Sitting of 5 July 1859

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Monmouth County, Poulett George Henry Somerset, esquire; for Clonmel, John Bagwell, esquire.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Admiralty Court; Salmon Fishery; Tramways (Ireland); Roman Catholic Relief Act Amendment; Church Rates Commutation.
3° Jury Trial (Scotland) Act Amendment.

GREIVES'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  Order for First Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That the Bill be now read the first time."
  MR. STEUARTsaid, he would explain the reasons which induced him to take the unusual course of moving that the first reading of this Bill be postponed. He had less difficulty in doing so, because an objection of the same kind had been taken to Bills of this kind by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests (Mr. FitzRoy). The right hon. Gentleman, however, took that objection at the second reading, and it was then said that he should have taken the objection earlier. This Bill was for the purpose of enabling a clergyman of the Episcopal Church in Scotland to hold a benefice and officiate as a clergyman of the Church of England, and he objected to it because it was doing away by a private Bill with the public statutes for the regulation of these matters. A private Bill of this character was exceptionable in itself, but in the present instance there were peculiar circumstances why this mode of obtaining relief from disabilities ought not to be resorted to. The relief had been generally granted on the belief that the doctrines of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the United Church of England and Ireland were the same. Whether that were so or not he would not attempt to discuss, but circumstances of a very painful character occurred last year, in which the promoter of the present Bill was to some extent concerned. A case was raised against the Rev. Patrick R. Cheyne, a clergyman of the Scottish Episcopal Church, for erroneous doctrines, and in the course of that case it came out that there was a party in that Church which held doctrines widely different from those of the Church of England.

  651
  The Rev. Patrick Cheyne held doctrines which were condemned by all the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, except one, he believed, who took a modified view of the subject. It was true Mr. Greives, who promoted this Bill, was not Mr. Cheyne, but he had publicly and distinctly by his acts countenanced the erroneous doctrines held by that gentleman; and now he came to that House, and hoped per incuriam to be allowed to slip into the Church of England, as the House generally could not be aware of the circumstances. He believed Mr. Greives was of an excellent private character, but it was notorious that his congregation in Scotland had been scandalized by his introducing rites and ceremonies of a very extraordinary kind. He (Mr. Steuart) had himself been in his church, and had witnessed the burning of incense, the decoration of the pulpit with flags and banners, and ceremonies of a nature such as he had never before witnessed, and hoped he never should witness again, in a Protestant place of worship. He would, therefore, move that the first reading of the Bill be now postponed, and he also wished to give notice that before the first reading he would move for a Select Committee to consider the general question of the admission of Scottish Episcopalian clergymen to the Church of England, and that this particular case should be referred to that Committee.
  Motion made and Question proposed, that the Debate be now adjourned.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there were certainly great objections to Bills of this kind, enabling individuals who could afford the expense to avail themselves of exceptions to the general rule. He thought that in all such cases as these admission should be given to the Church under a general law, and not by private Bill. But he would beg leave to suggest to the hon. Member for Cambridge that he should allow the Bill to be a read a first time, pro formâ, as was usual with Bills that came down from the Lords, and take the course he now proposed as to a Committee of inquiry on the second reading, when the House would have full notice of his intentions.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, it was high time that all the distinctions which rendered Bills of this kind necessary should cease. It was but another evidence of the evils arising from a State establishment of religion.
  MR. BLACKBURNexpressed a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Steuart) would withdraw his Motion and take the subject up again on the second reading.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, he had some years ago expressed the views now stated by the hon. Member for Cambridge on this subject, and still held that relief should in all these cases be given by a general Act.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he also concurred in recommending the withdrawal of the Motion on the terms stated by the right hon. Baronet.
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved, that there appeared to be no father to this Bill. He could not discover who had the charge of it in the House of Lords. He would only consent to the first reading on the understanding that it was merely pro formâ, and must protest against it being supposed that by so doing he was precluded from opposing a general measure having the same object as this private Bill.
  MR. STEUARTsaid, that he would withdraw his Motion, and gave notice that on the second reading he would move for a Select Committee on the subject.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read 1°.

