the following-proportions:—The new frigate will be of 3,778 tons burden, and of 800-horse power. Her draught will be 21 feet 6 inches forwards, and 22 feet 6 inches aft, while her speed is anticipated to be about 13½ knots per hour. Her complement will be 450 men, and her sides will be protected by armour-plates 8 inches thick, diminishing at her extremities to a thickness of 6 inches, the inner skin being 1¼ inches thick. The main-deck port cills will be 8 feet out of the water, and the upper-deck port cills 16 feet. Her armament will consist of six broadside 12-ton guns on the main-dock, and a 64-pounder at both bow and stern. The peculiarity of these ships will be that they are to have a sort of semi-turret on the upper deck on each side, inside which two 12-ton guns will be mounted. There will be four ports—two on each side—giving a range of fire from a line with the keel to an angle of 90° from it. They will have nearly all the advantages of turret ships, while the disadvantage under which most turret-ships labour—that of being so low in the water as to prejudice the health of the crew—will be avoided. The weight of the hull of these ships will be 2,740 tons, the weight of the armour on their sides 850 tons, and of the backing 140 tons. These vessels will belong to the second-class of iron-clads; and of them we propose to build two. We also
1848
propose to build by contract ten gunboats on the same principle as those in the dockyard. There is also an intention of building another of those ships of the Inconstant type, which were laid down by the late Board, and which are chiefly intended to protect our commerce and to harass that of the enemy. Some objections, it is true, have been taken to these vessels, one of which will come home to the feelings of Englishmen—that they go so fast that they need never come within reach of the enemy's guns—that is to say, that their best qualities will be shown in their powers of running away. Now, it is quite clear that our iron-clad vessels are eminently unfit for this service, because a ship which is to defend the commerce of our own ports or to harass that of an enemy must be a cruizing ship, fit to keep the open sea for months, and able to go under canvas as well as under steam. These are the considerations which have induced the Admiralty to recommend that another ship of that description should form part of our scheme for this year. There are only two or three points more upon which I need trouble the Committee at any length. Public attention has lately been directed to a paper displaying much ability, written by Mr. Henwood. Now, I can quite understand the inquiry which has been made—Why, when you have got a quantity of magnificent wooden line-of-battle-ships blocking up your harbours and costing so much to the country, do you not cut them down into turret-ships and thus save expense and provide a navy? The Board of Admiralty, however, do not believe that Mr. Henwood's plan would result in obtaining either good or cheap ships. I desire to speak with the utmost respect of that gentleman, who is one of the most eminent shipbuilders in the country; but I must think that not being accustomed to build ships of war he has formed his conclusions rather hastily. His plan has this great drawback at starting, that he deals with ships many of which are worn by age and are weak, through having been converted from sailing vessels into screws, and are, therefore, more or less deteriorated and ill-fitted to bear another conversion. Many of them have engines which are partly worn out, and these would require new engines and extensive repairs. I have here a statement drawn up by the Controller of the Navy showing the results

1849
obtainable, under Mr. Henwood's plan, of conversion. Let us take, first, one of the ships best adapted to the purpose—the Victoria—and compare her with a ship well known to many hon. Gentlemen opposite—the Royal Sovereign. It may have the effect of changing Mr. Henwood's opinion as to his own plans. If the Victoria were cut down, the weight of her hull, without armour-plates or equipment, would be, 3,724 tons, whereas that of the Royal Sovereign is 2,496 tons; the weight of her armour of all kinds would be 1,050 tons, that of the Royal Sovereign being 786 tons; the turrets and guns in them would weigh 1,028 tons, against the Royal Sovereign's 685, and her equipments would weigh 2,824 tons, compared with the 1,204 tons the Royal Sovereign. The result would be that the Victoria would weigh 8,631 tons, and her deck would be only 2 feet 2½ inches above the water, whereas the Royal Sovereign weighs but 5,191 tons, and the height of her deck is 7 feet 1½ inches. I will just state what the height of deck above low-water line would be with different ships if they were converted on Mr. Henwood's principle, and fitted with the number of turrets contained in his proposal. That of the Duncan, if fitted with three turrets, would be 2 feet 8 inches; the Prince of Wales, with four turrets, 2 feet 1½ inches; the Renown, with three turrets, 1 foot 11 inches; the Windsor Castle, with three turrets, 1 foot 8½ inches; the London, with three turrets, 10 inches; the Howe, with four turrets, 8½ inches; and the Conqueror, with three turrets, 2 inches. Under these circumstances, the Board, I think, were amply justified in hesitating to cut down these ships upon plans so faulty and ill-considered. I hope, however, to show the Committee that wc have tried to do our best to deserve the confidence of Parliament and the country. We have felt that there was a great objection to these line-of-battle-ships continuing to block up our harbours and rivers. On taking office we found fifty-five ships of the line blocking up our harbours and rivers, the value of which, including those in commission, is about £8,350,000, and to complete and repair which would cost £1,250,000. Each of these ships lying in reserve in our harbours costs at least £1,000 a year for shipkeepers, stokers, boats, moorings, repairs, and stores. Then there are the wages of the shipkeepers, stokers, and
1850
engineers, which for the whole of our reserves amount to £98,260 per annum. We must add to this the cost of wages under Vote 6, £15,000, and for stores £4,000 more, making a total of £117,260 a year as the cost of merely keeping up these ships in a proper condition. We felt that some of them were worthless as men-of-war, and could not by any process of conversion be made available for the service of the country. My right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) consulted with the Board, and it was decided that the time had come when the worst of these ships might with advantage be sold. Thirteen of the worst ships have consequently been disposed of, and within the current financial year £85,000 will be paid for them by Messrs. Castle and Beach and another firm at Devonport, into the Treasury. Of course, it is not for me to say positively whether any more of them can be sold at present; but I think my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) has in this, as in many other things, shown that he was not crippled by "red tape" prejudices in the office which he had recently the honour to hold; but that he brought his sound common sense to bear on the question, and that, finding how much these ships were costing the country without any corresponding advantage, he decided to dispose of them on the best terms he could. They have been sold under new conditions for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, and I prefer that he should on another occasion explain the details of the manner in which it has been done. There is only one more Vote which I wish to touch upon, and it is one of the most costly Votes—namely, that for New Works, &c. Now, I wish to express my sense of the readiness which the various heads of Departments connected with the Admiralty have shown to give me full information, and the forbearance they have shown towards those who, like myself, enter office with no previous experience of official details. I am afraid the Vote for Works is generally rather extravagant; but this year there is a decrease of £4,277 over last year. The sum voted last year was £892,865, but of that a certain portion was not spent. The sum asked for this year is £888,588. This is caused by a large extension of dock accommodation at Chatham and Portsmouth. For this outlay the present Government are not responsible. The subject was carefully considered by a Committee of

1851
the House of Commons, and the present Board of Admiralty have had no option but to proceed with these works, which were sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. They were not proceeded with last year owing to the financial crisis, which rendered it inexpedient to ask for contracts. There is another item of £475,000 for extra receipts and re-payments, upon which I must offer some explanation. The item generally consists of a sum of £140,000, under this head it varies very little, and is generally calculated on an average over three years. A sum of £85,000 has been already got by the sale of ships, and my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) authorizes me to say he has not the slightest doubt that, without detriment to the public service, a sum of £150,000 may be obtained by the sale of timber, for some of which there is no present use, some of which has actually deteriorated, and other portions of which are in course of further deterioration. The present Board of Admiralty did not think it desirable to go to the expense of building sheds to cover this obsolete or deteriorating timber. My hon. and gallant Friend will be able to state more in detail than I can do the peculiar quality of this timber, some of which would for certain purposes find a ready sale in the market, especially the Honduras mahogany. I now come to the item in this Vote for pigiron, to which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) has called the attention of the House. Last autumn Messrs. By-land, of Birmingham, whose firm is considered a leading one in the iron trade, applied for half a ton from each dockyard for the purpose of testing the quality of the iron. I thought there was no harm in giving them the iron, because if the hon. Member for Lincoln were wrong, it would give me the opportunity of putting him right, and if he were right it might give us a sum of £100,000 or £150,000 to be paid into the Exchequer. With that view half a ton of pig iron ballast was supplied to Messrs. Ryland from each of three dockyards, and at the same time a trial was conducted at Portsmouth Dockyard by Dr. Percy, under the direction of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay). Dr. Percy has entirely corroborated the view taken by Messrs. Ryland that this iron might be sold at a high price. The Correspondence on this subject has been moved for and will be produced, and any further papers
1852
which will facilitate the inquiry of the hon. Member for Lincoln will be cheerfully given to him. I think the sum of £100,000 for pig iron ballast is a very moderate one, and I am borne out in that opinion by Mr. Ryland, with whom I have had several interviews and correspondence during the last month. Steps have already been taken practically to test the value by giving over to Messrs. Ryland fifty tons of the ballast stacked in Woolwich Dockyard. These items make up a total of £475,000, including £100,000 for pig iron ballast, £150,000 for timber, and £85,000 for sale of ships. And that is exclusive of eight or ten other ships, which it may be for the public advantage to sell, and the proceeds of which would swell the figures in this item, These are the proposals which, on behalf of the Government, I have to lay before the House. It is rather out of my line to deal with such masses of figures; but I have done my best to make them clear to the House, and in the course of the long discussion which will doubtless take place, I shall be ready to give any further explanation in my power. These proposals we believe to be moderate ones; they are the very least which the Government consider they ought to make, and if they are accepted we think that England may for the future, as she has done for generations past, rest with confidence on the navy as the right arm of her strength in the hour of danger.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That 67,300 Men and Boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1868, including 16,200 Royal Marines."
MR. GLADSTONE: I am sure I only give expression to the feeling of the House when I congratulate my noble Friend on the manner in which he has discharged the duty intrusted to him. It was from no objection to him in his personal capacity that I raised a question in the early part of the evening. In listening to my noble Friend, I am bound to say, without entering into any details, that there were some points upon which, not only with regard to manner, but matter, I heard him with great satisfaction. I do not rise to intercept the discussion which usually succeeds this statement, but it also raises a wider question, which has been illustrated by the statements of the noble

