Sitting of 24 July 1846

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN. For Roscommon, The O'Conor Don.—For St. Ives, Lord William Powlett.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Saint Asaph and Bangor and Manchester Dioceses.
2°. Militia Ballots Suspension.
Reported. Exclusive Privilege of Trading Abolition (Ireland); Prisons (Ireland); Grand Jury Cess Bonds (Ireland); Mandamus (Ireland); Taxation of Costs (Compensation for Lands) (Ireland); Adverse Claims (Ireland); Books and Engravings.
3°. and passed. Baths and Washhouses; Commons Inclosure (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Plumptre, from Protestant Parishioners of the Parish of St. Mary's, Donnybrook, for Alteration of Law respecting Curates (Ireland).—By Mr. Cowper, and Mr. Plumptre, from several places, for the Adoption of Measures for promoting the Due Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Plumptre, from Inhabitants of Brailsford, for Repeal of Maynooth College Act.—By Mr. Plumptre, from several places, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from Rango Bapojee, Agent to His Highness Pertaub Sing, the deposed Rajah of Sattara, for Inquiry.—By Mr. Cripps, Mr. Plumptre, and Lord Rendlesham, from several places, for Rating Owners of Small Tenements to the Poor Rates, in lieu of Occupiers.—By Sir Charles Napier, from Bradford and Huddersfield, for Inquiry into the Anatomy Act.—By Sir Thomas Troubridge, from Thomas Earl of Dundonald, for Inquiry into the Merits of an Invention of his.—From the City of Dublin, against the Abolition of Guilds.—By Mr. Mark Philips, from Hulme, against the Highways Bill.—By Sir Robert Price, from Ratepayers of the Parish of Dorstone, for Repeal or Alteration of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By several hon. Members, from various places, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Holywood, for Abolition of Capital Punishment.

SUGAR DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL.
House in Committee. On the Question, that the blank in the first clause be filled with the words "the 5th day of September, 1846,"
LORD G. BENTINCKmoved, that the 5th of July, 1847, be substituted for the 5th of September, 1846; the effect of his Amendment would be to extend the opera-

1405
tion of the Bill for eleven months instead of one. His object in moving the Amendment was not to obstruct the Government in any way, but to facilitate their movements; his Amendment would not interfere with any permanent measure, if the Government should still see fit to introduce it; but if, upon further consideration, Her Majesty's Ministers should defer till another Session the permanent settlement of the Sugar Duties, this change in the date of the Bill would give them an opportunity of so doing, whilst it would be a great relief, and an act of mercy and justice, if they gave to the small producers a respite from the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers. As to any apprehensions of a sugar famine, they were as visionary as those of a famine in corn. He had taken the liberty of stating on a former evening that the quantity of produce likely to come from the Mauritius in the ensuing year was 60,000 tons, instead of the quantity of 40,000 or 50,000 tons estimated by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury. Since these estimates were made to the House, the overland mail from India had arrived, bringing intelligence from the Mauritius, as the result of the present year, that 46,000 tons had been actually shipped; and estimates were given in the papers of the Mauritius that not less than 60,000 tons would be shipped in the ensuing year 1846–7. Supposing that 2,000 tons would go to the Cape of Good Hope, there would be 58,000 tons to be sent to this country. He presumed that the fine season, which had had the effect of producing this enormous quantity of sugar in the Mauritius, extended also to the East Indies; and then the quantity he took on a former night as the produce from the East Indies would be understated. So that, instead of the quantity of sugar on hand on the 5th of July next year being the smallest, it would probably be the largest which had ever been known in this country at the same period of the year. It was not his intention then to go into the general question in the absence of his noble Friend the First Minister of the Crown; but he thought he had shown sufficient reason for asking Her Majesty's Ministers to pass a Sugar Duties Continuance Bill, on the same principles and terms as the last, for eleven months, in order to afford to the merchants in the sugar trade in the East Indies, the Mauritius, and the West Indies, a small chance of escaping from the ruin which
1406
he feared would overtake a great number of wealthy and substantial men if the measure of Her Majesty's Ministers should pass, and the present duties be renewed only for one month.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted, that it would be better not, in any way, to go into the general question of the Sugar Duties, or into the probable demand and supply of sugar, and he would confine himself simply to the Bill before the House. He believed that every one was agreed—and certainly every communication received by Her Majesty's Government, whether official or private, agreed—that it was most desirable, as soon as possible, for the question of the Sugar Duties to be permanently settled. He believed that all parties agreed in this—whether they supported the proposal of Her Majesty's Ministers, or whether they went further or not, all, even the West Indian body themselves, desired that there should be a permanent settlement. They all knew the term meant by a permanent settlement; and he did not believe that any one in or out of that House believed that the present Sugar Duties could remain on their existing basis; the proposal of the noble Lord, therefore, would defeat the very end he had in view; for it would leave the permanent settlement untouched for a long time, and instead of being a boon would be an injury. On Monday next it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go on with the question of a permanent settlement, and he hoped their measure would receive the support of the House; but the extension of the present duties for a period of eleven months would be a great misfortune, instead of a great blessing, to the parties most interested.
SIR R. H. INGLISwould not enter into the general question; but there was nothing in the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn which would at all interfere with the ultimate decision of the House on the proposition of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown. The Bill did not omit the usual clause, that it might be amended or repealed, in the present Session of Parliament; and if it were not amended or repealed, the only effect would be that it would give to the Government a little more time for consideration, and to the trade a little more breathing time. The proposition could do no harm in his own view of the case; and if the Government were to have the triumphant majority of which they boasted (though he

1407
thought they were grossly deceiving themselves) in favour of the proposition of the noble Lord, the present Amendment would not in any manner vitiate that decision. If, however, that proposition should not be carried, the amended resolution would secure the continuance of the existing duties to the 5th of July next; and there was no one who would deny the importance of continuing the Sugar Duties as a source of revenue. He therefore urged the House to adopt a proposal which, according to his views, would do good, and, according to the views of the Government, could do no harm.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, all that the Government wanted was that the question should be fairly laid before Parliament, and should be fairly discussed on its own merits; and they had, therefore, a perfect right to object to this measure as prejudging the question. It might also produce an impression that the House was not about to settle this question permanently, and that the Parliament was unwilling to enter into the serious consideration of the Sugar Duties with a view to their final and satisfactory arrangement. All knew the effect which uncertainty had produced during the last five years, and that there was nothing so much required as a final and permanent adjustment. Although he admitted that the Amendment would throw no technical obstruction to the permanent settlement, yet there would be a moral effect, and an impression would be made on the public, and commercial interests would be prejudiced.
The House divided on the Question, that the blank be filled with the words, "5th day of September, 1846:"—Ayes 121; Noes 38: Majority 83.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Antrobus, E.

Christie, W. D.

Archbold, R.

Clements, Visct.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Barnard, E. G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Cockbum, rt. hn. Sir G.

Beckett, W.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Bellew, R. M.

Courtenay, Lord

Berkeley, hon. C.

Craig, W. G.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Bernal, R.

Cripps, W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Denison, J. E.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Dennistoun, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Dickinson, F. H.

Brotherton, J.

Duncan, G.

Brown, W.

Duncannon, Visct.

Buller, E.

Duncombe, T.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Dundas, Adm.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Egerton, W. T.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

1408

Elphinstone, Sir H.

Maule, rt hon. F.

Escott, B.

Morpeth, Visct.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Morris, D.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Etwall, R.

Napier, Sir C.

Ewart, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

O'Connell, D.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

O'Conor, Don

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Oswald, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Forster, M.

Pattison, J.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gill, T.

Peel, J.

Gore, hon. R.

Philips, Sir R. B. P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Philips, M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Grey, rt. Sir G.

Price, Sir R.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Rutherfurd, A.

Guest, Sir J.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Hamilton, W. J. C.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Hastie, A.

Sheridan, R. B.

Heneage, E.

Smith, J. A.

Hervey, Lord A.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hindley, C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Spooner, R.

Hogg, J. W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Horsman, E.

Strutt, E.

Hume, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hutt, W.

Thornely, T.

James, Sir W. C.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Jervis, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Kemble, H.

Wakley, T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Ward, H. G.

Langston, J. H.

Warn, J. T.

Layard, Capt.

Wilshere, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wood, rt. hon. C.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wood, Colonel T.

Loch, J.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Wyse, T.

Mangles, R. D.

TELLERS.

Martin, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Martin, C. W.

Rich, H.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Jones, Capt.

Austen, Col.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Baillie, Col.

M'Clintock, W. B.

Baillie, H. J.

Miles, P. W. S.

Bankes, G.

Miles, W.

Benett, J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Boldero, H. G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Codrington, Sir W.

Packe, C. W.

Dick, Q.

Pakington, Sir J.

Disraeli, B.

Palmer, R.

Douglas, Sir H.

Powlett, Lord W.

Du Pre, C. G.

Rolleston, Col.

Floyer, J.

Round, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Stuart, J.

Grogan, E.

Trollope, Sir J.

Henley, J. W.

Waddington, H. S.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Wodehouse, E.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Houldsworth, T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Hussey, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Bill went through Committee. House resumed. Bill to be reported.

THE STATUE OF THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
On the Motion that the Order of the

1409
Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, be now read,
MR. CRAVEN BERKELEYsaid, he had hoped that the subject of the Motion of which he had given notice for that evening would have been taken up by a more influential Member than himself, and by one whose opinions would have been more regarded; but he considered the question was of so much importance that he had no hesitation in bringing it under the notice of the House. The real facts of the case were these: a number of individuals subscribed a very large sum of money for the purpose of erecting a testimonial of the military services of the Duke of Wellington; and the committee, without consulting anybody, or the majority of the subscribers, at once decided that the arch at the top of Constitution-hill was the best place on which to erect an equestrian statue of the noble Duke. That had produced the greatest dissatisfaction on the part of a great number of the subscribers; and in order that the House might be in possession of their opinions, he would read a few extracts from the correspondence that had taken place upon the subject, containing the remonstrances that had been made to the committee at the work having been commenced. The hon. Member accordingly read a letter addressed to Lord Melbourne by the sub-committee on the 8th of August, 1838—
"Requesting that Her Majesty's Government will suspend their consent to any plan which may be submitted for their approval until the whole question shall have been considered at a full meeting of the committee, and, if necessary, at a general assembly of the subscribers."
He knew that his noble Friend opposite would tell him that he was bringing on this Motion too late, and that he should not have allowed the works to have progressed so far as they had: but the Papers upon which he founded this Motion had only been moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford on the 29th day of June last, and were not in the hands of hon. Members until the 11th of the present month. He had taken every opportunity since then of endeavouring to bring this matter before the House, but had not been able, for many reasons. Not that he was going to call in question the conduct of his hon. and galland Friend whom he then saw behind him; but the person whose conduct he did impugn was the First Lord Commissioner of that day, Viscount Duncannon, who
1410
had no right to give his consent to the erection of the statue in the blind manner he did. It was, in his opinion, impossible to imagine anything more inartistical or in worse taste than to place a statue of the kind in the situation proposed. The hon. Member read an extract from a statement made on June 8, 1845, by Mr. Decimus Burton, the architect of the arch, to the Earl of Lincoln, in which he said—
"The Wellington Testimonial is a single equestrian statue of colossal dimensions, viz., about 30 feet high; its weight, exclusive of the plinth, about 40 tons. It would not be a satisfactory surmount for the arch; colossal as it is, the horse, when placed on so huge a pedestal, would present an appearance far too meagre and tall for the situation. Proportion and unity of design are the first and most important elements in a work of art; both of these would be wanting in this instance if such a statue were placed upon the arch. The fact that the monument was not the design of one and the same artist, would strike the most casual observer."
He would not trouble the House with any more opinions of architects; no one artist whose opinion had been taken but had condemned it in the strongest terms possible. There happened to be in this country last winter a most distinguished foreign architect, M. Canina, an Italian gentleman, the Pope's architect, and he was perfectly astonished at the idea of placing the statue on the arch, and said that if it were carried out it would be the "disgrazia d'Inghilterra." But he gave great credit to the noble Lord lately at the head of the Woods and Forests, and to his predecesor, for the endeavours they had made to prevent the intended plan being carried into effect. Lord Canning, in writing to the Duke of Rutland, said—
"I feel sure, therefore, that your Grace and the committee will not suppose that, in submitting for your consideration the proposal which I have now to make in the name of Her Majesty's Government, there is any wish to call in question the right of the committee to claim, as they have done, the performance of a promise made to them in 1838 by the Government of the day, or their undoubted liberty to act upon that promise, by applying the arch to the use for which it was then thought proper to concede it to them. At the same time it is my duty to state to your Grace, that the remonstranees which reach Her Majesty's Government against the proposed appropriation of the arch are so many and so strong; the representations of its architect, Mr. Burton, in the same sense, are so earnest; and the opinion of every other eminent architect, artist, or other competent authority who has been consulted on the subject, is so decided—that Her Majesty's Government feel called upon not only to make a final effort to induce the subscribers to reconsider the project of placing the statue on the site at present proposed,