ORGANIZATION OF THE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, with reference to the report, dated the 7th of March last, of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the organization of the Indian Army, any steps have been taken to effect the formation of a permanent local army in Bengal, and for the gradual disbandment or reduction of the levies temporarily taken into British pay during the mutiny of the Native troops in that Presidency?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that he could not say that any practical steps had been taken for the organization of a local Bengal army, the question involving a great number of considerations and matters of detail. With regard to the other question asked, he was not in a position to state that any of the levies in question had been discontinued or disbanded. Any measure on that subject must be taken with all duo regard both to the interests and the feelings of the men who stood by us so gallantly during the mutiny.

THE LATE EAST INDIA COMPANY'S EUROPEAN REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any information regarding the excitement which has prevailed among the late East India Company's European regiments, consequent upon the withholding of the alternative of re-enlisting with new bounty or of being discharged, on the occasion of the transfer of their services to the Crown; and if so, whether he has reason to believe that such excitement no longer exists.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the House was aware that information had reached this country that a certain degree of excitement prevailed at two or three stations, and some discontent more generally, on the part of the soldiers of the East India Company, on being transferred to the service of the Queen without any fresh bounty, a transfer which they regarded in the light of a re-enlistment. He believed that the claim was totally unfounded, and that from the investigation which was now going on it appeared that those men had all forgotten the oath they had taken. On one occasion when that oath was shown to one of them he declared that he had no reason to complain, and that bad he known its terms he should not have acted as he had done. The matter was the subject of an inquiry still pending. He was happy to say that the discontent on the part of the men was very much subsiding, but he could give no more decisive answer until he knew the result of that inquiry.

  THE SERPENTINE.—QUESTION.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he would beg leave to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he proposes to carry out the intentions of his predecessor in office, as expressed on the 8th of last March, by taking a Vote in the Estimates for the purification of the Serpentine during the autumn of this year?
  MR. FITZROYwas understood to say he hoped to propose a Vote for the purpose in question during the present Session.

  THE GALWAY CONTRACT.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he had to ask if the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the contract entered into with the Atlantic Steam Navigation
  654
  Company to carry the mails between Galway and the United States, and whether they consider it advisable in the interest of the public that the said contract should, under certain conditions, be cancelled?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to the contract entered into with the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company for carrying the mails between Galway and the United States; but the Government had not arrived at any conclusion with regard to the latter part of the question, namely, "whether they considered it advisable in the interest of the public that the said contract should, under certain conditions, be cancelled." But in regarding this question, Her Majesty's Government had necessarily had under their view other proceedings with respect to contracts, and indeed the whole course of proceedings with respect to these contracts which had grown imperceptibly into a system; and the Government were of opinion that with respect to that system it would be very desirable that it should be bought fully under the impartial view of the House of Commons, and that the House should, without the smallest prejudice to any particular instance, have an opportunity of examining the whole matter for the purpose of giving their advice upon it. He would, therefore, give notice that on Thursday he would move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the manner in which contracts extending over periods of years had from time to time been formed or modified by Her Majesty's Government with various Steam Packet Companies for carrying the mails beyond the limits of the United Kingdom; likewise to inquire into any agreements or other arrangements which had been adopted at the public charge, actual or prospective, for purposes of telegraphic communication beyond seas, and to report their opinion thereon to the House, together with any recommendations as to rules to be observed hereafter by the Government in making contracts for services which had not yet been sanctioned by Parliament, or which extended over a series of years.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask whether any Vote would be taken in the present Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that did not form any part of the plan. Under the plan, as it stood, it would be the first vote that would be asked in the next Session of Parliament.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to ask whether it was any part of the condition on which this contract was made that any portion of the subscribed capital should be paid up; if so, what amount, and whether the condition had been complied with?
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the late Government, before they entered into the contract with the Galway Company, had made a condition that a certificate should be supplied shewing that the whole capital of the undertaking and the amount was paid up. The whole capital was £500,000, and they had received a certificate from the secretary of the company that a capital of £212,490 had been subscribed, of which £169,447 had been paid up. Of that amount £151,000 consisted of paid-up shares, taken in part payment of ships purchased by or to be built for the company. This left an amount of £61,450 of subscribed capital, of which £18,447 was paid up as representing the money subscription at the date of that certificate, namely, the 15th of April last. What had been done since that date he had no means of knowing.