1853
Lord. So far from being disinclined to accept the noble Lord as the organ of the Government with respect to the Admiralty, there were some parts of his speech which led me to desire that he occupied a more prominent and important position than the one which he actually holds. He alluded to one question of great importance—the proposal to build a great number of new gunboats. The object is that they should be scattered over the whole world, with the view of maintaining on the present scale that system of manning every part of the globe with vessels that have no force of resistance, and which, instead of being a force of security, would either have to be defended or else run away at the first menace of danger. The noble Lord put a query of a most significant character, intimating that the opinion he entertains is adverse to that system. But it has been brought into peculiar prominence by the Estimate; because the largo outlay proposed to be made this year will be followed by a very large outlay next year, which will arrest the progress of certain important vessels now being built intimately connected with the defence of the country. The noble Lord indeed made out my case; because, having adverted to this scattered force constituting one-third of the force of the British Navy, h stated with the utmost candour that it was not his business to announce a policy, or to give an opinion on the case. Many Gentlemen on this side of the House would like to take this opportunity of raising a question connected with this policy, because the building of this great number of small gunboats directly challenges the judgment of the House on this subject. It is natural that the Government, having come to these conclusions, should seek to embody them in the Estimates; but the noble Lord will see that the question is a very large one, not only with regard to the number of these gunboats, but because it tells directly on the number of men who will be required to man these gunboats in different parts of the world. I hope it will be understood that hon. Gentlemen who are desirous of discussing this question at large are not merely certain Gentlemen who have certain speeches in their minds of which they are anxious to get rid, but Gentlemen who wish to make an earnest appeal to those who are responsible in this matter, and particularly to those charged with the conduct of this Department—namely,
1854
the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir John Pakington) who has the most minute knowledge of the principles upon which, and the objects for which these Estimates are framed, and also to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) who has succeeded him, and who, when he returns to this House, must assume the responsibility for them. Supposing Gentlemen on either side were to urge upon the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) the most convincing arguments and statements in support of opinions which he might be inclined to embrace, he might repeat the answer he has given to-night in so many words—that he is not here to announce a policy. And that would be a good answer to us, not only because he is the Secretary to the Admiralty, but because he is not the representative of that Department in this House. If it were convenient for the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) and his Colleagues to make the noble Lord the representative of the Board of Admiralty in this House, I venture to say we should all be ready to accept him as such, and to treat him with as much courtesy as has been extended to any of his predecessors. As has been suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, I believe there is no occasion for a Vote on Account, although, if it were necessary, there would be no informality caused by that, because there might still be some reduction made upon the Votes upon the table. But, with a view of securing a clear field for the important and large discussion upon what I may call the principle of these Estimates, I should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) that this Vote for the number of men, which virtually fixes the scale of the establishment of the navy, will not be taken to-night. I do not now make the actual Motion that the Chairman report Progress, though I should be ready to do so if requisite.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Without troubling the House with many reasons, I would say that, perhaps upon the whole, it will be advisable not to press this Vote to-night, and we can report Progress. Since I last had the honour of addressing the House, a telegram has arrived from Ireland, informing us that the election of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) will take place on Tuesday, and not on Thursday, so that my right hon. Friend will probably be in

1855
his place on Thursday, to go on with these Estimates.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he wished to ask respecting the production of a certain Return.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid that, as hon. Gentlemen opposite denied that he was the organ of the Admiralty in the House of Commons, it would be presumptuous on his part to commit his Chief in his absence on that matter.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask how many tons of iron ballast were represented by the £100,000, for which the noble Lord had taken credit?
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, the iron was of various qualities, and he could not then state, with exactness, how many tons it would take to realize the £100,000. The Messrs. Ryland were of opinion that at least £100,000 could be paid into the Exchequer in the course of the financial Tear.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that more precise information on this head would be given on Thursday.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, there were about 36,000 tons of that ballast which might be got rid of; but it would not do to glut the market with it. From the price which it fetched, it would be necessary to deduct about £1 5s. a ton for the cost of repairing the yards with granite or other materials. The iron was of different qualities, and the estimated value varied from £2 15 s. or £2 16 s. per ton for about one-sixth of it, up to £5 or £6 per ton for some portions of it. It would be impossible to give the exact sum which might be expected from this source in the course of the next financial year, until the experiment of bringing the ballast into the market had been practically tried. The Admiralty, however, believed it would be a large sum, and it was put down at £100,000.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he still thought the House would require to have clearer information as to how much money per ton that iron would yield. Separate accounts should be kept of the produce of the iron, and the cost of paving the dockyards. The skill and knowledge of the officers of the dockyard had been much impugned as to the value of the iron placed in their charge. It was said that a large portion of it was particularly good for the production of shot. If so it might be of great value if transferred to the War Office. On Thursday he hoped they
1856
would obtain more definite explanations on the matter.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to ask the date of the purchase of the surplus timber which the Admiralty were now going to sell. About five years ago £1,000,000 worth of timber was purchased, and when some Members wished to raise a discussion upon that purchase in the House they were told that they were too late, as the purchase had been made, although the Vote was only just then going before the House.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he wished to ask several questions with reference to the two second-class iron-clads provided for by the Estimates. He wished to know if they were to be similar vessels, and if they were to be plated all over or only in the centre, at the extremities, and round the water-line? He also wished to know if the semicircular projections which had been mentioned for guns would allow the guns to be fought below or above deck?
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, they were to be entirely armour-plated, with six and eight-inch plates. The projections would have three ports, taking guns working on pivots under cover. With regard to the purchase of the timber, it was difficult for him to say when it had all been purchased; but a considerable amount had been bought prior to 1860–1, when the great increase took place. Up to 1859–60, it was found that 60,000 loads of timber were sufficient for the supply of the various dockyards, and that establishment was never altered. But in 1860–1 the necessities of the service occasioned a considerable expenditure for timber—60,000 loads being expended in one year, so that three years' supply was used up in a single year. Very soon afterwards, in 1862, the process of wooden shipbuilding was changed into one of iron shipbuilding. At this moment there were 101,000 loads of timber in the dockyards, some portion of which was without cover, and deteriorating more rapidly in consequence. It was calculated that if the House agreed to the proposed plan of shipbuilding, as laid before it by the Government, 25,000 loads would be sufficient for the present year, and 18,000 or 20,000 in succeeding years. Out of the present amount, 35,000 or 40,000 loads might be disposed of, and it was assuming a low price to say that £5 a load would be obtained for it.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty

