Sitting of 26 February 1847

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—James Henry Monahan, Esq., for Galway Town.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Consolidated (£8,000,000); Poor Relief Supervision (Ireland) (No. 2).
2° London (City) Small Debts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Moffatt, from Durham, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. — From Attorneys and Solicitors at York, for Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Callaghan and other hon. Members, from several places, for Reduction of Lighthouse Dues.—By Mr. Goulburn, from West India Planters and Merchants, in Favour of proposed Measures respecting Sugar and Rum.—By Mr. Goulburn and other Hon. Members, from several places, for Inquiry into the Anatomy Act.—By Mr. Moffatt, from Brixton, for Alteration of Law relating to Contempt of Court.—By Mr. Callaghan, from Cork, for Consolidation of the Cork Gaols.—By Mr. D. Browne and Mr. S. Crawford, from a number of places, for Relief of Destitute Poor (Ireland).—By Mr. Callaghan, from Cork, for Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Walker, from Bury, for an efficient Poor Law (Ireland).—By Sir R. Inglis and other Hon. Members, from several places, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.—By Mr. W. Ellis and other Hon. Members, from several places, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

GRANT FOR SEED (IRELAND).
SIR R. H. INGLIS, seeing the right hon. Secretary for Ireland in his place, wished to put a question to him with respect to the Government grant of 50,000 l. for the distribution of seed in Ireland; he understood it was not intended to give the grant in money, but in seed itself. The question he wished to ask was on a point not less important than making the grant, namely, the manner in which the seed so given would be used? He hoped the present misery of Ireland would not be made perpetual by a neglect to use that seed; he trusted it was by this time employed day by day in sowing the land of Ireland; but could the Government give them any consolation as to the present state of that country in this respect?
MR. LABOUCHEREcould not give a very precise or distinct answer to the question of the hon. Baronet. But he hoped the House, and still more the people of Ireland, would not suppose, from his not giving such a reply to the question, that the cultivation of Ireland was to depend, in any considerable degree, on the small grant of seed which the Government was about to devote to the purpose. On the contrary, he was glad to take the opportunity of expressing a hope that the grant would not relax the efforts of proprietors to encourage the cultivation of the soil. If it did, he had no hesitation in saying, that the result would be most unfortunate. The very limited supply would be made almost entirely in turnip seed, and seed for green crops, and scarcely at all in grain. Had they undertaken to supply seed for grain crops in Ireland, they would have undertaken a task which no Government could perform; and any notion that it could do such a thing must cause more harm than good. With regard to the proportion of land under cultivation in Ireland, he had reason to believe that a larger breadth of it had been laid down in wheat this than in any former year; he could also say, that in many parts of Ireland great efforts were being made for the cultivation of the soil; at the same time, he was afraid, unless great exertions were used, that the cultivation of the land in the more remote districts would be very imperfect. Everything depended on the next six weeks; and he trusted the upper and middle classes of Ireland would consider it a duty alike imposed on them by the necessity itself, and a well understood self-interest, to exert themselves in every way to insure this object

529
of paramount importance, by assisting the small holders to cultivate the ground for the ensuing harvest.
MR. P. SCROPEasked, whether the attention of the Government had been directed to a memorial laid before it, praying that wherever the landlord neglected to buy seed for his tenant, a power should be given to those who would supply seed on credit, to have the first lien on the coming crop; that it should not all go to the landlord for rent? If such a power were given, a large amount of seed would be supplied by persons in Ireland, on the credit of the growing crop, when it could not be obtained from any other source.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, no such measure was contemplated by the Government.

THE POOR LAW COMMISSION.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. ROEBUCKsaid: I have given notice to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, that I wished to put a question to him of great importance, respecting the present state of the poor law in this country. Every one in the House must have seen, this morning, in the columns of The Times newspaper, an extraordinary statement. It is not upon the subject-matter of the law itself; it is an opinion, given by a learned Friend of mine, as to the present state of the poor law, caused by the mode in which it has been administered. Two questions have been put to Mr. Matthew D. Hill, to which he has given answers. The points raised are, whether certain proceedings on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners were legal or not; and, if not legal, what remedies can be taken against them? Mr. Hill, as to the first point, says, if the case be as stated, the conduct of the Commissioners has been illegal; and next—which is a part of the opinion I am inclined to think unquestionable — if these illegal acts have been committed, the Commissioners may be proceeded against, either by indictment, information, or action. It must be known to the House, from the statements of the Poor Law Commissioners themselves, during the inquiry before the Andover Committee, that they have been guilty—I use the term only in its technical sense—of illegal proceedings, very nearly from the commencement of their official existence. They received, under an Act of Parliament, powers which they were to exercise
530
as persons sitting together as a board; those powers were very great and extensive—powers that were never before bestowed by Act of Parliament. I was one of those who conceded those powers; I was perfectly willing to do so; but always with the safeguards and means of protection given by the Act itself. Among those safeguards was a provision that the three Commissioners should sit together as a board; that nothing should be done by them as individual Commissioners, but as a Board of Commissioners; it was provided, also, that their proceedings should not only be done in regular form, but be recorded by the secretary; that not only the act should be known, but the grounds upon which it was done; and, moreover, that these proceedings should be subject to the consideration of the Secretary of State, who is immediately amenable to this House. In the inquiry that took place before the Andover Committee, it became apparent to everybody that the Act had been violated by the Commissioners. We passed an Act of Parliament upon the most delicate question in administrative affairs that could be submitted to the House, guarded and fenced round with protective enactments and securities for its due administration, necessary for the benefit of the whole community. There was not a person in this House who took part in that discussion who was not fully aware of the dangerous ground on which we trod, and the difficulty of the experiment we were about to make. The Act was passed; then came the proceedings of the Commissioners, and under their administration the whole fabric of the law has broken down, placing us at the present moment in a worse condition than we were at the commencement of the investigation which led to the passing of the New Poor Law. Now, Sir, I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House to this: we are about to reconstruct the Act of Parliament; not only that, we are about to extend its operation in a still more difficult country to deal with—Ireland; and it is of the utmost consequence we should have a thorough understanding of the causes of its failure, whether it is to be attributed to some inherent defect in the law, or to some inefficiency in the parties applying it. We have at this moment on the Table an Order of the Day for going into something connected with the poor law in Ireland; but we do not know what has been the ordinary mode of

531
proceeding with regard to the whole matter. I do not wish to say anything to hurt the feelings of the parties impugned; I hardly know them, save from the passing courtesies of life; but I am bound to state, that the imputations on them in their public capacities render it totally impossible for them to carry out the existing law. The law has broken down under them, and it is impossible at the present moment to say what will be the consequence. They may have actions and indictments brought against them all over England; and for the next six months those Gentlemen will live a life no one will envy them, if something is not done to protect them. I ask the noble Lord if we are leave this delicate and difficult subject in its present unsatisfactory state? We are in the last Session of the present Parliament; are we about to leave the whole subject unconsidered? Suppose I get as an answer, we are not; yet the noble Lord must be aware, this question cannot be considered in the ordinary way: the country asks for a calm, a considerate, and a thorough inquiry, and I hope the House will bear with me for a moment while I state why. Three of four gentlemen intrusted with the application of this law have taken upon themselves to violate the Act of Parliament—that is the only way I can express it. Under these circumstances I want to know if the British House of Commons is prepared to enter on a discussion of the law for the purpose of extending its operation in Ireland without a previous consideration of all the extraordinary circumstances connected with the administration of that law? Before we pass an extension of the poor law for Ireland, we ought to inquire into the efficiency of the machinery for its purpose. What has taken place in Ireland in the last six months? I ask the noble Lord if, during the last six months, he received any information from the Irish Poor Law Commissioners as to the failure of the potato crop; or did they offer any suggestions for meeting the difficulty? If not—and I suppose he did not, because nothing has been laid on the Table of the House—then I say the Irish Commissioners have not discharged all the duties of the office for which they were appointed. In the present state of affairs in Ireland, it was their duty to have suggested some means of meeting the extraordinary difficulty. We ought not to enter on the extension of the Irish Poor Law without a full inquiry into the whole question how it has been administered.
532
I admit the principle of the poor law, as instituted by the last Act of Parliament; but I want a full and unbiassed inquiry into the cases of its failure, for unfortunately I am obliged, in spite of my previous opinions, to confess it has been a lamentable failure, whether it must be attributed to the law itself, or to the individuals administering it. I believe, in my conscience, it is not the law; the law, ably carried out, would have fulfilled all the intentions of the Legislature? But the persons employed to administer it have not proved equal to the task intrusted to them, and thus the failure has occurred. I want, therefore, to know in what position the question is at present? I am prepared, if the House will give me encouragement, to move for a Committee of Inquiry; but I hope the Government will undertake to do it, and take into consideration some mode of preventing the litigation that may arise. I hope, also, to hear some statement as to the course to be pursued in the House on the poor-law measures in progress for England and Ireland. At the present moment we do not know what we are to discuss. A short time ago the noble Lord put off the Irish Poor Law Extension Bill; at the present moment we are in the dark as to the reconstruction of the English Commission. It is the duty of the Government to tell us what it is actually about to propose; and we ought to base all our legislation upon a full investigation into the administration of the law both in England and Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us he is prepared to enter upon that full, fair, and unbiassed inquiry.
SIR G. GREYsaid: In reference to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations, I think it right to state the course the Government has pursued. Upon receiving the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the management of the Andover Union, I addressed a letter to the Poor Law Commissioners, calling on them to state to me the mode in which they conducted the business of the office. I received a full report on the subject; and that report was referred to the law officers of the Crown, my hon. and learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General. The result of that reference to the law officers of the Crown, to say how far the proceedings of the Commissioners had been in accordance with the law, was certainly not such as to lead the Government to doubt their legality; and I do not think the Commissioners will

533
be subjected to those indictments and vexatious legal processes the hon. and learned Gentleman apprehends. As far as Her Majesty's Government are advised, there is no reason to apprehend such proceedings; nor can I admit to him that the law itself is in abeyance, for ever since I have had the honour to hold the seals of office, I have always found the Poor Law Commissioners most attentive and diligent in the discharge of their duty, which, I believe, has been ably and efficiently performed. With regard to the latter part of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I certainly should have thought he had been aware of what passed in the House on a former occasion. My noble Friend stated, very early in the Session, his intention to move for a Committee of Inquiry into the Law of Settlement; he stated, also, that it was not the intention of the Government to advise Parliament to pass the renewal of the Poor Law Commission this year, but that he should submit a plan for that Commission to be substituted for the present one. The hon. and learned Gentleman has pressed on the attention of the House the necessity of applying the poor law to Ireland; yet he now comes down and urges the expediency of deferring that measure till we have gone through a long and protracted inquiry in a Committee up stairs. I do not concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this would be a wise, a prudent, or expedient course. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem aware of what has been done: my noble Friend, feeling the reasonableness of the opinion, that before any extension of the poor law is made in Ireland the House ought to be in possession of the plan of the Government as to the Commission, has therefore moved for leave to bring in a Bill regulating the future administration of the poor law in Ireland, which will be in the hands of hon. Members immediately—at all events in time to be considered before the 8th of March, the day now fixed for the discussion of the Irish Poor Law. The Government will then be prepared, on its own responsibility, to submit to the House a measure which they have, after mature consideration, thought right to propose as a substitute for the existing system of poor law administration, and Parliament will decide if that substitute is deserving of approval.
MR. HUMEcalled the attention of the right hon. Baronet to another very important document, containing the evidence of
534
the Poor Law Commissioners themselves, before the Committee which had been expressly appointed, and which had inquired into their conduct. That evidence furnished a complete proof that every act of the Poor Law Commissioners in the year 1841 had been illegal. There was not one member of the Committee who was not prepared to admit that; and when they were pressed to condemn the Poor Law Commissioners, their answer, and the only reason why they had not done so, was, that it had not been directly submitted to them to make any report upon the conduct of the Commissioners. He had concurred in that view; he had gone into the Committee with a firm determination not to touch upon the conduct of the Commissioners except in one single case—the course pursued by the Commissioner Lewis himself; and it was only after great difficulty that he was admitted, and that the whole question, as concerned him, was gone into. He rested his assertion upon that evidence, and every hon. Member was in a position to examine it. Mr. M. Hill had given an opinion on the Andover case; and if he gave another opinion on the report of the District Asylums Committee, he would find some facts telling still more strongly against the Commissioners. The Commission stood condemned, on its own evidence, as utterly illegal, and as having acted contrary to the provisions of the Act under which it had been appointed. It was proved that day by day the Commissioners had conducted their business in an irregular and in an illegal manner; that they transacted business without calling in any secretary to record their proceedings; and that consequently there was now no access to any official memoranda of those proceedings. He thought it behoved the Government to take up the question, and to institute another inquiry to satisfy themselves. It was too much to allow such a subject to stand over so long, when, if not by the whole, at least by the greater portion of the community, the Commissioners were suspected and censured. The Government should long ago have stated to the House what change they purposed making. He would have been perfectly satisfied when he brought forward a Motion condemnatory of the conduct of the Commissioners, if the right hon. Gentleman had declared that the question would, without delay, be considered and determined on. He was, therefore, not at all surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), when

535
they were about to extend the poor laws to Ireland, hesitating to confide the administration of those laws to the Gentlemen who hitherto had perverted their trust. He did not wish personally to complain of any one of the Commissioners. He knew them all by name, and some of them intimately, and he certainly believed they were at all times anxious to do their duty. They had undoubtedly proceeded on a mistaken view; but this did not make their acts loss culpable. He had done everything in his power to support the poor law, and he was still ready to maintain the correctness of the principles on which it had been passed. The system had fallen into odium because of gross mismanagement; and it was now incumbent on the Government, in consideration of the importance of the subject, to explain the changes which they proposed to make, and, if any doubts existed of the propriety of the conduct of the Commissioners, to have those doubts removed at the very earliest opportunity.
MR. SMITH O'BRIENunderstood that the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill had been postponed principally because the Government had in view some alterations in the law relative to the important subject which had been brought before the House. That intention, he concluded, had undergone no change; but as there had been given several notices of amendments of the Irish Bill, there would probably be some confusion in dealing with the laws of the two countries, or in proceeding with either law separately. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had stated distinctly, at the beginning of the Session, his opinion was that the English poor law should be extended to Ireland. He had since weighed well that question; he had carefully examined the suggested amendments; he had watched the temper of the House in reference to the Bill; and he did not hesitate to say, expressing simply his own individual sentiments, that, after the experience he had had of the working of the poor laws in England and Ireland, he should have now no objection to apply the English law, letter by letter, to Ireland. He did not say that it would be the very best law for Ireland; but, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and remembering what had been the statements made in that House, he was anxious, as an Irish proprietor, to put himself fairly before the people of England, and to declare, if any hon. Gentleman would bring forward such
536
a proposition, that he would give to it his best support. He did not ask for the English poor law as it had been carried in some instances into operation; he did not ask them to treat Ireland bonâ fide as they would desire to treat any county in England. There were great differences between the conditions of the two countries; and he should be prepared to show—not in any spirit of hostility to the poor of Ireland, for he was far from denying their title to relief—that great disadvantages would result to the Irish poor, if the Bill were passed in the exact shape in which it had been introduced.
MR. SHAWdid not think that was the proper occasion to discuss the merits of the general poor law, or the differences between England and Ireland in respect of that law; but he might correct the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck), who had fallen into an error in supposing that there were at present different boards for the administration of the poor law in England and in Ireland. There was but one board and one set of Commissioners for both; but latterly one of the Commissioners had been resident in Ireland. His object in rising was to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) when the Bill which the noble Lord obtained leave to bring in on Monday last, for the constitution of a new poor law in Ireland, would be presented to the House, and in the hands of Members? and further, whether the noble Lord still meant to proceed with the Irish measures, namely, the Landed Property and the Poor Law Bills, on Monday the 8th of March?
LORD J. RUSSELL: Before answering the question of the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to say a word or two in reply to what fell from the hon. Member for Montrose. The hon. Gentleman seems to have mistaken the purport of what fell from my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey). The hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that these reports of the District Asylums Committee, and next of the Andover Union Committee, were entirely neglected by the Government; and that the Government stood by, as if it were a matter of indifference to them whether they should take any steps in the matter or not. Now, what my right hon. Friend stated was this: that immediately after the resolutions of the Andover Union Committee had been reported, the Government, in the first instance, called on the Poor Law Commissioners for a statement of the mode of transacting the business of the Commission;

537
and that their answer, which was of considerable length, referred to all which had been stated in the District Ayslums Committee, as well as to what passed in the Andover Union Committee, and went into details as to the manner in which it had been customary to transact their business. My right hon. Friend thought it his duty to inform the law officers of the Crown of that statement, and to ask whether the mode of doing business as described by the Commissioners was in conformity with the law. I own it struck me, when there was a doubt about it, that no better course could be taken than applying to, and ascertaining, from those eminent authorities, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, whether the Commissioners were proceeding in conformity with the law. Their answer was, that it was not necessary to do anything more than to require from the Commissioners some further explanation of their mode of conducting their business, so far as referred to their acting legally; and I confess I am not at all convinced, either one way or the other, by seeing in many newspapers an opinion, signed by M. D. Hill, that the legal opinions received by the Government are not correct. This, in the first place, is a mere anonymous case, stated by somebody, on no sort of authority whatever, referring, not to the report of the Parliamentary Committee, but to the notion of this anonymous gentleman of the mode in which the Commissioners conduct their business, and asking if that mode was in conformity with the law. Then there comes the opinion of Mr. M. D. Hill, a different opinion from that which the Government has received, setting forth that the Commissioners do not seem to have acted in conformity with the law, and could not have proceeded thus irregularly without being conscious that they were not acting legally. That, certainly, is a great deal for a counsel to take upon himself to declare. I will not say whether he is right or not, or whether he has interpreted the law rightly or not, in stating the Commissioners did not endeavour, at least, to conform to the law and to their duty. So far as to the legality of the proceedings of the Commissioners. With respect to the measures to be taken in future, I stated at the commencement of the Session what is the species of administration which we propose for the future administration of the poor law in England. I have not been enabled to bring this measure
538
before the House, and I think the House is itself the best judge how far it has been possible to do so. I submit, that, with the various and urgent measures, the suspension of all duties on the importation of corn, the admission of sugar into breweries and distilleries, the great project introduced by the noble Lord respecting railways in Ireland—which we had under consideration upon all order days, which are the only days the Government had to command—it would have been imprudent in me if I had endeavoured to force the House into a discussion of the poor law. As regards the alteration of the poor law in Ireland, I do hope to be able, to-night, to lay upon the Table of the House a Bill which will regulate the administration of the Poor Law Commission. I should like to propose, to-night, to go into Committee pro formâ on the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill; but as it would, in all probability, be late before I could have an opportunity, it will be better to postpone doing so to the first thing on Monday. In moving to go into Committee pro formâ, I shall state the substantial alterations we purpose making in the Bill as it is now before the House. I will then move that it be printed, and that the Report be received on the 8th of March. The Bill for granting loans for the improvement of land stands first on the 8th of March; but I will propose to go into Committee on that Bill, to carry it through Committee, and then to go into Committee on the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill. We can then proceed with the third reading of these Bills at the same time. That is the course I wish to take, and I do not think there can be any opposition to it.