1411
but to do all that lies in their power to facilitate a change in the design."
It was quite plain that the committee refused to change their design. Then he said, that that House was called upon to interfere. They must remember that the arch upon which it was proposed to place this statue was the chief entrance to the palace of the Queen; it stood also at the entrance to this city; it was built at the public expense; and the House of Commons had a right to say they would not be made the laughing-stock of foreigners, as they certainly would if they allowed the statue to be erected as was proposed. He should therefore move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withdraw Her Consent to the placing of the Statue of the Duke of Wellington upon the archway at the top of Constitution Hill."
MR. BAILLIE, in seconding the Motion, said that when this subject was last discussed in that House, it was stated that there was no authority for placing a statue in the position in which it was proposed to place this statue; and, in answer to that, the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Scarborough said, that as the Duke of Wellington was the greatest general in the world, so it was quite unnecessary to follow the ordinary rules of art in placing a monument in so extraordinary a situation. He could not understand the force of that argument; but it occurred to him that in all probability the gallant Officer had been studying the works of the ancient Egyptians, and had seen in the curious pictorial representations they had left us, that it was the practice of the ancient artists of Egypt to confine themselves within the strict rules of art in their representations of ordinary men, but to allow themselves the fullest scope of imagination in their representations of the great heroes and conquerors of antiquity. But he must do his gallant Friend the justice to say that he did look out for an authority; for, in a letter which his hon. Friend had published in the Illustrated London News, he informed the world, that upon a voyage of discovery which he had made in the agricultural districts, he had been fortunate enough to discover a great authority. Over a lodge gate, at the entrance of a gentleman's park in Hampshire, he had seen a statue of Marcus Aurelius placed in the same position, and that was a perfect and conclusive authority. His hon. and gallant Friend might have remembered that
1412
the lion on the top of Northumberland-house was placed in the same position also; but his hon. Friend must forgive him if he said that neither the one nor the other could be looked upon as a classical authority. A monument was about to be erected to one of our greatest men. It was constructed of imperishable materials—it was the greatest equestrian statue in the world, and was calculated to remain for ages yet to come, not only as a monument of the great man whom it was intended to represent, but also as a monument of the taste and knowledge of the fine arts existing amongst the people of this country in the age in which they lived; and that consideration ought to induce the Government to pause before they gave their sanction to the further progress of a work which, according to the best authorities that had been consulted in this country, did not possess, as every one must admit, that first and most essential requisite in a work of art—unity of proportion and design. Moreover, it was stated by those great authorities to be a most striking error to convert a triumphal arch into a pedestal for a statue. He, therefore, said that, considering the report which had been made to the Woods and Forests on this subject by artists and men of eminence; considering also what was the opinion of the late Government, and he believed of the present Government, it was somewhat indecent on the part of the committee that they should be determined still to exercise what they called their right to prosecute a work which they knew to be distasteful to the public.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid, with respect to his own private judgment, from which even official responsibility could not separate him, he partook to the full in the misgivings which had been expressed by the two hon. Gentleman, and by his two noble predecessors in the office which he had the honour to fill, and which, he believed, he might add, had been backed by very many and competent professional authorities; and, although they found that the consent and authority of the preceding Government had been signified to the persons who wished to erect this statue, to place it in the situation proposed, and that some progress had been made in the actual work, and some expense already incurred; yet he confessed that, even at that moment, he did wish very much that those who represented the subscribers could persuade themselves to accede to the offer made to them by the Government, to pro-

1413
cure another site, and, if they did, he would assure them that no pecuniary difficulty should stand in the way. At the same time, he did not feel that he should be warranted in interfering in the work. He had only further to mention, that the only piece of the correspondence which was deficient from that which had been presented to the House, was the last letter from Mr. Burton, the architect of the arch, in reply to the last letter in the collection submitted to the House from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests, in which they requested Mr. Burton, after carefully examining the plans and sections of Mr. Wyatt for strengthening the arch, to inform them whether he were perfectly satisfied that thay were such as would insure the perfect safety of the arch. He had only received the answer of Mr. Burton that morning, and he would read it to the House:—
"6, Spring-gardens, July 24, 1846.
"My Lord and Gentlemen—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of the Board's letter (No. 3,380) of the 23rd ult., transmitting the plans and section prepared by Mr. M. Wyatt of the works in the superstructure necessary to bear the equestrian statue at the required elevation above the top of the arch at Constitution-hill, and desiring me to examine these, and to consider those mea sures proposed to be adopted in their execution; and to inform the Board whether I am satisfied that they are such as will insure the perfect safety of the arch; and to state that, on the 24th ult., I accompanied Mr. Wyatt to inspect the works, and I again inspected them yesterday, when I found Mr. Wyatt there. As I stated in my letter to Viscount Canning of the 16th of April last, transmitting to the Board these plans and sections, which I had procured for the purpose from Mr. Wyatt, the works proposed by them appear to me to be such as will insure the safety of the arch, and protect it against injury; presuming that proper precautions be used in the erection of the scaffolding, the execution of the masonry, and the raising of the statue itself. I find that no portion of the proposed stone pedestal is yet built. The scaffolding by which the statue will be raised is partly erected; but, although now about eighty feet high, it has yet to be heightened about twenty feet. It cannot be denied that some difficulty and risk will attend the raising an equestrian statue of thirty to forty tons weight above 100 feet above the street, and when there in running it along a railway, carried on timbers of that great height; but, so far as I have yet seen, Mr. Wyatt and his men are taking every precaution to prevent an accident.—I have the honour to be, my Lord and Gentlemen, your most obedient and humble servant, "DECIMUS BURTON.
"The Right Hon. and the Hon. the
Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, &c."
SIR F. TRENCHsaid, his hon. Friend who had opened this case had made a most grievous mistake, for when those no-
1414
blemen and gentlemen who formed the committee made an application for permission to erect the statue, no objection was made either to the statue or to the site. The only objection that was made was as to the mode of selecting the artist. It was a mere contest who was to be the artist. The arch was decided upon as the site; Her Majesty had given Her consent, accompanied by the observation that it would give Her pleasure, whenever she came out of Her palace, to see the statue of so great a man in so beautiful a situation; and all the money that was subscribed by the public was subscribed for the specific purpose of erecting a statue of the Duke of Wellington on that arch. When the proposal was made last year for an alteration of the site, the committee took into their consideration what was their duty with regard to the public who had subscribed the money; and they were of opinion that they could not adopt another course than that which was at first resolved upon. In May, 1838, the committee received the first communication from Lord Melbourne, stating that he had applied to the Queen to obtain Her consent to the erection of the statue; and on the 1st of June Her Majesty received the chairman of the committee, and gave Her consent. On the 9th of June a meeting of the general committee was held, at which the consent of Her Majesty was notified. On the 16th of June the whole of the sub-committee waited upon the Duke of Wellington, announcing what was intended to be done, and expressing their "fervent prayer that he might live through many and many a long year to see from his own windows a proud testimonial of the gratitude of an admiring country." And on the 22nd of June and on the 3rd of July letters were sent from certain noblemen to the chairman, both expressing their disapprobation, not of the statue or the arch, but of the mode of selecting the artist. A meeting of the general committee was held, in conformity with the wishes of Lord Melbourne, the result of which was that the proceedings of the former committee were confirmed, only one individual raising any objections to the site or the statue. The committee also consulted the then Attorney General to know what their obligations were, and he gave it as his opinion that the committee had no power to do anything than carry into effect what they were pledged to do to the public. The House of Commons had nothing to do in the

1415
matter, and the committee were doing the best in their power to carry into effect the design of the subscribers. The Earl of Aberdeen, a nobleman competent to give an opinion on the matter, said, in 1839, respecting the effect of making an alteration in the nature of the memorial—
"The decision on the 28th of May was to have an equestrian statue on the arch at the Green Park, if Her Majesty gave permission so to do; and I think if proceedings of this kind are ever to have any validity, or to be binding at all, that if any-think is settled, that resolution that we should have an equestrian statue must be considered as finally settled. I apprehend that we might as well now decide that we would have no memorial at all for the Duke of Wellington, as to question the decision, confirmed as it was by a subsequent meeting of the general committee, that the memorial should be an equestrian statue upon that arch."
Lord Palmerston was the only member of the committee who expressed an opinion against placing the statue upon the arch. It would be an act of great injustice if the House interfered in the manner now proposed. It would also be an act of great disrespect to the Crown, if Her Majesty, after having given Her solemn pledge in favour of a particular plan, should be called upon, after the committee had spent a considerable sum of money, to throw all their proceedings over, because certain Gentlemen of the House of Commons chose to condemn it.
MR. EWARTsaid, the committee had taken a legal opinion, but it would have been much better if they had taken an artistic opinion on the subject. The committee had consulted the subscribers and their architect; but they ought also to have consulted the public taste, which was decidedly against them. He had never heard any person speak well of the site selected by the committee.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, his single difficulty was that the Queen had given Her consent to a particular point, and that the House of Commons, if they adopted the Motion, would ask Her Majesty to withdraw that consent. But the House had the right to say—Rex male advisatus est; and a Queen might be badly advised as well as a King. It was, therefore, competent for the House to call on Her Majesty to withdraw Her consent, as if it had never been granted. He had fought gallantly under the banner of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir F. Trench) in defence of wax candles, but he could not agree with him on this question. He believed that, if the opinion of the House
1416
were taken seriatim, it would be found to be almost unanimously against placing the statue upon the arch. It would be one of the greatest monstrosities in the metropolis.
SIR F. TRENCHbeing the only member of the sub-committee present could not take upon himself to say what they would do. But he had a strong impression that a majority of the House entertained different impressions from them. All the subscriptions were received for a particular purpose, and he did not think the committee would be justified in appropriating them to any other. But he had no objection, if that would be satisfactory to the House, to lay before the sub-committee what he understood to be the opinion of the majority of the House.
SIR G. GREYhoped the hon. and gallant Member would be suffered to proceed. The judgment of the House had been unequivocally expressed, not only by hon. Members who had spoken, but also, and still more strongly, by the absence of any advocacy of the proposed site except that of the hon. and gallant Member. He would admit that after reading the correspondence he had a strong opinion on the subject, and though he might be disposed to go with the hon. and gallant Member to a certain extent, he inferred from the few observations he had just made, that he would be prepared to state to the sub-committee the opinion of the House. It would be unreasonable, under such circumstances, not to listen to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member.
SIR F. TRENCHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had truly interpreted his feelings. He adhered to his opinions respecting the site, but he would not place his opinion against that of the House. He would state his own opinion freely, that the pedestal and statue on it would have a most magnificent effect. It would be impossible for him without communicating with the committee to make any change or any concession. But if the House would wave the question for the present, so as to give him the opportunity of consulting his colleagues, he would state to them either that it would be desirable to acquiesce in the wishes of the Government, or to put it to the House whether they ought not to have nothing to do with the matter.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid, the hon. and gallant Member had met the feeling

1417
of the House in a proper spirit, and he hoped an opportunity would be given him of consulting with his colleagues, the Government putting a stop to the works until further proceedings were determined on.
MR. C. BERKELEYhad no objection to withdraw his Motion, on the understanding that no part of the works were to be proceeded with.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid, the works would be entirely stopped until the committee had signified their assent to the suggestions of the Government, or, failing that, until the opinion of the House had been taken upon it.
Amendment withdrawn.
House in Committee of Ways and Means, when a formal Resolution was adopted.
The House resumed. Resolution to be reported.

AMERICAN MAIL STEAM-PACKETS.
On the Question, that the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, be read,
MR. P. MILESmoved, as an Amendment, for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the granting of the present contract for the conveyance of the mails from England to Halifax and Boston, and also into the circumstances connected with the granting of any new, or the extension of the existing contract for the same purpose. The hon. Member said it was impossible that the country should be satisfied with the contracts made with the Cunard line. The performances of the Great Western and Great Britain steam ships were well known, and it was important to the mercantile community that they should still run. Yet, although the Government had been in the habit of receiving letters and despatches by these vessels, the company to which they belonged had never received a farthing for the service. It was in his opinion of the greatest consequence that competition should be encouraged, and that the most ample opportunities of communication should be afforded between Liverpool and the United States. The effect of competition had been to reduce the passage-money between this country and North America from 40 l. to 30 l., and 25 l.; but he would venture to say, that if the Great Western Company's ships were now withdrawn, the passage-money would be at once raised to 40 l. The pub-
1418
lic interests demanded an investigation into this case; for the public had a right to know why so large a sum of money was expended on an undertaking which was not open to public competition. He considered that it was most unjustifiable to add payments of 10,000 l. or 5,000 l. to the original contract, without acquainting the public with the reason for such augmentation. He maintained that an inquiry ought to be instituted into the actual expense of this communication, in order that, when the existing contract expired, the Government might have some data upon which to proceed in making future arrangements. He would venture to assert that the Great Western Company would continue the communication at an outlay much below that which was now incurred by the country; that company was ready to undertake the contract for a much less sum than was now paid; and he therefore called upon the House to assent to his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry on the subject.
MR. HENRY BERKELEY, in rising to second the Motion, assured his hon. Friend that he had great pleasure in at length being enabled to stand side by side with him in manful opposition against monopoly. From hon. Gentlemen opposite (the late Ministers), he knew he ought to receive support, for they had proved themselves stout anti-monopolists; and of all species of monopoly none appeared to him so objectionable, or so detrimental to the public interests, as monopolies in contracts. He considered that the present system of requiring tenders in cases of this kind was a most fictitious and illusory system; and he was the more inclined to think that there was something bad and rotten in that system, from the circumstance that the Great Western Steam Company had been excluded from all these contracts. He must claim the indulgence of the House, if, as the representative of the city of Bristol, he supported the Motion of his hon. Friend with some warmth, for he felt that great injustice had been done to a company whose schemes had been carried out with great spirit, and which deserved as well of the country as any company in the kingdom. He would venture to say, indeed, that no other company in the kingdom had carried out works equal in magnitude and importance to those effected by the Great Western Steam Company. That company was established in 1838; and if they had reason to be proud of the Great Western