POOR LAWS.

  WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation and administration of the laws for the relief of the poor in Great Britain and Ireland. The late President of the Poor Law Board had also moved for a Committee to inquire into the operation of certain Acts for the relief of the poor. The Committee was appointed, but it was, in his opinion, impossible to proceed with that inquiry satisfactorily under the terms of the reference. When Parliament was dissolved the labours of that Committee came to an end. As the present President of the Poor Law Board was only appointed two days ago, he should not be doing him justice in proceeding with the present Motion. That right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) was one of the most Liberal Members of the House of Commons, and ranked with those who represented the enlarged opinions ascribed to hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway, and who were called "advanced Liberals." He trusted therefore that the right hon. Gentleman would be of opinion that the Committee ought to address itself to the whole subject of the Poor Laws, and to the manner in which the Poor Laws were administered. If it were proposed
  656
  that a Committee should be re appointed during the present Session to conduct so limited an inquiry he should move his present Resolution as an amendment. If the Committee were postponed until next Session he should bring forward his Motion then. For the present he should withdraw his notice.

THE CASE OF MR. G. II. RYLAND.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he rose to move for "a Select Committee to inquire into the arrangements under which Mr. G. H. Ryland was induced to resign the patent office of Clerk of the Council in Canada; whether that step was taken under a distinct guarantee from the Imperial Lord High Commissioner, Lord Sydenham; and, if so, whether that guarantee had ever been fully and fairly carried out by the Imperial Government." He regretted, for the sake of Mr. Ryland, that it had fallen to his (Mr. Gregory's) lot to bring the present Motion before the House, as it would have been more satisfactorily dealt with by the hon. Gentleman who last Session called the attention of the House to the subject, but who, he regretted to say, was not a Member of the present Parliament. There were many present who recollected the industry and perseverance with which that hon. Gentleman had exerted himself in that matter. He referred to Captain Vivian. The way in which the Motion came into his hands was, that his gallant Friend had requested him to look into the papers connected with the case, and begged of him, if he thought it one of extreme hardship, he would act for him and bring it before the House. At that time be knew nothing of Mr. Ryland, but, as requested by his hon. and gallant Friend, he looked over every one of the papers, and could not but come to the conclusion that the case was one of extreme injustice; and although he was averse to bringing individual cases before the House, yet when a denial of justice, such as met him here, was persevered in for so long a time, and when it was impossible to have recourse to any other tribunal than Parliament, he felt bound to conquer his reluctance, and considered he was justified in asking for a Committee, to inquire into, give a verdict on, and effect a settlement of, this distressing case. He would enter as briefly as possible into the circumstances of the case, but as they extended over a period of eigh-