THE REVISING BARRISTER AT CAMBRIDGE.
SIR DE LACY EVANSdrew the attention of the House, according to the notice he had given, to a statement which had been made relative to the suppression, at Cambridge, of a list of voters whose claims had been admitted by the revising barrister. The imputation had been cast upon this gentleman that he was concerned in the suppression, and his character had therefore been injured. He would show to the House that this imputation, was wholly unfounded, and that the circumstance, apparently so strange, had arisen in an error for which the revising barrister was not at all responsible. The matter occurred in this way: the revising barrister appended his signature to the petition

539
of these sixty persons claiming to be placed on the registration, and having done that, he had done all which was required from him. Two months after he saw in a local newspaper that these voters were omitted from the list which had been published; and he then immediately wrote to the town-clerk of Cambridge, Mr. Harris, expressing his astonishment at the omission. Mr. Harris replied that he had published the list entire, which had been given to him by the revising barrister. The revising barrister wrote again, and denied that this was the case; and after some further correspondence and inquiry, the missing list was found in a drawer, where it had escaped notice, in the office of the town-clerk. It further appeared that the list contained the names, in equal numbers, of opposite political parties; and it could not be supposed that what had occurred was other than a mistake.

THE CONDITION OF IRELAND.
MR. J. O'CONNELLregretted that he was compelled to interfere with the immediate business of the House; but he believed there was an absolute necessity that he should call the attention of the Government for a short time to the condition of Ireland. He was aware of the opportunities which would be offered in the course of the next fortnight of discussing the present position of that country; but he hoped that his anticipatory remarks would have the effect of inducing the House to take into consideration how far measures of relief of a more comprehensive character than those yet introduced, were called for to alleviate the distress generally existing throughout Ireland. He would not enter into details or particulars, nor would he expose himself to the charge so frequently brought against Irish Members, that their statements were exaggerations. His object was to impress upon the Government the great danger there impended of disease and pestilence following in the wake of famine in Ireland. It had been found that fever invariably attended what he might call the triennial famines there; and as the distress now exceeded in extent and intensity everything which they had known before, they could only expect that typhus fever, in its worst and most malignant form, would shortly appear. It should be remembered they could not stop the tide of pauper emigration from Ireland into England; and that being so, they were bound to take into account the probability
540
of the pestilence spreading to this country, and carrying desolation to the highest and most sheltered ranks. All medical writers agreed in their estimate of the certainty of famine being accompanied by fever. He had been shocked to learn that in influential quarters in this country, the horrible doctrine was held, that the present famine in Ireland would be attended with desirable results, because in proportion as the food of the people was diminished, the population of Ireland would be diminished in the same ratio. He could not conceive it possible that so horrid a doctrine should be held by any one; but he had been informed that it was in reality entertained in some quarters in this country. He must say with reference to the poor-law measure for Ireland, which had been introduced to the House, that if it was the determination of Government and the House to force such a poor law upon them, then he and many other Irish Members would be willing to give up their opposition to that measure, though he saw in the papers of that morning, that at a meeting in the county of Mayo, the proposal of a poor rate was regarded as "a mockery and an insult" to their misery. But even if it was an insult cast upon them, still, at the present juncture, when the public purse was necessarily so heavily straitened, he, as an Irish proprietor, and as one of the representatives from that country, would not oppose a poor law, provided that at the same time Government, and that House, and the people of this country, were prepared to give their utmost co-operation to provide relief for the distress of Ireland. He wondered that that House, after so much had been said about the inactivity of the Irish proprietors, did not make a call upon every person connected with property in Ireland to go over at once to discharge the duties connected with that property. By this means they would create something like a natural and wholesome expenditure of money in Ireland. If they could get the rich proprietors of Ireland in that country only for a period of six months, depend upon it their own interests would make them set their ingenuity to work to provide actual relief for the people around them. He held it to be a neglect of duty, on the part of that House and the English people, that they did not call upon the proprietors of Ireland to give at least six months of their time to that country. He begged to press this idea upon the attention of the House; but in

541
any case he trusted that the measures which were in contemplation by Government for the relief of Ireland, would be brought forward without delay, so that the Irish Members might be allowed to repair to those localities in Ireland where distress most prevailed, there to perform the duties which devolved upon them at such a crisis.
MR. LABOUCHEREwas not aware that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Kilkenny to take this opportunity to discuss the subject of famine in Ireland; and he had so frequently and so recently addressed the House on this subject, that he trusted he should be excused if he did not enter into it at large on the present occasion. His hon. Friend had stated, that he was chiefly moved to bring this question before the House, because he had heard of an opinion, entertained in some quarters, that it was desirable, on system, to allow the present famine to reduce the numbers of the people of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman justly denounced such a doctrine as a horrible doctrine. He knew not to what quarter it was the hon. Gentleman referred. He could only say he hoped it was not to Her Majesty's Government, for they, whether their efforts to provide for the wants of the people had been judicious or not, had, at least, made the most enormous exertions to cope with the famine in Ireland. He hoped the hon. Gentleman did not mean the Imperial Parliament, for he thought any one who had attended to the discussions of that House during the present Session, could not have failed to observe the great assistance, which, without the slightest reference to party differences, the House had given to the efforts of Government to cope with that famine. He hoped he did not refer to Her Majesty's English or Scotch subjects, as there was abundant proof in those voluntary contributions that had poured in to relieve the sufferings of their Irish brethren—that there was among the Christian and humane people of England an earnest and anxious desire to do all that lay in their power to relieve those sufferings. He regretted to hear that so horrid a doctrine should have prevailed in any quarter; and he also regretted that his hon. Friend should have thought right to advert to it on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he was afraid that unless some measures were taken to furnish the people of Ireland with more solid food, injurious consequences to the health of the population would follow. He could
542
assure the hon. Gentleman that this subject—the best mode of affording relief—was under the daily and anxious attention both of the Government, and of the relief committees that were sitting in Dublin, for the purpose of applying the means provided by Governmnnt; and he might observe, that a communication had been received from Sir J. Burgoyne, stating that it would be necessary to forward a certain quantity of biscuit to be prepared for every danger and every emergency that might occur. He would only entreat the hon. Gentleman and other Irish Members to believe, that all these details were constantly examined, and constantly watched with the greatest anxiety; and he could assure the House that the exertions made by Government were most unremitting. He had just been informed, in a communication from his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty, that 58,000lb. of biscuit were every day sent to Ireland, manufactured in one single yard—the Clarence yard at Portsmouth—and he might state that there were steam-boats constantly communicating between the dockyards of England and the ports of Ireland, conveying provisions to meet the dreadful destitution that now prevailed in that country. The depth and extent of that destitution he never thought to conceal or disguise from that House. It was his duty, every day, to read the accounts which the post brought him from Ireland of the dreadful destitution, accompanied with the most revolting and distressing details, which prevailed in Ireland; and it was utterly impossible for him to attempt to disguise the impressions these things produced on his mind, or to conceal the frightful results that famine was producing in that country. All he would say was this, that he feared there was a disposition very greatly to overrate the powers of the Government in this matter. He would assure the House, however, that that power, such as it was, had been exerted, and would continue to be exerted, to the utmost. He thought the fact, that his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury was at that moment engaged in negotiating a loan of 8,000,000 l. for the purpose of alleviating the pressure of this calamity, was a proof that the Government had not shrunk from their duty to Ireland. But he did not believe that, make what exertions they might, they should be able to prevent great misery and great misfortune. All he said was, that these exertions had been, were now, and

543
would be, continued; and he trusted that, in making them, they would receive the earnest co-operation of those classes in Ireland, by whose exertions, after all, much more could be done than by the exertions of any Government whatever. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that Ireland had a claim upon the United Kingdom for co-operation and support. In his opinion, that co-operation had been cordially and cheerfully given; and he could not accept for Government the compliment which the hon. Member for Kilkenny had given them, that they were in advance of the country on this subject. He believed that the people of England and Scotland went along with the Government on this question, and that they also entertained a feeling on this subject, which, he must say, he thought a just one, viz., that they thought they had a right to expect that in Ireland herself, according to her means and resources, there should be exertions made suitable to the occasion. There was one subject more. His hon. Friend had called his attention to the necessity of devising means of arresting disease, which always accompanied famine. With respect to that point, he assured his hon. Friend that every means in the power of Government would be employed with that object. The Board of Health was always in communication with all parts of the country, and devised such means, in connexion with the Lord Lieutenant, as were calculated to meet the disease and suffering which, he was afraid, always prevailed when there was a great scarcity in Ireland. He would conclude with repeating his assurance that the most anxious attention of the Government was demoted to the whole subject, with a view of mitigating to the utmost of their power, the sufferings of the people.

THE NEW LOAN.
MR. HUMEwished to put a question to the noble Lord. He had seen in the papers of to-day, that a loan had been contracted for in the old 3 per cent stock. If this statement were correct, and this measure were adopted, it would have an injurious effect upon the finances of the country, and, as he had shown on a former occasion, be attended with a loss to the country. If we were to get only 90 l. for 100 l. stock, it would be better to borrow the 8,000,000 l. at the ordinary rate of interest, than to add in this manner to the
544
capital of the debt. He hoped the noble Lord would alter his plan.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the subject had been fully considered, and according to the best information which the Government could obtain, they considered that the present mode of contracting for the loan would procure much better terms for the public than any other.

CONVEYANCE OF PROVISIONS IN MEN OF WAR.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDmoved as an Amendment to the Motion, that the Speaker do leave the Chair, for the House to go into a Committee of Supply—
"An humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to authorise and direct that such ships of Her Majesty's Navy, as can be spared from the regular duty, should be applied, under such regulations as Her Majesty might deem advisable, to the accommodation of Merchants in the conveying of corn and provisions from Foreign Countries into the ports of the United Kingdom."
The hon. Member observed, that starvation was extending to all parts of Ireland, and that want of shipping to import food caused this extension. In America, the produce of the last harvest was 700,000,000 bushels. There was disposable for foreign countries about 400,000,000 bushels, equal to 50,000,000 quarters, of which, probably, about 17,000,000 might be obtained for this country. If food was provided for 4,000,000 of people, and each of those 4,000,000 required, upon an average, 1 lb. of Indian meal per day for 200 days, it would require 13,500,000 bushels, or about 1,500,000 quarters only. The want of shipping to convey food to this country, raised the prices to an enormous amount. In New York, the freight of corn last year was 8d. per bushel; this year it was 1s. 10 d. In New Orleans, it was 10 d. last year; and 1s. 10½d. now. At Constantinople, last year, freight was 7s. per quarter; this year 15 s. At Odessa, 7s. last year; 16 s. 2d. this year. At Venice, 6s. last year; 13 s. this year. At Alexandria, 6s. last year; 19 s. this year. An enormous increase of prices arose from this enormous cost of freight. Corn could be bought on the Danube at 30 s. per quarter, whilst the price at Liverpool, last week, was 72 s. 6d. Ships were not to be had. He found that a mercantile house had sent an order to Baltimore for flour, with an unlimited power as to price; and two letters had been received from Baltimore by this firm, stating that no ships were to be had in which

545
to send over the flour. The ships had been taken off by France and Belgium; there had been 400 at Marseilles the last fortnight. All grain was 50 per cent higher in our own ports than in the ports of America. These were the reasons which induced him to hope that the Government would in some manner apply our ships of war to the conveyance of corn from foreign parts. He was as unwilling as any one to interfere with the principles of trade: but there were periods of calamity when such principles must give way. He would propose, not that the Government should itself employ the ships, but that they should place ships at the disposal of private merchants for the conveyance of grain from foreign ports, receiving tenders from merchants. It would, undoubtedly, be dangerous to interfere, without judgment and discretion, with the enterprise of private traders; but measures, he thought, might be devised for the purpose. If Ireland were attacked by a foreign enemy, ships of war would be sent against that foreign enemy; and why should they not be employed to relieve her from that greater enemy by which she was now invaded? Her Majesty's fleet was paid for by the people, and the people should have the use of it. The very reasons which had induced the Government to suspend the navigation laws, would justify this measure; the very same principle applied to both. There was no impediment to plenty in this country other than the want of means of conveying to the distressed people of this country the produce of other countries; and we must do, by means of our ships of war, what we could not do by other means. He did not bring forward this proposition in a hostile spirit; he gave the Government credit for their exertions to relieve the distress in Ireland; and he hoped they would adopt his proposition, and that they would endeavour to devise means by which the ships of the Navy might be applied as he suggested.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid: The question embodied in the present Motion was brought under the consideration of the Government some time ago, and on the whole, after some consideration, we think it more advisable not to adopt the proposition. I would say, in the first place (perhaps the hon. Gentleman has already got the information), that a great number of steam vessels and other ships are now employed in the relief service between this country and Ireland. The number of
546
those vessels at present amounts to thirty steam vessels, twelve sailing vessels, and five depôt ships. With regard to the question which the hon. Gentleman has raised, namely, that of sending vessels of war into foreign ports to obtain supplies, I think the hon. Gentleman has not gone into a correct calculation of how much could be done by Her Majesty's Navy. The hon. Gentleman has talked of 1,500,000 quarters coming from America: and that, I am afraid, is an estimate beyond the truth. The quantity that could be brought in ships of war would be a small proportion indeed of the estimate he has made. In the first place, it would be necessary to fit up those ships of war in a manner totally different from their present state, and the expense and time that would be taken up in that operation would be considerable. The fitting up of the Belleisle cost 19,000 l.; it takes a considerable time before vessels of war can be so fitted up; and of course it would take similar time and similar expense to adapt them again to the service of the Navy. If we had ten thousand tons of shipping so employed, it would be as much as we could expect; and they would not bring more than about fifty thousand quarters, so that no result could be obtained that would be at all adequate to the expense that would be caused. It would have one certain consequence—namely, that when it was once known and proclaimed that the vessels of Her Majesty's fleet would be employed in this service, it would be a great discouragement to the merchant service, and possibly prevent them from sending ships to foreign countries; and I think you must expect greater efforts from individual enterprise than could possibly be made by Her Majesty's ships, even after some months had been lost in fitting them up at great expense. My own calculation in last September was, that not less than from twelve to fifteen hundred ships would be required in a service of this kind. Of course, if you discourage the merchant service by proclaiming that the ships of Her Majesty's Navy will be so employed, you must expect that there will be a less number of merchant ships in the ports of America and at Odessa, and freights, instead of being lower, may be considerably higher than at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman does not know the difficulty of bringing food from the United States to this country. It is not alone the difficulty of getting ships at New York to bring it

547
here, but there is also the difficulty of conveying the Indian corn to New York, especially that grown in the Western States. The Indian corn which costs but seven-pence a bushel in some of those remote States, costs several shillings before it ar-arrives at any port of embarkation. And while there is a great demand, there is an insufficiency of boats to bring the corn down the Mississippi and the other rivers, on the banks of which the corn grows. There are not boats enough, so that it would be not sufficient merely to have ships for the purpose. But the great objection is that, after an expensive effort, and considerable loss of time, it would not at all produce a result which would be commensurate with that expense and loss of time, and that you would thereby give great discouragement to private enterprise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, that if I thought the use of the Navy would be beneficial, and tend to cheapen food in this country, I should be as ready to direct the employment of the Navy in this service as to direct its employment in the conveyance of food between this country and Ireland. I trust, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with this explanation, and that he will not press the matter further.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDobserved, that the noble Lord had misunderstood him on one point, and that was, with reference to the supply from America. His impression was, that seventeen millions of quarters could be spared in America, and he thought that about one million and a half of quarters could be supplied to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman then withdrew his Motion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwished to mention a proposition that had been made to him by some of the Society of Friends who had been engaged most largely in giving relief to Ireland. They stated to him their belief that contributions were being raised in America to purchase corn, and they asked to have a ship of war for its eonveyance placed at their disposal. The Government declined a literal compliance with that proposal; but they said if the corn was subscribed for and purchased, the Government would be ready to pay the freight for its conveyance.
MR. KERRinquired if some system of emigration could not be connected with the introduction of foreign corn. If persons, for instance, were allowed to go abroad in men of war, or in any other way that
548
would suit the Government, a great number of people might go that could not be supported in Ireland, and the ships could bring back a return cargo of corn.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas not disposed to give any direct encouragement to the scheme which the hon. Member proposed. He would remind the hon. Member, that by the Irish poor law there was, in certain cases, a power given to supply funds for emigration. With regard to vessels bringing corn to this country, comprising foreign vessels, he would remark that, under the Act for the suspension of the navigation laws, those foreign vessels would be at liberty to carry out passengers, but they could not take merchandise. Those vessels would not be affected by the navigation laws, provided they confined themselves to passengers.
Amendment negatived.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
Question again put.
SIR C. NAPIER, before the House went into Committee on the Navy Estimates, begged to call attention to the expenditure that had taken place in that branch of the service for the building and altering of vessels; and it appeared to him, that during many years money had been most improvidently spent for the purpose to which he referred. It appeared from a return of the number of ships cut down since 1800, that thirteen two-deck vessels and ten frigates had been cut down; that there were about thirty vessels whose sterns had been altered by one Surveyor of the Navy, and about thirty more whose sterns were changed by another; and that there were thirty or forty ships whose magazines were changed, some of them three or four times, and all of them once; and if the House considered the expense that was incurred by those changes, they must see there was something wrong in the manner in which the Navy was conducted. He had stated every year, since he had a seat in that House, that it was impossible for the Naval Lord of the Admiralty to do all the business he had to do. He had said it was absolutely necessary there should be one Lord of the Admiralty who should have no other duty to perform than to superintend the shipping and dockyards. Notwithstanding these suggestions, and the enormous expense that was incurred, the same system was continued that had been going on for many years. The next estimate he held in his hand had reference to

549
the number of ships cut down and broken up that never had even been at sea. He would read the statement, which would show the enormous expense that was incurred. There was the Redoubtable, 74 gun ship, built in 1815, at a cost of 84,049 l., and broken up in 1841; there was the Vindictive, 74, built in 1813, at a cost of 81,540, and cut down in 1832, without ever having been at sea. There was the Amazon, 42 gun frigate, built in 1821, and cut down in 1844, never was at sea. There was the Dædalus, 42, never at sea, cut down in 1844. There was the Brilliant cutting down at the present moment; there was the Penelope converted into a bad steam frigate—the Thames, the Minotaur, the Bacchus, the Hebe. Now the expense of cutting down all those ships, amounted to the enormous sum of 619,700 l. He doubted much the propriety of cutting them down, and he did not think they had been made more efficient by the operation. He would now come to another class of ships. They had six three-deckers on the stocks, that were to mount 110 guns, built after the Queen, which in the first instance was a considerable pet. He believed, after cobbling her up, they had produced a fair ship; but in the last cruise, when ships were likely to roll, the Queen was not at sea, so that they did not know at present whether or not the Queen was really a good ship. There were ships also built after the Albion; and it would be remembered that he had cautioned the Admiralty not to build any other ships on the same plan until they had tried the first vessel. Now there were doubts as to whether the Albion was a good or bad ship, and he was sorry to say it was very difficult to decide it. But there was one incontestable fact, that in a gale of wind the Albion rolled over 45 degrees to leeward, and lurched over to windward 43. With regard to the Albion, as a fighting ship, after three or four trials they had found her a useless ship; because at sea ships are useless that do not carry their guns well out of the water, and the Albion was now gone to Malta to take in a quantity of ballast. When they were going to build steam vessels, he asked them to appoint a commission of two naval officers to inquire into the proper way of building steam-boats; but the Admiralty refused him. The first they constructed was the Gorgon, and he would not blame the Surveyor of the Navy for that vessel, because it was the first steam-boat that was constructed; and after the Admiralty
550
had given orders to construct her on a particular plan, and with particular engines and armament, they ordered them to be altered. The objection to that vessel was that she could not carry main-deck guns. He next referred to the Cyclops, Penelope, and Terrible. The engines of the last-named vessel, steam boxes and boilers, absolutely projected 6 ft. 5¼ in. above the water. The utmost danger would attend a shot striking the boiler of one of their steam vessels. If a shot went through the boiler of a steam ship, not one man below would escape: every one would be completely cooked in a moment. [Laughter.] This would be no laughing matter; and on the first case of this kind occurring, they would never be able to get either engineer or stoker to sail on board one of these vessels. There was not a single steam vessel in the service, except the Terrible, fit to go into action. There was not one of them that carried more than a few days' fuel on board; and there was not one in which the men were not exposed. He had told the Admiralty, when they began to build iron steam-ships, that they must have them lined with wood both within and without to a certain height. Until a few months ago, they had never tried the effect of a shot on an iron vessel; and they had not even, after thirty years' experience of steam vessels, ascertained whether a funnel could be knocked away by a shot until last year. He held in his hand a list of thirty-three iron steamers in the service, and these had all been ordered or built before the Admiralty thought of trying what effect a shot would have on a vessel of the kind. When they did make the trial, it appeared that the shot went clear through one side, and nearly knocked out the other side altogether. The cost of these ships, large and small, had been nearly two millions. He would ask, what was the use of them? The Admiralty, to show that they were not altogether useless, had turned the Birkenhead into a troop-ship. He was on board that vessel the other day, and on inquiry he found that she would not carry a battalion of troops, and that the utmost that could be accommodated was 450 men. He found also that the only place for the cables was the steerage, where the officers had to live. Now, if a shot was fired at this vessel, it would go through her, and the whole of the men on board would be lost. Such a vessel would be utterly unfit to convey troops in time of war, for if she was met at sea and struck