1857
had asked, but not answered the question, Why should more first-class iron-clads be built? He should be glad to know why.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, there was no proposal before the Committee to build any first-class iron-clads. A turret ship on Captain Coles' principle was to be built; but he thought the Committee would be unanimously of opinion that such a step should be taken.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he hoped that other colonies, following the example of Victoria, would ask for iron-clads to protect them, at the same time providing for their maintenance. Places like Singapore and Hong Kong might, he thought, be defended by an iron-clad with a much smaller military force than was now required. There should be more iron-clads, and fewer wooden ships built. England should depend more on her navy than on her army, and then the Army Estimates might be considerably reduced. He wished to advert to the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), to the effect that the African squadron might be entirely dispensed with. If the large squadrons which we kept up in different parts of the world were dispensed with, single iron-clad vessels must take their place, because the commerce of England must be defended. He supposed the speech of the noble Lord was a kind of "feeler" to try what the opinion of the House might be, and if it were well received Her Majesty's Government might have some scheme to propose. The noble Lord shook his head; but he (Mr. Seymour) wished to know whether, if the opinion of the House were favourable, Her Majesty's Government would be disposed to substitute some other means of defence for those which we now employed, and also whether, if a Motion to do away with the African squadron were brought forward, the Government would support it?
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that in the absence of those whose business it was to give an answer to such questions, the wisest course would be not to prolong the discussion. He begged, therefore, to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To- morrow.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 47.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON) moved the second reading of this Bill. He said, that in 1861 and 1862 Commissions were issued to some of the most eminent Judges and practitioners of England and Ireland, to inquire into the practice and procedure of the Courts of Law and Equity. Among the members of the Commission were the present Lord Romilly, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in Ireland, the Lord Justice of Appeal, Lord Cairns, the Attorney General for Ireland of that day, and Vice Chancellor Wood. Having made their inquiry they reported on the 27th of July, 1863. In consequence of that Report Bills were prepared by his hon. and learned Friends on the opposite side of the House, and it was one of those Bills of which he had now the honour to move the second reading. The object of the Bill was to reform the practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland by assimilating it to the practice which prevailed in England. The measure was based upon the unanimous Report of the Commission, and was in almost every particular the same as the Bill which had been introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Portarlington. He was happy to say that he had always been a strong advocate of the measure, and in support of that assertion he might refer to the evidence which he had given on the subject, having come to the conclusion from his experience in the Court of Chancery in Ireland that such a reform was imperatively required. He believed he had the concurrence in that remark of as good an authority as any one-could be, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mallow. When the Bill was introduced last Session it received in its earlier stages opposition from some who were then Members of the House. If they were now present they would be able to explain the grounds on which they opposed the Bill in its earlier stage; but when it came on for second reading on the 14th of May last year the present Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) stated that upon due consideration he withdrew his opposition, and was anxious to give the measure his best sup-

  1859
  port. He moved that the Bill he now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."—(The Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he gave the Bill in its entirety his most cordial support; but he wished to explain the circumstances under which the passage of the Bill through Parliament had been delayed for three successive Sessions. The Royal Commissioners reported, so far back as the month of July in 1863, that the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, as then existing, required great amendment, and the Commissioners suggested what the Amendment ought to be. Such a matter, affecting the administration of the law, was of the highest importance, as everybody was interested in having the rights of parties quickly and finally adjudicated upon with the smallest, possible expense. The practice of the Irish Court of Chancery was, however, vicious in the extreme in both of these respects. The delays and expense were enormous, and the ultimate decisions in Appeals from the Masters' offices were excessively slow, not through the fault of the Judges, but because the system was so embarrassed and complicated. The existing practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland was most cumbrous, and demanded instant remedy. The formalities that had to be gone through were very numerous and perplexing, and cost a great deal of time and money to litigants. The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the matter reported that the practice of the Irish Chancery Court should be assimilated to that of England, with certain modifications applicable to the law of Ireland. Pounded upon the recommendations of that Report, the Government then in office, in the year 1864, prepared and introduced a Bill to give effect to them, which were in consonance with the opinions of the ablest lawyers upon the subject. The Bill, however, was met with the most decided opposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the distinguished position of Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland (Mr. Whiteside), of another hon. and learned Gentleman now a puisne Judge (Mr. George), and of some few others who then sat upon the opposition Benches. The obstruction thus caused was the means of defeating the measure. The Bill was again
  1860
  introduced in the Session of 1865, the same course was adopted by its opponents, and it was again thrown out, although it sought to remedy a crying evil. In the year 1866 he himself assisted to introduce the Bill once more; but the promoters encountered the very same opposition as on the two former occasions, though it was supported by Lord Cairns and some of the Members of the present Government, and owing to various circumstances the attempt was again unsuccessful. There was great reason to complain of the conduct on this question of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen of whom he had first made mention. He could not say that he regretted their absence from the House, inasmuch as they were now enjoying high judicial offices in Ireland. The present Government did right to introduce another measure upon this subject. The Bill now before the House was substantially the same Bill as was formerly brought forward. It was a measure that was greatly needed, and he should support it through all its stages. Great good would result from it, and his only regret was that it had not been passed into law three years and a half ago, when the proposal was first made.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the measure was eminently desirable, considering the inconvenience and expense occasioned by the existing system. He was of opinion that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had overstated the opposition which the Bill had received from those who sat on the same side of the House as the present Lord Chief Justice Whiteside, when he opposed the measure. It should not be inferred that all who sat on the same side of the House on that occasion countenanced the opposition given to the Bill. The Members of the present Government did not countenance the opposition offered to former Bills, and for many years he had taken every opportunity in that House of calling attention to the great delay and expense involved by the practice in the Irish Court of Chancery. The former Bills had received the support of the present Lord Cairns. He thought that instead of raking up old stories, it would be better to apply themselves to the passing the Bill, which it was acknowledged was much needed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

METROPOLITAN POOR BILL.
(Mr. Hardy, Mr. Earle.)
METROPOLITAN POOR BILL.

  [BILL 66.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road the third time."—(Mr. Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. J. STUART MILL: I wish to make only one or two observations. This Bill effects a great improvement in the existing state of things, and the chief thing to be regretted is that it does not go further. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) has reserved to himself the decision of a point which he was urged by several deputations to decide by the Bill itself—namely, the extent and boundaries of the districts, each of which is to have an asylum, to itself. I wish to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of making these districts large; as large as the present or future Parliamentary districts. Less than this will not answer the purpose; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us this evening-some idea of what are his purposes on this subject. Another point of more importance is, that there should be created, to stand between the Poor Law Board and the local Boards, an intermediate representative body, which might be intrusted with the administration of the law concerning the metropolis as a whole, and which, although elected, might have the exercise delegated to it of some of the functions now reserved to the Poor Law Board. I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken powers to establish such an authority, for we know that he is himself favourable for it. The value of large bodies representing large constituencies, as compared with small bodies representing small districts, is indisputable. I will at present confine myself to suggesting one or two practical cases in which it will be found of importance. Take the case of an epidemic likely to affect the whole metropolis, but for the present confined to a single district. In that case the resources of the entire metropolis could, through the administration of the general Board, be applied to the district in which they were wanted. Something like this was done lately in apprehension of a visit of the cholera, by the establishment of a central committee sitting at the Mansion House. That committee centralized the charity of the whole of London. Again, there is
  1862
  the case of destitution confined to certain districts. In these cases the buildings and beds in some parts of the metropolis are empty, while in the districts suffering the distress they are crowded. The value of a central or intermediate Board between the Poor Law Board and the local bodies, to superintend the application of the resources of the whole metropolis to the immediate exigencies of the distressed districts, is in such cases obvious. This function might well be discharged by a Central Board composed partly of the ratepayers' nominees, and partly of persons selected by the Commissioners. Another most important consideration is that referring to the providing of food, medicine, and other necessaries for the hospitals. In many cases, also, relief is most advantageously given in kind, which makes it very important that provision should be made for obtaining the best articles possible. To make contracts for the supply of these things is an operation for which no local or small body can be by many degrees so fit as is a central body either in point of efficiency or economy. Jobbing, which is inseparable from hole-and-corner proceedings, need not be apprehended in the case of a body representing the whole metropolis, making purchases on a large scale, and entering into large contracts competed for by opulent firms, for these transactions, being of a public nature, would be carried on under the eyes of the world, and subject to public criticism. No one can dispute, and the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware, that efficiency and economy in contracts are better secured when the body which makes them must do so with publicity—when it stands conspicuous in the public eye. To any one disposed to object to the suggestion for creating an intermediate or central elected Board, like the one I am speaking of, that it is a step on the road to centralization, I would say that if the establishment of such an intermediate body be denied, the denial of it would be a fur greater step towards centralization. The powers which such a body is best qualified to exercise have become indispensable. They will therefore be necessarily assumed by a purely Government Board, without any elected body at all—by the Poor Law Board. These are the suggestions I offer to the right hon. Gentleman, and the reasons by which I support them.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he thought

