Lords Sitting of 2 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Local Government Supplemental.
2a Landed Property Improvement, &c. (Ireland).

THE DUKE OF MODENA AND THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that before the Orders of the day were proceeded with he wished to give a notice for Monday next, and as the subject which he intended then to bring forward was of a somewhat peculiar character, he thought it would be more convenient to the House, as well as more fair to the noble Lord opposite, if he stated one word of explanation as to the ground on which he would bring the subject forward. He had been appealed to by persons who were much interested in the fair fame of a deposed Prince—the Duke of Modena—to vindicate his character from certain charges which for the last three months had been circulated through Europe, in the name and on the authority of a British Minister—the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman referred to a publication as the ground of his charges. He (the Marquess of Normanby) had been furnished with a specific answer to each one of these charges. When he brought the matter forward he would have an opportunity of explaining to their Lordships the character of the publication in question, and he thought they would feel that the right hon. Gentleman would better have consulted the responsibility of his high position if he had not made those specific charges without inquiring a little more into their truth. He intended to move for a Copy or Extracts of any despatch relating to the Duchy of Modena from Her Majesty's Minister at present in Central Italy during the years 1855, 1856, and 1857. Their Lordships would feel that this was a very serious question when he told them that he was credibly informed that the Duke of Modena was quite horrified by the charges which someone's malignant imagination had made against him, and which had been so lightly adopted by a high authority, that he should consider himself as morally guilty of murder if the charges
  176
  were true. If he could not bring on the subject upon Monday, he would postpone it to some subsequent day.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that as the character of the Grand Duke of Modena was attacked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he hoped the noble Marquess would see that it would be much more conducive to the vindication of his Royal client, if his defence were made in the House where the charges were preferred. If the noble Marquess persisted in his notice, the Grand Duke would be defended where he had not been accused, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be attacked where he could not defend himself. He presumed that the object of the noble Marquess was partly to defend the Duke of Modena, and partly to attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he would have taken the advice of the noble and learned Lord if his opinions of these subjects had been what they all admired ten years ago. If there was any irregularity in the Duke of Modena being defended in one place when he was attacked in another, it rested with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had brought a wanton accusation against a deposed Prince upon authority which was unworthy or credit. The attack was uncalled for, as it had nothing to do with the subject under debate when it was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it went forth to the world as having the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. He should not take the advice of his noble and learned Friend, but should defend an absent and otherwise defenceless person, who had been driven from his country by the arms of a neighbour.
  LORD BROUGHAMrose to address the House, but desisted on cries of "Order."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if it was a question of Order, the noble Marquess was most open to reproof, in having used the opportunity of giving a notice to make rather detailed statements, and in giving a notice that a week hence he would deliberately commit the very disorderly act of making a speech in reference to a speech which had been delivered in "another place."
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY, amid continued cries of "Order" said, that he gave the notice with the explanation he had added, in order to give the colleagues of the Chancellor of the Exchequer some idea before hand of the subject to which he meant to refer.