551
by a shot, she would certainly go down. In time of peace, as well as in war, the Admiralty would be bound to furnish every man on board such a vessel with an air collar. He thought the best course that could be adopted with regard to such vessels was to sell them at once, and so get rid of them altogether, for they were only fit to be made coal depôts of. The proceedings with respect to these iron steamers showed the manner in which business was conducted by the Board of Admiralty. There were also eleven screw steam vessels either built or now in course of construction, and of these, the only one that had been effectively tried was the Rattler. While he admitted that the Rattler had been tried, he must add that it did not appear that any great advantage had resulted from the screw in that instance, as it took up, with the machinery, the whole of the hold. He admitted that the Dauntless would afford a fair trial of the principle of the screw; and if it answered in that instance, the adoption of it in other cases might be attended with advantage. In that instance, however, as well as in others he had mentioned, it was clear that ships had been built without foresight, and without a knowledge of the principle on which they were constructed. He now came to another subject, which was well worthy the attention of the House—he alluded to the system of promotion in the Navy. He held in his hand a return of the list of commissioned officers of all grades, soon after the termination of the war, namely, on the 1st of January, 1816. That return showed that there was then one admiral of the fleet, 66 admirals, 68 vice-admirals, 75 rear-admirals, 851 captains, 812 commanders, and 4,014 lieutenants. The system of promotion which then existed, went on without hindrance to 1830, until at last Lord Melville became alarmed at the state in which the system had brought the Navy; and he and his colleagues at the Board of Admiralty came to the resolution to put a stop to promotion, unless under peculiar circumstances. An Admiralty Minute was adopted to give effect to this resolution, by which naval promotion was restricted to one vacancy in three, unless in the case of special brilliant services. The Minute was dated the 17th of February, 1830, and was as follows:—
"Their Lordships having taken into consideration the state of the half-pay list, and being desirous of operating its gradual reduction in time of peace—Resolve, That from this date no promotion
552
(except for special brilliant service) shall be made in any rank of commission officers (save flag-officers), except in the proportion of one promotion for every three vacancies which may be made by the removal by death, dismissal, or other cause, of officers from the effective lists of each rank kept at this office; death or court-martial vacancies, liable to be filled by commanders-in-chief abroad, not being reckoned. Promotion being thus limited, their Lordships deem it necessary that a control in some degree corresponding should be placed upon the original entry of young gentlemen into the service; they, therefore, resolve that in future all appointments of volunteers of the first class shall be made directly by their Lordships. Their Lordships direct that these regulations be communicated to the commanders-in-chief on foreign stations, with an observation that they do not alter the authority vested in them of appointing by commissions to death or court-martial vacancies; but that they do apply to the subsequent vacancies which may be occasioned by the promotion of an officer into an actual death or court-martial vacancy, and that such subsequent vacancies are to be filled up only by acting orders, as in the case of invaliding vacancies."
He would ask, what had been the effect of adopting this Admiralty Minute? Had the rule laid down in it been adhered to? A comparison of the number of officers in the list of the Royal Navy, on the 27th of February, 1830, and on the 30th of September, 1846, would show whether the former extravagant system of promotion had been abandoned, and the rule laid down in the Minute adhered to. At the former period there were 171 flag-officers, at the latter 139; in 1830 there were 858 captains, and in 1846 there were 730; in 1830 there were 918 commanders, and in 1846 there were 855; at the former date there were 3,550 lieutenants, and at the latter 2,538, showing a reduction of 827 in the number of lieutenants in 1846 as compared with 1830. It appeared from this and other returns that the rule which had been adopted in 1830 had not been adhered to in any case. To illustrate this further, he would refer to another return of navy officers who had died, been dismissed the service, and promoted, between the 27th of February, 1830, and the 30th of September, 1846: 245 flag-officers had died, and there had been 189 promotions; of captains 361 had died, 4 had been dismissed or removed the service; 189 had been removed by promotion to higher ranks, thus making 509 removals, while there had been 365 promotions to that rank. Of commanders 315 had died, 6 had been dismissed or removed the service, and 389 had been removed by promotion to higher ranks, thus making 710 removals, while there had been 685 promotions.

553
Of lieutenants, 1,049 had died, 65 had been dismissed or removed the service, and 1,153 had been removed by promotion to higher rank, making 2,267 removals, while there had been 1,224 promotions. He also found, during the same period, that 47 captains had been promoted for special brilliant service, and 212 by brevet and general promotions, and 3 by death or court-martial vacancies. Of commanders, 112 had been promoted for special brilliant service, 375 by special or general promotions, and 19 by death or court-martial vacancies. Of lieutenants, 127 had been promoted for special brilliant service, 319 by special or general promotions, and 115 by death or court-martial vacancies. Last year 30,000 l. was granted to enable the Admiralty to make an effective retiring list, so that the list of effective flag-officers should be reduced to 150, and the list of captains to 500; and there were to be no further promotions until the list was thus reduced. Instead of the number of promotions to the rank of flag-officers being such as to make the number 150, it was made up to 160; but now the number was only 2 above the proposed list, as the rest had died. As for the captains, the Admiralty had told the House distinctly that the object in view was to get rid of a number of old officers, and to place a number of young and efficient officers on the list of captains. But what had taken place? 60 commanders had been made captains; and of the officers thus promoted, several were as old as many of those who had been removed off the effective list of captains. It was a breach of faith, then, on the part of the Admiralty, to make such a promotion, while they had reduced the list of captains to 500. The effect of this proceeding on the part of the Admiralty would make the patronage of that board greater than ever. It was clear from the returns that had been made, that the Admiralty would have the promotion of twenty-five officers to the rank of captain every year. So it was with respect to the list of commanders; and yet the Admiralty had promoted eighty old lieutenants to that rank. The Admiralty had imprudently ordered three screw-vessels to be built, without having tried one; and thirty-three iron steamers, without trying any of them. They had likewise last year ordered four line-of-battle ships—seventy-fours, and four frigates, to be cut down to steam block-ships. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell them whether
554
there was any contract for that work. There they had those four seventy-fours and four frigates to be altered, at an expense of he did not know how much. He perceived an item of 18,000 l. voted last year for repairing those ships; but that sum would not do one of them. How then was it to be done? They were not yet finished, for one of them was still going on in Mr. Green's yard; and one case he should particularly mention, in which a vessel, acknowledged to be a fine frigate, was turned into a bad steam-boat. Now the sum of 18,000 l. was in the estimates of last year set down for repairing steam guard-ships, but there was no vote at all for the purpose in the estimates of the present year. There was a sum last year of 120,000 l. for building iron steam vessels. This year, for the same purpose, the sum was 78,175 l. The best thing he could recommend them to do with those vessels would be to get the contractors to take them off their hands, for they were good for nothing. They were no use for war, and those that had been on foreign stations were found to have their bottoms so deteriorated that they would never be fit for anything. When the House then, and the country, voted away so much money, it was necessary they should know how it had been expended. He hoped the present Admiralty would do better than their predecessors in office had done. They had not been long enough in to enable a judgment to be formed upon their acts; but he hoped from what he had heard that they would improve upon those who had gone before them. He understood that a commission had been lately appointed by the board, and that it was sitting in the Admiralty for the consideration of the propriety, and with the view, of increasing the pay of the men, and for the purpose of specially considering the increase of pay to engineers. Now, that was a question of great importance; for we never, by accident even, sent a steam-boat to sea, but she surely broke down. He thought the cause of such accidents was attributable to the parsimony of the Admiralty, which by sending inferior engineers to sea—persons who were previously unacquainted with the vessels, did not take sufficient precaution. They never sent, as they ought, a man to the vessel when she was fitting out, to see that her machinery was good, and properly placed in her. He himself knew a case in which an engineer who had seen the machinery fitting up in a steam vessel,

555
knew that there was a fault in it, and that vessel was sent to sea, at the risk, not only of the loss of the ship, but of the valuable lives on board of her. He thought that engineers ought to have at all events the same rating as lieutenants in the Royal Navy. He believed that the Admiralty had it in contemplation to rate them as such. [Admiral DUNDAS: Engineers have got that rating.] He was glad to hear it. The petty officers ought next to be thought of, both first-class and second-class; and the seamen ought to be paid better than they had been hitherto, so that the punishment they would have in their power to inflict upon the men would be dismissal from the service. If the service were made so good as that discharge would be a punishment, they would be soon enabled to get rid altogether of the question of corporal punishment in the Navy. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Admiralty were ready to pay attention this year to the suggestion of increasing the pay. He might be considered rather exacting in requiring so much from a new board; but he liked to keep the Admiralty to their trumps, and so he began at once with them. He wished likewise to know whether they had yet established a seamen's home? And he should also like to be informed upon the subject of the merchant seamen's fund. The House had been promised that it should be looked after; and he should like to know the result. If the Government did not intend to ameliorate the condition of the merchant seamen's fund, they had better repeal the Act at once. There was another question which also was one of great importance. He was aware it was one about which the Admiralty itself had great doubt, but he thought it one of great importance. It was so, too, with regard to the Registration of Seamen Bill. The subject had been began by a right hon. Friend of his a great many years ago. About two years ago the late Secretary of the Admiralty (the right hon. Sidney Herbert) and himself brought in a Bill to register the men, and it had done a great deal of good. He had received a letter from a friend of his upon the subject, which stated that in the year 1845 the number of register tickets issued was 18,013, and the desertions amounted to 4,000; whilst in the subsequent year the tickets amounted to 23,000, and the desertions were only 2,0000. He thought the system might be further improved; and Mr. Brown had
556
suggested a plan for preventing desertions, and at the same time saving the men from being cheated, by having a person to seal the tickets. He next came to the subject of enlistment. As the law stood, Her Majesty's proclamation being issued in time of war, calling on seamen to enlist, each able seaman who appeared in answer to the call within five days, became entitled to 10 l. bounty; and ordinary seamen and landsmen volunteering were entitled to bounties in proportion. Now, if 40,000 or 50,000 men were to offer, as they might, in answer to such a proclamation, the moment it was issued the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be prepared to come out with 500,000 l. at once. Now, that Bill should be amended. He would not take away the bounty altogether, because it would be breaking faith with the men who were entitled to receive it; but only in the event of hostilities actually taking place should the bounty be given—when, in fact, the men would be likely to be employed for some time, and not merely for two or three weeks. As the law stood at present, by the issue of a proclamation the whole merchant service would be deranged; but if they arranged so as that every boy who was apprenticed to the merchant service might be called on when out of his time to serve in the Royal Navy, they would be able to call upon just as many men as might be necessary at any given time. The necessities of the merchant service would thereby he attended to. But much good might be effected by the Government if they would consider the composition of the Board of Admiralty, and re-arrange the disposition of the business. Many of the errors that had been committed throughout the service arose from the fact, that the First Lord had a great deal too much to do; a great deal too much was thrown upon him, and unfortunately it was his own fault. The First Lord thought he must have all the dockyards as well as all the fleet under his own hands. He would suggest that the senior officer of the board should have all the fleet to look after, and that the whole of the dockyard business should be looked to by the next. He could speak with some degree of experience on the weight of dockyard business, having been allowed by the late Admiralty to build one ship himself, and he gave the whole of his attention to it. He had the builders and the engineers down to consult together over the construction, and he could assure

557
the House that such a course was necessary, in order that each should properly understand his duties. In the construction of steam-ships the man who built the vessel, and the man who had to construct her engines, ought to be brought together to consult, as it was impossible otherwise to decide where the shafts of the engines should be fixed. They should arrange how to dispose every ton, and that would be utterly impracticable when the engineer was in Glasgow and the shipbuilder at Portsmouth, and they were never brought together to consult. They neither had any one to tell them the weight or height of anything, or even what height the guns should be out of the water. The First Lord of the Admiralty could not, if he were a young man of 30, go through the requisite duties properly, and he had himself told Sir George Cockburn so; and how, then, could it be possible for a man of 70 or 66 (as he believed was about Sir G. Cockburn's age) to get through them? He knew that the gallant Admiral opposite (Admiral Dundas) agreed with him. In fact it was notorious that the common expression was, "The First Lord of the Admiralty has too much to do." The next point to which he would allude was the manning of the ships. He should give the hon. and gallant Captain (Captain Berkeley) the credit of having, on the subject, done the best thing that had been hitherto attempted, in having directed the forty-gun ships to carry their full complement of men. But he found that they were 4,000 men short of the full complement required for the service. ["No, no!—4,000 over."] He admitted the correction. He should have said 4,000 over. It was only a mistake. But the noble Lord who moved the Address last year had stated, that no ships should again be sent to sea without their full complement. Sir G. Cockburn said the same. The three-deckers were to carry 1,000 men. They were to be crammed to overflowing. But when the squadron—that squadron which had attracted so much observation—put to sea, those vessels, instead of having their full complement of seamen, had the numbers made up with 200 or 300 marines. Three of them, with those short complements, were still in the Mediterranean, and one of them was at Lisbon. If, then, they had 3,000 or 4,000 men over the number requisite to complete all the crews, how were they to be paid, for he understood that in some vessels there were 100
558
short? And if the 4,000 were to be paid off, how were they to fill up the complements of those ships that were still at sea? He asked the pardon of the House for having at such great length occupied its attention, even at the risk of wearying the attention of his noble Friend—if the noble Lord the Member for Lynn would allow him to call him so. The noble Lord had stated his opinion a few nights back to be, that he (Sir C. Napier) was like a fish out of water the moment he stepped off the quarter-deck. But surely his noble Friend should have considered, before he used such an expression, that he himself was liable to a similar animadversion. He too had his quarter-deck, and his quarter-deck was Newmarket and the turf. He (Sir C. Napier) wondered that the noble Lord, when he came into the House, did not recollect that he might be suspected of knowing little of the subject which he had undertaken. But as the noble Lord had spoken of the Sidon, he begged to tell the noble Lord that she would be ready for sea by Saturday night, and if the noble Lord would do him the honour of accompanying him, he would give him a cruise to the Isle of Wight, which might give him some idea of the vessel, and he should have the best bottle of port wine that could be procured, which would console him in some degree for the loss of his Railway Bill, and the awful defeat of his great party.
MR. CORRYsaid, that he was very unwilling to detain the Speaker in the chair, and that as most of the arguments which they had heard that night had been advanced by the gallant Admiral on, at least, half a dozen former occasions, and had been as often answered by himself and others, he need not advert further to them than to refer the gallant Admiral to the volumes of Hansard, up stairs, where the whole were, doubtless, faithfully recorded. But there was one point on which he felt himself called on to make a few observations, not only because the credit of the late Board of Admiralty was involved in it, but also because it was in itself of considerable national importance: he alluded to the conduct of the late board, in so largely constructing iron ships of war. The matter was of national importance for two reasons. It was known that by far the largest portion of the timber used in the construction of ships of war was of foreign growth; and it was, therefore, a material point, if iron, which was easily procured in this country, and in

559
any quantities, could be safely applied to the building of ships of war; and secondly, if there was a sudden demand for an increase of our naval force, as there was during the last war, when forty ships of the line were required at once—which, on account of the cost to which the country was put by their repairs, were afterwards known by the name of the Forty Thieves—it would be totally impossible, either in our public dockyards, or in the yards of private builders, to find a sufficiency of seasoned timber; and the necessary consequence would be premature decay. These were, he thought, reasons quite sufficient to justify the late Board of Admiralty in fully testing the experiment of constructing steamers of iron; but the gallant Admiral said that the late Government carried that experiment to too great an extent; he said that it appeared from a return which had been laid on the Table of the House, that thirty-three iron vessels had been ordered since 1840. Now, the number out of those thirty-three actually ordered by the late Board of Admiralty, was only twenty-four; the remainder, consisting of five or six small vessels which were built by the preceding board, and of three or four packets, he believed intended for the Holy-head station, which had been ordered by the present Government. The gallant Admiral had, in the course of his observations, questioned the fitness of iron as a material for building vessels designed for ordinary purposes, as contradistinguished from purposes of war. He had stated that the Grappler had so strained herself, that nearly all on board were lost. He thought that if that were so, it must have been the result of some accidental defect, for he believed that for general purposes nothing was more fully proved than that iron was a fit material for the construction of vessels. In coming into that House that evening, a paper had been put into his hand by an iron shipbuilder, who had built no less than 250 iron vessels, some of them of 1,800 tons; and that was a pretty good proof of the opinion entertained by the merchants of this country of iron being a fit material for constructing vessels; and, if there were any doubt upon that point, he need only turn to Dundrum Bay, where the Great Britain had been lying for months almost uninjured, although exposed to the action of a sea which few wooden vessels would have been able to withstand. He was aware, however, that the gravamen of the charge against the late board was involved in the
560
question of the fitness of iron as a material for vessels intended for war. Now, of the twenty-four vessels ordered by the late Board of Admiralty, six—the Bloodhound and Harpy class—had only been temporarily employed as men-of-war, and were never intended to be so employed permanently; having been built merely for the purpose of keeping up the communication between the dockyards, conveying newly-raised men, and other such services. Several others were built for the packet service. Another was Her Majesty's yacht, the Fairy: and out of the whole twenty-four only seven were intended or ever designed by the Admiralty for the purposes of war. Again, of these seven, two—the Sharpshooter and the Teazer—were of very small size; and if they failed, the loss would not be much. There were, however, five large vessels which had been designed for war purposes, the Birkenhead, and the four other large steam frigates to which the gallant Admiral had referred: the gallant Admiral had chosen to assume that the late Board of Admiralty had embarked blindfold in this experiment, and that they had had no proof that iron was a fit material to oppose to shot. He did not know where the gallant Admiral had been living of late; but he believed that every other Member of the House had heard of the Nemesis—an iron vessel—which had rendered such brilliant service during the Chinese war. It was the favourable reports they had received of that vessel, that first led the attention of the Government to the building of iron vessels. They had received similar reports of the Guadaloupe, a vessel that was built for service under the Mexican Government, and had been commanded by Commander Charlewood. The gallant Admiral said that an experiment had been tried at Portsmouth, and that that experiment was conclusive against iron for ships of war. But that experiment was tried on a vessel that was never intended for war; one that was built before the late Government came into office, merely for the purpose of carrying shipwrights from Portsmouth to Spithead, and having the lightest possible scantling; her plates having been originally only ⅛ of an inch think, and reduced by wear, as he had been informed, to little more than half that thickness. Against this experiment he would appeal to the evidence of Captain Hall, who had so ably commanded the Nemesis during the whole of the operations in China, as well as to the evidence of