  657
  teen years he hoped the House would bear with him while he enumerated them. In the year 1841 Lord Sydenham, the then Lord High Commissioner of Canada, being intent on effecting administrative reform and the union of Upper and Lower Canada, communicated to Mr. Ryland, who then held the office of Clerk of the Council, his desire that he should surrender his office. It was a patent one worth £1,030 per annum, with a retiring allowance of £515 per annum, by the provisions of the 4th and 5th of William IV. Mr. Ryland, in the handsomest manner, replied that he wished to be no impediment in the way of Lord Sydenham's reforms. He stipulated, however, in surrendering his place, either that he should he provided with an office equal in amount to the emoluments of his own, or that he should receive compensation. Lord Sydenham offered him in return the registrarship of the district of Quebec, but intimated to him that he was willing to guarantee to him such an income only as would make up the amount of his retiring allowance £515; but he added, at the end of his letter, that should the emoluments from his employment exceed that amount he would of course be entitled to the excess. Lord Sydenham made that stipulation, as the new office was one which, if it continued in the condition in which it was given to Mr. Ryland, would have proved a remunerative one. The emoluments were derived from fees, and had the office been continued to Mr. Ryland in the position in which he received it, it was calculated that it would have yielded him £20,000. One thing was perfectly clear, that if Mr. Ryland had stood upon his right, he might at that moment have called on Lord Sydenham to dismiss him from his office, and thereby he would have been entitled to retire on £515 per annum for the rest of his life. But upon the proposition being made to him he accepted the office of Registrar of Quebec on the understanding that if it did not prove equal to the office of Clerk of the Council, it should not be considered as compensation in full, and should not bar his claim on the Government. It turned out, however, that the new office was not such as would form a full compensation for the office he had surrendered, and he wrote to that effect to Lord Sydenham. No reply was given to that letter, but it was evident from the beginning that it was Lord Sydenham's intention, in return for Mr. Ryland's obliging disposition to serve the Government, to place him in an office that would compen-
  658
  sate him fully. Accordingly a letter was received by him from the secretary of Lord Sydenham, stating that until he had entered into his new office he should receive the full salary of the one which he had relinquished. Whilst these things were going forward Lord Sydenham died, and was succeeded by Sir Richard Jackson, and afterwards by Sir Charles Bagot. Mr. Ryland made the same claim upon his two successors as he had made on Lord Sydenham; and again no objection was made to his protest. He had hardly entered upon his new office when he found that the condition of it was entirely changed, and that the clause upon which he had relied to produce the emolument calculated was repealed by the Legislative Assembly, taking away fees which had previously been payable; and in 1843, by an act of the Colonial Legislature, the registrarship was reduced from that of a, district to the registrarship of the county of Quebec. From 1841 to 1850 he continued to make his claim, and to protest against the injustice; and the Colonial Government acknowledged he had claims, but threw the responsibility on the Imperial Government, and the Imperial Government upon being appealed to also admitted the injustice, but threw back the responsibility on the Colonial Government. In the meantime Mr. Ryland found his income from his office exceedingly small, and in some years actually below the expenses of his office. The matter was brought before the House of Assembly, and in 1846 the Colonial Government appointed a Committee to inquire into his claims, and that Committee reported in favour of them. The Assembly, however, denied this responsibility in the matter, and refused to compensate him, but they passed a unanimous resolution in favour of his claims and the hardship which he had sustained. Lord Grey, at that time Colonial Secretary, sent back a despatch combatting the reasoning of the Assembly. In that way Mr. Ryland was driven from pillar to post till 1850. In that year his case was taken up very warmly by Lord Lyndhurst, but being prevented by indisposition from carrying out his intention of bringing it under the consideration of the House of Lords, the task was undertaken by the Duke of Argyll. Upon that occasion the Earl of Derby, Lord Brougham, and Lord Glenelg spoke in favour of Mr. Ryland's claims. On the 10th May, 1850, the House of Lords adopted a series of three Resolutions, notwithstanding the opposition of