  SUBDIVISION OF DIOCESES BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  LORD LYTTELTONmoved that the House do go into Committee on the Bill, and said that it had come down from the Select Committee so altered that not one of the original clauses remained. Still, however, the substance and scope of the measure remained, and what was new consisted for the most part of restrictions on the operation of the scheme. To some of the new clauses he had a strong objection, and which he hoped to get altered. He was not very sanguine, owing to the lateness of the Session, and the pressure of business in the other House of Parliament, that the Bill would become law in the course of the present Session, but, nevertheless, it was, he considered, of the greatest importance in reference to future legislation upon the subject that their Lordships should pass this Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee under very singular circumstances, a distinct understanding having been entered into with the noble Lord that the measure should be entirely remodelled. The great difficulty he had with regard to the Bill was his great respect for the noble Lord who had devoted great time and attention to the subject with a most sincere desire to arrive at a good result. He could not, however, say that that good result would be found embodied in the present Bill—in fact, he should have distinctly opposed its further progress had he not been to some extent concerned in remodelling it in the Committee. Some good result might, perhaps, arise ultimately out of the discussions that had taken place; but in fact, without any offence to the Mover of the Bill; he grieved to say that he must look upon it at present as little better than a sham. It seemed to be based on a joke, to which he had before alluded, attributed to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, who, when he was waited on by a deputation, said that if people were willing to pay for Bishops he did not see why they should not have them. This measure appeared to go upon that principle. Under the Bill if any body of persons could get together some £120,000 they might have a Bishop for their money. If this matter were postponed for another Session there might be a chance of some useful legislation being obtained, but there was not the remotest chance of this Bill passing the House of Commons. The
  178
  original Bill was a revolutionary Bill and it was with great qualms of conscience that the right rev. Bench had voted for the second reading, with the understanding that it would be greatly changed in Select Committee. It proposed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the power of altering the existing constitution of the Church of England. When a vacancy took place in a See, it was to be referred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whether they would chop up the See into a number of little Sees, and the income into a number of little incomes, and so alter the whole Parliamentary arrangement that was come to twenty years ago. He had a great respect for the Ecclesiastical Commission, of which he was a member, but even ecclesiastical bodies were liable to be governed by one or two members, and he was scarcely prepared to admit that the noble Earl at the head of the Commission (the Earl of Chichester), or, it might be, its estimable Secretary should have the power of remodelling the Church of England. The Ecclesiastical Commission was thus called in to avoid an appeal to Parliament on the erection of each new See: but the evils of an appeal to Parliament in such matters might be exaggerated. The Church could never maintain her position in this country unless she carried with her the sympathies of the people, and where else could she gather the expressions of that sympathy better than by looking to the representatives of the people? On this account he had never feared, as some did, discussions in the other House of Parliament. Many disagreeable things might be spoken there, but unpleasant sayings never left any sting behind them unless there was some truth in them. He, therefore, would prefer that whatever changes were made should be made by the Legislature, and that the whole case should be laid before Parliament. But not only did he feel a difficulty with regard to the mode in which the noble Lord proposed to make these changes, but he felt that the changes themselves were not desirable as originally proposed in the Bill. He did not think it desirable greatly to multiply the number of Bishops. Two of his right rev. Friends had got into some disgrace with a noble Duke opposite for saying that it would be possible to over-govern a diocese; but he believed they spoke nothing but the truth. It did not do to be perpetually interfering with the clergy; men would perform responsible duties better for being left