1419
Railway, they had equal reason to be proud of the magnificent terminus to that railway which had been created to continue the communication to America, viz., the Great Western steam ship. That vessel performed the voyage to America, and solved the important problem whether the difficulties of navigating the Atlantic were to be overcome by the power of steam. The Great Western Company was the first company to build steam vessels of the magnitude which, it was now admitted, was necessary for steamers intended to undertake long voyages. Indeed, all the improvements which had taken place in Her Majesty's navy, and in the commercial marine, with reference to steam ships, were attributable to the example set by this company, which was the first to build steam vessels of sufficient magnitude to cope with the turbulence of the Atlantic. The company followed up their first step by building, on the novel principle of the screw, the largest steam ship in the world, the Great Britain. That vessel was deemed almost a national undertaking; she was visited by persons, not only from every part of England, but from many parts of Europe. Her launch was deemed by his Royal Highness Prince Albert an occasion worthy of his attendance; and Her Majesty the Queen visited this grand specimen of naval architecture on her arrival in the Thames. At the time of the Canadian outbreak, when the speedy conveyance of despatches was of the utmost importance, the first intelligence of the disturbances was brought by the Great Western; and the celerity with which that vessel performed the voyages out and home, was most advantageous to Her Majesty's Government, by enabling them to keep up a constant and rapid communication with the colonial Government. He might observe, also, that the Great Western was the vessel which brought the earliest intelligence of the suppression of the outbreak; and what was the last performance of that noble vessel? When the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Treasury came down to that House, and, on resigning office, made the proud declaration that the Government had concluded a Treaty with the United States on the Oregon question, he was enabled to make that statement in consequence of the celerity with which the despatches of our Minister in the States were conveyed to this country by the Great Western. The Great Britain, the sister vessel to the Great West-
1420
ern, also brought home the earliest news of the ratification of that Treaty. It appeared to him that a parallel might be drawn between the fate of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and that of these splendid vessels—both one and the other were discarded at the very time when they had proved themselves most useful to the country. Hon. Gentlemen would probably remember that it had been stated, that in an interview which took place between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and a deputation who waited upon him, that right hon. Gentleman declared that the Government had been compelled by the terms of the original contract to give all future contracts for the North American mails to Mr. Cunard. [Mr. GOULBURN: No, no!] Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman had inferred as much. He defied that right hon. Gentleman to show, from any Papers laid before the House, that such an engagement existed, unless it had been made in the last contract—that of 1846. New York was not mentioned in any of the former contracts; but it now appeared that by some conceived understanding — for there was nothing on the face of the Papers to prove such an understanding—Mr. Cunard, who had the Boston and Halifax contract, claimed a right to the contract for the whole of North America—that was, from Boston to Louisiana and Alabama. He considered this a most monstrous case. He maintained, that contracts of this kind ought not to be given away without competition, to the exclusion of a company which had at least as strong claims as any other upon the country. Tenders should be demanded to encourage a fair spirit of emulation, and contracts given without favour to those who would do the work on the most reasonable terms. Without saying one word which could be offensive to Mr. Cunard, or which could reflect on the mode in which that gentleman executed his contract, he must protest against contracts of this kind being made in such a hole-and-corner manner as seemed to have been the case in this instance. He considered that his hon. Friend was fully entitled to ask for the appointment of a Committee to investigate the subject; and he was persuaded that before such a Committee much light would be thrown upon the mode in which these contracts had been made and carried out, which would be advantageous not only to the company whose interests he supported, but to the public.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, as the contract

1421
with Mr. Cunard had been entered into under his advice while he held a responsible situation under the Crown, he thought it right to state the circumstances of the case, and he would then leave the House to decide what course they might think proper to adopt. In order that the House might clearly understand the subject, it would be necessary for him to state the whole of the proceedings with respect to the conveyance of the mails to North America. He should feel great regret if injury had incidentally been done to the Great Western Steam Company, or to any other company engaged in the traffic with North America by any public transaction; but he was satisfied, if the House would attend to the statement he was about to make, they would be convinced that such an arrangement had been effected as had been considered decidedly most advantageous for the public interests. They would admit, that that arrangement had not violated the just rights of any individuals, and that if individuals had sustained injury, it was in consequence of an arrangement which was indispensably necessary for the proper conduct of the public service. In the year 1838, it was judged advisable to attempt to establish a communication by steam for the conveyance of the mails across the Atlantic, and a general tender was then publicly advertised, calling upon any parties who might be inclined to undertake the service to send in tenders for its execution. The service to which he referred was the conveyance of mails between England, Halifax, and Nova Scotia, and between England, Halifax, and Now York. In reply to that advertisement, two propositions only were made—one by the Great Western Company, and the other by the St. George's Company. The details of those tenders were given in the Papers which had been laid before the House; and the House would observe, that neither tender fulfilled the conditions advertised. Neither of those companies was prepared to execute the service with vessels of the size and strength, or with engines of the power required by the Board of Admiralty. Those tenders, therefore, fell to the ground, and there was an end of any arrangement in that case. Shortly after that period Mr. Cunard, a spirited inhabitant of one of the North American Colonies, came forward, and made a proposition to the Government to supply three vessels of 300 horse-power each, for the purpose of conveying the mails once a fortnight to Halifax and
1422
Boston, and also up the St. Lawrence, for 55,000 l. a year, a sum somewhat below that required by one of the companies which had formerly tendered. It was found, on considering the subject, that three vessels of that particular size and strength would not be adequate to the proper fulfilment of the required duty; and, therefore, an alteration was made in the first contract by a second contract, under which Mr. Cunard was to provide four vessels of 300 horse-power each, and a corresponding augmentation was to be made in the payment. At a later period, however, the difficulties of navigation during the winter were judged to be so great, that Mr. Cunard said he feared vessels of 300 horse-power would not be adequate to the safe conveyance of the mails across the Atlantic; and he made a proposal to the Government, which they agreed to, that instead of four vessels of 300 horsepower each, five vessels of 400 horsepower should be employed. The Government annexed to that contract the condition that the vessels should be so built that, in the event of a war, they would be capable of carrying guns of the heaviest calibre, and of being employed against a hostile Power. In consideration of this augmentation in the number and power of the vessels, an increase was made in the payment to Mr. Cunard, and it was determined that he should receive 80,000 l. for twenty voyages to be annually performed by vessels of the description agreed upon. Mr. Cunard's accounts for the former contract had previously been submitted to the Admiralty, that they might be enabled to form an accurate estimate of the proper charges for the service he had undertaken; they were examined most minutely by a most faithful and efficient public servant, the Accountant General of the Navy, and the additional payment made to Mr. Cunard, in consequence of the augmentation he had mentioned, was founded upon the report of the accountant. A condition was inserted in the contract which he would read to the House. The right hon. Gentleman read the conditions under which Mr. Cunard covenanted, that on receiving nine calendar months' notice in writing from the Board of Admiralty, or such shorter notice as might be agreed upon, he would provide and constantly employ in convoying the mails, from the date of the expiration of such notice and subsequently, such an additional number of similar vessels as in the opinion of the Admi-

1423
ralty would be sufficient to perform twice the number of voyages to, from, and between all the ports of embarkation and delivery of the mails, or to such other places and ports as the Board of Admiralty might appoint. The contract of 1841 stipulated not only for the conveyance of the mails twenty times in a year, but gave the Admiralty a power of calling upon Mr. Cunard at nine months' notice, or less, to provide the vessels necessary for the conveyance of the mails double the number of times specified in the original agreement, for a payment equal to that which he received under the former agreement; and thus, from 1841, Mr. Cunard stood in this situation, that he was engaged by the Government to carry the mails to North America twenty times in the year thenceforward, and as much oftener (not exceeding double that number) as the Government might require, during the period of the contract. Afterwards, upon a statement made in that House, the House consented to make an addition of 10,000 l. a year to the contract, in consequence of a fifth vessel being applied to this service by Mr. Cunard, who, upon an examination of the accounts, had proved the deficiency of the former allotment; but the Government subsequently withdrew from that a sum of 5,000 l., in consequence of the withdrawal of Mr. Cunard's obligation to keep up a certain number of vessels for the service in the St. Lawrence. Before the year in which the contract complained of was entered into a discussion arose as to the best mode of conveying the mails to the North American Colonies; and in 1845, be (Mr. Goulburn) believed, an arrangement was made with the American Government, which had been for some time under consideration, for conveying across the United States, in closed boxes, the mails which were to go to our Colonies there; and under that arrangement it became advisable that the mails should be taken by New York, instead of by Boston. A great pressure also was made upon the Government to double the number of communications between this country and North America; and under these circumstances, looking to the previous contract with Mr. Cunard, in which he was under engagement, when required, to go double the number of voyages, the Government entered into correspondence with him for the purpose of establishing that weekly communication with our Colonies there during the summer
1424
months, and fortnightly during the winter, which would give forty-four communications in the year. It was upon that contract that the present question had arisen. Many circumstances made it most important that these repeated communications should take place. The former expenditure under the contract had, in fact, been no expenditure to the public; for, by means of Mr. Cunard's regularity and industry, the postage received upon the letters to and from the North American Colonies, more than defrayed the 90,000 l. a year payable to him; it was a gain to the public, notwithstanding the extent of the payment—a gain principally caused by his insuring what no other contractor had ever then, or even up to the present moment achieved—a regularity of steam communication across the Atlantic, not merely during the five months when the voyages were more easy and certain, but during the winter months. The Great Western Company had studiously avoided sending their vessels across the Atlantic during those months which every one knew to be most difficult and dangerous, and in which principally the risk of any undertaking to cross the Atlantic existed. It was the duty of the Government to take care that the public were served on the best possible terms, and they did not propose to Mr. Cunard to give him to the full extent to which he might have been entitled by doubling the number of voyages; but they reduced the amount, so that instead of 180,000 l., to which he would have been entitled under the contract of 1841, they gave him 145,000 l. for forty-four voyages; and in order that the Government might transmit the mails with most convenience to all parties interested in the regular conveyance and delivery of letters, they allowed him to make alternate voyages to Halifax and New York, subject to a power in the Government, in case of necessity, to divert him to the one point or the other; and, having established a communication across the United States, by New York, it would have been idle indeed to establish a mail that did not alternately embrace both these. The hon. Member had stated, that the payment to Mr. Cunard was 4,500 l. a voyage. [Mr. P. MILES: I stated that it had been that amount.] But if the hon. Member would look at the figures, he would find that it was 3,290 l., in fact. It was proposed in the other tenders that the payment should be in the one case, 3,750 l., and in the

1425
other 4,500 l.; and therefore, upon the question of economy, Mr. Cunard had a superiority over every other offer. But Mr. Cunard had from the commencement of his contract executed it with a fidelity and regularity which, considering all the difficulties of his position, were indeed most extraordinary: during the whole period, the winter months as well as the summer, he had fulfilled his contract with a regularity not to be exceeded by any mode of conveyance unattended with difficulty in any part of the world. Mr. Cunard having thus proved to all what no other company had ever yet proved—that it was possible to maintain this communication regularly during the winter; and having, therefore, a claim upon the public, that if the letters were to be conveyed twice as often, he should have the carrying of them, there did not appear to him (Mr. Goulburn), looking to the best mode of conducting the public service, to be room for hesitation in giving to Mr. Cunard the additional contract, offering as he did lower terms than any previously offered; and under that gentleman's able management and administration, he had little doubt that the increased amount of postage which would flow to the public from these additional communications, would more than compensate for the additional payment which was to be made. But the hon. Member complained that the Great Western Company was not included in the arrangement, and that the Government did not maintain two separate lines across the Atlantic for carrying the North American mails. Why, what must necessarily have been the effect of that? Was it not obvious that the employment of two companies for accomplishing the same object would have been more expensive to the public, and probably less effective, even supposing them both able to face the difficulties of the undertaking? But the Great Western Company had never attempted to cross the Atlantic during the winter months. The latest period when they ever sailed from any port was November the 6th, and the earliest date at which they commenced their voyages was in April; from November to April that company had made no attempt to face the difficulties of navigation through the ice. These difficulties were never faced by any one but Mr. Cunard; and therefore, having overcome them, he was fairly entitled to a preference, and had, under the terms of his agreement, a claim to the first offer of an additional contract of this description. Nor
1426
let the House he deluded by supposing that the Great Western Company were thereby deprived of the opportunity of making the profits in this traffic upon which they had calculated. There was an American company on foot for establishing, from New York to certain ports in Europe, a communication by large steam vessels calculated to run with the British vessels employed upon that and other North American stations; the profits of the Great Western Company would necessarily have been affected by that, and the whole communication with America might have been materially injured if there had been a divided contract. The terms awarded to Mr. Cunard, however, were, in comparison with those of the new company, favourable to the public. But he (Mr. Goulburn) did not believe that this competition would prove injurious to the companies embarked in it. The effect of increased facility of communication was not that the number of passengers remained stationary. The additional regularity, the power of going any fortnight during the winter across the Atlantic with a moral certainty of safety, must be to increase the number of those who travelled; and the Great Western Company would find that the introduction of another competitor into the line carrying the mails, would not diminish their profits more than temporarily, but would rather give an additional incitement to a constant traffic with America, and enable them in the months during which alone they crossed the Atlantic to obtain a share of the additional traffic which must take place in the summer months. One other point must be mentioned. By the terms of the contract with Mr. Cunard, and by the power under it of diverting the course of the vessels to the ports of the North American Colonics, provision was made for the efficiency of the system during war as well as in peace; and though certainly there was no apprehension of any hostilities taking place to interfere with the peaceable transmission of letters, yet this was an advantage not to be overlooked in entering into a public contract. Such were the facts of this case. Mr. Cunard was not backed by any powerful influence in that House. He was a native of one of our North American Colonies; and it would have been much to be regretted, if, in deference to interests in this country, any unfairness or injury had been done to him, after executing this service with a regularity which had excited the ad-