561
Captain Charlewood. Captain Hall stated in a letter which he (Mr. Corry) had lately received from him, that—
"The Nemesis was frequently struck, as often as fourteen times in one action, and much damaged by shot in her upper works; but only one shot can be said to have gone straight through the vessel, which made a hole as if you had put your finger through a piece of paper. Other shots struck the Nemesis in a slanting direction, and merely indented the iron, glancing off without penetrating. We remarked no particular danger from splinters of iron; but I would observe, that the Nemesis was constructed of the best possible material, and put together with the best possible workmanship. She was also divided into seven water-tight compartments; and I am of decided opinion that no war-steamer of iron should be divided into less. The Nemesis had holes knocked in her bottom many times by sharp rocks; but those were easily stopped for the time by driving in plugs of wood and oakum from the inside. For myself, judging from my own experience, and well knowing that the sides of iron steamers (particularly between wind and water) could be strengthend and supported so as to prevent the destructive effects of shot, which have caused so much alarm, I should still give the preference to an iron over a wooden steamer as a command under all circumstances."
And Captain Charlewood, of the Guadaloupe, referring to that vessel in a letter to him, written only a few days previously, said—
"Notwithstanding the extraordinary report which had been sent home of the effects of shot upon one of our iron men-of-war, my opinion is as strong as ever upon this subject, providing the vessel is properly built; and I should still certainly prefer commanding an iron steam frigate to a wooden one. I think also that you will consider my opinion as to the effects of shot upon iron vessels is not a rash one, or made upon slight grounds, when I inform you of the following particular cases which occurred to the Guadaloupe Mexican steam-frigate, two of which occurred when I was actually on board in command of the vessel, and the others very shortly after the Admiralty order reached me instructing me to return home, when Mr. Martin, a relative of mine, was in command. Full particulars of each case I have both from him and other officers who were on board:—1. A 24lb. shot struck the vessel on the bow, at the point where the woodwork of the head is bolted on the bow, and consequently lies on the iron side. This shot, fired from a distance of about 1,000 yards, passed through the woodwork, say about five inches thick, and the iron, and dropped on board, simply making a hole sufficiently large to let the shot pass through. 2. A shot struck the counter, indented the iron, and glanced off; had the vessel been constructed of wood, this shot, I think, would have entered. 3. A 24lb. shot, nearly spent, struck the iron bulwark on the inside, having passed over the port side of the vessel; this shot started the iron and burst the rivets of a plate for about nine inches in length. 4. A full plumper 24lb. shot struck just abaft the mainmast, on the port side, and about two feet under water; this shot passed through the side, and lodged in the coal bunker;
562
the hole was made quite tight temporarily with a common plug; no rivets were started, or damage done, beyond the circular hole made by the shot. 5. An 18lb. shot fired at a distance of about 200 yards; this shot struck the vessel's side near the foremast, passed through the iron, making as clean a hole as if it had been drilled, and through three casks of salt provisions. These shot-holes were all repaired by the boiler-makers, who served on board as engineers and firemen. Four holes were drilled round each shot-hole from the inside, corresponding with four holes in an iron plate, which was lowered down on the outside, and four screw-bolts made them perfectly tight and secure, not a drop of water finding its way through; the vessel was in severe weather repeatedly afterwards, and I believe that to this day nothing more has been done to these shot-holes. I should remark that the case No. 3. of the spent shot, would have been the worst leak to contend with, had it struck the vessel under water, as a plug could not easily have been applied; but still the leak would not have been comparatively a severe one. Several other shots struck the vessel about the hull, both when I was on board and afterwards, but these are the only cases worth mentioning, and which have any bearing upon the question in point."
He thought these statements were pretty clear as to the opinion of two officers of the greatest experience in the English Navy with respect to iron vessels; and he asked whether the opinion of the gallant Admiral, who had had no experience of iron vessels, deserved to be set against that of officers who not only stated facts which had come under their own observation on actual service and under fire, and which went directly to prove that iron was a fit material for steam vessels of war, but who both declared that they would actually prefer an iron to a wooden steamer, as a command, under all circumstances. The late Board of Admiralty had not, however, intended to construct any more iron steamers, until the vessels they had already built were fully tested; and he thought the present Board of Admiralty would act wisely in adopting the course he believed they were adopting, in holding their hand as to building more, until they had been fully tried. He hoped, however, they would not allow these iron vessels to be shelved, until they had had the most convincing proofs that iron was not a fit material for ships of war; and, even if it should so appear, still the iron steamers now in progress of building would be of the greatest possible service for the conveyance of troops; a service for which vessels of that description were much required, and for which they would be admirably adapted. The gallant Admiral said, he thought it extremely rash in the late Board of Admiralty to construct so many as seventeen screw vessels, without trying the effect of the

563
screw first. He (Mr. Corry) recollected that in that House the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton was always taunting the Board of Admiralty for not building screw vessels—[Captain PECHELL: Because you were so long about it]—and the gallant Admiral said they had been too hasty. It was really no very easy matter to satisfy everybody; but when the gallant Admiral said that they had not tried the effect of the screw, he replied that the experiment had been fully tested in the Rattler, in the Great Britain, and in other vessels. These experiments had been so successful, that it was almost the universal opinion that the screw must supersede the paddle-wheel as a propeller in vessels of war; because, even if there should be a loss of speed, it would be more than compensated by the security which would result from the circumstance that the whole of the machinery, including the steam-chest and the propeller itself, would be under the water line, and thus protected against shot. The gallant Admiral also complained that the late Government had converted eight ships of the line and frigates into steam guardships, without trying one first. But these vessels were not designed for services requiring great speed, but were merely intended for the defence of the dockyards and adjoining parts of the coast, and had been fitted on the recommendation of a commission composed of officers of great experience and ability; and there could be no doubt but that they would prove perfectly successful for the purposes for which they were designed. He believed that he had answered the whole of the gallant Admiral's objections to which he thought it necessary to advert on the present occasion; and he would, therefore, trespass no further on the time of the House, as he was very unwilling to detain it from going into Committee on the Navy Estimates.
ADMIRAL DUNDASsaid, the attack which the gallant Admiral opposite had made on the present Board of Admiralty, as to promotion, was most unjust and illiberal; and the comparison he had drawn, as to the number of officers promoted, was most erroneous. He held in his hand a list of the state of the Navy in 1816 and in 1817, and he found that in that period no less than 1,454 officers had died. In 1816, the number of admirals was 210. It was now 156. Of captains, in 1816, the number was 851. It was now 697. Of lieutenants, in 1816, there were 4,014. There were now 2,448. So that in that number
564
of years 1,500 had disappeared from the list. The number of promotions that had been made of lieutenants, for meritorious service, by the present Board of Admiralty was 160; and he regretted that when that promotion was announced, the number was not doubled, to show the sense of the Board of Admiralty had of the services of those officers.
CAPTAIN HARRISexpressed his satisfaction at learning that it was not the intention of the Government to convert men-of-war into carrying vessels. Any such arrangement would interfere with the discipline of the men. Neither would it do to take the guns out of the ships. If the House would look at the relations which existed between this country and France, it would see that they were not such as to justify the disarming of the vessels, and sending them to the Black Sea for grain, thus rendering them liable to be intercepted on their return should war arise. He would not object, however, to the employment of ships in ordinary to purposes calculated to facilitate the introduction of food into Ireland. With respect to the vessels that had been, and were to be, as it was termed, converted, there was, he thought, great reason for complaint: the armament of this small frigate-class was unsatisfactory. They had ponderous swivel-guns on the upper deck, and the men working them were without protection; in close action those vessels were most likely to be over-matched, whilst the hatchways being very small, they were liable to be carried by boarding. There was also the difficulty of working the heavy guns when they became heated. Further, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the steam vessels belonging to the Navy were built. They were built solely with a view to speed, and were quite too narrow and sharp to carry the weight of metal and machinery which men-of-war ought to bear. With these remarks he should, perhaps, content himself, had not blame been thrown by the gallant Admiral on the subject of the late promotion; now he was bound to declare that he quite approved of the spirit which actuated the Admiralty in their recent arrangements respecting promotions. If they desired to secure the service of young and active men, they must be liberal in the matter of promotions. He was quite of opinion that the Admiralty had in this respect been actuated by a proper spirit, and had done

565
all that could be expected from them. As to the subject of punishment in the Navy, he felt that that was one which would be much better discussed at the Board of Admiralty than in the House of Commons. He must, however, say, with reference to the order that had been already issued, that if a captain were not competent to control his crew at home, he ought not to be trusted with large powers upon foreign stations. While fitting out a ship, a captain would naturally be loth to make a report to the admiral in command, and the gallant Officer opposite well knew that on the training of the first three months depended the discipline of a ship's company. If punishment were necessary in any given case, it ought to be inflicted according to a settled plan, and Government ought, instead of encouraging Members to come down and make Motions—they ought, he contended, to propose to the House some plan of their own. If the Admiralty would come down with a definite plan upon this subject, they could then deal with it according to its merits; but, after what had occurred the other night upon the subject, he thought that they would hardly be secure in adopting at once any measures that might be thrust upon them with a view of abolishing altogether the present system. His own opinion was, as he had before stated, that there should be a gradual reduction of punishment. He would limit the authority of captains to punish only to the extent of thirty lashes to be inflicted for special offences named in the Printed Instructions. He would limit the authority under court-martials, to award fifty lashes the same as in the Army. He did not think they could go safely beyond that at present. He did not, however, say it was impossible that they should ultimately do without flogging altogether. It was a well-ascertained fact that many men came under the lash from taking a glass too much of grog; and many of the young men could not drink the allowance of spirits with impunity. Now he thought it would be a material improvement to give the men the option of taking up an additional quarter of a pound of salt beef in lieu of the quarter of a pint of rum. The cost of both was nearly alike. If a man were therefore found to be the worse for liquor in the evening, it would have a very good effect to leave it at the discretion of the captain to have his grog converted into beef. He was of opinion that this would be a great improvement.
MR. HUMEcoincided with most of the
566
views expressed by the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) with regard to the building and alteration of ships. No subject connected with the estimates was more important than this; and if he had not known that the present Admiralty were engaged in devising means to prevent such waste, he should, before this, have brought the subject under notice. No question could be more clearly demonstrated than this—that the building of ships for the Navy had been upon the worst principle, and that they were worse constructed than those of any country in the world. There was no instance anywhere of so many ships being cut down and altered; and for the last twenty or thirty years there had been no instance of any ship built for any particular purpose turning out fit for that purpose. The waste of materials and labour he believed to be equal to what the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) had stated; and he never saw the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) when the Navy was mentioned, without feeling that in 1832, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, he struck the greatest blow that had ever been levelled against the naval architecture of this country. The report of the Commissioners appointed in 1806 to inquire into the civil affairs of the Navy, stated that at that time our naval architecture had been neglected. We had not a ship then but what was built from foreign moulds. Our best vessels were taken from the French, Spaniards, Danes, and Swedes. He blamed the Government of the day for not having adopted a better system. The consequence of that report was the establishment of a School of Naval Architecture, which, he contended, the gallant Admiral had not proved inefficient. As to promotion, he should be prepared to show the House that the late step had cost the country a million and a half. He did not grudge the money if it were applied to a useful purpose; but if it were not, he should grudge it. Concerning wages, he would recommend the Government to allow them to follow the general rule. They must not think of keeping up the same rate at all times. The rate must depend upon the demand. If in time of war, wages were limited to the same rate as was paid during peace, men could not be blamed if they deserted when they were wanted; but he was confident if the power of the Government were exercised so as to render their situation comfortable, and to improve it, they would have abundance of men in war, as

567
well as in peace. A fair rate of wages would prevent any difficulty in manning the Navy. The step which the Admiralty had taken was honourable to them, and he hoped they would not be led away from it.
House in Committee.
Mr. WARDsaid, he could not help feeling very strongly impressed with a sense of the difficulty of discharging the duty of laying before the House a statement respecting the Navy estimates for the present year: first, on account of the large expenditure at present necessary, and, secondly, on account of the great variety of items over which that expenditure was distributed, which made it difficult for him to lay before the House a clear and intelligible statement, without trespassing largely upon its indulgence. He would begin by stating that the gross estimates would exceed those of last year by a sum of 62,284 l. But the difference in the money actually to be voted, was still larger; for the credits in aid for the year 1846–7, were 190,461 l., while the credits in aid for the present year would be 175,322 l. The difference between these was 15,139 l., and the difference in the net votes would amount to 77,423 l. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, and his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, in some of the observations which they made upon the financial statement of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was as much impressed as they, or as any one could be, with the conviction that there was no subject more deserving of the watchfulness of Parliament, than this tendency of the estimates to increase during a time of peace. Hon. Members had adverted to the state of the estimates in the years 1834 and 1835, when they were 4,245,723 l. and 4,533,543 l. respectively; but if there were any force in that reference, he saw no reason why they should not go as far back as the year 1817, when the whole number of seamen and marines amounted to only 19,000. Why did not his hon. Friends do this? Because common sense told them that no country could fix a standard for its naval expenditure without reference to the expenditure of other countries. All power was relative. It was power only until it was met by a power greater than its own. The nations of Europe had now enjoyed a long-peace. In 1817 they were at the close of a long war. Their resources were then exhausted. They were now in a different
568
condition. They had been allowed time to recruit their resources, and a naval establishment, which would have been adequate, or ample, might, in 1817, be quite inadequate to our present exigencies. When he used the word "inadequate," he meant it only in reference to national defence, and not to purposes of aggrandizement. He felt as strongly as any man the blessings of peace; but he felt also that the best, nay, the only way to secure them, was always to be in a position to defy hostility; and he believed that there would be no man in that House who, on that principle, would not feel that we must keep up a parity of position with other Powers, in the great scale of national importance. Two things, therefore, he must do, in order to obtain the assent of the House to the vote he was about to propose: first, he must show what the increase in the effective strength of the Navy really was; and, secondly, he would show that such increase did not bear more than a fair proportion to the increase of the naval strength of other Powers. Indeed, he very much doubted whether we had as yet taken precautions enough; whether we had reached the point at which we could stop, consistently with the maintenance of the honour and integrity of the empire. First, then, what was the increase in the naval establishment? To come at the real increase, it was necessary to strip the subject of all extraneous matter; for instance, the packet service, which had gone on swelling the estimates from year to year. He did not say that there had been an improper increase in this department: it had been the natural consequence of the increase of intercourse with our colonies and dependencies, and with other commercial countries. Still, the House must bear in mind, that whereas in 1830 the amount required for the packet service was 27,870 l., and in 1811 only 24,040 l., the vote he should propose to-night included no less a sum than 820,083 l. for that service, in one shape or other. There were also other branches of charge in which there had been a great increase, but which did not directly belong to the effective naval service of the country, such as the army and ordnance transport service, the troop ships, and the victualling of them, as well as the supplies furnished to other departments; the difference between the half-pay and the pension list, calculated upon a scale corresponding with the present

569
active list of admirals, &c.; and the present dead weight, including the half-pay (725,788 l.), and pensions to widows and seamen (491,447 l.) The total amount of these different branches of charge, which could not be said to form a part of the effective naval service, but were nevertheless included in the estimates, was 1,564,948 l. The House would find, therefore, that the total sum applied by England to the maritime defence of the country, including the wages and victuals of seamen and marines, the dockyards, building, repairs, steam machinery, afloat and ashore, &c., was 5,996,928 l., after deducting the non-naval services from the net vote for the current year, or 7,561,876 l.; by England, too, be it remembered, a country which had no other defences, of which the coast was unprotected, which had a disposable army of but 20,000 men, without a militia, a fortified town, or any military organization whatever. And yet, while we voted, under these circumstances, but 5,996,928 l. for our naval service, France, by her estimate for the present year, which he had received a day or two ago, devoted, to the same purpose, 5,639,383 l., making a difference between France and England of only 357,545 l., although France had her coast admirably fortified, her capital impregnable, a standing army of 300,000 men, and a national guard of a million to fall back upon. And at the same time, the House must be aware that within the last two years a remarkable change had taken place in the naval establishment of France. In 1846, the Chamber of Deputies added, on the deliberate report of the Government, an extraordinary credit of 93,000,000f., to be spread over seven years, to the ordinary estimate for the year. The estimates for the year 1847–8 amounted to 140,984,591f., or 5,639,383 l. Of this amount, 19,800,000f., or 792,000 l. were for extraordinary service, which, added to the ordinary service of 121,184,591f., or 4,847,383 l., made up the grand total. The amounts ordered to be applied to shipbuilding very considerably exceeded the amounts which should be appropriated, were the proportion of the seventh part of the 93,000,000f. strictly adhered to. And the Minister of Marine, at the close of his report, said in explanation of this—
"It is thought to be in harmony with the manifest intentions of the Chambers, that the building of new ships should be proceeded with as fast as possible, so as to complete the projected increase
570
of the fleet as soon as can be done, without waiting for the term of seven years. The works for 1847 and 1848 are regulated with this view. The sum of 2,100,000f., 84,000 l., for steam-engines likewise, and for the same reason, exceeds the proportion of the seventh."
The great object of this increased expenditure was, that France might increase the number of her ships from 359, which they were in 1846, to 390, which was what they intended to be. Now, he found no fault with France for these things. France did what she thought right and necessary for the maintenance of her position. She set us in many respects a noble example. He admired the wise and systematic liberality with which her great naval works had been carried on from year to year till she had compensated herself for the natural disadvantages under which she laboured, along the whole coast of the Channel, by some of the most magnificent works now in existence. Along the whole coast from north to south—from Dunkirk and Calais, to Havre, Cherbourg, St. Servan, Brest, L'Orient, Indret, Rochfort, and Toulon—works were going on of which that House had but little conception either as to the actual importance of the works themselves, or of the magnificent artificial harbours that were being constructed there. For Cherbourg, 44,000,000 francs had been appropriated; 18,000,000 for the breakwater, and 26,000,000 for the dockyard. The yard contained 231 acres, and 16 building slips; and 6,000 workmen were employed there; while the breakwater exceeded that at Devonport by one mile in length. At Brest the steam establishment was on a larger scale than any which England possessed. The smithery contained 127 fires, while that at Portsmouth had only 48; and the same proportions were maintained at the other harbours. These facts, it appeared to him, ought to be a lesson to us. They imposed a very heavy responsibility on those who were in power in this country. It behoved them to take care, by the proper development of our resources in time of peace, to prevent the balance of power being changed in case of war. It was true that England had no need to vie with France in the extent Government had gone to in these great Government establishments, because, besides our natural advantages, there existed so many resources of a private nature, in the hands of commercial companies and individuals, which could be made available in the event of additional naval power being required. But, even as between Governments, a certain