  179
  more to themselves. The very size of the present dioceses generally was a guarantee that their administration would be such as the government of free and intelligent men ought always to be. Some nine months ago he wrote to the noble Lord pointing out to him that this Bill was not the one thing needed in the Church of England. There were principles in the Bill which might be dangerous to legislation at some future period. He was one of those who voted in the Committee that no portion of the funds belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commission should be applicable to these new Sees; and he did so because these new Sees were to be the creation, not of Parliament, but of Ecclesiastical Commission itself. An increase in the number of Bishops might be imperatively necessary at some future time—the result of the census might show it to be necessary; but by laying it down in this Bill that the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not be applicable for this purpose Parliament would be tying its hands from what might be then a very useful course. What he thought the Church of England wanted was not a multiplication of her machinery, but an increase its working power. There were many parts of the Church system which might be made much more efficient than they now were. For example, he desired to see the deans of cathedral churches put into such a position as would give them the power of being more distinctly useful than they were at present. The reason why the public now grudged to these dignitaries their small incomes was that the duties which they were called upon to perform were not understood. As it was their position was one of great honour, but their duties were not distinct, nor did they receive incomes on which they could maintain their position. If, by being made suffragan Bishops, or by any other plan, they were enabled to perform useful work, the public would not grudge them the means of properly maintaining their position. With regard to the Archdeacons, they should have stalls in our cathedral churches. In this way alone £4,000 a year would be saved in the expenditure of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and this sum might with the greatest propriety be employed in founding a new See. Above all, he believed, that what was most wanted in the Church of England was some reform of her ecclesiastical law. He wished to see some check put upon the ruinous expenditure by which the discipline of the Church was at present maintained, and upon the
  180
  length of time during which these cases hung undecided. Suppose a clergyman to be accused of some grave offence; suppose him to be tried, and the case to go lingering on from September, 1859, to the end of July, 1861—was this fair either to the accused or to the Church? If he were guilty, what a miserable state of things it was that for two years he should be able to resist the power of the Church of which he was a member; and if he were innocent, how unjust that for the same space of time he should be exposed to the annoyance, the vexation, and the harrassing anxiety of an undecided lawsuit? How could he after that time recover his character or his position in the Church? Then, with regard to the costs these suits, it had pleased Parliament to make the revenue of the See which he held sufficient to bear such expenses, but there were other less amply endowed bishoprics as to which it was felt to be a very hard thing to cast upon them the burden of maintaining the discipline of the Church. These were serious evils in the present system of the Church, and he wished for serious legislation respecting them. He did not desire to vote against the present Bill, but he could not vote in its favour, nor could he with confidence recommend their Lordships to pass such a measure.
  LORD OVERSTONE(who was almost inaudible) was understood to say that it was an auspicious day for the Church of England when her Bishops addressed themselves to their Lordships with the ability, the good sense, and the conciliatory temper which had just been exhibited by the right rev. Prelate. So long as the Bishops of the Church maintained such a spirit and tone he felt confident that, whether their number were multiplied or restricted, they would continue to preserve the respect and to command the influence which it was so desirable they should possess. As to the decision of their Lordships upon the Bill now before them, that was a secondary matter. But after having given this subject much and anxious consideration he joined the right rev. Prelate in expressing an earnest hope that the noble Lord would withdraw this measure. The Bill could not in any case progress beyond their Lordships' House in the present Session, and was it wise or dignified to press it further under these circumstances and with this prospect? He believed the ultimate accomplishment of the object which the noble Lord had at heart would be best promoted by the withdrawal of the Bill.
  LORD LYTTELTONthought the noble Lord could hardly be serious in pressing him to withdraw the Motion for going into Committee on this Bill. The Select Committee which had considered this subject has not reported that it was undesirable to proceed with the Bill, and it was entirely out of his power to accede to the suggestion now made to him. As to the remark that there was no probability of the measure passing in the present Session, that was perhaps true; but he thought it a great advantage that a Bill should pass through one House of Parliament, even if it were not accepted by both.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHalso objected to the further progress of this measure at the present time, but not for the reasons urged by the right rev. Prelate, who, he thought, had misstated or misunderstood the case. The measure had been introduced in their Lordships' House not as a means of evading popular opinion, but because, looking to the vast amount of business which occupied the attention of the other House, the subject of the increase of the Episcopate was not likely to receive the attention which its importance demanded. It was very desirable that a general measure of this character should receive the sanction of the Legislature for another reason. If new Sees were to be created it was necessary that the funds for their endowment should be provided by voluntary contributions. The right rev. Prelate had adverted to this, and quoted an admission of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that if the people desired more Bishops, and were rich enough to pay for them, there was no reason why they should not have them. It seemed to him that the right rev. Prelate endorsed the opinion of the noble Lord; its principle was embodied in the provisions of this Bill. But if the people were to be called upon to endow those new Sees out of their own voluntary contributions, then it was highly desirable that some such measure as this should have previously received the sanction of the Legislature, in order to give full effect to the purposes for which the funds were contributed. It was impossible to suppose that the large sum of £120,000 would ever be raised—which must be raised to provide an endowment for every one of the new Sees—if, after all the trouble and self denial connected with raising the money it were still to remain uncertain whether
  182
  the See itself would receive the sanction of the Legislature. He also understood that the principle of this measure was in accordance with the opinion of the members of Her Majesty's Government, for he remembered on a former occasion that the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department said that the sub-division of dioceses ought not to be dealt with piecemeal, but that there ought to be some general measure applicable to the whole country. Now that was very much the ground on which this measure proceeded, and it was founded on the recommendations of the Cathedral Commission of 1857. His noble Friend had bestowed much care and attention in preparing the measure in accordance with those recommendations, and nothing, therefore, could be more natural than that his noble Friend should be anxious that the Bill should pass. For himself he was very anxious that the measure should pass; but he would be guided very much by the course which the noble Lord himself intended to pursue under the present circumstances. If his noble Friend did not think that there was a chance of the Bill passing the other House of Parliament, then it would be matter for the consideration of his noble Friend whether he would think it right to pledge their Lordships' House to all the provisions and details of this Bill. He laid the more stress on this advice, on account of one of the provisions in this measure, which was inserted in accordance with what they were told was the opinion of the country—though he, for one, hoped the time was not far distant when the Parliament and the country would think it right to reconsider the question—he alluded to the provision that no part of the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be applicable to the endowment of the new Sees. He should not oppose that proviso, though he thought he could give good reasons why it should not be adopted. He believed his noble Friend himself did not approve of the clause, but had agreed to its insertion from the impression that otherwise it would not pass in the other House of Parliament. But if it was not likely to pass the other House on other grounds he thought it would not be wise to pledge their Lordships' House to that opinion.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the noble Duke had quoted quite correctly an answer which he gave last summer, when he was asked whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not