  1863
  it must be evident to all that a Central Board—consisting partly of elected members, partly of representatives of the Government—was necessary, in order to obtain uniformity of system throughout the metropolis. It was the interest of the whole of the metropolis to cure the sick as rapidly as possible, and a Central Board could send the necessaries for the purpose to where they were immediately required, instead of allowing them to be idle elsewhere, and it would be most useful in taking the contracts. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider the matter.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that a clause would be introduced to the effect that every person, such as medical officers and others, claiming compensation under the Bill, should take any office under the Government for which his previous occupation rendered him eligible, and that in the event of a refusal he should not be entitled to compensation. The Act might involve great cost for compensation. A similar clause had been inserted in the Probate Act. He had always advocated the appointment of a Central Board, and he was glad to find that in this respect the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) had considerably approximated to his own. He thought it was the general opinion that there ought to be a distinct Board to manage the asylums for sick and fever patients. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: Hear, hear!] Now, if one Central Board were constituted, we should have a foundation which could be built upon from time to time hereafter. He thought the concession which had been made, coupled with the provision since introduced into the Bill, that the Central Board might appoint committees to superintend matters of detail in different districts, would, to a great extent, meet the views enunciated by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill.) He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be encouraged by the support he had received to enlarge the powers of the Central Board, and extend them to other provisions which might very well be the subject of the general administration.
  MR. READsaid, that twelve months ago the House was legislating in a panic on the subject of the cattle plague, and he thought the House had passed the present Bill with a certain amount of excitement and enthusiasm, which no doubt was due to the popularity of the right hon. Gen-
  1864
  tleman the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gathorne Hardy.) If the right hon. Gentleman could take a lease of the office for a number of years, or for life, he, for one, should not object to the powers conferred by the Bill. But when it was considered what in a few months the Poor Law Board was likely to become, he thought it would be seen that, in all probability, the House had conferred upon it too much absolute authority. It ought not to be forgotten that the Poor Law Board had in its past career interposed the obstructions of routine, and in dealing with the poor had passed by the mountains whilst they had stumbled against the molehills. At all events, he hoped that the power delegated to the Poor Law Board of nominating one-third of the guardians would not be extended to other districts.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was in favour of local self-government. The House ought not to distrust the local authorities, who, after all, were our own flesh and blood. The Bill unfairly reflected upon them.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: There is nothing, Sir, in this Bill to abolish local self-government. Indeed, under its provisions local government will have the fullest scope for its exertions. With regard to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), I must confess that I am deeply indebted to him for the support which he has given to this measure. As to compensation, however, there is a difference between the case to which he has adverted and that which will arise under this Bill. In this case there has been no patronage conferred on the Poor Law Board, with the exception of the single office of Receiver. The patronage, whatever it is, remains with the local governors of the metropolis. All the Poor Law Board will have to do is to see that persons do not claim unnecessary or unreasonable compensation. The whole system of compensation was placed on the footing of the Bill purposely, because new arrangements will have to be made, and any officer having a certain district which is altered in any respect may refuse to continue in it, and he must, of course, take his chance with the rest, the Board, as an impartial body, looking to every case on its merits, and taking care that no injustice is done to him. With respect to the Central Board, adverted to by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill), it seems

  1865
  to me that in the course of the next year or year and a half that must elapse, before any of these buildings can he completed or brought into operation, we shall see the working of the Act, and whether those whoso work it is do their duty, and carry out the intentions of the House. If in the course of that time it should appear that new powers are wanted, even in the next Session of Parliament, there will be abundance of time to get those additional powers, if they be needed. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) was good enough to say that the Bill had been passed owing to popularity on my part. I should be sorry to think that it was. I believe that the Bill owes its popularity to the fact of the great grievances which were Buffered by the poor, the great injustice which was done to the ratepayers in expending money in other objects than those intended, and the injustice which was done to the public, which was obliged to look on powerlessly and hopelessly while such evils existed. This is an attempt on my part to make a beginning to redress those evils. I am far from thinking that the measure is perfect in itself. It is a sketch which may hereafter be filled up. Whoever may succeed me, or however long I may remain in my present office, it is clear that the House has taken up the subject with reality and earnestness, and will not admit of any weak or faltering policy. For myself, I should not hesitate, on whatever side I may sit, to appeal to the House—by the whole body of which I gratefully feel that I have been supported on this occasion in carrying the Bill—to grant any new powers that may be required, in order that the sick and imbecile poor may have justice done to them, and that the money of the ratepayers may be duty expended.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he considered this the most important measure respecting the management of the poor which had been passed since the new Poor Law. It had several great principles—to insure a better system of relief to the sick and aged poor, to make better provision in schools for the children of the poor; and, at the same time, to spread the expenses of that relief more equally on a different basis and over a larger area of the metropolis. He hoped this latter principle would be carried still further. The Union Assessment Act was a step in the right direction, this Bill was another step, but it must be carried out still further, so
  1866
  that the whole metropolis might be placed on one uniform and equal basis. He hoped this measure would not long be confined to the metropolis; it would have to be carried out in the different counties. Although there had been negligence in some parts, yet, taking the metropolis as a whole, the poor had been properly cared for, and the large body of guardians had done their duty without fee or reward. But with respect to the Poor Law Board, looking to its defective constitution, and the manner in which it had conducted the Department, it was well known that it was solely owing to the philanthropic exertions of a few public-spirited men—the most distinguished of whom was the late Mr. Walter—that, after a long course of agitation, the had succeeded in modifying the harsher features of the new Poor Law. Those who had the management of the Board had no right to take to themselves the credit of looking after the interests of the poor, while the guardians denied the poor their rights. Since its first formation down to the present time the Board had been restricting the guardians, remonstrating with them for spending so much money, and never urging them to spend more to I provide better for the wants of the poor. It was only in later times that agitation from without had acted on the Poor Law Board, inducing them to take a more humane view of affairs. He denied that the Board had always been the protectors of the poor. He looked forward to the time when one-half the charge for the maintenance of the poor would be put on the Consolidated Fund. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for this Bill, which would be useful to the metropolis as a whole, and which he hoped was the first step towards spreading the taxation for the poor over the whole country. He believed that the present Bill would effect much good; but he looked forward to the time when the money required for the relief of the poor would be raised not merely on house property and land, but from all who had the means to I contribute, whether they possessed this description of property or not.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

LYON KING OF ARMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(Sir Graham Montgomery, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Mr. Hunt.)
LYON KING OF ARMS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  [BILL 44.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY moved the second reading of this Bill. He said that, under its provisions, the office of the Lyon King of Arms would be self-supporting. The Lyon King would have an allowance not exceeding £600 a year, and would be required to do his duty without a deputy. The Lyon Clerk also would discharge his duties in person; and a reduction would be made in the staff.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. PEEL DAWSON MR. PEEL DAWSON moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Presentment of Public Money by Grand Juries in Ireland. He said, the object of the Bill was for the purpose of electing instead of nominating the associated cesspayers who acted with the magistrates at sessions, and for the purpose of preventing their numbers being swamped. Also for the appointment of a standing committee by the grand jury from assize to assize, in order to have a more efficient control over the county officers, and to afford a better opportunity of examining into the state of the county business before submitting it to the grand jury at the ensuing assizes. He had shown a draft of the Bill to the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas), who had no objection to its introduction.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill "to amend the Laws relating to the Presentment of Public Money by Grand Juries in Ireland," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 73.]

BANKRUPTCY BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I rise, Sir, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Bankruptcy in England. The laws relating to debtor and creditor are so important and so varied in character, and their details are so numerous, that to go into a full examination of the subject would require a very lengthened statement. But I am satisfied that the full discussion which this subject has received within the last few years, the evidence
  1868
  taken before the Select Committee of 1864, the Report of that Committee in 1865, and the Bill brought in by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) last year, have all made the House so familiar with the question that on the present occasion, and until the Bill is in the hands of Members, I may compress what I have to say into a narrow compass. Indeed, I think I might have followed the example of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, and laid the Bill on the table, deferring any statement till the second reading; but as the public mind has been so much directed to this matter, it may, perhaps, be as well that I should at once state the leading provisions of the measure. The principle of the bankrupt code is very simple. It is the just distribution of the assets of the insolvent debtor among his creditors. Whatever tends directly to that end ought to form part of the code; but whatever tends only indirectly to it should not form part of the code. There are many parts of the law of debtor and creditor which tend only indirectly to that end. Therefore, though I intend to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to abolish imprisonment for debt, I do not propose that such a provision should form part of the measure which I am now about to bring under the notice of the House. It is unnecessary to go back through three centuries of early legislation on the subject of bankruptcy. It may be sufficient to say, with reference to that legislation, that sometimes it was harsh and unjust to the debtor, and that sometimes it was unjust to the creditor; but after various fluctuations a more fixed character was given to it some thirty years ago. Before Lord Brougham's Act of 1831, in every fresh case of bankruptcy a new tribunal had to be constituted to administer the affairs of the bankrupt. The property was collected and distributed by the creditor's assignee, under the supervision of the Court of Bankruptcy, and the bankrupt's discharge was obtained upon the certificate of the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, on the consent in writing of a certain number of creditors being obtained. Of course, there were other provisions with reference to Acts of bankruptcy with which the House is familiar, and upon which I do not propose to dwell. The complaints that were made of this state of the law were of the following description. It was said that the constitution by commission under the Great Seal of a new tri-