  659
  the Government, in which they say that the case was one of great hardship and injustice; that it appeared by the papers on the table of the House that the hardship and injustice of the case had been acknowledged, both directly and indirectly, by the successive Governors-General of Canada, as well as by the Colonial Legislature and the Imperial Government; and that it was the opinion of their Lordships that these claims ought not to be avoided or overlooked, and that the agreement made, of which Mr. Ryland had performed his part, should be performed; or, if that was impossible, that compensation should be awarded. But as Earl Grey still continued Colonial Secretary, nothing came of these Resolutions. In 1852, with the change of Government came the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) to the Colonial Office, and a correspondonce ensued, between him and the Duke of Argyll. The letters of the Duke were worthy of perusal—they were models of perspicuity and close reasoning. The right hon. Gentleman, after thinking there were insuperable difficulties in the way of Mr. Ryland, at last conceded the claims of the Duke of Argyll in favour of that gentleman, but was of opinion that these claims were properly due in respect of the Colonial Government. That Government, however, in consequence of what was known as the Pension Fund, amounting to £5,000, having been surrendered to them unconditionally and without reservation, contended that they had nothing further to do with Mr. Ryland's, or any similar case. Nothing came of it till 1854, when the noble Lord the Member for London succeeded to the Colonial Office, and he determined to act in this case with promptitude. He at once wrote a despatch to Sir Edmund Head, in which he conceded the whole of the position which it was desirable to establish in favour of Mr. Ryland. The noble Lord wrote that, considering the peculiar circumstances under which Lord Sydenham was sent as Governor General to Canada, and the large powers with which he was invested by the Government, it was but proper to admit that the promise which had been made by him was covered by his authority, emanating from the Imperial Government; and the noble Lord added, that he believed the position of Mr. Ryland to be hard and unfortunate. Mr. Ryland's case, he added, did not merely depend on the specific written promise given by Lord Sydenham. It was distin-
  660
  guished by the circumstance that that promise was given in order to induce Mr. Ryland to take a step which on the faith of that promise he did take, and which otherwise he would not have taken. He was induced to resign an office of which he was in actual possession at the time. That the loss to which he had since been exposed has arisen, not merely from disappointed expectations, but from the sacrifice voluntarily made of advantages which he had actually enjoyed, and of which he might have retained possession. Lord John Russell therefore recommended that an inquiry should be instituted at once. Immediately after that Chief Justice Carter was appointed for that purpose, and he reported that there was due to Mr. Ryland, up to the date of his report, a sum of £9,000. There was thus proof of the greatest hardship and injustice having been endured for fourteen years by this gentleman owing to a request and promise made to him by the Lord High Commissioner. From this date the case assumed a different aspect. The sum of £9,000 was at last paid him. But Mr. Ryland said on that point, "You have made one restitution, but you have not given me my right, because but for the step I was induced to take I should at this moment have been in the enjoyment of my retiring allowance of £515 per annum, for it cannot be supposed that I should have undertaken the responsiblity of a far more onerous office unless I had had reason to believe that I should have been remunerated accordingly." Mr. Ryland took the same view as Chief Justice Carter himself did, as to his not being an umpire but a Commissioner acting on certain instructions. He demurred, however, to the basis upon which the report of Chief Justice Carter was founded. Mr. Ryland contended that he ought to have based his calculations upon the full value of the office which he had surrendered. It was perfectly clear, from the fact of Lord Sydenham having continued to Mr. Ryland the full salary from the time of relinquishing the first office to his taking the second, that it was his intention to guarantee the whole amount. It was also perfectly clear that no one would have surrendered an office of £515 a year, without anything to do, to take upon himself a responsible and laborious office of merely equal value for the rest of his days. He would put the case of a private individual coming into the possession of property