  183
  suspend the appointment to the then vacant See of Rochester, to allow time to consider whether the diocese should be subdivided. He then stated his opinion that it would not be desirable while the See was vacant to enter into new arrangements. He was not, therefore, unfriendly to some measure—he would not say this precise measure—but to some measure of the kind now brought forward by his noble Friend. But after the appeal which had been made to him by the noble Duke) who, was a much more decided supporter of the Bill than he (the Duke of Newcastle) was, he could only hope that this noble Friend would not press the measure further on the present occasion. With the feeling evinced on all sides he could not but fear that further discussion at the present time would be rather prejudicial to the objects his noble Friend had in view. He would only say, further, that he could not concur in the opinion of the noble Duke, that the time might come when it would be thought desirable that the common fund should be applied to the endowment of episcopal Sees. He was of opinion that such an application of the fund would be most pernicious and improper.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he felt very anxious on this subject, as he belonged to a diocese that was universally admitted to be too large for the charge of one Bishop—he meant the See of Rochester; and, therefore, he was in favour of the principle of the measure of his noble Friend. But there was a Resolution come to by the Select Committee which took away all the interest he ever had in the Bill, which was that no new bishopric should be constituted until such a sum of money had been raised as would be sufficient not only to provide a residence for the Bishop, but also for an annual income equal to the lowest amount prescribed for the existing Bishops by Act of Parliament—that was to say £4,200. That he thought was not likely to be done—not because the money could not be raised, but because the working clergy did not want an increase of that sort of Bishop; they wanted Bishops with smaller incomes; and, if he might say it without offence to the right rev. Bench, they wanted Bishops who would be nearer to themselves, and not Prince Bishops. He hoped this Bill would not be pressed. He knew from painful experience how galling it was to give up a measure on which much care, and even much affection, had been bestowed; but then the noble Lord must see there was no
  184
  chance of passing the measure at the present time.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to add his persuasions to those that had already been pressed on the noble Lord to induce him not to proceed with the present Bill. He would not have ventured to give an opinion on the subject, if it had not been for the observations made by the noble Lord himself. The noble Lord considered that great benefit would arise to the cause which he had so much and so zealously at heart if the Bill were to pass their Lordships' House; but, from what he had observed, it was uncertain whether it would pass their Lordships' House, and if it were likely so to pass, ought it to go down to the House of Commons, where the noble Lord had apparently made up his mind that it would either be rejected or dropped? Under these circumstances he ventured to urge on the noble Lord not to press his measure—a course which, however, he would hardly have ventured to take if he had not observed that the same advice was given to the noble Lord, not only by Members of the House generally, but more especially by those noble Lords who were equally zealous with the noble Lord himself in the promotion of the interests of the Church of England. He wished to point out to the noble Lord that he had already obtained one great and important object—he had had the question fully ventilated in the House and in the Select Committee, and he had obtained the opinions of those whose sentiments were of the greatest weight and value on all subjects of this nature. He inferred from the speech of the right rev. Prelate that the noble Lord would not have the support of the right rev. Bench on this question; and seeing this, and seeing also that other noble Lords who had occupied their whole lives with questions of this nature were averse to proceeding further, he put it to the noble Lord whether it would be wise to press his Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEobserved that the House was naturally indisposed, from personal respect for the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill, to vote against it, but no single Peer who had spoken had signified his approval of it. Every Peer who had addressed the House, except the noble Lord himself, had either objected to the whole or to parts of it, or thought it was unadvisable to proceed with it this Session. For himself, he would be inclined to support a Bill emanating from a Select Committee, but after the discussion which had

  185
  taken place and the almost unanimous opinion that had been expressed, he should feel it his duty, if the Bill were pressed, to vote against proceeding further with it at present.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDwas understood to say that unless all Bills for the benefit of the English Church were to be rejected in that House, their Lordships ought to read the Bill a second time. The speech of the right rev. Prelate (Bishop of London) came home to every true Churchmen. Four years ago Bill for the Amendment of Church Discipline was brought in by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lore Cranworth). The first Vote he gave in the House was in support of that measure, but it was opposed by every one of the Bishops. He trusted, however, that if the great labours of the right rev. Prelate (Bishop of London) permitted, he would himself introduce a Bill to enable Bishops at a smaller cost than £5,000 or £6,000 in each case to punish clergymen guilty of open immorality.
  LORD LYTTELTONexplained that he gave his support to the clause to which objection had been made, because he was assured that it was in accordance with general public opinion, which, however, he was not disposed to believe. He did not feel justified in withdrawing the Bill.
  On Question—their Lordships divided—Contents 11; Not Contents 68: Majority 57.
  Resolved in the negative.