  1869
  bunal every time a person became bankrupt was very clumsy and expensive, and I do not see how it was possible it could be otherwise; that the administration of the estate by assignees chosen by the creditors was found not to work well; that the estate was too much under the supervision of the court; that the assignees were not paid for the work they performed; that the only way to obtain payment for such work was to appoint a paid accountant; that when the estate got into the bands of professional men it was badly managed, and was eaten up by costs. Then, with regard to the certificate of discharge, it was alleged that it was most unfair to the bankrupt, inasmuch as he had to follow his creditors about in order to obtain their signatures, and that it was liable to abuse, and led to buying the consent of the creditors. In 1831 Lord Brougham introduced a measure, the material points of which were that it constituted a now tribunal, consisting of four Judges, six London Commissioners, assisted by registrars and official assignees in London, who were to collect and distribute the assets, the duties of the creditors' assignees, who were retained, being merely nominal. This Act established no local courts, although under it fiats were to issue to country Commissioners. The system introduced by that Act was as loudly complained of as the one it had superseded. There was an over-supply of official force in London, and there was no sufficient supply of official force in the country. Between the years 1831 and 1849 no less than three Acts were passed, with the provisions of which I will not trouble the House further than to state that they abolished the Court of Review and the functions of the four Judges created in 1831, the duties being performed by the Commissioners; that they appointed district Commissioners with district jurisdiction—the appeal from both the London and the district Commissioners being to a Vice Chancellor sitting in the Court of Chancery; and that they appointed official assignees for the country as well as for London. During the interval an attempt was also made to alter the mode of effecting the bankrupt's discharge. Up to that time his discharge had been effected by consent of creditors in writing, and the modification introduced was that the certificate was to be obtained at a public meeting of the creditors, when they had an opportunity of giving their consent verbally, or of making objections to the
  1870
  granting of the certificates, which were weighed by the Commissioners, who granted or withheld the certificate according to the conduct of the bankrupt. Power was also given to the debtor to institute proceedings in bankruptcy against himself. What I have stated will show that there have been considerable fluctuations of opinion during the last thirty years upon the points under consideration. Up to the time I have mentioned no satisfactory provisions were in existence under which the creditors could arrange with their debtors, so that the majority could bind the minority. Since that period this question has been looked upon as a matter of great importance. The point was originally mooted by the merchants and bankers of London in 1848 presenting a memorial to the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General, asking for some provision to be introduced into the law which would enable the majority of the creditors to bind the minority in any arrangement which they might come to among themselves. The memorial proposed that the requisite majority should be cither six-sevenths of both value and number, or nine-tenths of either number or value. I wish particularly to call the attention of the House to the number of the majority suggested in that memorial, because ever since that period there has been a continual tendency to reduce the proportion of the majority. Following upon that memorial came the Consolidation Act of 1849, which introduced, I think, for the first time carefully considered provisions for enabling creditors to arrange with their debtors and for enabling the majority of creditors to bind the minority. The arrangement clauses were of three sorts—the first enabling an arrangement to be come to before bankruptcy, but under the control of the Court, a proportion of three-fifths being sufficient to bind the minority; the second enabling the creditors of an estate in bankruptcy to take it out of the Court of Bankruptcy by a resolution of nine-tenths of the creditors; and the third enabled the matter to be settled by deed apart from the Court if six-sevenths in number and value of the creditors could agree to such an alternative. The Act reduced the number of Commissioners from six to four. Some special provisions were introduced of a very stringent character to meet offences against the bankrupt laws, and for different kinds of offences imprisonment for life, or for periods of seven years, three

  1871
  years, or one year, was enacted. The discharge was also made more difficult, and certain specific offences, such as gambling and keeping false books, were heavily visited. Then there was a Royal Commission issued shortly afterwards, over which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole) presided, containing gentlemen of great eminence in the legal profession and in the mercantile world, and they turned their attention especially to the arrangement clauses, and made their Report in 1854. They pointed out that the business of the Bankruptcy Court had fallen off; they referred to the complaints made of the facilities with which traders were enabled to deceive their creditors; and with respect to arrangements by deed, they showed that, as the law then stood, great facilities were given to the debtor to get up fictitious debts in order to secure an apparent majority of consenting creditors. The Commissioners also pointed out that the stringent character of the penal clauses of the Act of 1849 was very objectionable. So much, then, for what took place in 1854. It would be unpardonable in me if I passed over the attempt at legislation upon this subject made by Lord Derby's Administration in 1859. A Bill was then brought in by the present Lord Chancellor founded, to a great extent, on the Report of the Commissioners of 1854. The Bill was read a second time, and the provisions of that Bill formed the basis of most of the legislation that has since been proposed on this subject. If that Bill had been followed more closely, I should probably not have been troubling the House to-night. That Bill proposed the abolition of imprisonment for debt; it provided a complete scheme of arrangement between debtors and creditors, and power was given to the creditors to dispense with official assignees, and to take the estate into their own hands. That Bill, however, did not come down to this House. Then I come to the measure introduced by Lord Westbury in 1861. It is right to state that that Bill did not pass entirely as it was brought in by Lord Westbury; he did not carry all the provisions he desired, and therefore he is not to be regarded as responsible for every part of that measure. The first part of the measure related to the abolition of the Insolvent Court, and provided for the abolition of the difference between the trader and the non-trader, thus enabling
  1872
  the non-trader to take advantage of the bankrupt laws. Then, jurisdiction was given to the County Courts, in practice found to be a most important improvement; and the provisions for arrangements between debtor and creditor were advantageously modified. There were three classes of provisions—the first enabled the creditors to take the estate out of bankruptcy; the second constituted a change of the whole affair from bankruptcy to an arrangement with the creditor; and the third enabled an arrangement by deed to be come to without bankruptcy, and provision was made by which a proportion of creditors, representing three-fourths in value, were able to bind absolutely the whole of the creditors. The Act, however, has been found to work disadvantageous to dissenting creditors, the powers conferred on whom are insufficient. The difficulties have been these:—There was no sufficient opportunity for dissenting creditors to challenge the deed; secured creditors, notwithstanding their security, ranked equally with the rest in their claims on other portions of the property; and thirdly, there were no moans of making the deed binding and conclusive in the Court of Bankruptcy, so as to prevent future litigation as to the validity of the deed. These three defects deprived the arrangements contemplated and sanctioned by that Act of much of their practical value. Discretionary power is also, by the Act of 1861, given under certain circumstances to suspend the certificate for a time, and power is given to subject the bankrupt to imprisonment. Power is also given to make orders touching the application of the bankrupt's future property for the purpose of payment of his debts. It is necessary also to refer to the state of things which existed previous to 1861 as to the future property of insolvents. Up to that time the Insolvent Court had dealt with non-traders; and on the surrender of all his property the insolvent was discharged from his debts, subject to this, that machinery was introduced which gave power to get at his future property. In practice what was done was this—that one-third of the property acquired by the insolvent either by gift, inheritance, or devolution, exclusive of his actual earnings, was as a general rule appropriated by the Commissioners for the payment of his past debts. I think that that provision was a very beneficial one. The Act of 1861 has now been tried for several years, and an