571
parity must be kept up between the naval resources of the two nations. England must not grudge the money that went to fortify her arsenals and coasts, for the worst possible economy was that which left them exposed in the event of war. He could not congratulate the House on its work in this respect being nearly done. It was only begun within the last five years. We did not begin till 1842; while France had carried on her works systematically for sixteen years. The finest naval stations in the world, were ours, and we had scandalously neglected them. Bermuda was a disgrace to us. Malta was yet far from being complete; and both Portsmouth and Devonport were most inadequately defended. Throughout the Mediterranean we had not a place where a steam-boat of any size could be repaired. He did hope, however, that the dockyard establishment at Malta would, ere long, be so improved that every necessary repair of steam-vessels might be effected there with as much ease as in this country. From what, however, had this state of things arisen? From the unwise economy, the miserable parsimony, which had refused in former years to look forward to inevitable necessities. Ten years ago we thought of nothing but cutting down the establishments of the country; and now we were obliged to crowd into three years what ought to have been spread over ten; and the consequence was, that what every one admitted to be inevitable, was done under ten times greater pressure than it otherwise would have been, and at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could very ill spare a single shilling beyond the current necessities of the country. And yet there was no help for it, unless we were prepared to leave this mighty empire in a state which no man would say the power of England ought to be left in. It might, however, be asked, what had the present Board of Admiralty done to redeem the promise they gave last year, that they would improve and systematize our naval resources? In the first place, he must answer, they had done, and were prepared to propose, much less than they could have wished. But any hon. Member who listened to the statement made the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must have seen how small was the margin with which the public departments had to deal. The choice was less as to what to do than as to what to leave undone; and many things had been left undone which he (Mr. Ward)
572
sincerely regretted. The question raised last year as to the naval reserve, they had been compelled to postpone; and they were also unprepared to deal with the question of coal depôts, though they felt them to be most essential. The works at Bermuda must be suspended for another year, until those were finished which were nearer home. It was thought more necessary to add 1,500 men to the marines (which would be proposed under vote No. 1), and to reorganize entirely the corps of naval engineers. Nothing, it must be admitted, could be more pressing than this latter subject, considering the great importance of the duties which the engineers had to perform, and the detriment to the public service arising from the incompetency of many of those who were now employed in that department. A Committee had been appointed to consider the subject, consisting of officers who were thought to be best acquainted with the steam navy, and presided over by his noble Friend Lord John Hay. That Committee made a most able and conclusive report. It admitted at once that the inferiority of the pay in the Government service, as compared with others, drew away from that service the men most eminent in character and abilities, and left the service too often as the last resource for the ignorant and unworthy. The report then went on to make a comparative statement of the pay in the Government service, and that of the East India Company or of the merchant service. In both those services, the duty was much better performed than in Her Majesty's service, because they could command the best men. It appeared from the statement of the Committee that the pay of a first-class engineer in Her Majesty's service was 13 l. 8s. per month, no allowance being made for outfit, nor any addition for long service. In the East India Company's service, besides an allowance of 50 l. for outfit, the pay of a first-class engineer was 15 l. 7s. 8¼d. per month for the first three years; 19 l. 4s. 7d. for the next four years; and from the eighth year, 23 l. 1s. 6d. per month. In the merchant service, the West India, and China Packet Companies' service, and the other great private companies' service, the pay of a first-class engineer was, for the India and China packets, 25 l. per month; for the Mediterranean 16 l. per month; and for the West Indies, from 16 l. to 20 l. per month. In the one service they were reckoned as men of a high—almost liberal—education; while, in the other, they

573
ranked below the lowest warrant officers, were not treated as gentlemen, until most of those who really were gentlemen, and were qualified, had been driven from the service. Now, with reference to this branch, it was proposed by the Committee that the corps of engineers should be classed in three divisions; that there should be, first, a class of engineers who should be called inspectors of machinery afloat; then, that there should be a class called chief engineers; and, lastly, that there should be another class called assistant engineers. The two latter classes were to be subdivided, severally, into three classes. It was proposed that the inspectors of machinery afloat should rank with, but after, masters of the fleet; that the chief engineers should rank with, but after, masters; and that the assistant engineers should rank with, but after, second masters. The inspectors of machinery afloat would receive 25 l. per month; the chief engineers, first-class, 20 l. per month; second-class, 16 l. per month; third-class, 14 l. per month; and the assistant engineers, first-class, 12 l. per month; second-class, 9l. 10 s. per month; third-class, 8l. per month. It was further proposed that the examination of candidates for entry or promotion should be most rigid; and that the assistant engineers should be entered on probation, as "acting" for the first year; also, that as opportunities offered, they should be encouraged to go into the factories to acquire practical skill in the use of tools, &c. It was also recommended that a chief engineer should always attend the construction of engines ordered of private manufacturers, after the payment of the first instalment, in order that he might supervise the work, and acquire a thorough insight into their mode of construction, he also having charge of them when fitted. The chief engineers were to be allowed the privilege of studying at the Royal Naval College. These arrangements, he conceived, would be found most advantageous in practice; for he could say, with reference to his own short experience at the Admiralty, that, since he had been there, half the accidents that had occurred in steam-ships had arisen from the incompetency of the engineers. With regard to the office of inspector of machinery afloat, it was considered desirable that an officer of very superior attainments should be borne in the flag-ships, for the purpose of inspecting and reporting on all matters
574
connected with machinery. It often happened under the present system that vessels were detained or withdrawn from service for trifling defects, or returned from foreign stations before it was absolutely necessary that they should do so. The additional expense of this proposed scale of pay for the engineers would be ultimately from 7,000 l. to 8,000 l. a year, exclusive of the inspectors' pay. The sum required for the present year would not be more than 4,000 l., which he conceived could not be regarded as being too much, when it was remembered that the value of the machinery under the immediate charge of these engineers was at the present moment estimated at 1,400,000 l. The additional expense of the whole proposed scale of pay, would not amount to above one-half per cent on this sum, or about 3½ per cent on the average annual cost of maintaining this machinery in efficient working condition. It was proposed to take a vote of 500 men for the marines, for twelve months, and 1,000 men, for six months only. It was also proposed to take (under No. 8) 20,000 l. for the organization of corps of artificers for the defence of the dockyards; and if he might judge from the spirit that had been shown in entering into them, these corps might be expected to prove very useful hereafter for defence. The number of men who had already enrolled themselves in the different dock and victualling establishments, were, at Deptford, 900; at Sheerness, 866; at Chatham, 968; at Portsmouth, 1,664; at Plymouth, 1,639; and at Pembroke, 600. These, with 80 at the Royal William-yard, and 80 at the Royal Clarence-yard, made a total of 6,797 men. A Committee had also been appointed, of which his gallant Friend (Captain Berkeley) was chairman, to consider as to the best means of preventing desertion, by improving in each ship the pay and condition of a certain number of the petty officers and seamen—and he regretted from his heart that it was not possible to carry out its recommendations. He thought such a system would be most essential to the discipline of the service. He would not there enter into the vexata questio of punishment: he thought, however, that a preventive system must be admitted to be best. With regard to the marines, it was proposed to bring in a Bill to limit the period of their enlistment, similar to the provision for the same purpose which was to be made with regard to the

575
Army. But, while it was intended to give to the marines the full benefit of that principle, there would necessarily be some difference in the manner of effecting the object; because there was in the condition of the marine such a mixture of service ashore, with service afloat. What they desired, was to establish, with respect to the term of enlistment, a substantial equality between the two branches of the service; that is to say, to put the marines, in all respects, on a footing of equality with the army, without absolutely assimilating the term of service. For one moment he would touch on the question of punishment, as he wished to inform the gallant Captain opposite (Captain Harris), with reference to that Admiralty order which he did not approve of, but of which officers of high standing had spoken in most favourable terms, as working very well at the present moment, that it was intended to bring in a Bill giving the Government the power of doing what they could not do now, by establishing a system of secondary punishments, similar to that which had worked so admirably in the Army. It was also proposed to introduce a Bill to legalize the apprenticeship of boys for seven years. There was another subject for which he proposed to provide under two separate votes, a new system of inspection and measurement in the several dockyards. The cost of this would be about 5,000 l. The House was, perhaps, not aware that the condition of the dockyards was a subject of great magnitude. The vote for wages and salaries at home and abroad had averaged 810,664 l. during the last four years, and it was a perpetually increasing vote. The vote for 1843–4 was 779,386 l.; the vote for the year 1846–7 was 951,886 l.; and when the House considered that the vote for stores (including steam machinery) for the last year was 1,694,152 l.. and the charge for buildings and new works, 526,810 l., so that altogether the dockyards involved an expense of about 3,172,848 l., they would at once see that the subject was well worthy of the consideration of Parliament. Now, so far from thinking that any diminution of this vote was probable, he could only see that a further extension of it was inevitable, as the steam factories at Portsmouth, Theyham, and Malta, came into operation. Every Government had recognized the inconvenience and danger in the event of war from leaving all the repairs of our steamers to be made at one factory, and that the
576
least accessible of all our factories—Woolwich. The French had steam factories at Cherbourg, Brest, L'Orient, Indret, Rochfort and Toulon, at each of which the largest steam vessels could be docked and refitted. We had one only—Woolwich. The conviction of this danger pressing upon the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, had led to the commencement of those magnificent works to which he had alluded, and which he hoped would soon be completed, at Portsmouth, Theyham, and Malta. But the greater the extension, present and prospective, of the dockyards and their concomitants, the greater was the necessity that vigilance and economy should be exercised in their management; and economy and vigilance could only be attained in a Government establishment by making the people employed there feel, as far as possible, that their private interests were identified with the interests of the public. In dealing with masses of men, they must have broad and intelligible principles to appeal to. Men must be made to feel that promotion was open to all—that merit would meet with fair play—that the conduct of every one would be known and appreciated by his superiors—that if he ran the risk of offending the feelings of his brother workmen, there was some higher authority to which he could appeal, and that his conduct was sure to meet with its proper recompense. He did not hesitate to say that there was no feeling of this kind at present in the dockyards. Promotion there had hitherto been a lottery. It was a thing canvassed for, not earned. Whenever a vacancy occurred, lords, and ladies, and mayors, and Members of Parliament beset the Admiralty with applications to fill it; and the last they looked for was the opinion of the officers of the yard, who ought to be the first consulted. What wonder that the men should think and say that a 10 l. house was better than any testimonial that their superiors could give them. The printed regulations, indeed, were excellent, so far as paper went. They were full of minute and efficient checks, but they were in reality a dead letter. The practice of the Admiralty had not been such as to put life and vitality into the system, or to inspire the men with a belief that they were impartially dealt with, and that meritorious exertion was certain to be rewarded. He believed that all Boards of Admiralty had been equally culpable. If he wanted any proof of this, it would be found in the fact that no Secretary of the

577
Admiralty had dared to leave behind him a record of any correspondence on the subject of promotion, or of the principles upon which they were based. Occasionally, no doubt, they hit upon a good man in the course of their appointments; but still the system was a mere lottery. Now he maintained that this system was a completely demoralising system. There were 12,000 artificers, all belonging or hoping to belong to these establishments, whose every hope was concentrated in the dockyard, and who had no view or prospect beyond it. The yard was their world. They expected to rise gradually from shipwright to leading man, from leading man to inspector, from inspector to master shipwright's assistant, and from that to a master shipwright himself, with a house, and a salary of 650 l. a year. This was a noble field for those men, provided they could make sure that promotion would be administered upon a fair and intelligible principle. But at present there was no such principle—all was a matter of accident or favour. There was no previous report, no examination, no rise from one grade to another—no hope that good conduct would be known or rewarded. There had been a growing conviction in every Board of Admiralty that there was an apathy and inertness in the dockyards which no severity could check, and which they did not know how to get rid of. His noble Friend at the head of the department had felt very acutely on the subject from the first month he had taken office; and he must say so had he himself, because he had opportunities of knowing more of the working of the system than the First Lord of the Admiralty could know. Indeed, it was the belief of the whole of the board, that the root of the evil lay in the dispensation of the patronage which the Admiralty had at its disposal. He hoped therefore that the House would give them the means, at a very moderate expense of working out a better system, as they believed—a system of promotion among the men upon plain and equitable principles, and a system of care and vigilance, and economy in the superintendence, which he believed the public interest imperatively required. He begged the House to consider what was in the power of the petty officers in the dockyards. Every inspector — and there were 108 of them — was responsible for 10,000 l. worth of stores and other materials which passed through his hands. It
578
was in their power, therefore, either to effect important savings, or to tolerate boundless waste; and he believed if the House treated them with liberality and fairness, these officers would repay them a hundredfold by the savings they would effect in the important article of stores in the dockyards. The system which they proposed to introduce was this: they proposed to continue the present plan of taking in a certain number of apprentices annually, and allowing those whose conduct had been satisfactory to fill the first vacancies upon the establishment, reserving the rest for other candidates. They proposed to introduce an educational test in respect to all apprentices, as a preparation for the advantages provided, in the dockyard schools for the more intelligent of the boys admitted to them. The present schools had worked very well; but it appeared from the recent visit of Professor Moseley that they were susceptible of considerable improvement, and it was intended to improve them accordingly. They meant to require a school certificate of the good conduct of the boys before they were admitted into the yards. All promising boys who should show a talent for drawing in the mould-loft would be fixed there ultimately as draughtsmen, with the condition that out of each three vacant inspectorships one should be given in future to the head draughtsman, provided his testimonials were satisfactory, and that he had worked one year at his tools at the ship's side. This would insure a regular course of promotion in the mould-loft, and produce a succession of well-instructed inspectors. But let men enter the yard as they might, it was the intention of the board that once there the work of promotion must be left to themselves alone. As a first step, they meant to introduce a system of weekly and monthly returns, making each leading man report to his inspector on the conduct of the men composing his gang—which would consist of twelve men with a proportionate number of apprentices; the inspector would report to the foreman, and the foreman would in like manner transmit the inspector's report to the master shipwright—with his own remarks and those of the foreman attached to it; and those reports would be transmitted quarterly to the Board of Admiralty, who would require the production of the whole returns whenever a man's name was submitted for promotion. Whenever a vacancy occurred, the master shipwright, with his assistant, would lay before

579
the superintendent the three names which they recommended for promotion. The superintendent would direct the candidates to be publicly examined in those matters which were essential to the proper performance of the duties, and having reduced the list of candidates to two by omitting the one whom he should think least qualified, one of the two names thus sent up would be appointed by board order to fill the vacancy. They proposed to raise the salaries of all the inspectors, which were now only 100 l., to 125 l. per annum; and on the 1st of April next a first class of inspectors would be formed with a salary of 150 l., which was to be composed of one-fourth of the inspectors in each yard, selected after a year's probation of their qualifications as officers. There were various other regulations of a similar kind; but he would not detain the House with detailing them. He would only say that all the new regulations had been submitted to the dockyard authorities, and that he had received from every one of them the assurance that they believed they would work well. He hoped, then, the House would allow them to try the experiment, for which they asked only 5,000 l. He would now proceed to allude to a few of the principal items in the estimates. Under Vote No. 1, which provided for wages of seamen and marines, there was an increase of 31,100 l., which included the vote for 1,500 marines, and for the reorganization of the steam engineers. On Vote No. 2, for victuals to seamen and marines, there was a reduction of 4,220 l. He might naturally be asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite how this happened in a year of universal high prices, and upon what basis they had made this calculation? The fact was, that they had taken the highest prices during the present year as their basis, and hoping that, after the next harvest, the prices would fall to their natural level, they had ventured to dispense with the five per cent for contingencies, which amounted to 30,000 l. Under No. 3 would be found an increase of 7,340 l. That sum covered a new system of management in the steam and packet departments, which was rendered necessary by the great increase of our steam navy. The vote required for the steam and packet department in the present estimates exhibited an increase of 1,640 l. upon the estimates of last year. Another cause of the increase was the augmentation of the salaries of clerks in the Admiralty Office according to the time of
580
service, and of the salary of the director of the works, in pursuance of an engagement entered into by the late Board of Admiralty. When it was recollected that this gentleman had the entire superintendence of the works connected with the steam navy, which last year involved an expenditure of 559,600 l., it could not be thought that the salary which he received was larger than was due to a person holding an office of such great trust and responsibility. Having mentioned the most important items of increase in this vote, he felt it to be unnecessary to trouble the Committee with any detail respecting the minor items. Passing over the fourth and fifth Votes, he came to the sixth, on which there was an increase of 7,291 l., as compared with the estimate of last year. This increase was caused almost entirely by changes introduced—wisely and necessarily—by the predecessors of the present Board of Admiralty. The changes which he referred to, consisted in the appointment of engineers to all the naval yards. Mr. Murray, the engineer at Portsmouth, with a salary of 650 l.; Mr. Laurie, at Chatham, 500 l.; Mr. Miller, Devonport, 400 l.; Mr. Rigby, Woolwich, 200 l.; and Mr. Chatfield, just named, acting assistant to the master shipwright there—were all included under this vote; as was Mr. Grant, the storekeeper at the Royal Clarence-yard, who had surrendered to the public a valuable patent for fuel. It was deemed unadvisable that a public servant should have the benefit of his own patent in the supply of a public department, and therefore he would receive 300 l. a year additional salary as an indemnification for surrendering his interest in the patent, until the Government had an opportunity of promoting him to a higher office. A better bargain than that had seldom been made for the public. Part of the increase on this vote, however, to the extent of 2,785 l., was occasioned by the adoption of the new system of inspection and measurement in the dockyards, from which much advantage was anticipated. Vote 7 called for no observation, and therefore he would proceed to Vote 8, in which there was an increase of 58,877 l. One of the items of increase was 2,214 l., for the new system of inspection and measurement to which he had already alluded; another was 20,000 l. for training and exercising the dockyard artificers. A considerable increase had also taken place in the vote required for the steam factory at Woolwich, where it had been found absolutely

581
necessary to have a Government establishment for the repair of steam-vessels, instead of having the work done in private yards. The result of this alteration would be a considerable saving to the public: 735 workmen were now employed in the factory at Woolwich, and last year nearly the whole of the steam repairs—with the exception of those required by the Liverpool packets—were executed at Woolwich. The horse-power in commission last year amounted to 25,424. The hon. Gentleman then read the following account of the works and repairs performed at the factory at Woolwich, during the years 1844, 1845, and 1846, showing the number of steam-vessels repaired, &c., and fitted with new boilers, and their aggregate horse-power; the expenditure on repairs of steam-vessels; and the total estimated value of the works performed at the establishment:—

Financial Year.

Steam-vessels.

Total value of the works and repairs performed at the factory during the year.

Wages expended at the factory.

Repaired or had new fittings

Received new boilers.

Total cost for steam-vessels.

No. of Vessels.

Aggregate horse-power.

£

£

£

1844–5

27

7

1,064

26,805

49,316

29,680

1845–6

36

6

836

36,432

58,330

34,998

1846–7, 9 months

29

8

1,262

25,324

76,660

40,700*

Boilers ready for fixing.

—

8

1,330

—

—

735 workmen.

Boilers in course of completion.