1427
migration of every one, and showing in all communications had with him, a spirit of fairness and liberality highly honourable to him.
LORD CLEMENTShoped it would be an instruction to the Committee to consider whether it would not be preferable to have the packets to Halifax start from the western coast of Ireland—the nearest point to America.
MR. CHRISTIEfelt a strong impression of the excellence of the arrangement sanctioned by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he had overlooked one strong point in the case. It had been stated, and not denied, that this contract was signed by the late Government two days after they had tendered their resignations, and while only holding office until their successors were appointed; and yet, previous to these resignations, this arrangement, which was known to be in contemplation, had been discussed and disputed in the House, and the Government were asked whether they would undertake that this contract should not be signed until certain Papers then moved for had been laid on the Table. The answer to that question, he believed, was deferred to a subsequent day. It seemed now that the Great Western Company also went to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and asked from him an assurance that the contract should not be signed till the House and the public were in possession of further information, and that the noble Lord gave that assurance. This being unexplained, there ought to be a Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the contract was signed.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that he stated distinctly, on the question being put to him, that whether the contract was signed or not, it had been substantially made before he was asked the question, and only required the mere formality of signing to be complete.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that the consequence of entering into this contract was, that it was utterly impossible for the Great Western and Great Britain steam ships to run in competition with the Government packets; because the sum paid to the Government packets was so large, that the others, from the want of similar aid, could not keep on the line, and thus the advantage gained by the manufacturing districts from competition in the lowering of the rate of freights was lost. The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Cunard's ships
1428
crossed the Atlantic during the winter months; but the reason of that was that he was well paid for so doing, and the others could not do the same, because they were not paid. Paying one set of packets a large sum for carrying the mails destroyed competition; and the fair way would be to offer others a share in carrying the mails. This might be done without additional expense, as the different companies might carry the mail alternately. There was not the least accusation against Mr. Cunard for the manner in which he carried out his contract; for he had performed it with great punctuality; but that was no reason why the country should be deprived of the benefit of competition. The whole of this contract had been entered into otherwise than by public tender; and he thought that all Government contracts should be made by public tender. The Government had advertised for tenders for carrying the mails to Boston and Halifax; and two tenders were sent in, neither of which came within the terms of the advertisement. The terms were then altered; but the Government concluded the contract without offering those terms to the public. He thought that a case was made out for granting a Committee of Inquiry.
MR. GISBORNEthought the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) to the question of the right hon. Member of Weymouth, as to the signing of the contract, was satisfactory; but under all the circumstances of the case, he should feel bound to vote for a Parliamentary inquiry, in order that the public might be satisfied that the Government had done the best for the general interests.
MR. M. PHILIPSdid not wish to express any decided opinion, because he was not in possession of sufficient information. He saw the difficulty in which the Government had been placed; and when they entered into a contract for the safety and security of the transmission of letters across the Atlantic by steam communication, they wisely and properly took care to err on the right side, and to choose vessels of proper power and size. Hence arose the first difficulty. A modification of the provisional arrangements, he understood, took place; but there appeared only one party able to conform to the rules and suggestions of the Government, and the contract was accordingly placed in the hands of that individual. He believed that Mr. Cunard had performed his duty to the letter, and the commer-

1429
cial interests were greatly indebted to him for the accurate and safe manner in which that duty had been discharged. It was obvious, however, that any other individual was deprived of the power of performing the same duty unless similar advantages were granted him. This, then, did give to the transaction a certain aspect of monopoly, though he was aware that the contract must be given to one individual; for he differed from the hon. Member for Birmingham, who thought that the contract ought to be divided. He was anxious that this Committee should be granted, in order that the commercial interests should feel assured that they had been properly attended to; but he did not mean to let fall one word against the perfect good faith with which Mr. Cunard had carried out the contract.
SIR R. PEELsincerely hoped that no objection would be made to the appointment of this Committee. He should decidedly vote for inquiry. The Treasury gave this contract to Mr. Cunard, not only because they felt that he, a person without any interest whatever, had strong claims on the Treasury for rendering important public service, but also because they thought that at the period at which the original contract was entered into, engagements were formed which entitled Mr. Cunard to this indulgence. It was said that the contract was signed after the resignation of the late Ministers had been tendered; but it must be borne in mind that they had all the power to conduct the public business, and, the contract being made, there was an obligation in honour to sign it. He was perfectly confident that the Government succeeding the late Government would, had the contract been left unsigned, have signed it, under the impression that the public faith was pledged thereto. It was a mere formality whether the late or the present Lords of the Treasury executed the deed; but it would have been a shabby act in the late Government to shrink from the responsibility of signing the contract, leaving that duty to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who might be unaware of all the circumstances which had previously taken place. Even supposing that there had been an error, he was sure that that House would respect public faith, and take care that Mr. Cunard should not be a sufferer; and of this he was perfectly certain, that if in any case any sort of question should arise out of a public contract, it was the duty of
1430
the department making that contract to facilitate inquiry, Feeling, therefore, that the interests of Mr. Cunard would be protected, he claimed inquiry on the part of the Treasury. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no opposition to the appointment of the Committee, and at any rate, he would give his vote most cordially in favour of its appointment.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that he had no hesitation in speaking to the propriety of the contract in question. The hon. Members for Bristol and Birmingham had said that all contracts should be made by public tender. On the whole that was the right principle; but it could not be adopted universally, and it sometimes happened that the Government was obliged to return to the system of private arrangement. When the first attempt was made to establish steam communication with our North American Colonies, independent of the United States, the Government called for tenders for carrying the mails to Halifax. At that time the only steamboat likely to run acros the Atlantic was the Great Western, and that ran to New York, and then the words "New York" were put in the advertisement tenders, for the purpose of not excluding the Great Western. But the answers to the advertisement were not such as the Government felt justified in accepting. Very soon afterwards Mr. Cunard, who was perfectly well known as engaged for a considerable time in public affairs connected with Nova Scotia, came to Mr. Baring, and to him, he being then Secretary to the Admiralty, stated his desire, for the sake of the Colony in which he was interested, to undertake the communication; and he thought it not only important to connect the Colony with this country by steam communication, conducted by the most active person in the Colony, but he also thought that the offer of Mr. Cunard was a very advantageeus offer for the public, infinitely more advantageous than the other tenders received. The most advantageous previously received was for 45,000 l. a year for a monthly communication; but Mr. Cunard tendered for 55,000 l. for a fortnightly communication; and subsequently a further sum of 5,000 l. was given for the addition of a communication up the St. Lawrence to Quebec, making the whole amount of the contract 60,000 l., including the communication with Quebec. That was better than any other tender, and was the most beneficial bargain that could then

1431
be made for the public. It was to some extent experimental; because the only steam vessels that had then crossed the Atlantic were the Syrius and the Great Western. There was however, great difficulty in keeping up the communication in the winter months, on account of the weather and the ice; and a relaxation of the contract was allowed on that account, and instead of the vessels being obliged to go once a fortnight all the year round, in the winter it was permitted that they should go only once a month, that was to say, they went once a month for four months in the year, and twice a month for the other eight months. Mr. Cunard had performed the service he had undertaken most creditably to himself, and also with the greatest advantage and profit to the public. It was, he believed, the only line of communication with distant countries where the postage on letters more than defrayed the expense. He certainly thought Mr. Cunard had a fair claim to the contract, which was an exceedingly beneficial one to the country, the rate of carrying being 460 l. per voyage lower than the lowest tender that could be got when first put up. He had not the remotest wish to throw any reflection upon the Great Western Company. That company, he thought, deserved well of the public for sending at their own cost large vessels across the Atlantic; and whatever might be the result of the present question, he should be sorry that any injury should be done to that company. Nevertheless, this was not to prevent Government making the best bargain for the public. It was not the duty of Government to consider whether one company or another was entitled to obtain the contract, but what was the best arrangement for the public service; and he believed that the arrangement made was decidedly the best. As to the time at which the contract was signed, it was in reality all arranged before the resignation of the late Government was settled; and whether it was signed two days before or two days after that resignation, was really a matter of no moment. Most undoubtedly, if he had found the contract arranged by the late Government, and not signed, he should have considered it his duty to sign it. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Bristol that a deputation had waited upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, requesting that if the contract was not signed it should not be so till an inquiry took place. The noble Lord at that time did not know the fact
1432
that the contract had been signed, and agreed to the request of the deputation. If the gentlemen, however, had waited upon him, he could have told them that, at the time they asked for delay and inquiry, the contract had been already signed. He was satisfied with the whole transactions; but he would be the last person to object to the fullest inquiry being made, and he believed that any Committee of that House could not but come to one conclusion—that the public had throughout obtained the benefit of the best arrangement that could have been made. He was quite ready to go into Committee on the question, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow this to be done at once.
MR. P. MILESsaid, he would now withdraw his Motion, on the understanding, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Committee would be granted.
Motion by leave, withdrawn.

MILBANK PRISON.
Order read. On the Question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBErose to direct the attention of the House to the petition which, on a former occasion, he had presented from Edward Baker, preferring serious complaints against the governor of Milbank Prison, and representing great abuses in that establishment, both in the management of its affairs, and as regarded cruelty and oppression towards the prisoners. Three years ago, this prison was under the charge of a Committee, but was then placed under the superintendence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a governor, and three inspectors. If complaints of the existence of abuses of a serious character were brought forward, therefore, the House ought very jealously to look into the nature of those complaints, and ascertain on what foundation they rested. He would not give all the allegations contained in the petition, but would bring only some of the principal ones before the House. The petitioner was a warder in the prison from September, 1842, till April, 1846; had an unexceptionable character, there being no complaint whatever against him; but, he stated that, in consequence of the oppressive and tyrannical conduct of the governor, Captain Groves, towards prisoners and officers, he was obliged to resign his situation. The petitioner stated, and he was prepared to prove, that the treatment pursued towards prisoners had led to suicides in the

1433
prison to a considerable extent. As to the cruelty exercised towards unfortunate prisoners, the petitioner mentioned the case of George Chinnery, who had a fit in the airing-yard, when the governor entering inquired what was the matter? The petitioner replied "a prisoner in a fit;" when the governor said, he was not in a fit, and ordered him to be reported if he had recourse to "any more of these tricks." Afterwards, contrary to the opinion of the person having charge of the prisoners, and without the opinion of any medical man being taken, the governor sentenced the poor prisoner to three days' bread and water allowance. The answer to this charge he believed was—that the prisoner had, on a former occasion, been confined in Milbank, and was then punished for feigning fits; whereas, it could be shown that when the prisoner was formerly in the prison, he was placed in a cell next to the warden's room, because he was subject to fits and required to be looked after. Now, here was a case of a man unjustly punished, because he had the misfortune to be seized with a fit. It was also alleged by the petitioner that prisoners were punished by the governor for reading their Bibles during the sermon in chapel; that they were punished by being sentenced to a bread and water allowance for seven days, though, by the rules of the prison, the governors had the power of imposing only for three days bread and water diet. Now, if it could be proved that this man had sentenced any party to seven days' bread and water diet, he held that an illegal and oppressive act had been committed. It appeared also, that in certain cases he ordered one days' full rations at the end of three days' bread and water, and then ordered the bread and water to be resumed. He knew that this would be denied, but he was prepared to prove it. Another charge was the following:—On the 10th of February, 1846, Frederick Bunyon was sentenced to receive 100 lashes with the cat. He was taken down after receiving 70 lashes, and it was then ordered that he should receive no instruction, either religious or moral, after that date. Now, why the unfortunate man, after suffering severe punishment, should be sentenced to receive neither moral nor religious instruction, he was totally unable to comprehend. It had been said, in defence, that a stone was found about his person, and that he intended injury to some one; but surely
1434
that was no good reason for denying him religions instruction. Then, as to the infliction of corporal punishment, he contended that it was wrong to do so within the walls of a prison, and that it should be done away with; the regulations of the prisons with respect to flogging was that the instrument for flogging should be approved of by the inspector, and that the number of lashes should, in all cases, be stated in the order for punishment. It was also a rule that the seal of one of the inspectors should be on the handle of the cat; but in this case, as also in that of another prisoner, the governor, the night before the punishment was to be inflicted, desired one of the officers of the prison to get much heavier lashes for the cat—lashes double the size of those that were put on the handle; and not satisfied with this double weight, he ordered the end of each lash to be tied with waxed cord. This, he contended, made the punishment not less illegal than cruel; and if that man had died under such a punishment, the governor ought to have been tried for murder. This was a most serious charge. When such things were said to be done within the walls of a prison, where the public eye could not enter, nor complaints be heard, it was the duty of the House to make the strictest inquiry into such charges. There was also a gross case of neglect and cruelty towards a convict of the name of Nash, who was draughted from the Pentonville prison, on the 10th of October, 1844, and was removed to the infirmary on the 1st of January, 1845, where he died on the 7th of the same month. This individual, during the short time he was in the prison, was kept on bread and water during twenty-three days; and at the time he was removed to the infirmary, was under a sentence to be flogged. On the 28th of November, a boy, named James Richmond, 10 years old, was received from Edinburgh, and on the 5th of May was removed to the infirmary, where he died on the 22nd of the same month. While in the prison, this boy was, for a certain number of days, confined in a dungeon on one pound of bread and two pints of water per day, having only boards to lie on during the night, with one rug and one blanket to cover him. Such was the punishment imposed upon a boy ten or eleven years of age, who, he believed, died solely from the cruelty of the treatment which he had received. The names of three individuals were given who committed suicide