  1873
  opinion can be usefully pronounced upon it. The main objection made to it has been that it allowed too great an interference on the part of the court, and thereby prevented the creditors from managing the estate themselves, which it was said they would do with greater economy. It was accordingly recommended by a Committee over which the hon. Member for Southampton presided, and which carefully investigated the subject, that the creditors should be allowed to appoint a trustee of their own choice—that the particular estate in question should be handed over to them—that inspectors should be appointed from their own body, and it was considered by the Committee that under such arrangements the estate would be well and cheaply administered. I propose in this Bill unreservedly to adopt that part of the recommendations of the Committee in the fullest and amplest manner. There is an objection raised to this arrangement, founded upon the assertion that the creditors are often so supine that they cannot be got to attend to their own interests or to appoint a trustee. But that is no answer to such a proposition in cases where creditors are willing to appoint their own trustees. At the same time, no doubt in many cases creditors may be found too supine to act for their own interests, and in such cases it would be wrong to leave the estates of bankrupts, as it were derelict because the creditors will not appoint trustees. In respect to the number of cases in which the creditors have not appointed assignees, speaking of London alone, the total number of London adjudications in 1866 was 2,955, of which 1,673 were cases in which the creditors did not choose assignees. Those estates were, no doubt, very small, generally speaking, a large number of them being only from £200 to £300. Nevertheless, some provision ought to be made for such cases. I think, also, that in only about 56 per cent of the country cases have the creditors appointed assignees. I do not propose to create any new office for this purpose, or indeed to create a new office of any kind under the Bill. There will be a necessity for one or perhaps two provisional trustees, in regard to cases in which the creditors will not take the trouble to act for themselves, in whom, also, the property of all insolvents will be vested between the time of adjudication of bankruptcy and the appointment of a trustee. The registrars of the County Courts will perform the func-
  1874
  tions of the provisional trustees in their several districts, and one will probably suffice in the metropolis for all purposes of a provisional character. By a separate Bill I propose to abolish imprisonment for debt, except in cases of gross fraud and outrage. I propose as a consequence of this to extend the operation of the Small Debts Act from £20 to £50. I apprehend that the abolition of imprisonment for debt will greatly reduce the number of bankruptcies, inasmuch as there are at present a large number of cases in which there are no estates where men become bankrupts merely to escape imprisonment or to get out of prison. By placing the estate in the hands of trustees to be chosen by the creditors, the business of the Bankruptcy Court will be considerably diminished. The debts will be proved before the trustees, who will arrange the dividend: in cases of disputed debt only a question I would arise for the interposition of the I Judge or Commissioner. Indeed, the business of the Court will be reduced to these main points—namely, that of adjudication, or of determining whether the insolvent has brought himself within the operation of the bankrupt law; the examination of the bankrupt; the admission to proof of disputed debts; the question of the bankrupt's discharge, and the determination of questions arising under arrangement deeds. There must be opportunity given to creditors to challenge those deeds if they should I be so disposed, and therefore the matter must be examined before a competent tribunal. That being the amount and character of the business to be done, the next question is, what is the best tribunal for the settlement of these questions? It docs appear to me that the business to be disposed of will require to be done in local courts spread throughout the country. It appears to me that the business of this kind—subject, of course, to appeal—may; be well done by the County Courts in London and the country. It may be quite right also to have Commissioners or Judges in London. I see, however, no reason why the County Courts in the metropolis may not have jurisdiction; and I think it desirable that one or more Commissioners in London should have jurisdiction over the whole of England. Their functions will be the same as the Judges of the county courts in bankruptcy. The system will then be as analogous as possible to that of Scotland, where sequestration can be taken out in the Sheriff's

  1875
  Courts all over the country, limited to their respective jurisdictions, and also in the Court of Session for the whole of Scotland. It is desirable that there should be one settled and complete system of local courts. I believe the County Courts are sufficient for all local purposes. There will be no new appointment of district Commissioners. There should not be district courts especially for settling questions between debtor and creditor, district courts for bankruptcy, and district courts for the Admiralty, but there should be one good set of local courts, and if the County Courts are not sufficient for the purpose, they should be made so. I do not propose, therefore, any new appointment of district Commissioners, although it will be convenient to continue existing Commissioners. The whole business of the Bankruptcy Courts will under this Bill be done by local courts, and the Judges in London will act in bankruptcy in the same way as County Court Judges, but their jurisdiction will extend over the whole of England. This departs to some extent from the system proposed by the Committee of 1865, which recommended—
  "That there should be established a Court of Bankruptcy in the metropolis, and the Judges of the Superior Courts of Equity and Common Law should sit as Judges in that court. That there should be an appeal to the Court of Bankruptcy from all orders of a County Court, or of a single Judge in the metropolis, relating to matters above the value of £20, and from all other orders when the court or Judge shall allow a special case for appeal."
  I am at a loss to conceive how that could be carried into effect. A court composed of Judges of law and equity to sit in bankruptcy would disturb the business of all the courts in the kingdom, and there would be great difficulty in getting the Judges together for this purpose. I am at a loss, also, to conceive what we want with a Court of Bankruptcy in London thus constituted, or, indeed, any court apart from the London Commissioners or Judges, with an appeal to a competent court. The Commissioners or Judges in London would have the whole jurisdiction in bankruptcy, extending over the whole of England, in which they would find important, and I believe ample judicial labour, and which they would ably discharge. I believe, as it now stands, you have the most satisfactory appellate court that could be made, the appeal to the Court of Chancery, I admit that that court is overworked; but I am not proposing to
  1876
  throw additional work upon that court. The appeals in bankruptcy now occupy, it may be, one day a week, and the House would surely not constitute a new court to do business that would only occupy one day a week, and I think that we should leave the Court of Appeal as it now stands. Of course, there is a great change going on in reference to winding-up public companies, and this creates business so vast, that if it continues it may be necessary to constitute some new tribunal. But at present, in considering the nature and character of the business to be transacted, I think that a great portion of business will be taken off the hands of the Court of Bankruptcy by the whole estate being put into the hands of the creditors. Another great part of the business is to be transacted by the registrars, and what remains afterwards will be most satisfactorily discharged by the County Court Judges with Commissioners or Judges in London, who will, however, have a jurisdiction over the whole of England. There is another point of considerable importance. In one of the recent Acts, power is given to the debtor to make himself bankrupt at his own option. At first it was done without any condition, afterwards upon the condition that the bankrupt should show 5s. in the pound. Last year it was proposed to take away the power of voluntary bankruptcy altogether. No doubt the voluntary power was open to abuse, but it was extremely useful in some cases. It will sometimes happen to the honest debtor that to distribute his property fairly he should have the power to prevent any one creditor from having execution against the whole of his property, and I think that this may be done in some such mode as this. Let the debtor petition the Court of Bankruptcy, and upon his petition let his property be protected from execution, and then let the creditors be called together and determine whether he shall be allowed to make himself a bankrupt or not. Then as to those arrangement clauses, which now enable the creditors to take the estate out of bankruptcy, leaving the debtor subject to the bankruptcy law, and the other clauses which take the whole affair out of bankruptcy. These work very well, and I do not propose to alter them. As to the arrangement clauses for preventing the affair going into bankruptcy at all, I have given great attention to this part of the subject, and I hope that part of the law may be considerably

  1877
  improved, If you take the estate out of the debtor and vest it in a provisional trustee, the moment he proposes to arrange with his creditors, he will not come to any such arrangement. His object is to continue his business, and if you take his estate out of him, and also say that no one shall be deemed a creditor until he proves his debt before the court, it would interpose such difficulty that there would be no arrangements at all. On the other hand, there is difficulty in allowing the debtor to make out his own list of creditors, for by so doing he is enabled to commit gross frauds on his bonâ fide creditors. Of course the object is to find some middle course, and what I propose is to this effect: that the debtor shall file a deed within a given number of days, after its execution, six or seven days, in the court having jurisdiction over him in the matter of bankruptcy, and that at the same time that he should file with that deed a list of his debts, and an account of his property, and that the fact of filing shall forthwith be gazetted. The deed is to be deemed completely executed when it is assented to by a majority in number and three-fourths in value of the creditors. Of course, it will be for the House to consider whether this shall be the proportion; but if provision is offered for the creditors satisfying themselves as to the fairness of the arrangement, I think that three-fourths in value will be sufficient. Creditors who are secured must deduct their securities from their debts before they are comprised in the list of consenting creditors. Such a deed when executed can now be challenged in any court in the kingdom; but I propose to remedy that by providing that the Court of Bankruptcy shall within three months declare whether it is or is not completely executed, and whether it is or is not a valid deed. There will be every opportunity of challenging the deed if there be anything wrong in it within the period of three mouths; but it must be challenged in the court where it is filed, and the numerous actions arising in the other courts upon such deeds will thus be put an end to. This, I think, will remove all the objections that now exist to these arrangements by deed; and, if so, I think that we shall have gone a long way in accomplishing an object admitted on all hands to be desirable. Then, as to the discharge of the bankrupt. Hero I admit that there is very
  1878
  great difficulty. The old system looks, at first sight, very plausible; that the bankrupt should be discharged if the Commissioner sees no reason to say that he had not conformed to the law, provided that his creditors assented. But it is impossible to go back to that; it has been, as I have said, found very vague and unsatisfactory, and it is equally difficult to define the particular offences for which certificates should be refused. It is, no doubt, quite right to say that if a bankrupt has got into debt fraudulently he should not have his certificate; but beyond that I find it very difficult to say upon what special grounds the certificate should be refused. The Committee of 1865 recommended that wherever a bankrupt had made a full disclosure and surrender of all his property, and paid 6s. 8d. in the pound to his creditors, he should be free from all claims capable of proof in bankruptcy; and in all other cases where there was a full disclosure and surrender he should be free from all such claims after the expiration of six years from the adjudication. I have had very many objections made to me as to this proposed mode of granting these discharges. A man, it is said, is getting into difficulties, he finds he can pay 4s. or 5s. in the pound, he has credit, and he sees that if he can get some £300 or £400 worth of goods more, or, if he be in a larger way of business, some £3,000 or £4,000 worth, he will be able to pay 6s. 8d. in the pound. Now, gentlemen of experience assure me that a man in this position will very commonly resort to the practice of contracting further debts of this kind. And now the question is what are we to do? If he does not pay 6s. 8d. in the pound he has to wait six years. I know of no way of safely making the payment of 6s. 8d. in the pound a condition of obtaining the certificate, unless to say that in no case shall he have his certificate for less than twelve months, and not then unless he pays 6s. 8d. But this would not be satisfactory, nor is it satisfactory, to say that, as a matter of course, merely because he conforms to the bankruptcy law, he shall be entitled at once to his discharge. I think there is no alternative but to resort to the principle of the Insolvent Debtors' Act—that is, to make his future property liable at the discretion of the Court to his past debts, and let him have his discharge at once. I would not leave the discharge to the discretion of the Judge,