—

15

3,260

—

—

—

The average price of marine steam engines was 50 l. per horse-power, and the cost of repair was 8l. per year in private factories, and 6l. at Woolwich. Now, the total horse-power for the financial year 1847–8 was estimated at 41,025, and the cost of maintaining that in efficient working order would be 328,000 l. in private establishments, and only 246,000 l. at the Woolwich
* Present rate of expenditure, £46,000.
582
wich factory, making a saving of 25 per cent, or 82,000 l. a year. It was only necessary to add, that the workmen at the factory would only be employed in making machinery when not engaged in repairs. Vote 9 called for no particular remark, though it exhibited a decrease of 1,450 l. Under Vote 10 there was a general decrease of 79,928 l., although an increase had taken place in the expenditure on account of stores to the amount of 58,373 l. The decrease fell almost entirely under the heads of "Purchase and repair of steam machinery," and "Building iron steamers." The decrease under the former head was 100,000 l., and under the latter 41,825 l. The sum required in the present vote for building iron steamers was 78,177 l., and this was entirely absorbed by the liabilities of the preceding year. It was not desirable to enter into any discussion at that moment with respect to the question which the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite had raised that night, relative to the building of large iron steamers. He would merely express a hope that the hon. and gallant Member's experiment might ultimately prove successful. In Vote 11 there was an increase of 32,790 l. for new works. It might be necessary to explain that it had for many years been the practice to take large sums for new works under Votes 8, 9, and 10, which were strictly votes for wages and stores. This practice occasioned some confusion, and therefore it had been determined that henceforth all new works should be charged under Vote 11. Perhaps he might be pardoned for addressing a few words to the Committee on the subject of these works on which so much had been expended. The first object which the Admiralty had in view was to reduce the number of works by completing those now in hand as soon as possible. The sum required for new works at Portsmouth was therefore raised to 167,538 l. It was satisfactory to know that the steam-basin was nearly complete, and the works were carried on with so much activity, that it was believed they would be completed, if not by the end of the next financial year, certainly by May or June following. The sum of 10,000 l. was required to complete the marine barracks at Woolwich. Those works furnished a striking example of the loss which resulted from being dilatory in the execution of public works. If the marine barracks at Woolwich had been completed two years since, the sum of

583
15,000 l., which must now be expended on the enhanced price of labour and materials, would have been saved to the country. The sum required for the works at Plymouth was 170,230 l.; and he was sorry to say that three years must elapse before they could be completed, in spite of the extraordinary efforts which were made by the contractor, Mr. Baker, who displayed the utmost vigour and enterprise in all his proceedings; 30,000 l. out of the gross sum of 170,230 l. for Plymouth would be expended in enlarging the basin and constructing entrances to the docks; 10,000 l. were required for an establishment at Hawlbowline for repairing steamers and steam machinery. It was calculated that the work there would be completed in three years. A sum was also taken in the Vote for the works at Malta. The docks there were almost ready for the reception of the largest vessels. We had long wanted a good naval station in the Mediterranean, and he was happy to say that the want would soon be supplied. He had now completed his task. It would be apparent that the expenditure demanded for the naval service was large, but it was inevitable; in fact, the country was now called upon to pay for the niggardliness of former years. Until the works now in hand were completed, he could give little hope of any reduction in the estimates. He had gone through the various items carefully, and all that he could venture to assure the House was, that the present Board of Admiralty were determined to exercise as strict an economy as they could, in every branch of the service, consistently with the maintenance of the national honour. The hon. Gentleman concluded with moving the first Vote.
On its being moved that 185,286 l., for the arrears over and above the grants of last year be granted to Her Majesty,
ADMIRAL BOWLESapproved of the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the exercise of Government influence in the boroughs where there were dockyards and naval establishments; and it was his desire to see a Bill brought in for placing the persons employed in dockyards on the same footing as those in the coast guard, who were disfranchised. He would, at the same time impress on the Government the necessity of forming a squadron of exercise. In the last thirty years they had only had five; the race of officers who had seen war was nearly extinct, and it was absolutely necessary
584
to let those who might hereafter have to assert the honour of the nation in war, have the opportunity of gaining experience in their profession. They ought next year to have a squadron at least as strong as that of 1845 and 1846. Much injury had been done to the service by the system of dispersing their naval force, in single ships, at different ports and stations, where they remained sometimes for two or even three years without moving. He knew consuls were often very anxious to have an English ship in their ports, and sometimes they might overrate a danger in order to get one sent. The length of time the ships often remained at one place was an evil. In one case a frigate had been eighteen months at Beyrout; in another, a ship of war remained in the Tagus for three years. He would subject our ships to a rotation that would, in turn, give every ship an opportunity of evolution and instruction.
CAPTAIN PECHELLsaid, if he congratulated the hon. Secretary (Mr. Ward) on the extensive improvements he had proposed, which were in continuance of those great reforms which had been effected by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, whilst he presided over our naval affairs, how must he (Captain Pechell) value the sentiments of the gallant Admiral who had just sat down (Admiral Bowles), in freely acknowledging the political jobbing which was suffered to exist in the naval yards during the time he was so efficient a member of the late Administration? The hon. Secretary had given many reasons for the increase of the estimates; but they were not required by any one who had access to those public sources of information. The hon. Secretary, in the detail of the number of ships employed, had omitted all mention of the cruisers employed on the coast of Africa. Three years was too long a period to be engaged on that station, so fatal to the crews of our vessels, who in addition to the sufferings of the climate and the service, were through the gross abuses in the several Vice Admiralty Courts, deprived of large portions of the rewards which Parliament had granted for their encouragement. He had heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ward) about the paymasters and pursers and masters of the Navy; but he trusted that before the next estimates were brought forward, the recommendations of the Naval Commission with respect to that first-mentioned class of officers would be acted upon. It was not calling on the public for one sixpence,

585
as there was a balance of several thousand pounds in the Exchequer applicable to that purpose, from the fund accruing from the sea pay emoluments which they had voluntarily resigned for increase of retirement and half pay; and therefore, he could not understand why the number of officers in the retired list was not kept up. The masters, too, complained of the inferior position they held in Her Majesty's service. Their memorial was before the House; and though they had also memorialised the Board of Admiralty, it was of no use to memoralise unless an agitation at the same time was got up in that House. He was quite willing at the proper period to prove his casein favour of the masters and pursers; and he hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would not lose sight of the subject. With regard to the manning of the Navy, he thought the plan in respect to the steamers would give satisfaction, and that ships on being paid off should not be dismantled in the usual manner, a proceeding which had caused so much disgust in the Navy. He was, however, sorry to say, that in manning the Navy, Government had departed from a wholesome rule with respect to boys. The old regulations as to the requirements of clothing and good character were very good. The indiscriminate enlistment of boys had done mischief, and had lowered the character of that particular branch of the service. He also wished to ask the right hon. Secretary what was the cause of the delay in putting into the water the vessels built by that eminent shipwright, Mr. White? He referred to the Termagant, a vessel which was lying on the slips, while the Sidon—having, perhaps, better interest—was taking a cruise round the Isle of Wight. The Termagant had been laid down at a much earlier period. It was satisfactory to him to observe that the present board had kept up competition. If Sir William Seppings had had his way, probably he would have excluded Sir W. Symonds; and Sir W. Symonds would have probably excluded that talented builder, Mr. White. He had hoped that some improvements would have been proposed in the mode of holding courts-martial, by revising the entire system. He had reason to think that the proceedings which had taken place at Bermuda would not again occur. In the case of the Daphne, an officer was brought to trial when it was considered the whole affair had been passed over. All parties were reconciled, the officer was doing his
586
duty, dining with his prosecutor, and everything going on fairly; yet a twelvemonth afterwards he was brought to trial, with only two days' notice. There was also the circumstance of a vessel lost recently; and such was the peculiar law, that the officer in command was obliged to give evidence against himself. As we had got a Reform Administration, he thought we must now have an alteration in the mode of taking courts-martial. If no change was to take place, why was the gallant Admiral opposite displaced? Why was there any change at all when a new Administration came in, unless it was for the purpose of revising what the previous board had done, and to set right that which was wrong? He had been much pleased with the proceedings of the Board of Admiralty in their departments; and this circumstance would induce him to pass over many sins which otherwise he should have taken notice of. He would now advert to those officers and men indirectly connected with the Navy; he meant those employed in the service of the coast guard in Ireland, who, owing to the supposed difference in the price of provisions, were paid a less amount than those employed in England; they were now suffering great hardships in consequence, and great distress existed among them. They had made application to the Customs; and as it was the Admiralty who named and recommended the men for the service of the coast guard, it was the duty of the Admiralty to see these men were not starving on pay inferior to that of the same class in this country. The peculiar situation of matters in Ireland caused these parties great inconvenience and suffering. The Committee on Shipwrecks recommended promotion to those gallant men who had saved life and property to a great extent; but this recommendation had not been attended to. Had these men shot a number of smugglers, they would have obtained promotion; but if they saved the lives of shiploads of persons, they would obtain nothing but the thanks of those who considered protection to the revenue as paramount to protection of life and property. He pressed on the Secretary of the Admiralty the fact that the magistrates of Kent and Sussex had borne testimony to the gallantry of these men, who had saved many lives during the late gales; and it was but just and right that their services should not be overlooked.
DR. BOWRINGcould not help looking at the estimates in connexion with the admirable

587
report laid on the Table last year; but though he approved of them, one principle had been overlooked, which he had always insisted upon, namely, that of keeping the receipts and expenditure entirely separate. In the present estimates, though drawn up with great ability, that principle had been confounded. In the accounts there were many great improvements. The grants used to be generally prospective; but now the estimates represented facts; and he hoped the Lords of the Treasury would take care that the same system was adopted in every other department. He, however, contended that this principle ought to be kept in mind, that accounts should be kept clear and distinct. He believed it was a matter of primary and paramount necessity; and it was from the want of this principle that enormous amounts appeared, of which no distinct account could be taken. He acknowledged that the present estimates were lucid, and depended more on positive data than anticipation; but he did hope the observations and suggestions he had made would not be overlooked.
MR. FITZROYsaid, as there could be no reduction in the estimates, it was quite hopeless to expect that any reduction in the number of men could be made. With respect to the reserves, he should wish to have additional attention paid to that subject. There was also another important point to be looked to — the coaling of steamers. It was necessary to have some new regulations respecting this branch of the service. He mentioned these points because he considered it was necessary that the attention of the Admiralty should be called to them, with a view to alter that which was at present defective. With reference to the dockyards, he begged to say, as soon as he had a seat at the Board of Admiralty, his attention had been attracted to the abuses to which the hon. Member had referred.
CAPTAIN BERKELEYstated, with regard to the increase of men above the number voted, that this had arisen chiefly from what had taken place in China, New Zealand, and the Plata. In many instances relief ships were sent out there, which had been retained on the stations; and the result was, that many ships were now lying at home manned by marines. With respect to the coaling of steamers, measures were being taken to carry out a plan under the superintendence of Lord George Hay, by which steamers would be coaled
588
in harbour from old hulks in a much more expeditious manner than heretofore.
MR. WARDhad consulted the noble Lord (Lord George Hay) upon the subject of the plan, and had ascertained that the construction of a coal depôt would cost not less than from 20,000 l. to 30,000 l.
SIR J. GRAHAMwas extremely unwilling to retard the progress of the estimates. He was greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Brighton (Captain Pechell) for recollecting the share which, in former times, he had borne in the naval administration. He must confess that the great object he had then in view was to diminish, as far as possible, the naval estimates; and, concurrently with that, to diminish, as little as passible, the efficiency of the service. That was the chief aim of his administration; and that administration had, fortunately, been under the control of a First Lord well versed in naval affairs, and of a noble and lamented friend, who had constantly enforced on him the strict necessity of rigid economy. He could say, in perfect truth, he had watched with regret the progressive increase in the naval estimates; and he had heard with alarm the statement that evening of the Secretary to the Admiralty, that, notwithstanding this progressive increase, he (Mr. Ward) was of opinion the increase of the present year, and the estimate as it now stood, were not so large as, with regard to the interests of the country, he thought, in other circumstances, it should be. He should not have risen to express this regret if it had not been for one topic touched upon by the Secretary to the Admiralty. It was one of extreme delicacy—so delicate, that, if he were not free from official restraint, he should not in that House venture to allude to it. He referred to that topic which had been brought prominently under their notice, namely, the pay of the men in the naval service. The hon. Gentleman had laid down a principle on that point which appeared to him (Sir J. Graham) to be unsound. If he had understood the hon. Gentleman rightly, he expressed an opinion that it was absolutely necessary, if not to raise the pay in the Queen's service, at least to level it with the pay in the merchant service. Now, that was a doctrine from which he (Sir J. Graham) must express his dissent. If once the Queen's service was made to compete with regard to wages with the merchant service, every increase on official authority in the Queen's

589
service would be met, of necessity, by a corresponding increase in the merchant service. If they once entered on a competition of that kind, he saw no end to the expenses which would be entailed. It was a most delicate matter to discuss; but he thought no hope should be held out to persons now serving in the Royal Navy that any increase of pay was to be, or ought to be, expected, on any such principle. If any great increase of pay were required, he did not consider that the present financial difficulties should be held as a bar to such increase. He dissented from the justice of denying or postponing an increase of pay if it was due, and they were called upon to grant it, because of a financial difficulty. He warned the House, that if they entered on the question of pay to seamen, they must also consider the pay of the marines, the army, and of those engaged in the military affairs of this country. If they commenced an increase of pay to the Navy, with reference to the competition of the merchant service, upon the same principle they must, of necessity, increase the pay of all military officers; they must enter into a circle of boundless expenditure on the one hand, and of boundless expectation on the other, which he, free from official restraint, did most strongly deprecate. He might have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman; and it was a question of such immense importance, that, without the direct sanction of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of the Government acting on its responsibility—it could not be properly admitted for discussion. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman would be glad of the opportunity which was given of offering some explanation of his words. A more dangerous impression than that which had been produced by what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman could not go forth.
MR. WARDbelieved the right hon. Baronet seldom misapprehended anything which passed, or was said, in that House; but he had now most certainly misunderstood the purport of his remarks. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had enlarged upon the question of pay in the Queen's service, and some reply was demanded. He (Mr. Ward) had not forgotten the difference between the two services; he was aware of the delicacy of the subject, and cognizant of the necessity of not touching upon it without having obtained the general assent of the Ministers of the Crown. The only observation he
590
had made had reference to the proposition of the Committee, of which his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Berkeley) had been the head, that, to prevent desertion, they should increase the pay in the Navy, not generally, but to petty officers and to seamen, to be selected from the general body, after long service. It had been hoped, that by adopting such a plan, a better moral feeling, and a higher tone of self-respect, would be created among the seamen, and that a progressive increase in pay would have the effect of encouraging and attaching to the service. He had mentioned only the petty officers as those who would be effected by such a change. [Sir J. GRAHAM: Petty officers and seamen.] He meant seamen after long service. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity of explanation.
SIR C. NAPIERwas very sorry indeed to hear that explanation. He had always been of opinion that the seamen in the British Navy were badly paid; and even if, by increasing the pay in the Navy, they compelled the merchant service to increase their pay, they would do a great deal of good, and bring back those 50,000 seamen who now navigated the American merchant service. The Army was a very different service from the Navy; and it did not follow, that because they increased the pay in the one, they must increase it in the other. The labourer should be paid according to his hire; and, if they wanted to keep their seamen in this country, they could only do so by paying them adequately.
MR. S. HERBERTwas glad that an explanation had been given by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ward) of the statement made by him in his speech; for nothing could be more dangerous than to announce measures which had the effect of exciting hopes that were not likely to be realized by the men employed in the service. He did not believe, however, that the wages in the Royal Navy were lower than those in the merchant service; for if they considered the pensions received after service, the cheap price at which slops were sold, and various other things which were in their favour, it would be found that, after a certain period, the seamen in the Queen's ships received as much as any in the merchant service. He thought it was not a prudent thing to diminish now, for the first time, the amount taken for the victualling of the Navy. It had been usual to take a margin of 5 per cent on

591
the victualling of the Navy; and he thought it a right course to follow, for the vote, however large, was always sure to be exceeded. He thought they could not have selected a year more unfortunate for a diminution, as there was a certainty of high provisions; and he was apprehensive that in such circumstances the Admiralty might be led into financial difficulties. As regarded the subject of recommendations, he thought care should be taken not to fix a low standard of responsibility. His experience had led him to look with great doubt on dockyard recommendations, as he had reason to believe they were often given from political considerations.
MR. M. GOREwas much gratified at the statement of the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty, and hoped that whatever party was in power they would never forget what was essential to the interest of the Navy and the defences of the country.
MR. F. BARINGtrusted that the time would never come when any Government would neglect the efficiency of the Navy, or any House of Commons would refuse the money necessary to maintain that efficiency. At the same time, he looked with anxiety at the manner in which the expenditure for the naval, as well as every other public service, was gradually increasing; and if the House had not shown itself extremely willing, not merely to sanction the estimates, but to press on the Government increased expenditure in every quarter, there would probably not have been such large sums to vote, and the real efficiency of the services might not have been less. The tone in which his hon. Friend (Mr. Ward) had spoken, had not given him much confidence on this point, for his hon. Friend had spoken of niggardly economy—words which were common enough when he (Mr. Baring) first came into Parliament. There was one point with respect to which, in particular, the House of Commons might properly inquire, viz., whether that which had been granted liberally, had been spent honestly. He admitted that the Government acted judiciously in attending to the progress of steam power in the naval service; but an impression was abroad that the large sums voted by the House had not been spent properly; and he believed that some inquiry on the point might be better carried on by Government authority than any other. He thanked his hon. Friend for his endeavour to correct the system prevailing in the dockyards, and he should rejoice to find his hon. Friend
592
able to carry out his plan in respect to the promotion of merit in the public service; but at the same time he must join in the caution given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert), and express a hope that his hon. Friend might be able to check any course of jobbing. The present vote was for former arrears, the excess of expenditure over the estimate being 185,000 l. He thought that some explanation should be given of this vote, and that Parliament ought not to be lax in attending to these estimates, because it might be found that not only was there an excess of expenditure over the votes in the present year, but also in the last, and probably for two years; and the excess upon every vote, taking the effective service, and throwing aside the non-effective service, and the service for the different departments, would be found to be not 185,000 l., but 230,000 l. This might happen from necessity, but it required explanation, and was not to be passed over as a matter of course; and if done for two years, created a most inconvenient and unconstitutional precedent.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had observed naturally enough on the excess of expenditure, amounting to 185,000 l. That excess arose from the report of a commission appointed by the Government to inquire into the defences of the harbours of this country, and the adoption of measures at the close of the Session of Parliament, for expediting certain defences which, under the circumstances of the time, were thought expedient. The excess appeared to be on all the heads of the different estimates; but that was the natural consequence of such works, for they comprised iron steamers and a considerable addition to the consumption of timber, copper, &c. It was very difficult to explain to the Committee, in all particulars, the grounds of the necessity for this outlay; but it was founded on the report of officers most competent to form a judgment on the subject.
LORD J. RUSSELLthought that the explanation given of the grounds of the increased expenditure ought to be satisfactory. In reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and his right hon. Friend behind him, as to the expenditure for the Navy, he might say, that it was his opinion, which he had stated to Lord Auckland and the heads of the different departments, that whenever expenditure was voted by the House of Commons, the greatest pains should be displayed