  CONTENTS.

  York, Archbp.

  Dungannon, V

  Lifford, V. [Teller.]

  Bath, M.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Denbigh, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Lyttelton, L. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Granville, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harrington, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Harrowby, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Normanby, M.

  Manvers, E.

  Caithness, E.

  Mayo, E.

  Camperdowen, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Cardigan, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Winton, E. (E. Eglinton)

  Ellenborough, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Bolingbroke and St.

  John, V.

  Fortescue, L. (V. Ebrington.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)

  Melville, V.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Harris, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Sydney, V.

  Lyveden, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Ripon, Bp.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Middleton,)

  Rivers, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Camoys, L. [Teller.]

  Carew, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Churston, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Conyers, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Sundrige, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Digby, L.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  LANDED PROPERTY INPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—SECOND READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, the object of the measure was to enable landlords who had already improved their land and farm buildings, to borrow money for the further purpose of erecting suitable dwellings for labourers. The Bill had met with no opposition in the other House of Parliament, and he did not anticipate any opposition to it from their Lord ships.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the principle of the Land Improvement Act was to enable landlords to obtain loans for effecting improvements, such as thorough draining, the making of roads, and the like, which increased the actual letting value of the property. That was a perfectly fair principle as between the tenant for life and the person who was to succeed him, and it was only just the money borrowed should be charged on the estate. The erection of labourers' cottages was not a description of improvements which increased the letting value of the land; but, owing to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, and the great want of decent dwellings for the peasantry there, he would not object to the extension of the Land Improvement Act to that country, in the direction intended by this Bill. At the same time, if their Lordships adopted the measure

  187
  they ought to guard against this departure from a sound principle being drawn into a precedent, or extended to a class of improvements for which there might not be the same urgency.
  LORD MONTEAGLEaddressed a few words to the House which were not heard.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought the Government ought to take up the whole question. Act after Act had been passed until the whole law relating to land in Ireland had become one mass of confusion.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid that there were no means provided for ensuring that the dwellings should be kept in repair after the land had been saddled with a debt for their construction. He should not oppose the Bill, but he had great doubts of its beneficial operation.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEadmitted that the powers of the Bill, if injudiciously and improvidently applied, might be productive of many evils; but in the present state of Ireland great improvements were necessary and nothing could be done without enlarging the provisions of the Land Improvement Atcs as was proposed by this Bill. He had inspected some of the improved dwellings in Ireland, and their state showed that the labourers appreciated the privilege of being clean and comfortable.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he would rejoice to see such a Bill passed into a law if it would be appreciated by the lower classes in Ireland; but he very much feared they were indifferent to improved dwellings, and these would never be kept in the necessary repair unless wholly at the expense of the landlords.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  OFICERS OF RESERVE (ROYAL NAVY) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Power to Her Majesty to accept the Services of Masters and Mates of Merchant Service as Officers of Reserve to the Royal Navy), agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power of the Admiralty to enrol Officers of Reserve to Royal Navy),
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKErose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, that officers of the merchant service who joined the Reserve should undergo the same examination before the same tribunal as officers in the Royal Navy. It might
  188
  be said officers of the merchant service had already passed the examination prescribed by Act of Parliament, but the two services were so entirely distinct in the manner of conducting ships, their character, and discipline, and everything else, except the theory of navigation, that it was essential the same examination should be undergone by all officers. Merchant seamen were not true sailors—they were mere navigators who understood the propulsion of vessels by steam. They had no experience whatever in gunnery, and could not be entrusted with the firing of a ship's battery. All he asked was that the officers of the Naval Reserve should be subjected to the same examination as midshipmen in the Royal Navy. The noble Lord moved an Amendment at the end of Clause 2, to add the following words:—
  "But before they can perform the executive Duty of Lieutenant aboard any of Her Majesty's Ships they are required to pass the same Examinations, and before the same Tribunals, as the Midshipmen of the Navy do before they are eligible for the Rank of Lieutenant."
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETentertained great objection to doing by Act of Parliament what could be done equally well by Regulations sanctioned by Order in Council, because the latter could be more readily and effectually adapted to any altered circumstances of the case. He was anxious not to excite the jealousy of the officers of the Navy, and at the same time he was anxious to secure the services of the officers of the merchant service; and he, therefore, thought the Bill should be, as far as possible, of a general character, and that the details of the scheme should be left to Regulations and to Orders in Council. He was very unwilling to fetter the discretion of the present or any future Board of Admiralty on the subject. The examination of masters in the mercantile marine was as strict as that in the Navy, although it was quite true that it did not include gunnery. It was no doubt very desirable that officers of the merchant service should understand gunnery; but, in spite of their deficiency in that respect, should any emergency arise their services would still be of great value on board of steam-vessels, in which they must recollect any future war would be chiefly carried on. The simple truth was that the Admiralty could not do without them. If a war broke out they would be obliged to call in their assistance; and it was of great importance that they should avoid exciting any ill feeling among