  1879
  except in cases of direct violation of the Bankruptcy Act; in all other cases I would say, "Unless you pay 10 s. in the pound your future property shall be liable, subject to the payment, in the first place, of your future debts, until you make up a dividend of 10 s. in the pound," or such other sum as may be thought proper. If the matter were I new, if we had not proceeded on a contrary principle of legislation for three or four centuries, I think we might have gone farther than that. The basis of all legislation on the subject of debtor and creditor should be to insure the performance of the contract. In all such legislation the remedy should be cognate with the contract, but it is not so if you propose to imprison the debtor. He has contracted to pay money for money's worth; to imprison him does not necessarily tend to the performance of that contract; to provide that if at any time he has the means of paying he shall pay, does tend directly to insure its performance; and if I do not propose to make him do so to the full, it is because we have legislated on a contrary principle for so long a time. These are the principal outlines of the Bill. The subject is a very large one, and grows under one's hand, the details are so numerous. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), whose absence to-night I very much regret, has placed at my disposal all the communications he has received and all his papers upon the subject, and, of course, I have derived great assistance from them. At the same time, there are one or two points on which I have not followed his Bill, especially with regard to the discharge of the bankrupt. I have also had the example of what is done in Scotland. I have had every facility that any one could have in framing my Bill, and it is my fault if it be not a good one. Of course, there are a great many difficulties in the subject—in point of detail, it is extremely hard to realize everything that is desirable; but when hon. Members have the Bill in their hands, as I hope they will in a very short time, I trust it will be found a satisfactory basis for legislation of a permanent character, and not merely one of a series of attempts at legislation, destined in its turn to be shortly swept away by some new measure. Sir, I beg to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to Bankruptcy in England."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that having been a Member of the Select Committee of 1865, and as representing a commercial community, he wished to say that he had listened to the able statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman with a great deal of pleasure. Without being as yet able to judge of the Bill as a whole, he thought that the commercial world would be satisfied with many of the proposals contained in it. The questions connected with bankruptcy fell under two heads—questions of principle and questions of administration. The former related to all matters connected with the discharge and punishment of the debtor, and to such matters as whether a majority of creditors should bind a minority and so on. The question of administration was a subordinate one, which had reference chiefly to the mode in which the assets should be collected and distributed, and to the best kind of tribunal for that purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman had truly said that the chief element in a bankruptcy law was a just distribution of the assets; but he thought it would be admitted that at the bottom of the whole system was the question of discharge and the future liability of the property of the bankrupt. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he had abandoned the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1858; that the discharge of the bankrupt should only be granted after a payment of a dividend of 6s. 8d. in the pound; and that the bankrupt should remain without his discharge for a period of six years, if the dividend did not reach that figure. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had abandoned those suggestions. Great difficulties surrounded them, and he did not think that they had met with the favour of the commercial world. He was aware of the objection alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, of the debtor going on, after he was practically insolvent, in the hope of reaching a 6s. 8d. dividend, but that was not the chief objection to the system. The idea of the Committee was, that unless it was made to be the interest of the debtor to pay a certain dividend he would go on trading to the last, and would by so doing swallow up all his assets. It was that consideration that induced the Committee to recommend that his discharge

  1881
  should have relation to a dividend of 6s. 8d. But very often the value of a trader's assets underwent violent fluctuations, from causes beyond his control, and was lessened thereby much more than it would be by a long course of injudicious trading. A crisis like that of last year might render the assets unequal to the payment of a dividend of 6s. 8d,, and that from no fault of the bankrupt, as the blame might be much less than in cases occurring at ordinary times yielding 15 s. That criterion, therefore, could not be considered a safe one, though it was difficult to find a better. With regard to the question of the liability of the future property of the debtor, he agreed with the Attorney General that, on public grounds, it would be unadvisable to impede the future progress of a man who had become bankrupt by making him, at all periods of his life, subject to the claims of his original creditors. At the same time, great scandal was unquestionably occasioned when it happened that a man rose to great wealth, and yet failed to pay his creditors a single halfpenny of what he owed them under a previous bankruptcy. Under the Insolvent Debtors' Act the money that a man, under such circumstances, acquired, by bequest or inheritance, was made liable; that which he earned was exclusively his own—a distinction which seemed to him to be a reasonable and proper one. The plan sketched out by the Attorney General might contain the elements of a successful settlement of this question; but until the Bill was before the House it was impossible to express an definite opinion on the point. It was wise to place a bankrupt not at the discretion of individual creditors, but at that of the court, and to make only a portion of his future property liable for his former debts. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had adopted the plan of placing the administration of the assets of a bankrupt in the hands of the creditors as far as possible; and he was glad also that he proposed to remove the punishment of the debtors, in cases where punishment was due, altogether from the Bankruptcy Law, because at present it frequently happened that the creditors who desired to punish a fraudulent debtor could only do it by wasting a portion of their assets in the prosecution of him. He would also say, in reference to another topic touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that there was a strong feeling among the mer-
  1882
  cantile classes in favour of the appointment of a Judge of the same rank and standing as the other Judges of the land, who should make these cases—like Admiralty and Divorce cases were—his exclusive department. He did not consider the Court of Chancery a satisfactory Court of Appeal for cases of mercantile bankruptcy; and he thought that the whole question of the tribunal would have to be carefully considered by the House in Committee on the Bill. With regard to the deeds of inspection and assignment, he could not but express the opinion that the system of winding-up under inspection had been a fertile source of every description of fraud, and that it generally meant only a winding-up under a friendly accountant or a friendly solicitor. It would be better, he thought, so to deal with the Court of Bankruptcy as to attract the estates of bankrupts to that court, rather than to encourage the making of deeds of inspection and assignment. As he had said, the creditors were, in his opinion, much better able to collect the assets than anybody else could be; but it was doubtful whether they were equally capable of distributing them equitably under deeds of inspection and assignment, and it might be well that the court should be held, in some degree, in terrorem over them, to take care that the distribution was just. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded to the question of expense; but if the machinery he proposed could be placed in the hands of the creditors, the great cost which now frightened people from having anything to do with the Court of Bankruptcy would, he hoped, be avoided. It was difficult to advance any opinion upon the Bill before it was in the hands of the House; but he thought that, while it would require important modifications in Committee, it contained many valuable suggestions, and many proposals which would be received with great satisfaction by the commercial world.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he considered that the Bill would meet with great approval on the part of all interested in it; but he should have been glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman had acted more boldly on the sound principles contained in the latter part of his speech, and if he would explain more distinctly how he proposed to deal with the 600 gentlemen, or thereabouts, who made themselves bankrupts every year, who paid not a-farthing in the pound, and always obtained their