  661
  which was subject to a rent charge, and his going to the owner of the rent charge and asking him to surrender it, and offering, in return, to give him a laborious office of the same amount for the rest of his life. Was it probable that such an offer would be accepted? And this was precisely the case of Mr. Ryland. In support of the case of Mr. Ryland, he was prepared to bring before them the evidence of a gentleman who was a witness to the whole of these transactions. He referred to Mr. Murdoch, the colonial secretary to Lord Sydenham, The judgment of that gentleman was perfectly impartial, and had no leaning whatever in favour of Mr. Ryland. That gentleman was prepared to testify that Mr. Ryland's view of the case was perfectly correct, and that the basis upon which Chief Justice Carter made his report, for award it could not be called, was unjust. On the 17th September 1844, he wrote as follows to Mr. Ryland:—
  "I have always thought and felt that yours was a case of peculiar hardship, and I have never failed when I have had an opportunity to say so, and to bear testimony to the correctness of your interpretation of the agreement between yourself and Lord Sydenham."
  He would ask the House whether it ought not to hear the evidence of this impartial gentleman? Mr. Ryland had two claims to be inquired into in the Committee for which he now moved. The first question was as to the proper view to be taken of the original agreement made by Lord Sydenham; and the second question was whether Mr. Ryland was not entitled to interest upon the sum of money adjudicated by Chief Justice Carter from the day when that adjudication was made. Now, if that adjudication had been but just made, it would clearly have included all claims up to that time. There was another reason why this inquiry should be entered upon. Hard language had been used. Mr. Ryland had been called pertinacious, and he had been accused of making inordinate demands. He had been regarded as a kind of burr upon the Colonial Office. But Mr. Ryland was an honest man, and consequently a proud man. He was an injured man, and consequently he had spoken out the opinions that he entertained of the injury which he had received, honestly, frankly, freely. No doubt some of his expressions had not been so polite and agreeable as might be considered proper by the Colonial Office clerks and the petty dignitaries of Downing Street. If his hon.
  662
  Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies expected to put Mr. Ryland off with compliments and condolements the people of Canada would be much disappointed; what they wanted was not compliments and condolements, but an inquiry into his case. He would briefly refer to some of the objections that would probably be raised. It would he urged, no doubt, that the report of Chief Justice Carter had completely settled the matter, and therefore that nothing further could be done. Perhaps it might be said that Mr. Ryland had accepted the registrarship at Quebec as a speculation, and as that speculation had turned out unfortunate, Mr. Ryland was to be pitied, but nothing could be done for him. Perhaps also it might be said that it was purely a colonial question, and that the Imperial Government had nothing to do with it. First of all he demurred to the assumption that the report or award of Chief Justice Carter settled the question. It was no recognition on the part of Mr. Ryland of his claims having been satisfied that he had accepted the £9,000, for Mr. Ryland had been ruined by the injustice to which he had been subjected, and he had taken the £9,000 in order to obtain the means of subsistence. He must also say, that nothing could less deserve to he described as a speculation than this transaction, on the simple ground that no man in his senses would have surrendered a pension of £515 in exchange for an onerous office of the same amount. He also objected to the award on the ground that the contents of the letters which had passed between himself and Lord Sydenham showed what was the real nature of the agreement entered into, and because Mr. Murdoch, who could give the best evidence, had not been called to do so. As to this being a Colonial and not an Imperial question, he could only say, on Mr. Ryland's behalf, that if a Committee were granted to him, whatever might be the verdict of that Committee, he would be content with it. If they should report that it was a Colonial matter, then Mr. Ryland could go hack to the colony, and do his best to obtain redress. Considering all the circumstances of the case he would submit that it was only an act of justice to Mr. Ryland that this Committee should be granted, in order that full inquiry should be made as to his rights. He believed that the Committee would take the same view of the case as himself—the same view that the Duke of Argyll had taken of the matter. The tra-