  189
  them by unnecessary restrictions. Care would be taken to drill them well in gunnery, and he had no doubt that before long they would themselves come forward and offer to prove their competency by undergoing examination. He trusted that the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH:I agree with the noble duke that nothing should be done by an Act of Parliament which can be done as well by an Order in Council, and, therefore, I am somewhat surprised that this Bill should have been brought in at all, inasmuch as sufficient power already exists in the hands of Her Majesty to effect that which the Bill aims at doing. It is unquestionably not expedient to fetter the discretion of the Admiralty as to the application of our naval resources; I believe, moreover, that if you require officers of merchant ships, before you accept their services, to prove by examination that they possess the same qualications as midshipmen, you will not get a man to come forward, for they will deem it derogatory to their dignity and position. I am, however, glad to see this measure brought forward, because I am glad to see a determination on the part of the Government to make preparation in time of peace for a war which I have always regarded as inevitable, and which may come upon us no one can tell how soon. It is not sufficient to have your preparations ready at the end of the first six months of the war—you must be ready for the first six days of the war. Whenever war, unfortunately, does break out, you may depend upon it that preparations will have been made for it long beforehand by the enemy, who will be ready for immediate action and invasion; and it will be within the first few days of the war that we shall require the help of all our reserves. I am therefore, most anxious, as we have neither sufficient officers nor men, that measures should at once be adopted to prepare for the worst. We must bear in mind that without some special training merchant officers are not fit to walk the deck of a man-of-war. They may know navigation, but practically speaking that is of little importance,—what is required of them is a knowledge of gunnery, and a knowledge of steam and its management. It is, therefore, very desirable—indeed, absolutely necessary—that the Government should afford to the gentlemen of the merchant service the opportunity of becoming proficient in gunnery as practised on board
  190
  of war ships, and of learning the practical application of steam to naval purposes. When they have satisfied the Government that they are able to execute the duties of naval officers, then let them acquire the rank and receive all the respect which accompanies it. I do not apprehend that any captain would venture to place an officer fresh from a merchant ship in command of a watch on board of a man-of-war. I do not expect that these gentlemen whose services we are anxious to secure will be employed, nor do I think that they ought to be employed, in large men-of war. Naval officers, who know the discipline of the Navy, and whom man-of-war's men respect, are the only officers who can exercise authority on board large ships. But the service of these gentlemen will be inestimable in the command of gunboats and of small vessels engaged in the protection of our coasts. The Naval Coast Volunteers, whose services are limited to a certain distance from the coast, and many of whom are not seamen but merely men living on the seashore, may be usefully employed under these commanders. I believe there are 110 gunboats not in commission. They would require 220 officers and 5,500 men. Here we should find the men who would willingly obey these officers, and the officers in these small commands would practically learn a great portion of their duties and become excellent officers of the Navy if the war was continued. I consider these gentlemen in the light of officers of a Reserve of Volunteers rather than as officers of the regular Navy. Whatever they may desire in the way of rank we shall be willing to give them, but it should be rank in the Naval Volunteers, and not rank in the Navy. I have no prejudices, but I respect the prejudices of others, and I should be extremely sorry if anything were done to hurt the feelings of any officer. I think that this measure may be so worked with discretion as not to injure the interests or affect the feelings of any naval office in Her Majesty's service. I think it may be so managed as to produce the greatest possible good by providing in time of peace for the instant emergency of the first outbreak of war. It is for that emergency that we must provide. I hope the noble Duke and his successors will constantly bear that in mind, and make provision for naval defence in time of peace; as, should they not do so, I know not what calamity might be brought upon us in the first week of a war.
  Amendment negatived: Bill reported

  191
  without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.