  1883
  discharge. He should also be glad to be informed what was for the future to constitute an act of bankruptcy—whether it was to be involved in the present difficulties that surrounded it, or to consist of some simple act about which no doubt could exist. There were 8,100 bankrupts last year. Of these 170 had paid 10 s. and upwards in the pound; 600 paid nothing at all. As a rule it might be said that when a trader was only able to pay 2s. in the pound he must have known for some time that his affairs had not been in a solvent state. When a man became unfortunate the most advantageous method for himself and his creditors was to settle his affairs by a composition deed, for he could better manage his estate for himself and his creditors than any one could do it for him. Of 1,210 compositions 127 paid more than 10 s. That showed that the method of composition was the most satisfactory settlement for the creditor. The bankruptcy laws afforded facilities for every kind of fraud, for if the creditors would not accept a composition the man could at once take the benefit of the Act. He believed the present Bill would to some degree obviate the evils of the present system; but he could not entertain the hope that it would effect any material improvement. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the matter further consideration, and that some modifications of its provisions would be introduced in Committee.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought that two or three Resolutions which he submitted to the Committee upstairs had not received from the Attorney General the justice to which they were entitled. One was a proposition that imprisonment for debt should be abolished, instead of which the Attorney General was going to aggravate imprisonment for debt and make it more unjust to numerically the larger portion of Her Majesty's subjects, who had not the advantage of getting into debt to the extent of £20. At present the humbler classes were brought before local courts, were ordered to pay money, and in default were imprisoned again and again, so that in some cases they were kept in prison for two years, while those who owed debts above £20 were waited upon by an officer of the court and invited to go out of prison. The Attorney General now proposed to enlarge the power of imprisonment for debts to £50. He hoped the House would put the poorer classes
  1884
  of society on the same footing as the richer who incurred debts to a larger amount. The next point in the Resolutions of the Committee was, as to what constituted an act of bankruptcy, and the Committee recommended that it should be so simple that it could not become the subject of litigation. They intended bankruptcy to be a substitution for imprisonment for debt—that it should be a formal sort of proceeding, a mere record of the fact—having the effect of transferring the man's property to his creditors. The principle involved in that Resolution was that the legal settlement was to be formal, and that the substantial element was to be commercial, so that the administration of the bankrupt's estate would be the carrying on or winding-up of the business in the ordinary way. The Committee thought that the creditors were the best persons to look after the property. With regard to the Attorney General's method of dealing with the bankrupt, it was the only one that could be adopted—namely, that all his future acquired property should be made available to discharge the debts contracted under the bankruptcy. When the Act of 1860 was under discussion he himself succeeded in introducing into it a provision making the future acquired property of traders, under certain conditions, liable for their past debts; but he believed that in the Bankruptcy Court that provision had hardly ever been put in force. He was glad that the Attorney General had now adopted that principle; but he would ask him whether there was to be no limit of time fixed as to its operation, or whether it was to apply during the whole of the bankrupt's life? If there were no limit it would not be satisfactory. The Select Committee which sat on that subject having determined that the administration of bankruptcies should be a very simple matter, scarcely ever requiring the intervention of the judicial mind, they suggested that the County Courts should have a bankruptcy jurisdiction, but that there should be one court in London with that jurisdiction, though without a Judge specially appointed for it. In that one court the ordinary business of bankruptcies in the metropolis might be transacted; and the aid of the Judges of the land might easily be called in—as was the case in the Central Criminal Court—whenever any legal difficulty arose, or any matter about which there was contention by counsel. The Resolutions of the Committee were

  1885
  not so chimercial or impracticable as the Attorney General seemed to imagine. With regard to deeds of composition, they were very often a cover for fraud and a contrivance of lawyers and others for plundering the bankrupt's estate and cheating the creditors. If the Bill were properly framed those deeds would be rendered wholly unnecessary. The law ought to be extremely comprehensive, giving the greatest power to the creditors for regulating the mode of dealing with the assets, but not enabling them to discharge the debtor from liability to the creditor without the latter's consent—which he thought monstrous. He was glad that the Attorney General had taken up that subject, and believed that he would receive every assistance from that (the Opposition) side of the House in passing his measure in a satisfactory shape.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he wished to express his sincere gratification at the attempt of the learned Attorney General to introduce a sound principle into the bankruptcy law of this country, by making the future acquired property of the bankrupt liable for his previous debts. That House would, he thought, be only performing one of its clearest duties by doing something to correct the lax commercial morality of the present age. He knew of nothing which would be likely to cast a greater gloom over our commercial prestige than if one were to go into our large towns, the centres of our industry, and make out a list of all the men living extravagantly who, having failed, had not had the honour or honesty to pay their past debts. The hon. and learned Gentleman, if he could introduce some amendment of the law calculated to alter that state of things, would in his opinion richly deserve the gratitude of his country.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he thought the measure which the Attorney General had submitted to the notice of the House was one which was likely to be productive of great advantage in dealing with a very difficult question. He wished, however, to observe that he had not heard the hon. and learned Gentleman make any allusion in the course of his statement to the taxation of the bills of costs of solicitors and assignees in bankruptcy. Unless that taxation was taken out of the hands of local officers and placed in the hands of officers entirely removed from local influences, the hon. and learned Gentleman's meritorious labours would fail to produce
  1886
  their due effect. He suggested the appointment of an accountant in bankruptcy. It had worked most successfully in the Scotch measure of 1856.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought that many of the clauses of the Bill would operate very usefully. Much scandal arose from the fact that so many persons became bankrupts and again set up immediately in business—living extravagantly and without the slightest wish apparently to pay their just debts. He knew thousands of instances in which that had been done, and he was of opinion that in all cases in which a man failed to pay what was justly and lawfully due from him, he should have some penalty imposed upon him, such as that he should not be permitted to enter into business afresh to repeat perhaps the same conduct. If that were done we should not have one quarter of the bankrupts we now had. The present position of the bankruptcy laws was a disgrace to the country. What they wanted was an administration of the law which would be easy, cheap, and speedy; and no doubt the Bill would tend to that end.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he thought the Attorney General had done rightly in departing from some of the Resolutions of the Committee. He approved of the Bill. Much had been said about the facilities offered for, and the frauds which had been committed under, deeds of composition and deeds of assignment. Those frauds, he believed, had been chiefly occasioned by the departure, in 1862, from the principle enacted in 1859, that all those deeds should come under the supervision of the Court of Bankruptcy, and that the court should determine in every case whether it was a proper case for composition. At present those deeds never went before any court, and there was no tribunal to which a creditor could go to prevent a bankrupt from entering into a composition to defraud creditors of their just rights. He approved of the suggestion for having a special court of jurisdiction in London for bankrupts, and he thought the appeal cases could go very well as they did at present—to the Lords Justices.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the objection to utilizing the local County Courts, which was alleged to exist in London, did not prevail in the provinces, which would be glad to obtain through them a ready and cheap access to justice. Their jurisdiction might be extended, if the Judges

  1887
  were adequately remunerated, and that extension would relieve the Superior Courts of much business. Three months was too long to allow a deed to remain open, and it might be closed in one or two months upon due notice being given. The winding-up of the estates of deceased insolvents had not been mentioned. He hoped it had not been lost sight of.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was of unquestionable importance to encourage commerce, but it was equally important to avoid encouraging rash speculation which proceeded upon the calculation, "If I succeed the profit is mine; if I fail the loss is my creditors." The question of what acts constitute a bankruptcy was not referred to at all in the Report of the Committee; but there were, of course, many tests of bankruptcy, such as a debtor's declaration of insolvency, a trader-debtor summons, and the failure to pay a debt or to give security. He did not admit that the Bill aggravated the law of imprisonment for debt; but he would not release a debtor from attachment made by a court of competent jurisdiction after due consideration of the circumstances of his indebtedness, for there were cases in which it would not be right to abolish imprisonment for debt. The expenses which had been referred to by his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh could only be regulated by taxation; but the services of an accountant might be dispensed with. The estates of deceased insolvents were administered so cheaply, and, indeed, were so wholly a matter of administration in the Chambers of the Vice Chancellor, and so far removed from the jurisdiction of counsel and of courts, that he knew little about them, but he believed that new provisions were scarcely necessary. He would consider the remarks that had been made, and do all he could to give effect to the views of hon. Members.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 74.]

  MINES.
  Select Committee on Mines to consist of seventeen Members:—Mr. BRUCE, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. NEATE, Mr. GREENALL, Mr. FAWCETT, Sir PHILIP EGERTON, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. POWELL, Mr. AYRTON, General DUNNE, Mr. CLIVE, Mr. HUSSEY VIVIAN, Viscount CEANBOURNE, Mr. WOODS, Mr. WILLIAM ORME FOSTER, and Mr. BROMLEY:—Power to
  1888
  send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  JUDGMENT DEBTORS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to abolish arrest on final process in civil actions in England, except in certain cases; and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Judgments, Decrees, and Orders, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 75.]

  BANKRUPTCY ACTS REPEAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to repeal enactments relating to Bankruptcy in England, and to matters connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. Secretary WALPOLE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 76.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.