593
in endeavouring to have the money so voted, expended so as to ensure the greatest possible efficiency in the service. He did not think that a larger sum was appropriated to these services than ought to be voted for them; but, from the various notions which might be entertained by different individuals, as to the way in which those services should be conducted, there was undoubtedly sometimes a waste of money when the service might be more economically performed. He did not think, however, with regard to the amount of the estimates, either for the past year or for the present, that the House of Commons could expect that there should be any great saving with reference to the Navy. He entertained a strong opinion that the Executive Government was entitled to require that a sufficient sum should be voted for this branch of the public service, to ensure the safety of the country if any exigency should arise. Considering the great improvements which had of late been effected in naval science, and the introduction of steam power, he did not think that, because they had a powerful Navy in former years, and had obtained great and celebrated victories, they onght to deem that they were invincible, and to rest satisfied that they were at all times safe. As the head of the Executive Government, he (Lord J. Russell) felt that, whatever disposition there might be to economize, and however the Government might be subjected to the imputation of wasteful expenditure, it was their duty to secure the safety of this country, remembering that the dearest of all their interests depended upon that safety. For his own part, he (Lord J. Russell) should not be disposed to shrink from making any demand upon the public purse which he thought fair and reasonable for this purpose. An hon. Friend of his had referred to the importance of preventing that jobbing in the dockyards which had been continued by successive Governments, and which, by the right of voting given under the Reform Act, had not been checked, but had rather been increased. He (Lord J. Russell) was glad to state that the Admiralty had measures in contemplation to put a stop to these abuses. Those plans would be tried, and if they were not effectual it would be necessary to come to that House for still more extreme measures. He thought that in every point of view, this was an important subject; it was important, not only on the ground of preventing political
594
corruption, but really as a matter of public economy. An officer who left this country last year, and who had been much engaged in the dockyard service, represented that the labour performed by the dockyard men, where they possessed a right of voting, was very inefficient as compared with the labour performed for private individuals by persons who had no such privilege. He believed there was a great loss of public money in consequence of the political influence possessed by parties in these situations, and that it was most desirable, in every point of view, that the Government should attempt by all the means in their power to check the present system. He was far from saying that he thought the check proposed by his hon. Friend would be successful; but any suggestion which might be made on the subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite would receive prompt attention from his Colleagues and himself.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTbelieved he could show, by a return of the appointments made during the time his right hon. Friend behind him held office, that the greater number of those appointments were not in favour of persons who entertained the particular opinions which were held by himself and his hon. Friends. This, however, would not prove the nonexistence of the evil to which the noble Lord had referred. What he (Mr. S. Herbert) complained of was this—that the Secretary to the Admiralty, or whoever might discharge such duties, could not make appointments without attending to recommendations which, if acted upon, proved very detrimental to the public service. He did not wish to be understood as stating that the appointments of the Government which succeeded that of which he was a Member, must necessarily be corrupt. He must say, however, that every Secretary to the Admiralty who attempted to exercise his patronage honestly, must do so with great trouble, and with the risk of encountering great abuse.
Vote agreed to, as were several other votes.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Received the Royal Assent.—Destitute Persons (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Guardians of the Staines Union, for the Repeal of the present Law of Settlement, and for a National Rate for the Relief of the Poor.—From Cremorne, Monaghan, for the Maintenance of the Electoral Division System of Rating in any Measures for the Temporary Relief of the Poor in Ireland.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that in the absence of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) yesterday evening, he gave notice of his intention of putting a question to him that night on the subject of public business, to which it would be well for the convenience of their Lordships and the country, if Her Majesty's Government could give an answer. He adverted then to the state in which public business appeared to be in the other House, and to the state of no business in which their Lordships' House appeared to be at the present time. This was the sixth week of the present Session of Parliament, which had sat at an unusually early period, and no business had come before them except some temporary measures for the relief of distress in Ireland; and at that very moment, with the exception of the business which stood on the "Votes" for that day—the notice of his noble Friend (the Earl

507
of Eglintoun), and the Bill for granting indemnity to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—not one single Notice and not one single Bill was on their Lordships' "Votes," or was ready to be submitted to their consideration. And from what he could learn of the proceedings of the other House, it would appear that in the course of that night, and of the next week, the principal business—indeed almost the exclusive business—would relate to the provision for the Estimates, which would make no advance in public business, and would not facilitate any measure with regard to Ireland. The Irish measures for providing permanent relief for the distress in that country, were, as he believed, postponed to a period so late as the 8th of March, and he thought it impossible they could pass through the House of Commons earlier than some time between the 15th and 22nd of March, which would be very near the Easter recess. It appeared to him very much to be regretted that their Lordships should have arrived at so late a period of the Session without making any progress in public business, and without having any business of importance before them. He admitted that, looking to the Speech from the Throne, the promises and expectations of business to be brought forward that Session, were not of a very extensive character; for, with the exception of the measures for the relief of distress in Ireland, the only measure mentioned in that Speech was a sanatory measure for the health of towns. He was very well aware that, in consequence of the jealousy of the House of Commons, which, as he now and always thought, was carried to an extreme, not to say to an unnecessary and inconvenient extent, great difficulties existed in originating measures which should contain money clauses, such as those relating to the health of towns or to the improvement of the law, or like that under the care of his noble Friend with respect to convict discipline, which might, as he thought, very properly and very successfully, be originated and discussed in their Lordships' House with much greater advantage in the first instance than elsewhere. If that were done, their Lordships would then have more leisure at the end of the Session to consider the mass of business which was generally thrown upon them in July and August, and which was in consequence got through very hastily and carelessly. The questions he therefore wished to put to Government were—first, whether it was
508
their intention to introduce any measures of importance for their Lordships' consideration; and if so, of what nature they were, and at what period between this time and the Easter recess they would be brought before the House?—and secondly, whether, as far as Government could form an opinion on the subject, it was likely their Lordships would have any business of importance sent up to them before that time from the other House of Parliament?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEcould assure the noble Lord he would be very glad to give him any information on this subject. When the noble Lord made a complaint that more business had not been transacted at an early period of the Session, he only repeated what had been said, from time to time, when the noble Lord was himself in office, up to the present Session, when it could be met with a much more satisfactory answer than before. Within the last hour, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had looked over the Journals of the House, and it appeared that much more business had been transacted during the last six weeks of this present Session, than for a corresponding period in any other Session when the noble Lord was in power. He would not select the last Session, because the noble Lord was not then in office; but going back to the Session before, in 1845, when he was in office, and looking to the Speech from the Throne, which announced many measures of importance, he found the following results. Parliament met on February 14. Taking the first seven weeks of that Session, he found that the following were the legislative proceedings for that time:—On February 24, the Bill for the Abolition of Deodands was read a first time; on the 28th, the Bail in Error Bill was read a second time; on the 10th of March, the Jewish Disabilities Bill was read a second time, and Pauper Lunatics (Ireland) Bill a first time; on the 14th, the Jewish Disabilities Bill was read a third time, and the Stamp Duties Assimilation Bill a third time; and on the 17th, the Property Tax was read a first time, and the Pauper Lunatics (Ireland) Bill a second time. But not one of those measures was passed, with the exception of one, the Jewish Disabilities Bill, and the Stamp Duties Assimilation Bill. That constituted the whole of the business for more than the first six weeks of the Session 1845. He did not make the statement as any attack on the Government of that day to which the noble Lord belonged,

509
and which was, no doubt, desirous of bringing business before their Lordships' House, but for the purpose of calling to his recollection that in that, as in every Session, very great obstacles existed to the introduction of Bills to their Lordships at an early period, which might account for the circumstance that for nearly seven weeks in 1845 they had actually introduced and passed but one Bill. He would now state the Bills which had passed during the six weeks of the present Session. Parliament met on the 19th of January. No less than six important Bills, instead of one, had passed through all their stages up to this time: the Buckwheat Importation Bill, the Distilling from Sugar and Brewing from Sugar Bills, the Chelsea Pensioners Bill, the Destitute Persons (Ireland) Bill, and the Navigation Laws Suspension Bill. All these measures had passed through every stage in their Lordships' House, and he could confidently assert they constituted altogether an infinitely larger amount of important business than had ever been passed during the first six weeks of any past Session. He did not mean to say that this was in itself an excuse for neglecting to bring forward measures at the earliest possible period of the Session; and he wished to take that opportunity of stating to their Lordships how public business stood with respect to the views of Government, and for the purpose of giving the noble Lord every information in his power. He had hoped that some business would have been brought before their Lordships; but obstacles had arisen to it—partly from the very important discussion in the other House, which had not been brought to a successful termination—he meant the long and protracted debate on the question of assisting railways in Ireland by Government money, which had caused great delay to the progress of business. In consequence of it Parliament was brought to a stage of business when it was necessary to consider the financial condition of the country; and in doing so their Lordships would perceive that, in point of fact, the other House was considering Irish business, because though its immediate progress might be delayed by the consideration of the Ways and Means of the year, the existence of Irish distress—now admitted by all parties—required very large sacrifices of public money for its relief; and it therefore became indispensable to acquaint the other House with the extent of that demand, and to take the sense of the House
510
upon it, with a view to facilitate the entertainment and progress of the measures for Ireland, which could only be considered with reference to large financial questions. These were the reasons which made it impossible to bring on the Irish measures before the 8th March; but he could state confidently that those Bills would be proceeded with on that day. As to the time they would take to pass through the other House, and as to the discussion which would arise upon them, he need hardly say it would be impossible to state positively when it would be brought to a close. It was not correct that no notice of public business to be brought before the House had been given to their Lordships. He stated a few days ago that one Irish Bill, which had undergone great alteration on the part of his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), and which required to be weighed with the greatest care, for the purpose of enabling proprietors to sell parts of their estates, would be laid very soon on the Table. Much progress had been already made with it; and the noble Lord must recollect how many communications there had been necessarily received on the subject. It was also the intention of Government to introduce some very important Bills with respect to the administration of the penal laws, the reformation of criminals, and the improvement of prisons; but the consideration of the sanatory condition of towns could not be originated in that House—they must take time to consider the subject; and the noble Lord was aware there were great obstacles in the way of introducing measures in that House, owing to the jealousy, often, as he thought, unnecessary, with which their conduct was watched by the other House in matters of that kind.
LORD BROUGHAMobserved, that the time which had elapsed since November might have been employed in the preparation of those Bills. He regretted that more measures had not been introduced into their Lordships' House, and saw no reason why certain classes of Bills should not first be submitted to their Lordships, provisions in regard to penalties being reserved for the consideration of the other House. He was glad to learn that there was a prospect of legislation on the criminal law; and when he observed that unprofessional persons were proposing measures on the subject (Sir John Pakington's Bill in reference to juvenile delinquency was an example), he felt inclined to press

511
for the appointment of a Committee to take the whole matter into consideration. But for the notice just taken of the subject by the noble Marquess, he (Lord Brougham) certainly should have proposed a Committee upon the matter which he opened to their Lordships when presenting the Liverpool petition last week, and he did not know whether he should not do so still, as he had received several important communications since, and among the rest an entire denial of some parts of the results of the Liverpool experience.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, if blame were attached to Her Majesty's present Government for not bringing forward measures in that House at an earlier period of the Session, with much greater weight it would attach to those Governments who had preceded them, who had been strong, and had known themselves to be strong in that House. And the less ground of complaint was there of a Government who felt that they were weak. With reference to the two Irish measures which were now before the other House of Parliament—one being a Bill for granting a million and a half of money to the Irish landlords, on the security of their estates; and the other, a Bill for making very great and important alterations in the Irish poor law—the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that these two Bills must go pari passu through that House. If this were not the case, he (the Earl of Wicklow) had no doubt that one or the other of them would come up to that House long before the Easter recess; but by thus coupling them together, in order to send them up at one and the same time, the probability was that unless the Poor Law Bill was considerably altered, they would neither of them come up at all during the present Session. Now, he denied that the Government had any right thus to couple the two Bills. The Bill for making advances to the Irish landlords was connected with, and formed part of, a question which was passed last year. When the late Government brought forward their Corn Bill, they promised that it should be accompanied by certain other measures which would be for the advantages of the landed interest of the united empire. These measures they called measures of compensation for the passing of the Corn Bill. One of them was for advancing two millions of money to the landed proprietors of Great Britain; the other for advancing one million to proprietors in Ireland. The latter Bill, however,
512
was drawn up in so faulty a manner, that a pledge was given at the close of the Session that it should undergo amendment on the reassembling of Parliament in the present year. As regarded that Bill, therefore, he contended that the Government had no right whatever to keep it back, and to say that it must come before their Lordships pari passu with the Poor Law Bill, and which Bill might not pass at all; thus inferring, that if the one did not become law, the other should not be given to the country. Now, this was all very well as far as a half million of the money was concerned, which was an increase on the original sum intended to be granted; but as to the million, he denied their right to postpone the measure, for it was to be given as compensation for the measure passed last year.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, it was quite true that an impression had existed that it would be desirable to consider the measures to which the noble Earl had alluded—namely, that for advancing money to the landlords, and that for altering the Irish poor law, together, inasmuch as the first would afford very great accommodation to the landlords, whilst the second would impose a burden upon their property. The noble Earl had stated that one Bill was entirely independent of the other; and so far as related to 1,000,000 l. out of the 1,500,000 l., which the Bill proposed to appropriate for the advantage of Irish landlords, the noble Earl was quite correct; but he was not correct with regard to the benefit to be derived by the landlords under the Bill as formerly passed, and under the Bill as it was now proposed to be passed. It was true that in the last Session, and under the late Government, it was announced in this and the other House of Parliament, that a sum of 1,000,000 l. was intended to be advanced to the Irish landlords for the purpose of drainage in Ireland, and at the same time that 2,000,000 l. were to be advanced for the like purpose to the landlords of Great Britain. But the present Bill was not merely a Bill which was promised last Session, for the purpose of extending that benefit to entailed estates in Ireland; but a larger amount of benefit was proposed in this Bill to be granted to landlords, by greatly extending the objects for which the advances were to be made, so as to include every species of substantial and permanent improvement that could be made on any estate. This Bill being regarded as a sort

513
of compensation for the other, it was deemed advisable that the two should be considered together; and he had no doubt when the measure came into operation, their Lordships would find that it worked very beneficially for the permanent and substantial improvement of Ireland.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that though he feared that this conversation held out very small hope of an early termination of the Session, yet he would fain ask his noble Friend, what prospects their Lordships had of speedily inhabiting a more habitable place than that in which they were then assembled? His anxiety to enter the new palace had not been diminished by what had happened to him that day, when he enjoyed the gratification of visiting the new Houses, and seeing the most magnificent building that he had ever seen in any part of the world, doing the greatest possible honour to the very skilful, learned, and ingenious architect, both in the interior and the exterior of the splendid palace which was to be devoted to the two branches of the Legislature. If anything could mitigate his dislike of Gothic architecture, it was what he had seen that day. True, it had not altered his opinion with reference to that style; but this he would say, that what he had seen to-day, fully confirmed his original expectations, and that if anything could make Gothic architecture palatable to those who had a totally different taste, it was the skill which had been exhibited by that most eminent architect (Mr. Barry), in the design and construction of the new Houses of Parliament.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEfeared that he could not indulge his noble and learned Friend's hopes so far as to confirm any opinion which he might entertain with regard to a speedy prospect of an early termination of the Session. He could state, however, about the period when their Lordships might expect to assemble in their new House. He owed it to the architect, of whom his noble and learned Friend had spoken in such handsome and justly-deserved terms, to say, that he had also the inferior but not-to-be-despised merit of keeping the engagements which he had entered into with that House at the end of the last Session of Parliament; for he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was enabled to state, that even if it were the wish of their Lordships to occupy their new House
514
earlier than Easter, means might be found of preparing it for them before the end of the next month. But he thought their Lordships would agree with him that the adjournment which usually took place at Easter, would be the most convenient time for completing those arrangements which would enable them to be received there. He could confidently state, on the authority of Mr. Barry, as well as on his own inspection, that there could not be the slightest doubt that in the Easter week every preparation would be made for their Lordships' reception the very first day after the recess.
LORD BROUGHAMwould take that opportunity of supplying an inadvertent omission which had occurred in the observations he had addressed to the House. He begged to state that a gentleman of great experience had assured him that the fresco paintings designed and superintended by Mr. Dyce had been most successful.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
LORD STANLEYhoped he should be excused if he put one more question to the noble Marquess opposite. He wished to ask what was the nature of the duties to be executed by Commissioners, and which were heretofore performed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Now he did not put this question by way of complaint, or for the purpose of finding fault, as, in point of fact, he knew not what had been done, or the motives which prompted the Government in what they had done, but purely for information; and he thought it was a subject on which Parliament ought to have some explanation from Ministers. About a week or a fortnight ago, a proclamation appeared in the Gazette, by which it appeared that Her Majesty had appointed three noble Lords, Members of that House, and two right hon. Gentlemen, Members of the other House, to be of Her Majesty's Council for the Duchy of Lancaster—and that, he believed, was the sole information which Parliament possessed in reference to the subject. He was quite aware that everything which related to the pecuniary concerns of the Duchy of Lancaster was a matter in which Parliament and the country had no direct interest; that the revenues of the Duchy were a portion of the revenues of the Crown, and were as much the property of the Crown, and as little the property of the public, as any of the revenues which belonged to their Lordships. They formed no part of the

515
regular revenues which had been surrendered in lieu of the Civil List; and though they were vested in and under the superintendence of Parliament, yet the net receipts, whatever they might be, were paid to the privy purse, without control or let from Parliament. At the same time the management of the revenues was not wholly withdrawn from the superintendence of Parliament. He believed there was an annual account presented to Parliament of the expenditure incurred, and of the gross receipts and net receipts, and, generally speaking, of the entire management of the revenues. The presentation of this account did therefore, in his opinion, imply that Parliament exercised some control over the matter. Nay, more, the administration of the affairs of the Duchy, including the administration of its financial affairs, was vested in one of the responsible advisers of the Crown, who was generally a Cabinet Minister, and in that capacity responsible to Parliament for the management or mismanagement of the duties confided to him. Now, undoubtedly, if there had been any mismanagement, if there had been any extravagant expenditure upon the establishment, if there had been waste in the management of the revenue, or if there had been improvidence in the administration of the landed property, that was a subject into which Parliament had a right to inquire, and ought to inquire. And the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Campbell) would forgive him for saying that, as Chancellor of the Duchy, he and those who filled that office were responsible to Parliament for the manner in which they discharged their duties. The office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was one that had been frequently intrusted to persons of far inferior abilities to its present possessor. It was one of the duties which had never been considered exceedingly onerous. Now, the noble and learned Lord, the present Chancellor of the Duchy, was not an infant—he was not a femme couverte—he was not subject to any mental or physical incapacity for business; and therefore he (Lord Stanley) did not then see, unless some explanation could be given, why the noble and learned Lord should not be considered as competent as any of his predecessors to perform the duties that devolved upon him. He wanted to know in what capacity the new councillors to the Duchy of Lancaster were appointed. They must have been appointed either to aid the Chancellor with their advice,
516
or for the purpose of superseding the noble and learned Lord in a portion of his duties. In either case it was not unreasonable for Parliament to exercise control. They should know in what respect the administration of the office had been found deficient. All they knew was, that five gentlemen had been appointed as a Council by Her Majesty for the Duchy of Lancaster. What portion of the duties they had to perform, Parliament was ignorant of. Was there confided to them the revenues of the Duchy? Had they to look to the management of the landed property of the Duchy? Was their opinion as a majority to carry the different questions that came before them? — and this was not an unimportant consideration—or in what way was it that they were to divide or supersede the authority of the person who was responsible to Parliament for conducting the affairs of the Duchy? He wanted to know their object in appointing this subsidiary Council—whether any part of the duties vested in a responsible Minister of the Crown were to be vested in a permanent board appointed by the Crown, and not responsible to Parliament? He also wanted to know whether they discharged their duties in accordance with an oath taken by them; for, if he was not mistaken, they did take an oath. Then, in that case, he wanted to know by what authority the oath was administered—what were the terms, and what the nature of the oath? Indeed, he had asked a noble Lord who had been appointed as one of the Council, what where the duties he would have to perform; and his answer was, that he really had not the least idea; all he could say was, that he had taken an oath for the faithful discharge of his duties; but what the extent or the nature of those duties was, his noble Friend was as ignorant as any of their Lordships. All the public knew was, that there were commissioners appointed to discharge duties which had never before been considered too onerous or too laborious for one; and this at a time when the office was filled by one fully competent to perform them. And when persons were sworn to perform certain duties, and they did not know what those duties were, it was not unreasonable then, without finding fault with what had been done, and without expressing an opinion—indeed they were not then in a situation to form any opinion on the subject—but in such a state of affairs it was not unreasonable to ask Her Majesty's