1435
in consequence of the manner in which they were treated; indeed, he might say there were four who had destroyed themselves in their cells since the present governor had gone there. But that was not all. He was prepared to prove that twelve others had made the attempt to commit suicide, and were only saved by the vigilance of the officer. Another complaint was, that several times a false alarm of fire was raised by the governor at night, when he turned out of bed 100 prisoners for what he called "a fire practice." This was a most absurd practice and highly injurious; for the poor men in the depths of winter were often taken out of their beds from a temperature of 62, and for no other purpose than to exhibit this fire practice for the purpose of entertaining the dinner friends of the governor. Now, this was a most discreditable proceeding, even if the fire practice were necessary, which he denied. There was also in the petition charges of partiality towards some officers, and injustice towards others. He might dwell on this subject to a considerable extent. There were many more charges in the petition; and he knew more than he had mentioned of the atrocities, the barbarities, and the abuses, that existed in the prison; but he thought he had said enough to justify an inquiry. There was a precedent for such a course in the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry in 1823–24. The noble Lord at the head of the Government stated, in his speech lately to the electors of the city of London, that the right treatment of criminals was a problem yet to be solved. Now, an inquiry like this would help to solve this problem. He hoped the right hon. Baronet opposite would grant an inquiry into this subject; and he would undertake to prove, from persons who had witnessed atrocities, that every charge he had made was true. He knew that a report had been made at the Home Office, since the petition was presented; but from whom did that report proceed? It proceeded from the governor himself, and two inspectors, who were themselves implicated in the charges which had been made; and he said that any report from them, in answer to a charge against them, was a perfect mockery. He knew the questions that had been put to the witnesses; and he was told that, whenever a question was put, the answer to which at all favoured the allegations contained in the petition, that question was not pressed any further. In short, that investigation
1436
had been conducted in the prison by the governor and the inspectors, and that report, coming from them, was not to be relied on. It was a report that only intended to mystify the Secretary of State, and perpetuate the abuses that prevailed in this prison. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see the importance of granting this Committee. He moved as an Amendment that Mr. Edward Baker's petition (presented June 12), complaining of certain abuses existing in the Milbank Prison, be referred to a Select Committee.
SIR G. GREYhoped that before the House agreed to the Motion, they would allow him to state the course that had been pursued in this case. On the 12th of June, his hon. Friend presented the petition of Edward Baker, containing sixteen charges against Captain Groves, the governor of the prison, for misconduct in his office, extending over a period of several years. On the 15th of June, the petition had been printed with the Votes. On the 16th of June, the Secretary of State had directed a letter to be addressed to the Inspectors of Prisons, transmitting to them the petition as printed, and desiring them to institute a full inquiry into its allegations. In obedience to that desire the Inspectors of Prisons had entered upon the inquiry. The governor of the prison was at that time in France; but he immediately returned to assist the inquiry, and a few days before he (Sir G. Grey) had entered upon the duties of his office, the inspectors presented a report to the Home Office, which contained to each of these sixteen charges a distinct answer, furnished by the governor of the prison. It contained, in addition, a complete copy of the evidence taken by the inspectors. His hon. Friend had insisted that the inspectors were not entitled to much consideration, because they invariably adopted the recommendations of the governor. He could not find the least allegation in the petition against the inspectors; and he was sure that the inspectors stood too high in public estimation to be liable to such a charge. Moreover, their reports, which had been constantly presented to the House, as well as their character, would save them from the imputation of being the tools of the governor. He was now prepared to present their report in a complete form to the House; and it would be for the House to consider, upon an examination of the charges, and the answers to them contained in that report, whether they had

1437
been rebutted or sustained. To appoint a Committee before the House had had an opportunity of reading the report, would be, he thought, at once to condemn the governor and the system. It would be far more satisfactory, he thought, to the House to delay entering upon the question of appointing a Committee of Inquiry until they had read the sixteen charges and the answers which were given to them. He did not wish, therefore, to go into the question then; but he must say one word with respect to the cases of suicide of which his hon. Friend had spoken. If, out of 11,000 prisoners, the convict population sentenced to transportation, and passed through the prison since the establishment of the present system, only four suicides had taken place, that he could not regard as a very large proportion. [Mr. DUNCOMBE: Twelve were cut down.] He could not be prepared to answer cases of which he had not heard before that evening. He could not undertake to speak from personal knowledge, nor to answer charges with respect to which he had no previous intimation; however, he pledged himself to institute a full and complete investigation into these cases. In the meantime, he must say, that if there were only four suicides in three years out of 11,000 prisoners, considering the class from which they came, that was not so large a proportion as to create any great astonishment. With respect to the allegation in the petition with reference to the corporal punishment which was said to have been inflicted by the governor, the fact was that the inspectors, in one instance, had ordered one hundred lashes. That was their sentence. In carrying it into execution, the governor had mitigated that sentence by thirty lashes. His hon. Friend, however, had alleged that the Governor had exceeded his power, and had punished one of the prisoners illegally by using an improper instrument. This should be inquired into. His hon. Friend had also said that the governor had had recourse to these means of gratifying some private feelings of his own. That, if it were true, would be perfectly unjustifiable, and the allegation should certainly be investigated fully. He begged to observe, however, that the first time he had ever heard this charge was from the lips of his hon. Friend just now. That allegation was not in the petition. He was prepared, however, to say that a full inquiry should take place without delay, into that as well as the other allegations, and he was now
1438
prepared to lay on the Table the Report of the Inspectors. Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend; and he hoped the House would consent to pause till they had read the Report, and could judge for themselves, before they appointed this Committee.
MR. HUMEthought it was greatly to be regretted, if the Report had been three weeks in the Home-office, that it had not been brought forward before this as an answer to the allegations in Edward Baker's petition. At the same time he thought the proposal of the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department quite fair; and, under the circumstances, he was of opinion that his hon. Friend should not press his Motion at present. If the Report of the Inspectors had been in their hands before this matter came on, it might have saved his hon. Friend the trouble of making his present Motion. At the same time he must say he thought they ought not to shut the door against inquiries such as these. Take the case of the Andover Union for instance. No man could have dreamed, before that inquiry was instituted, of the existence of such horrors and atrocities as were made known by it. He had hitherto supported the Poor Law Commission; and he was mortified, he was disappointed at what he had heard, and therefore he should be suspicious when he heard of inquiries being denied. In this case he could not think that Baker could be blamed for complaining. That part of the charge which related to the whip—the charge, namely, of using an instrument that was not allowed by the regulations of the prison, was alone, in his opinion, a proper subject of charge and of investigation; and if it turned out to be true, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe) would not remit his exertions to obtain a complete investigation by a Committee. Conduct such as that in the governor of a prison was a sufficient reason, he considered, to cause the withdrawal of the confidence of any Government. He hoped his hon. Friend would take the Report and consider it, and if it were not satisfactory, he (Mr. Hume) should be happy to support him in moving for a Committee.
CAPTAIN PECHELLhoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe), who usually took the advice of the hon. Member for Montrose, would hesitate before he took it on that occasion. With his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), he considered, that but for the

1439
Andover inquiry the public would never have known of the atrocities that were practised under the Poor Law Commissioners at Somerset House, who, he had little doubt, would very soon have to vacate their lodgings in that building. What the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had said showed that some very great reform ought to take place in this prison. If his hon. Friend pressed his Motion, he would support him.
MR. SPOONERhoped that his hon. Friend would not press the Motion. He admitted that the allegations of the petition ought to be inquired into; but what more could be done in the first instance than what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had proposed? A few days' delay could do no harm; but, on the contrary, the Motion would have much more weight after the hon. Member had read the Report.
MR. AGLIONBYthought that, at that late period of the Session, there would be little enough time for going into the investigation before the Committee. He was quite ready to vote for an inquiry, if an inquiry were thought necessary. The discussion of that evening would be known to all the world. The charges made implicated the governor of the prison, and in some degree the inspectors; and he said that for their sakes the House ought to proceed with the inquiry immediately. Taking the case as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) stated it, that the answers contained in the Report amounted to a total denial of the charges to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman, that would not satisfy the House or the public.
SIR G. GREYexplained, that he had not stated that a denial had been given to these charges. He had only said that to each of the sixteen charges a distinct answer and explanation was given. He had abstained from offering any opinion of his own on the matter.
SIR R. H. INGLISthought the House was not in a condition at present to decide whether or not there should be a Committee, and he should support the Government.
MR. B. ESCOTTcould not see why a Committee should not be granted. All were agreed that there should be an inquiry. The only question was, what should be inquired into? He hoped that an inquiry would be granted now.
MR. CHRISTIEsaid, that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was
1440
pressed to a division, he should vote for it without hesitation. He hoped that a Committee would be granted, and the Report referred to them.
The House divided, on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question:—Ayes 56; Noes 10: Majority 46.

List of the AYES.

Benett, J.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Bennet, P.

Heneage, E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Henley, J. W.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hill, Lord M.

Blakemore, R.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Borthwick, P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Jervis, J.

Bowles, Adm.

Kemble, H.

Brotherton, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Brown, W.

Langston, J. H.

Buller, C.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

M'Clintock, W.

Cockburn, rt. hon. Sir G.

Martin, C. W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Moffat, G.

Craig, W. G.

O'Conor Don

Dundas, Adm.

Parker, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Forster, M.

Pusey, P.

Fox, C. R.

Scrope, G. P.

Gill, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gore, hon. R.

Spooner, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Thornely, T.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Greene, T.

Ward, H. G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wood, Col. T.

Guest, Sir J.

Hamilton, G. A.

TELLERS.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Tufnell, H.

Hastie, A.

Gibson, M.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pechell, Capt.

Bowring, Dr.

Tancred, H. W.

Christie, W. D.

Wawn, J. T.

Ewart, W.

Gisborne, T.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Duncombe, T.

Morris, D.

Escott, B.

House in Committee.

SUPPLY—BRITISH MUSEUM.
On the Question, that 45,406 l. be granted for the British Museum,
MR. HUMEwished to make a few observations on this vote. The sum now moved for was a very large one, especially looking back to what it was when he first came into the House. It had gradually gone up from a few thousands to upwards of 40,000 l. a year. He thought, therefore, the time had now come for the appointment of a responsible board to manage this large sum. He had had a number of applications to know whether he intended, at present, to notice certain dis-

1441
putes between the librarian and others. He begged to say that this was not his business at present, although he thought it a question which formed part of the management of the institution, and might very properly be noticed. What he wished to call the attention of the House to at present was, the fact of the enormous sum of 45,000 l. being voted annually for this institution without any control on the part of the House over its expenditure. That was altogether in the hands of irresponsible trustees. Those trustees consisted of three classes, namely, of high official men, of persons connected with families who had contributed to the Museum, and of a certain number of elected persons. (The hon. Member read a list of the trustees.) Now, these were all names of very good men; but the question was, did they attend to the duties which were required of them? He (Mr. Hume) had experience enough of public business to know that where there was a large committee—some members attending one day and some another—no member, perhaps, attending two days in succession, and no subject coming before the same party twice—the result was, that the business fell into the hands of a few individuals, who, under the colour of great and responsible names, did as they pleased. In 1836, a Committee of that House recommended the appointment of a responsible board; but up to this hour no attention had been paid to that recommendation. It was quite true that prompt attention had been paid to another recommendation of that Committee, namely, to increase the salaries of the officers connected with the Museum; but he had yet to learn that any other recommendation had been attended to. It did appear to him, as a protector of the public money, that the House was not acting-right in allowing this system to continue. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on a former occasion, speaking of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, had stated, that in his opinion a change ought to take place—that a board consisting of so many individuals, acting without any check or control, ought not to be allowed to continue; and the right hon. Baronet had assured the hon. Member who brought forward the subject, that he would attend to subject on an early day. He was sorry that right hon. Gentleman was not then present, or he would have appealed to that right hon. Gentleman to support him on this
1442
occasion. He was quite sure that the public expected the appointment of an efficient and responsible body of trustees. The Committee of 1841 unanimously recommended certain alterations; but, except one relating to a cheap catalogue, they had not been attended to. One suggestion was, to abolish the regulation which excluded children under eight years of age from visiting the Museum in charge of their parents or others. This was altogether disregarded, Another was, to do away with the regulation which allowed the Museum to be open on Tuesdays and Thursdays to private parties only, to the exclusion of the general public. This was also disregarded. Why should there be private days in any public institution? Considering that the public servants attended on these favoured individuals, he thought it was high time there should be some change in this respect. Then there was another grievance which, in common humanity and decency, ought long ago to have been removed. There was no convenience of any description throughout the whole building for the public accommodation, and that in a place which, in the course of one day, was visited by no fewer than 32,000 people. It was most discreditable and disgraceful that such a want should remain unsupplied. A question was at one time raised whether artisans would attend if the Museum were kept open after five o'clock. But it had been found that after that hour not more than fifteen persons, on an average, visited the Museum. From the 1st of May to the 1st of September last, there were not more than seven visitors from five to six o'clock, and the number was the same from six to seven o'clock. Yet sixty persons connected with the establishment were required to be in attendance, though the number of visitors at that period of the day was so scanty. Artisans would have leisure to visit the institution, if it were kept open on Sundays and on every day of the week. Whenever the gin-shop opened, he would open the British Museum, and he ventured to say he should succeed in drawing from the ginshop a very large proportion of its visitors. By giving admission to the Museum on Sundays, the trustees would adopt a course in every respect subservient to morality and good order. If the Museum were closed between five and seven o'clock during the week in the summer season, he ventured to say that the officers of the establishment would be most happy