517
Ministers what motives had led them to establish this new commission; what portion of the duties of the Chancellor it had taken upon itself to discharge; what portion of his duties were to be withdrawn from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; what portion of his patronage was to be withdrawn from him and vested in the new Commissioners?
LORD CAMPBELL: None.
LORD STANLEY: Then was the patronage to be retained by the Chancellor, and the duties to be thrown on the subordinates? Were they to advise the Chancellor, or their opinion to overrule that of the Chancellor? He thought they ought to know what instructions had been given to these Commissioners, and what was the extent of their duties. These were facts which should be laid before Parliament, in order that they might the more clearly ascertain what these duties were.
LORD CAMPBELLthought the noble Lord had no cause to apologize for seeking information on this question; and he returned the noble Lord thanks for mentioning the subject, with respect to which a great deal of misconception had taken place, and, in ignorance of the facts, a great many foolish comments had been made. What the noble Lord had learned in private from any individual, now a Councillor of the Duchy of Lancaster, could hardly be meant to have been proclaimed in that House; and he should have thought the noble Lord would have had the highest respect for the individual to whom he had referred, because, as all parties were represented in the Council, that individual happened to be a most eminent protectionist. He would now give an answer to the noble Lord's inquiry. There was no commission, and no innovation in the ancient constitution of the Duchy of Lancaster, which remained now as it stood in the time of John of Gaunt. Ever since there had been a County Palatine and a Duchy of Lancaster, there had been a Chancellor with a Council attached to it. The Chancellor acted judicially, and made certain appointments. As the noble Lord knew, the Chancellor appointed magistrates, and on such subjects he acted proprio motu; on certain subjects he acted without the advice of any Council; but with respect to others he called in the assistance of the Council. There had been from time immemorial a Council, from which the Chancellor of the Duchy took advice with respect to certain subjects, such as the
518
management of the property and finances of the Duchy; and this Council consisted of the Vice Chancellor, the Receiver General, the Auditor, and the Attorney General of the Duchy. Still it was found that a good deal of inconvenience had been experienced from the Chancellor not having the advice of those persons who were more competent to advise respecting the letting of land, the amount of rent to be demanded, and the manner in which this property, scattered all over England, and of a very miscellaneous description, should be managed. The Chancellor of the Duchy was a political office, and connected with the Government, while the Councillors had nothing political belonging to them. The Councillors, until the present addition to their number, were Mr. Horace Twiss, the eminent Chancery barrister, and who, as he (Lord Campbell) considered, belonged to the Tory party, Vice Chancellor; Mr. Lockhart, a gentleman most eminent in literature, Auditor; General Fox, a very gallant officer, Receiver General; and Mr. Ellis, an eminent barrister, Attorney General. These gentlemen, however, were very little cognizant of country affairs. The noble Lord had stated, that he (Lord Campbell) laboured under no legal incapacity. He certainly was not a femme couverte, or an infant; and he hoped he was not a lunatic: but he confessed his ignorance in respect to agricultural affairs. He was as ignorant of such matters as the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham), who, on being taken through a field of green wheat by Mr. Coke, of Norfolk, exclaimed, "What a fine field of lavender!" His (Lord Campbell's) predecessor in his present office, though more competent to understand these matters, nevertheless felt great inconvenience; and it was intended under the late Government to make an addition to the number of Councillors in respect to the management of the property and finances of the Duchy. When the subject was mentioned to him (Lord Campbell), he most cordially approved of the suggestion, and strongly recommended Her Majesty to appoint, for the due management of Her revenues in the Duchy of Lancaster, additional Councillors, and he also recommended the individuals to be appointed. They were sworn in and took the usual oath which had been immemorially taken by the Councillors of the Duchy of Lancaster. He had to inform the noble Lord, that they did not supersede the Chancellor of the

519
Duchy; because, by the patent granted by the Crown, the Chancellor's opinion prevailed on all subjects coming under the consideration of the Chancellor and the Councillors. Still, if the Chancellor were a wise man, he would naturally take the opinion of those who were competent to give a sound one; and for himself, he had no hesitation in saying that he should be guided by the advice of such men as Lords Hardwicke and Portman, in matters relating to the letting of land. The former noble Lord had, indeed, undertaken—and this proved the value of the appointment—to examine a farm in the Bedford Level belonging to the Duchy, and to give advice with respect to the manner in which it should be managed. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) might be assured, that the constitution of the Duchy of Lancaster had in no degree been altered; and if the noble Lord should ever receive the high commission of forming an Administration, his Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would find the office unimpaired in its efficiency or privileges.
LORD BROUGHAM: It was certainly a most uncalled-for charge to say his noble Friend had betrayed the confidence of another noble Lord; for it was plain that noble Lord had no confidence to betray, as he was utterly ignorant on the subject. If "a multitude of Councillors" implied wisdom, the estates of the Duchy must be admirably managed; but the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, showed the affairs of the Duchy to be in a very strange position, for the Chancellor pronounced a sentence of self-stultification, and yet insisted that his opinion should be supreme. Had the offices of these Councillors been divided? Was the patronage divided? Was the salary divided? [Lord CAMPBELL: It was not worth dividing.] But the opinion of the Councillors should be taken on that, too. Thus, they and the Council had an incompetent Chancellor, and yet the incompetent was not bound to take their advice. And all this was done for an estate of 20,000 l. His noble and learned Friend, to defend his own ignorance of all that appertained to land, told a story of him which was wholly without foundation, The real story was this—that when Lords Grey and Durham, Sir R. Wilson, and himself, were on a visit to Mr. Coke, his lamented Friend pointed them out some sterile land which he had brought into cultivation. Upon which he (Lord Brougham) said, "Show us some of your lands that
520
really bear some good crops." Mr. Coke rejoined (alluding, no doubt, to Sir R. Wilson and himself): "What's the use of showing you people from London wheat fields, when you don't know wheat from lavender?" To come back to the Councillors. He saw that on his noble and learned Friend's agricultural Council there were two gallant officers accustomed to plough—the sea [laughter]; and one of them to plough the land [laughter]. He believed that the additional Council would not increase the rental of the Duchy to the value of 100 l. a year, whilst he regretted to add, that having heard his noble and learned Friend's explanation, he was just as ignorant on the subject as before that explanation had been given. ["Hear!" and laughter.]

SCOTCH BANKING.
The EARL of EGLINTOUNrose to move for correspondence relative to the Joint Stock Banks in Scotland and Ireland Bill, and in particular, that relating to the North British Bank. Many of their Lordships might not be aware that under the old system of banking, Scotland had trebled her wealth within a short period. In 1845, however, important restrictions had been introduced—restrictions preventing the establishment of Joint Stock Banks of issue for ever after; and in order to know why it had been interfered with, he was anxious to see the correspondence which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the bankers of Scotland, relative to the progress of the Bill of last year. At that time they had been much alarmed for the safety of their one-pound notes; but they had been so pleased at finding them left untouched, that they did not carry on their opposition to the other portions of the plan with the vigour which they ought to have done, and a measure was carried which infringed on the system so long and so advantageously in use. By the Act for regulating Joint Stock Banks in England and Ireland, the paper circulation of Scotland was restricted to what had been the average of the three years previous to 1845; above that amount any issue must be based upon gold. He must confess that he did not think a case had been at all made out for meddling with the Scotch currency; however, as the mischief had been done, they tried to make the best of it. Had there been any failures of banks—had there been any distrust shown, or any disapprobation expressed as

521
to the old system, by the people of Scotland, then probably some interference might have been justified; but the case was wholly otherwise. The paper circulation in Scotland did not exceed three millions, and the people had perfect confidence in it. There was, therefore, no reason whatever for meddling with the system. But in 1845 a fresh Bill had been brought in. Stirring events followed, and it was believed that that Bill had been abandoned. However, their old enemy suddenly and unexpectedly reappeared under the auspices of a new Ministry, and was passed through the House of Commons with that rapidity which characterized the progress of measures introduced at the fag-end of a Session. He had then lost all those who had acted with him in opposition before, and he stood alone, with the exception of the assistance he received from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Radnor), who had always been consistent in his opposition to any interference with the Scottish banking system. Upon the Bill reaching their Lordships, he had urged the propriety of delay; but upon the day appointed for the second reading, two gentlemen, Messrs. Tennant and Drew, directors of the North British Bank, waited upon him, and stated that the committee of bankers in Scotland were not only willing to withdraw their opposition to the Bill, but that they were most anxious that it should pass. Under those circumstances he refrained from inflicting a speech upon their Lordships, and the Bill passed without that opposition with which he had threatened it; but no sooner had his reasons for so acting appeared before the public, than he received a letter from Mr. Anderson, the respected manager of the Union Bank, denying that the deputation had ever agreed to anything of the kind. Other information soon came to light. At a meeting of the North British Bank, it was stated that the arrangements which the bank had made with the late Government, had been confirmed by their successors, and that the establishment could still preserve its character of a bank of issue. He was, therefore, forced to believe that while Her Majesty's Government were proceeding publicly with their negotiations with the Scotch bankers generally, they were privately treating with the gentlemen who had made the erroneous statement. What those private arrangements were, could as yet be only a matter of conjecture, and therefore it was that he wished to see the correspondence for which he intended
522
to move. He thought such a course derogatory to any Government; and his opposition had been withdrawn upon a statement which turned out to be a gross misrepresentation. The evil effects of the interference had already been felt; and considering the misrepresentation to which he had referred—considering also the time at which the Bill was passed—he thought the people of Scotland had a right to have a reconsideration of the whole subject, and it was with that view that he moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for the Correspondence of the Scotch Bankers with the late and present Governments, relative to the Bill for regulating Joint Stock Banks in Scotland and Ireland, which was passed last Session, and in particular the Correspondence of any of the Directors of the North British Bank; also, for the Terms or Conditions of an Agreement or Arrangement said to have been entered into in favour of that Bank."
The EARL of CLARENDONwas sorry that he could not agree to the Motion of his noble Friend, not because there was any objection to the production of such a correspondence, but because it did not exist. He had applied to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject, and, after a search, he had informed him that he could find no trace of any correspondence of the Scottish bankers either with the late or the present Government. He had reason to believe that there had been various oral communications on the subject, but no record of them had been kept. His right hon. Friend remembered, that when the Bill was before the House, he had received several letters from persons interested in the subject referring to former communications; but when the Bill, then under discussion, became law, he conceived that these documents had lost their interest, and he therefore destroyed them. He could not follow his noble Friend through the details of the matter; but he must beg leave to differ with him as to the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward and carried through Parliament. If he remembered rightly, the Bill affecting Scotch banks was introduced in 1845, and then it was frankly avowed that some arrangement was about to be made with the North British Bank. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer was told that that bank was then in an inchoate state; that from some reason or other they had not then been able to commence business. There was no secret made of the matter; no secret arrangement was made with that bank by the late Government; all that was

523
done in respect of it was done openly and avowedly. From some cause the Bill was postponed; but notice was given, that it would be reintroduced in 1846; and it was at the same time announced, that it would be made retrospective, and take effect from the day contemplated in 1845. The Bill was accordingly introduced early in the Session of 1846, and read a first, and, he believed, a second time; but from the great pressure of business in that Session, its further progress was postponed. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on entering office, considering the Bill one of a most useful nature, and likely to benefit the people of Scotland, proceeded with it, but not in a manner that was obnoxious to the charges brought against it by his noble Friend. Notice was given that the Bill was to be proceeded with; and a deputation of bankers, not consisting only of Messrs. Tennant and Drew, but of representatives also of the joint-stock banks, came up from Scotland, and had several interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His noble Friend seemed to accuse Messrs. Tennant and Drew of making some misrepresentation to him. [The Earl of EGLINTOUN: Hear, hear!] If they were wrong in their statements, most undoubtedly his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer shared in the error; for he laboured under the same impression as they did in making the statement. A legal point had been raised, and the deputation had promised to attend at the office of his right hon. Friend to meet the Lord Advocate to consider it; but when the day arrived, the deputation had gone home, and his right hon. Friend received a letter from Mr. Anderson, dated Liverpool, in which he stated that the deputation left the whole matter in the hands of the Government: under these circumstances the Bill had passed without opposition. He was sorry to hear that evil effects had followed from the measure. He could assure his noble Friend that no complaints had yet reached the Government from Scotland.
The EARL of RADNORthought the course they had taken in reference to the Scotch banks was a most unfortunate one; and, for one, he was obliged to the noble Earl for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. The Legislature ought never to have interfered with a system which had ever given the utmost satisfaction, in order to satisfy a currency crotchet of Sir R. Peel's.
Motion withdrawn.

MEDICAL RELIEF IN IRELAND.
The EARL of CLANCARTY: My Lords, in rising to put to the noble Marquess opposite, the question of which I yesterday gave notice, respecting the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, in reference to Irish medical charities, I shall only preface it by such observations as I think may show your Lordships the great importance of the subject; for, I cannot, like the noble Earl, whose Motion has just been disposed of, say of Ireland as he did of Scotland, that it has occupied but little of your Lordships' attention; I feel on the contrary, that when so much consideration is given to Irish questions, it would be unpardonable, without very strong grounds, to introduce any new question relating to Ireland. But important as is the consideration of those measures which have for their immediate object the relief of the destitute in that country, not less important is the duty of taking such steps, by means of legislation, as may ward off destitution from the industrious poor. Such, I conceive, was the object of Parliament, in the several Acts that have been passed, for the establishment of hospitals and dispensaries over the country for the relief of the sick; and such certainly, to a great degree, is the effect of such institutions wherever they are in beneficial operation. They are designed to afford relief, not to the destitute, for whom the law has otherwise provided, but for the industrious poor; a class which should be kept as much as possible distinct from the destitute; because, instead of being a burden to the community, it may be truly said of them, that they constitute its strength, wealth, and very dependence; but who, though under ordinary circumstances capable of maintaining themselves and their families in independence, are often, in sickness, unable out of their scanty earnings to provide the medicines and professional advice which, promptly administered, might hasten recovery, and ward off the ruin and destitution in such cases commonly resulting from a prolonged suspension of employment. That such legalized assistance to the poorer classes—not fraught with any of those demoralising consequences to be apprehended through the system of out-door relief contemplated, as I understand, in an amended poor law for Ireland, but on the contrary, affording a direct encouragement and protection to industry, and tending to unite the upper and lower classes of society in Ireland, by the kindest sympathies—was intended to be

525
fully efficient and impartial in its operation, may, I think, be inferred from the several Acts which Parliament has from time to time passed for the extension of medical charities. In these respects, however, the law has failed. For want of central superintendence, abuses have crept into the administration of many of the medical charities; in others there is mismanagement and irregularity; and of those which depend in any degree upon voluntary contributions, the benefit can only be fully realized in such localities as are so fortunate as to have residing in them, persons able and willing to give their money and their personal labour to the superintendence of the charity. That such localities should be rather the exception than the rule, your Lordships cannot be surprised, after all you have of late heard of the destitute state of large tracts in the west and south of Ireland. One thing alone is uniform, and that is the taxation: in each county all are alike assessed to uphold the medical charities belonging to it; and even the poorest occupier of the soil, himself perhaps suffering from sickness, or with a sickly family, although beyond the reach of hospital or dispensary, is taxed in proportion to the land he holds for the maintenance of these institutions, just as much as if he derived the fullest benefit from them. This is a fact well known to such of your Lordships as are acquainted with the operation of the grand jury laws in Ireland. Further, I would observe, as a consequence of the unsatisfactory operation of the present law, that it appeared in evidence before the Select Committee appointed to inquire into it last Session—and while acting as chairman of a board of guardians in the west of Ireland, I have since had personal knowledge of the fact—that of the present inmates of the workhouses, many have been brought to destitution by neglected sickness, or by having become permanently disabled for the want of timely surgical care; and the vast numbers that enter the workhouse for the infirmary only, attested by the overcrowded state of all those infirmaries, shows undeniably, that the poor have not, without the walls of the workhouse, the appliances of medical relief which Parliament designed that they should have. And it may be observed of the industrious poor, who are in consequence compelled to seek infirmary relief among the destitute, that they most commonly resort to this last resource, when they are in an almost hopeless or a dying state. Every year that the
526
amendment of the laws so often prayed for has been delayed, it may truly be said that a great injustice is done to a most deserving class; that there has been a neglect of the interests of the industrious poor; and I have no hesitation in saying that while this is the case an injury is likewise done to the whole community; for it is undeniably for the interest of all classes that the sanatory state of the poor should be duly cared for. The subject has been abundantly inquired into; the frequency of the inquiries that have been instituted without leading hitherto to any practical result, have at length caused them to be looked upon as mere pretexts for delay; they have, however, established the fact that the law requires to be amended; and a reference to the several reports that have been made, down to the latest which I had the honour of presenting to your Lordships, from the Select Committee appointed in the last Session of Parliament, would show the concurrence of opinion, both as to the defects of the existing law, and the principles which should be kept in view in any measure for its amendment. The present state of Ireland, so far from justifying delay, is an argument for the earliest consideration being given to the subject. It can hardly be expected that when the diminished resources of landed proprietors are required to meet so much increased taxation, together with the urgent claims of a famishing population, there should be the same facility of upholding institutions dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the charitable; although I am quite sure that the utmost would be done to prevent their falling to the ground. What is wanted, and what is recommended in the report to which I have referred, is a complete organization of the country for the purpose of administering medical relief, by an increased number of infirmaries for the in-door treatment of difficult medical and surgical cases, whereby professional science may be at the same time advanced; by the establishment of fever hospitals in sufficient number, whereby the spread of fever in any locality may be at once checked; and by the proper distribution of dispensaries, whereby advice and medicine are brought home to the dwellings of all who need them. It is not a question of imposing a new burden upon the imperial treasury, or an increased tax upon any part of the community; it is simply one of economy and regulation—of economy in the distribution of relief, and of economy in the

527
distribution of the burden. There is much in the report to which I would pray the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and I trust that if the recommendations of the Committee have not received attention, they will be taken into their earliest consideration. The question to which I request an answer is, "Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose in the present Session any measure with respect to the medical relief of the sick poor of Ireland, founded on the recommendations in the report of the Select Committee appointed last Session to inquire into the subject; and if not, whether it is intended to propose any other measure for the improvement of Irish medical charities?"
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEregretted that he was not prepared to give the noble Earl a satisfactory answer. The subject had undergone much consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and a measure bearing upon it was determined on, and was in course of preparation. But he apprehended that Parliament ought to be called upon to give its decision with regard to the extension of the poor law before it was asked to consider any measure relating to the medical relief of the sick poor. At the same time, he was far from saying that the Bill on the subject might not be introduced and passed during the present Session.
House adjourned.