1443
to attend on Sundays. The public expected that the Government would adapt the management to the circumstances of the time. Another suggestion he had to make was, that the number of trustees should be reduced. Where there were forty or fifty managers, the business was never managed well. High salaries were given to officers who had comparatively little to do, and there was no principle of promotion in the establishment. Strangers were brought in from patronage and favour, and men who had been fifteen years in the establishment found that they had very little chance of rising. Many of those employed there, indeed, were receiving less salaries than a common labourer. No man ought to be in the institution without an allowance sufficient to insure the continuance of his services, and without a prospect of promotion. At all events, the officers should be put upon the same footing with the officers of the National Gallery. Under all the circumstances, he was against voting more money to the British Museum; and next year he should feel it his duty to move for a Committee of Inquiry. He thought he should then be able to show that great improvements might be made, so as to secure advantages to the public which they did not now derive from the institution. The number of visitors had greatly increased. Their numbers were threefold greater than six or eight years ago. He recollected when only seventy-five people were allowed to visit the Museum in the course of one day. Mr. George Rose, afterwards Sir George Rose, then stated that the number could not be increased, and that no more than five should be admitted at one time. There were now sometimes 32,000 in the course of a day. Lord Stanley, formerly opposed to unlimited admissions, had since declared that damage had not been done to the value of a sixpence in consequence of the change; and Sir H. Ellis, who was also opposed to the measure, had stated that events had proved his fears to be utterly groundless. The poorer the men who visited the institution, the more grateful were they for admission, and the better did they behave. It was a kind of half gentlemen—those who had not prudence enough to conduct themselves with discretion when possessed of some wealth, that took upon themselves to treat lightly both the attendants and collection. The number of visitors, which in 1840 was 247,000, went on increasing till, in 1845,
1444
it rose to 685,614. There were of the latter 64,427 in the reading-room; but the numbers who attended there had of late years greatly decreased. He did not intend to make any remark on the regulations in that department; but he begged to state that in 1840 the number of those who attended in the reading-room was 67,542; in 1841, 69,303; in 1842, 71,706; in 1843, 70,031; in 1844, 67,511; and in 1845, 64,427. The numbers in the last of those years were less than in any of the six preceding years. The number of artists, visitors of the gallery, was 4,256 less than in the six preceding years. Taking the whole number admitted—artists, readers, and general visitors, no fewer than 760,261 persons passed through the Museum in the course of twelve months; and, looking at the expense of the establishment for last year—47,850 l., the cost to the public was only thirteen or fourteen pence per head. If greater facilities were afforded, the number of visitors might be very largely increased. He did not grudge the money expended on the institution, but he objected to the mode of management; and he pressed upon the consideration of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) and the other trustees the suggestions which had now been thrown out, and which, if they thought fit to adopt them, would, he believed, be attended with great public advantage.
MR. EWARTthought it would be of great advantage if increased responsibility were introduced into the management of the Museum, whether by adding other efficient persons or otherwise. He was happy to see that the visits of the public to institutions such as the British Museum, as well as to Hampton-court and other collections, increased every year. But he wished to address his observations, not to the general conduct of the Museum, but to the particular department of the library. A strong contrast existed between the regulations observed in the public libraries of this country and in those of the Continent. In that of the British Museum a restrictive system existed as regarded applications for admissions, which was very objectionable. He found by the printed regulations that the librarian was precluded from admitting persons unknown to him, except on the recommendation of gentlemen holding some official situation of a public kind; whilst in no other country was any such passport required. He considered it a great evil that in such an enormous town as this

1445
there should be only one library open to the whole body of the public. In Paris there were five; and other large continental towns, such as Dresden, were also well supplied. If Government would establish libraries in the various districts, Westminster, Marylebone, Pimlico, and others, such a measure would be of great advantage to the public.
SIR R. H. INGLISremarked, that the great evil, according to the hon. Member for Montrose, was the absence of responsibility in regard to the expenditure of the institution. Now it rested with the Government for the time being to consider the Estimates, and to decide upon all recommendations made by the trustees; in every instance the responsibility remained with the Treasury. His hon. Friend said, the Museum was only open on three days of the week; but he contended, that it was open on five days, for his hon. Friend could not say that the artists, and others who visited the institution for various objects, were not a portion of the public. So far from the regulation with respect to Tuesdays and Thursdays being objectionable, he contended that it was desirable, for the interests of the public, that artists should have facilities for attending the Museum on those days. With respect to the age of visitors admitted, there must be some limit. His hon. Friend who spoke last had said there was great difficulty in obtaining admission to the library; but he thought it evident, from the list of persons with whom was deposited the privilege of granting recommendations to applicants, that sufficient facilities in this respect existed. He thought he might apply to the British Museum the remarks which Charles II. had made upon the climate of England—that there were more days in the year, and more hours in the day, during which a man could be in the open air than in any other country. So the British Museum was open for more days in the year, and more hours in the day, he believed, than any similar institution of equal magnitude in a foreign country. Could his hon. Friend find that any such number as 64,000 persons in one year had been admitted into any of the foreign libraries to which he alluded? He believed, that no man in Paris ever knew a fourth of the number. The visitors to the Museum had increased thirty to one since 1820; there were now three times as many as six or eight years ago. A shorter interval elapsed, he believed, in the production of books re-
1446
quired by readers in the library than was known in any other library of Europe. With respect to the facility of entering the British Museum, as compared with foreign institutions, it should not be forgotten that in the public institutions of the Continent there was a police most vigilant and rigorous, whilst in the British Museum there was none, at least of a secret character.
The vote was then agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
MR. H. G. WARDsaid, that as no statement with respect to the Navy Estimates had been made, he trusted to the indulgence of the House whilst he made a short explanation of the different votes; and he must, in justice to the hon. Gentleman whom he had succeeded (Mr. Corry), say, that if it had not been for his kind and liberal assistance, he should not have been able to make himself master of the subject. In the first place, he must remind the House of the precise state of the votes already taken; the first vote for the number of men had passed, and the number had been taken at 40,000; for the wages of these men 900,000 l. had been voted; and there had been three separate votes on account of other votes; 400,000 l. (vote 3) for victualling, 1,200,000 l. (vote 11) for naval stores, and 400,000 l. (vote 12) for new works; and on Monday last, the House had completed the second vote by voting 394,720 l. to furnish the sum necessary for the charge of seamen, and 705,448 l. (vote 15) for the half-pay. The whole amount of the votes for the year was 6,667,414 l.; and, deducting the reserved credit of 190,461 l., the gross sum required would be 7,476,953 l. As he had already stated, the whole number of men voted was 40,000; of these 27,500 were seamen, for the fleet, surveying vessels, troop-ships, and yachts, 2,000 boys, 5,500 marines afloat, and 5,000 marines ashore. The total wages required were 1,328,053 l.; but after deducting the estimated credit of 33,333 l., the total sum required for the credit of the year would be 1,294,720 l. There was on this vote an apparent increase of 5,177 l.; but in fact the gross vote was the same as last year; but the reserved credit being less, the total sum required was larger by the difference. On the second vote, for the victuals of seamen and marines, there was an increase of 34,503 l. caused almost entirely by the rise in the price of provisions, which accounted for 33,843 l. out of the 34,000 l. In the 3rd

1447
vote, for the Admiralty-office, the vote was the same within 622 l., and that difference was caused by the change in the salaries of the clerks, which rose with the time of service, and by some increase in the establishment; but there was a decrease in the 13th vote by reduction of the list of temporary clerks. To the next vote (4) he ventured to call the particular attention of the House. It was the vote for the General Register and Record Office for Seamen, which was very ably managed under Lieutenant Brown, at the Custom-house, and in which there was a decrease of 2,500 l. in the amount for postages, for which too large a sum was taken last year. It was an Act which was very good so far as he had power of judging, and was working very well. Up to the 30th of June, 236,105 register tickets had been issued. Of these, 16,840 had been returned in cases of death and desertion; so that the number of tickets actually in the possession of the men was 219,266. He was told that the Act had proved a great check upon desertion from the merchant service; and he looked forward to a probable increase to 250,000 registered seamen in the merchant service. The Act had been particularly good as it affected apprentices. There had been 22,000 tickets attached to indentures since the 1st of January, 1845; and the total number of registered apprentices in merchant services was 25,000. There were, no doubt, some defects in the Act; there was perhaps too much of mulct and penalty, and too little of inducement to merit, and too little of permanent interest: but he looked upon it as the nucleus of much that was most valuable. It was a link between the mercantile and the Royal navy, and it would be the source and origin from which they might at a trifling expense draw in time of need, and with proper organization, the most powerful naval reserve. They would have at hand trained sailors always ready for the advanced ships, and, with proper classification and fit inducements for the men to enter the Royal navy in the event of war, they would find in this Act what was, in his opinion, the only substitute for the practice of impressment, useful and necessary, perhaps for the Crown, but always uncertain and inconvenient, and was frequently attended with circumstances which were painful and injurious. This Act, however, gave an organization which they ought to encourage. If they looked to France, they found that every man in the
1448
merchant service had passed through the Royal marine; they were all more or less practised men, and on the first emergency that might occur they were all available. He might say, without pledging the present Board of Admiralty, but speaking only his opinions, that no subject was likely to occupy so much of their attention during the recess; and if he should have the honour of making a statement next year, he hoped he should prove there was none to which he had turned his attention with so much good; certainly there was none which would be so satisfactory to himself. The subject was a large one, for the whole connexion between the two services ought to be reviewed, and if there were just causes of complaint, they ought to be dealt with in a kindly spirit. The subject of "Merchant Seaman's Fund" had been strongly pressed upon the Board, and they had been urged to introduce the Bill which had been brought in by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) when President of the Board of Trade; but, on the whole, they had thought it better not to revive a Bill which was confessedly only a temporary expedient, but to consider the question carefully during the recess, and to deal with it as a whole next Session. The 5th vote was for the scientific branch; and of that he need say nothing, as this important service was fully appreciated in that House, except that there was an increase of 470 l. In the 6th vote, for establishments at home, at Deptford, Woolwich, Chatham, Sheerness, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Deal, and Yarmouth, for packets, and for the victualling establishments, there was a decrease of 1,115 l. In the 7th vote, for the staff of the dockyards abroad, the total amount required for those establishments in every part of the globe was 23,902 l., and in this there was an increase of 945 l., in consequence of works going on at Malta, which were absolutely indispensable for the service. The 8th vote was a large one; it was for the wages of the artificers in the establishments at home, and there was an increase of 61,797 l. The whole amount required this year was 752,427 l., whilst the amount last year was only 690,630 l. This increase was caused partly by increased repairs and works, and partly by substitution of free for convict labour in the different dockyards. There were only 800 convicts employed in the present year, 300 at Woolwich and 500 at Portsmouth, instead of 2,570, and the additional charge in the

1449
yards was upwards of 28,000 l. Vote 9 was for wages paid in establishments abroad, and this showed an increase of 1,725 l. Vote 10 was for naval stores, and for the building, repairing, and outfit of the fleet; it exhibited an increase of 1,694,152 l., of which 437,285 l. had been entirely caused by the increased activity of the different establishments towards the middle and close of last year. The items were—for the additional purchase of timber, 199,899 l.; coals, 19,974 l.; steam machinery, 170,000 l.; and for steam guard-ships, 18,000 l. It could not be said that this increase had been made before it was called for, or without a fair necessity which could not in prudence be disregarded. Vote 11 was for new works, improvements, and repairs; there was a not increase on this vote of 40,464 l. The principal works were the substitution of iron roofs over the building slips in the dockyards for those of wood and tarred paper, which he thought were kind of premiums on fire in their great naval establishments; the improvement was going on, wherever repairs were required iron roofs were substituted; nothing could be more dangerous than the old and stupid system of covering these buildings with tar and paper, a single spark falling on which might have cost the country 1,000,000 l. for the sake of a miserable economy of 10,000 l. 156,500 l. was for building steam basins at Devonport and Portsmouth. They had been built on a very large scale; but considering the preparations going on elsewhere, and the formidable organization of steamers and steam machinery on the French coast, it was impossible for England, with any regard to its own credit and safety, to remain behindhand. These works were being carried on with all economy, but also with the utmost activity; a similar work was in course of construction at Malta, where it was much wanted; the docks there had been enlarged, and would now hold steamers of 72 feet beam. Vote 12 was for medicines and medical stores, on which there was an increase of 1,515 l. Vote 13 was for pilotage, distressed seamen, temporary clerks, and the purchase of land, being one of the votes on which there was a decrease; that decrease was 47,382 l. Vote 14 was for half-pay to officers of the Navy and Marines; 15 and 16 for pensions for good service, Greenwich Hospital, civil pensions, superannuations, &c.; on these votes also there was a decrease. Vote 17
1450
was for Freight on account of the Army and Ordnance Departments, on which there was an increase of 35,221 l.; this was a charge which came under the Admiralty, but the Board had no control over it; it comprised the passages of troops and the freight of stores sent by sea for the service of the country. Vote 18 was a similar charge for the Home Department, 92,859 l. for the transport of convicts, showing an increase of 1,186 l. on the previous year; 5,065 convicts had been sent to Hobart Town and Norfolk Island, and 400 to Bermuda. The increase on the vote would have been greater but for a reduction in the freight of from 4l. 13 s. 8d. to 3l. 17 s. 1d., on which the present Estimate was based. There had been in the present year an extraordinary increase in the number of convicts, to the number of 10,183, caused by an alteration in the dockyard system, from those establishments. There only remained the vote for the Packet Department, 544,587 l. This included all the contracts for steam mails to every part of the Empire, extending to the East and West Indies, the Pacific, the Mediterranean, Ceylon and Hong Kong; it was a charge thrown on the Admiralty, but they had but little control over it; there was a net decrease on it of 187 l. He had now gone shortly, but as clearly as he could, over the chief items of the Naval Estimates of the year; he felt they were very large; he knew that an expenditure of 7,500,000 l. was one over which the House of Commons had a right to exercise a strict scrutiny as to details. He would only remind the House that for what was of the past, the present Board of Admiralty was not responsible; he saw no fault to find with the Estimates, but they had been handed over to them by their predecessors, and they had taken them as they were left. And for the future he was bound to say he should not feel justified in holding out any false hopes; he did not believe that any great reduction in these Estimates was probable or possible, so long as the naval establishments of other countries continued on the footing on which they were at present placed. He thought it both unfit and unsafe, he believed it would be dishonourable, for England again to run the risks she had twice done during the last five years, from an unwillingness to increase their naval establishment. He believed it would be in the recollection of every man who had held such a post as the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier), that there were

1451
periods when any sudden rupture, either here or on the other side of the Atlantic, Would have found them unprepared. He believed the maritime superiority of England was as great and decided as ever—that the heart, and spirit, and means of the country were as good as ever they were; but they had distinct evidence that, from a natural unwillingness to create alarm, these means had not been concentrated; they were not available on the instant in the event of sudden attack, and the country had been left vulnerable on some important points. Up to the present moment Woolwich was the only steam factory they possessed of any size. The basins at Portsmouth and Plymouth were not yet finished; and, if finished, they were not in a proper state of defence. The advanced ships presented a formidable list; but the arrangement of manning them were inadequate and unsatisfactory. In case of a sudden emergency, he confessed he should be unwilling to trust to the exercise of the power of impressment alone. It was a resource not to be trusted to to man such a navy; and to oppose untrained men, totally unacquainted with gunnery, to trained and practised crews, at the first outbreak of any maritime contest, would be imprudent and unsafe. He would rather seek to recall and collect together, by proper regulations, those elements of strength now scattered over the globe. By their own fault they were so scattered; and it was in their power to recall them, by devising a better mode of treatment for the gallant men upon whom the country must rely for its safety. His own opinion was worth nothing; but in the opinion of many experienced officers a great deal might be done by kind treatment of the seamen, proper training of boys in the service, and altering the foolish practice of discharging a whole ship's company the moment she was paid off. Why should a practice which would be utterly destructive of the discipline of a regiment be applied to a ship? Why not endeavour to make the men anxious to remain in the service, and give them the means of remaining in it, instead of turning them adrift to be plundered of their honest earnings, and compelled to transfer their services to other Powers? He should wish to see the men with a permanent interest in the service of the Crown. He looked forward to its being the task of the present Board of Admiralty, profiting by the experience of its predecessor, to organize, complete, and systematise the great
1452
defensive arrangements now in existence. Without entertaining any hostile or aggressive views, being as anxious as any man that the peace of the world should be preserved, he would still express his firm belief that the greatest security for peace was the conviction on the part of other nations that, as far as England was concerned, that peace could not be broken by them with impunity. That conviction would depend on the proper organization of those resources, in ships and men, which existed in every direction around them; and which, properly applied, would always make England the first maritime power in the world. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that 245,148 l. be granted for wages and victuals of seamen.
SIR C. NAPIERadmitted that he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty, who had shown a degree of information which was exceedingly creditable to him, and which it was indeed not a little surprising to find in one who had been for so short a time in the department with which he was at present connected. He was really at a loss to think how the hon. Gentleman managed to have concentrated such a mass of information within so brief a period. He had arranged it, too, in a systematic and perspicuous manner; and he (Sir C. Napier) could with truth affirm that a clearer elucidation of the whole system of the navy he had ever heard. He concurred unreservedly in almost every proposition that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, and particularly approved of what he had said respecting the mode of manning the navy. He was also completely of the same opinion with the hon. Member as to its being exceedingly improper, and, indeed, exceedingly dishonourable to this country, that the naval establishment should ever be in such a condition that in the event of a sudden emergency we should be taken at a disadvantage. Every thing ought certainly to be ready at a moment's warning, so that we might never be taken by surprise. He trusted that the new Board of Admiralty would look vigilantly to the discharge of their duties, and display more zeal and ability than their predecessors in office, of whom, by the way, he was surprised to find that only one had thought it worth his while to be present in his place on the present occasion. The mode of manning the navy was unquestionably a matter of the most serious importance. In the year

1453
1841 it was the opinion of him (Sir C. Napier), and of several other naval officers, whose opinions might be supposed to be of some value, that the navy was very imperfectly manned. The right hon. Baronet, who then came into power, admitted that he was of the same opinion, and accordingly introduced a scale on which the service was for the future to be supplied; but he did not follow up his own system; and the consequence was, that there was still great cause of complaint in this department. No ships, it had been said, were for the future to be sent out to sea which were not manned in admirable style. There were, however, seven or eight sail of the line which were now afloat. Would it be contended that the sail of the line now afloat were manned in admirable style? Quite the contrary. He had no hesitation in saying they were improperly manned. If they were inspected, it would be found that they were manned not with a first-rate crew, but with a crew two rates below that, and that the ships were filled up with marines. He asked any naval officer in command of a man-of-war whether he would prefer having the number of marines on board doubled, rather than to have her properly manned with competent seamen? The system was a most improper one; and he protested against it accordingly. The gallant officer opposite (Captain Berkeley), whom he was delighted to find again a Lord of the Admiralty, had left that department some years ago under circumstances as honourable as those under which any public man ever resigned office. He went out because he could not see the navy manned as he wished it to be. It was to be hoped that his opinion on this important subject had undergone no change, but that now that he was in office he would abide manfully by the views which he had promulgated so emphatically when out of power, and take care that no ships should go to sea that were not manned in the first style, and in all respects properly equipped, He trusted that if the gallant officer and the other new authorities at the Admiralty manifested a desire to effect these desirable changes, the House of Commons would back them zealously, and supply them in a generous spirit with the funds requisite for carrying these projects into execution. He would not, on the present occasion, trespass on the attention of the House by discussing the votes one by one, having on Tuesday evening addressed them on the subject at considerable length; but there
1454
was one vote he could not forbear alluding to. It was that which was designed to cover the expenses of the dockyards and naval stores. The money here voted appeared to him to be quite too profuse. If anything like order or economy had prevailed, he certainly did think that they might have diminished a million and a half of money in the expenses of the dockyards and stores. He had here again to complain, as he had complained a thousand times before, of the gross defects of our present system of naval architecture. The ships which were constructed under that system—he would not say of them that they were absolute failures; but he certainly thought, and every naval officer must say the same, that they were bad men-of-war. They looked very charmingly in harbour; but to judge of them properly you should see them in a gale of wind, when it would be found that they would roll forty-five degrees leeward, and forty-three degrees windward. He trusted that the new Board of Admiralty would perceive the evils of the present system, and acknowledge the necessity of adopting a new plan. There was another point he was anxious to allude to. He meant the enormous expense which had been incurred since 1800 in cutting down ships of war. They had recently taken four 72-gun ships and four frigates—good men-of-war, or at least fair men-of-war—and these they had cut down to make block ships of. The practice was an inexcusable one. Why should men-of-war be thus sacrificed? If block ships were required, what was easier than to take old hulks, mount guns on them, and to tow them by steam boats to the positions it was desirable they should occupy? The cost of repairing these block ships had been set down at 18,000 l.; but he would take upon him to say that the cost of these ships would not be less than 20,000 l. a piece. Independent of that, there were engines put into them at an enormous expense; and he would answer for this, that those four sail of the line and four frigates when transmogrified into block ships would cost no less than half a million of money. Let them but wait until they had obtained a bill of expenses, and they would find that they would cost little less than the sum he had mentioned. And what was the use of them? Why, they would be absolutely useless. They would be put in dock with the machinery on board, and they would be totally useless altogether. Perhaps he would be told, "Oh, no! those vessels are

1455
intended to go to sea; we will send them into the Downs." He (Sir C. Napier) asked, could they not send six vessels into the Downs with the same facility? Now, suppose those block ships were in the Downs and a westerly wind set in, and the enemy instead of going to the Downs proceeded to Plymouth, those block ships might be able to sail not more than five or six miles an hour, while the enemy's vessels could sail ten or twelve miles in the same time; and what then, he (Sir Charles Napier) asked, would become of their block ships? Now, with respect to their steam boats, he complained of the mode in which they were built. He went on board of one the other day in Woolwich, and she was exactly in the same position as the first steam boats they had built, and the engines and other parts were exposed to shot. He, therefore, conceived that they should change the present system. It was perfectly easy to do so, and he was sure that they would find that it would do a great deal of good. He had been allowed to build a steam man-of-war, and he had arranged that it should carry provisions for two hundred men; but when he went to look at the establishment of the Sidon, a paper from the Admiralty was shown to him, and that paper stated that she was to carry provisions for 240 men. But if they were to fit her out with a view to carry the order of the Admiralty into execution, she would, like other steam boats, be too deep in the water to be useful. He would suggest that the present Board of Admiralty should form some sort of Commission, to investigate and report what was the proper system of building steam boats, and thus save the country from the enormous losses to which it was subject during every year for the last twenty years. The Secretary of the Admiralty had said that steam boats were in their infancy. Yes, they were so in the navy; but it was not so in the merchant service. They were in their infancy for the last twenty years in the navy, and how long would it be before they came to maturity? If they went to Scotland, Liverpool, and Ireland, they would find steam boats belonging to the merchant service that could stand every weather.
SIR GEORGE COCKBURNfelt, after the statement which had been made by the gallant Officer on his left (Sir C. Napier), that it was quite right he should say a word on the subject. In the first place, it was said that after they (the late Board
1456
of Admiralty) came into office, they agreed in thinking that ships of war should go to sea fully manned; but at the same time, with respect to the ships that were kept in the Channel, he explained at the time—two or three years ago—he felt that they could exercise those ships without being fully manned. They were enabled, with the sum they got from Parliament, to send more vessels where they were wanted—for instance, to Brazil and China—than if they had those vessels of the line fully manned at home. As to sending a double number of marines on board, it was exceedingly useful if they were looking out for the chance of a war, for a portion of them were lately enlisted, who were fit to act as soldiers, but it was necessary to have some experience at sea. He was old enough to remember the last war, when they were obliged to put soldiers on board, and they were all dead as it were from sea sickness. In the event of a war they had now a vote for 40,000 men; but if they had the vessels fully manned, they should have 43,000 or 44,000 men. They should, he repeated, send the marines to sea, to get sea legs, and give practice to the officers and men. As to the next charge, with respect to the cutting down of the block ships, the House would remember that it was not a proposal of the Admiralty at all. There was an order from the Government to appoint a Commission to visit all their ports, and see what was necessary to be done for their protection, in consequence of the French having got a steam navy. That Commission went round to the different ports, and the recommendation of that Commission was adopted by the Government, requiring that a certain number of line of battle ships, and of frigates, should be prepared to aid the batteries in the different positions in which they might be attacked; and it was thought wise that a screw propeller should be put to each of them to enable them to shift their position from side to side, where the attack of the enemy made it necessary. One of those vessels was to be completed with the screw, and the order was that others were not to be completed until that one was tried. His hon. and gallant Friend had stated that they had not a steamer that was a perfect man of war. They had often heard that statement before, and it was contradicted over again. He might mention an officer well known to the country, Sir Edmond Lyons, now Minister in Greece, and in his opinion the Terrible and Devastation were

1457
most efficient vessels. The Gomer (French vessel) was not to be compared to the Devastation; and it was quite right in his (Sir G. Cockburn's) opinion, as they had ships of the size in France, that in England they should have some ships of the same description, and therefore it was that those ships were built.
CAPTAIN BERKELEYsaid, it had been his pride during his professional career, to endeavour to the utmost of his power to make the ship effective to which he belonged; and it was now his pride to assist in making the British navy as effective as possible. He was sure they had the finest fleet in the world, both ships that sailed and steamed; but he confessed there might be some difficulty to man those ships, and particularly in cases of emergency. He was desirous that attention should be paid to the manning of the navy; and he hoped the gallant Commodore would never have to say that he forgot one word in office, that he had said out of it. He thought there had been too much amateur shipbuilding, and he wished that a minute, left by Lord Minto on his retirement from office, had been strictly followed. That noble Lord, foreseeing, it would appear, what was about to take place, cautioned his successors, and through them the public, not to go too fast to endeavour to vie with others who were building bad steamers, when the small class of steamers were much better and more efficient for every purpose than all the large ones they could put together.
CAPTAIN PECHELLwas always anxious for the prosperity of the British navy, and could safely say that he never made an observation tending to lower it in comparison with other navies. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty had gone through the items in a very clear manner, but he had not told them how he intended to apply them. He would wish for information on various matters connected with this subject. He would wish, for instance, to hear how far the scheme, in connexion with the French Government, for the suppression of the Slave Trade, entered into by Her Majesty's late Government, had been successful, comparing the operations of the French cruisers with those of this country. There were, he believed, no treaties between France and the Brazils or Spain, that would warrant the French cruisers in attacking any vessel under the flags of those nations. He would also like to hear what was to be
1458
the policy of the Government with regard to the employment of admirals. It was, he thought, strange that the superintendent of Woolwich Dockyard, whose services were considered so important and pressing that he was not permitted to sleep out of the dockyard without the express orders of the Admiralty, should be taken from his post and placed in command of the experimental squadron; and it was equally strange that the Mediterranean station should be deprived of its only admiral, who was sent to command that squadron, which he had not yet been able to find. Many of the old officers felt aggrieved that they should have been passed over, and that their representations should not have been attended to. He would like to hear whether the Board of Admiralty approved of their conduct in this respect. He would likewise wish to know whether they intended to continue the same system pursued heretofore with regard to the conveyance of specie — namely, of giving the commander a direct interest in the amount placed under his charge, by paying him a certain portion of it. He next came to the matter of which he had given notice. He alluded to the case of a certain portion of the paymasters and pursers of the navy. The case of these officers was one of very great injustice. When placed on half-pay they were in three classes, who were paid at 3s., 4s., and 5s. a day respectively. It was found very unjust to old officers that they should not rise to more than 5s. a day, and the pursers accordingly agreed among themselves to forego some of their sea emoluments in order that their old officers on half-pay should have an increase of pay. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry instituted on the matter recommended an addition of 1s. a day to the pay of the first class of these officers; and the amount sacrificed by the pursers to ensure this object from their sea emoluments was 9,600 l. a year. In addition to this, 23 per cent was taken off other emoluments, making a further sum of nearly 9,000 l. a year. A total sum of 18,600 l. thus came into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but instead of these arrangements having been carried out by the Admiralty, they reduced the first class from 200 to 100. The consequence was, that a balance of 4,384 l. was retained by the Government every year out of the amount so subscribed, and that 2,737 l. a year was taken out of the pockets of 100 officers who ought to be in receipt of additional

1459
pay to that amount. He would ask any member of the Admiralty, and more particularly of the late Board, whether they could deny any one of the statements contained in the memorial of this class of officers? Some of the officers who had been so removed were from thirty to forty years' standing, and among others he might mention that the paymaster of the Victory, an officer of between thirty and forty years' standing, was still only in the third class. He would also wish to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty, to another class of officers, namely, the masters. A master in the navy was in fact a master over nobody. Whenever there was any danger he was always at hand, but when promotion was in question he was never heard of; when there was any responsibility or blame to be attributed, the master had his share as well as the captain; but when honour was to be conferred, nobody thought of sending for the master.
ADMIRAL DUNDASsaid, when the Board of Admiralty had employment for admirals, the old officers would not be forgotten. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman respecting the conveyance of specie, he believed a great part of the emolument went to the support of Greenwich Hospital. There could be no doubt but that the pursers were a most deserving class of officers, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite was prepared to explain the treatment of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained.
SIR GEORGE COCKBURNsaid, the arrangements made with the pursers in 1841 was at their own application. The Commission which had been appointed on the subject went into the entire case of these officers, and recommended the additional retiring pay of 1s. a day; but that was no part of the original bargain entered into when their pay had been increased.
CAPTAIN HARRIShad heard with much pleasure the statement of the hon. Gentle-
1460
man the Secretary of the Navy, and cordially approved of the useful reforms the hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce. But he must call the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty to the mania which prevailed of putting very few and ponderous guns into our ships. Such a system would entail the same disastrous results as the opposite extreme of employing guns of too light a calibre. Our three classes of frigates threw one-sixth less weight of broadside than French and American ships of the same tonnage. The Vernon, larger than any of the French 60-gun frigates, carried two guns less on her main deck. The Pique, 100 tons more than the United States, threw 420lb. less weight of shot. The old frigates of 1,000 tons, with a converted armament, would be overmatched in close action by the American corvettes of 800 tons. The ponderous swivel guns on the upper dock were only useful where steam power enabled a ship to choose her own range. Their crews were wholly exposed to the fire of musketry in close action from the want of bulwarks, and for the same cause they could not be fought in a sea way. At that late hour of the night he would not go into further details, but he trusted that this vicious system would not be persisted in.
MR. G. H. HENEAGEwished to call the attention of the Committee to the large expenditure in forming a steam navy. They had hitherto no experience of the use of such enormous war steamers; those hitherto usefully employed in China and elsewhere were comparatively of a small class. A number of these large steamers had been sent to sea with the experimental squadron, and on a gale coming on they were not to be seen at the end of twenty-four hours, although the rest of the squadron kept together.
Several other Votes agreed to.
House resumed. Resolution to be reported.
House adjourned at a quarter-past One.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Gauge of Railways.
3a. and passed. Coal Whippers (Port of London).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Cirencester, for the Adoption of a Measure making the Landlords of Tenements where the Rents are under £6 liable to the Poor Rates.—By Lord Campbell, from Blackburn, and several other places, in favour of the Small Debts Bill.—From Public Carriers, praying that the Recommendation of Her Majesty's Commissioners for Establishing a National Uniformity of Gauge may be carried into effect.—From Guardians of the Bradford Union, for Repeal of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.

THE ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR AND MANCHESTER DIOCESES BILL.
The EARL of POWISmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Motion that the Bill do pass.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he had stated to the House upon a former occasion, with respect to this Bill, that his own impression was, that the tenor of the Bill being entirely permissive, it did not appear necessary that the consent of the Crown should be asked. If the Crown thought fit, it was at liberty to do so and so. Upon this ground he thought that the Crown would not be in the same position as it would have been under the other Bill. He had, however, requested his noble Friend to delay the last stage, and he had thought it the most wise and prudent course to obtain the consent of Her Majesty; and he was authorized on the part of the Crown not to oppose any obstacle to the further progress of the Bill.
Bill passed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE CITY OF LONDON.
LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from a most respectable person in the city of London, complaining of a practice repugnant to the pure administration of justice; he meant that of magistrates entertaining questions before them which they had by law no more right to entertain, than they had to enter into any of their Lordships' houses and seize upon their property. This was formerly a practice existing not only in the city of London, but in the city and liberties of Westminster and the borough of Southwark. While he had held possession of the Great Seal, he took the opportunity, seeing the evil, to call the attention of his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) then Secretary of State for the Home Department, to these practices; and he had, as the matter was manifestly in the department of his noble Friend, asked him seriously to represent to the magistrates of the city of Westminster—he having no power over the magistrates of London, who were corporate magistrates merely — the great grievance and inconvenience to which this practice led. The evil which invariably resulted from the entertaining of complaints, or of requests for advice by a magistrate, might not at first be apparent; but it was always to be remembered, that when a man came before a magistrate, he not only told a story for himself, but he told a story against another man, and so far injured that man. And this story was not only heard by the magistrate—that would not much matter—but it was heard by others—by the public in the court, and by those who reported for the newspapers, and who, for aught he knew, reported very correctly; so that when a man spoke against his neighbour, that neighbour being absent and unable to reply, the slander, if it were a slander, went all over the country. He would give an instance of this—and indeed he might find thousands, for it had become a regular and ordinary proceeding to come before a magistrate, as it was called, "to complain and to take advice." A noble Lord, now dead, a very dear friend of his, and who had held a high judicial station, had made an unfortunate marriage; and, on his death, his widow was left in great pecuniary difficulties. With very great benevolence and generosity, the Prince Regent issued a certain sum of money to two noble Friends of his (Lord Brougham's) to be paid to this lady at the rate of 40 s. a week; for,
1402
such were her habits, and so improper were her associations, that it was impossible to give her the whole sum at once; and the condition of trust was, that only 40 s. a week should be paid. But this did not satisfy the lady; and when she wanted more money, she went before a city magistrate for advice, and to him she told her story. It was bruited over the three kingdoms, and the tale went as she had told it, that these two noble Lords wrongfully held possession of the funds granted out of the public purse—though in reality by the private munificence of the late King George IV.; that they withheld the money from her, and that they applied it to their own particular purposes. And—would it be believed?—the then Lord Mayor, instead of saying, as he ought to have said, "Go about your business," heard the whole story out, and then said, "The woman tells a consistent story. Is it to be endured that these two noble Lords, wallowing in wealth, shall take this miserable pittance of the bounty of the nation from this helpless widow, and apply it to their own uses?" And, of course, with the story went the authority—valeat quantum—and that was not much, of this Lord Mayor, charging these noble Lords with embezzlement. This might be an extreme case; but many believed it, and did believe it to this day, and the story was put in one of the black lists against the House of Lords. In another case a charge was brought before the Lord Mayor against a noble Duke for unjustly keeping a poor man out of a farm in the county of Northumberland, worth 150 l. a year; and the Lord Mayor told the person, "Go to his grace, and let him know my opinion upon Iris conduct." Instances of a similar kind formerly occurred in the city of Westminster, and in the borough of Southwark, as well as in the city of London; but his noble Friend effectually put a stop to the evil, by notifying to the magistrates there that they would be struck out of the commission of the peace if they were again guilty of such conduct. Since 1831, they had heard no more of such cases in Westminster; but in the city of London they continued to this day; and in the petition he now presented there was an instance well deserving of attention. The petitioner, on the 9th of March last, was Drought before the Lord Mayor and another Alderman for misdemeanour, a trespass; and after investigating the charge, they thought fit, without any legal authority whatever, to adjudge a fine of 20 l., or

1403
if that were not paid or could not be paid, imprisonment and hard labour for two months. Now, that was utterly and absolutely illegal; it would have been just as legal had they ordered him to be hanged. This man had no friends in London; but a relation in Scotland went before one of the Judges of the superior courts of Westminster, who being made aware of the petitioner's case, directed him to be set at liberty forthwith. But then the petitioner had been illegally fined, he had been illegally imprisoned, and he had no redress, no compensation, unless he were to bring an action; and in that there would be a difficulty, inasmuch as it would be said, that though this magistrate had no right to inflict that amount of punishment, he yet had a jurisdiction over misdemeanour. He (Lord Brougham) sincerely and heartily hoped that a very long time would not elapse before they saw a thorough reform in the police, and of all that was connected with police, in the city of London, and that it would be put on a footing with Westminster and other places. He considered that the administration of police in the city of London was exceedingly hurtful, and tended much to impede the due administration of justice.

THE INDIAN VICTORIES.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted their Lordships that he had received two letters addressed to the Lord Chancellor from Viscount Hardinge, the one dated the 10th of May, and the other the 25th of May.
"Simla, 10th May, 1846.
"My Lord—I have had the honour to receive your Lordship's letter of the 9th March, conveying to me the Resolutions of the House of Lords, which I have communicated to the Commander in Chief, General Sir Hugh Gough, G.C.B., and to the several General Officers referred to therein.
"The Expression of the Approbation of the House of Lords is an Honour highly valued by the General Officers, Officers, and Soldiers, European and Native, of the Indian Army employed in the late Operations against the Sikh Nation.—With the utmost Esteem and Respect, I have the Honour to be, my Lord, your obedient Servant,
"H. HARDINGE.
"The Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor."
"Simla, 25th May, 1846.
"My Lord—I have had the Honour to convey to the Commander in Chief Lord Gough, G.C.B., to Major General Sir Harry Smith, Bart., G.C.B., to the General Officers, Officers, and Troops of the Army of the Sutlej, the Thanks of the House of Lords, which have been unanimously voted to them for the Victories of Aliwall and Sobraon.
"During the same Session of Parliament this
1404
is the Second Occasion on which it has been my good Fortune to convey to the Army of the Sutlej the Thanks of the House of Lords.
"This Honour, so promptly and so unanimously voted, is a Reward highly valued by our Country men serving Her Majesty in India, as well as by our Fellow-subjects the Native Troops of the In dian Army, who recognize in the Vote the Proof that their Services are acknowledged and esteem ed by their Sovereign, the House of Lords, and their Fellow-subjects of Great Britain.—I have the Honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's very obedient Servant, "HARDINGE.
"The Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor."
The same being read, was Ordered to lie on the Table; and to be entered on the Journals.
House adjourned.