  663
  dition of the Colonial office might be a tradition of stubborn injustice; but, although Mr. Ryland had no friends in the country beyond those who sympathized with him in consequence of the treatment he had experienced; and although he had not the assistance of the press to put forward his case, he trusted that his reliance in the House of Commons, and the assurance that they would not allow an injury to be inflicted without affording the means of obtaining redress, would not prove misplaced. He hoped that by assenting to this Motion the House would remove the impression which existed in Canada that the British Government in this instance persisted in an act of injustice solely because they felt they were the strong contending against the weak.
  MR. JACKSONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the arrangements under which Mr. G. H. Ryland was induced to resign the patent office of Clerk of the Council in Canada; whether that step was taken under a distinct guarantee from the Imperial Lord High Commissioner, Lord Sydenham; and, if so, whether that guarantee has ever been fully and fairly carried out by the Imperial Government."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he thought the House would agree that his hon. Friend had done full justice to the very respectable gentleman whom he had taken as his client, and whose case he had brought under their consideration. The hon. Member was quite right in anticipating that he was likely to oppose the renewal of this, which was an old colonial question well known in the Colonial Office, well known in the House of Lords, and well known also to the Members of that House. But it stood, he must beg the House to observe, on an entirely different footing now from any which it had before occupied; and he must say that his hon. Friend had shown great gallantry in coming forward to take up the case of Mr. Ryland at the eleventh hour. The fact was, that the case was now in a totally different position from that in which it was at the time when the papers relating to it had been published, or when the Resolutions had been carried by a very narrow majority in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll. A reference had since then been made to an impartial authority, and an award delivered, which was carried out jointly by the Home and Colonial Administration. But, notwithstanding that, that award had been, he was
  664
  going to say, assented to, but at all events accepted, by Mr. Ryland, he had succeeded in persuading his hon. Friend to take up the case and press for further compensation. As regarded the original transaction, he must say, that he viewed it in a different light from that in which it was regarded by his hon. Friend, and from that in which it had been placed before the House. Mr. Ryland was appointed by Lord Durham to the office of clerk of the Executive Council of Lower Canada; and, on the union of the Provinces being effected by Lord Sydenham, the office which he had originally held was absolutely abolished and done away with by an Act of the Imperial Parliament. One Executive Council was appointed for the entire of Canada, and in the interests of Canada Lord Sydenham determined that the now office of clerk to the United Council should be placed on a very different footing. Mr. Ryland, he had every reason to believe, was a gentleman of the highest character, possessing many friends by whom he was highly valued, and upon whose character it was impossible, however the House might decide the question before them, that the slightest slur could be thrown. It was certain, however, that he was a very strong politician of that day, and the change in the constitution of the Canadian Legislature having been made in favour of responsible government, and of the party to which Mr. Ryland was strongly opposed, it was deemed advisable for the interests of Canada solely, that that gentleman should not be reappointed to the office of clerk of the Council. Lord Sydenham accordingly entered into negotiations with Mr. Ryland, who consented very willingly and gladly to accept another office in lieu of it—that of the registrar of the district of Quebec. His hon. Friend had said that no one in his senses would exchange the office which he held for a worse one; but he forgot that one office was to be abolished, and that the other was expected by Mr. Ryland to prove far more lucrative. He did not say that Lord Sydenham shared those expectations; but surely nobody could maintain that the Governor General was bound to guarantee Mr. Ryland against any changes which the Provincial Legislature might see fit to make in the office to which he was so appointed, to an extent beyond the terms of the original guarantee. If Mr. Ryland had retained the office of clerk to the United Council of Canada, he must have

  665
  been content with whatever salary was affixed by the Legislature. The terms of the original guarantee given by Lord Sydenham, were to the effect, that the difference between the salary attaching to any office to which Mr. Ryland might be appointed and the retiring allowance of £515 currency, to which he would be entitled, were his employment in the public service to be wholly discontinued, should be made good to him. Chief Justice Carter, in his award, declared that the construction of this guarantee was perfectly clear and that its operation extended solely to any deficit which might exist beneath £515 in the emoluments of any public office to which he was thereafter to be appointed. It was true, as stated by his hon. Friend, that Mr. Ryland had accepted this guarantee under a distinct protest, that his acceptance of this office must not be taken to bar any future claim he might have; but there were two sides to every bargain, and that protest could not be considered as in any way binding on Lord Sydenham, whose silence with respect to the letter containing that protest, if it needed any explanation, was to be explained by the fact that he was at the time suffering from the unfortunate accident which shortly afterwards caused his death; the letter reached him the very day after the accident had occurred, and during the week or ten days that elapsed before his decease took place no public business, except that of the most pressing and urgent character, was put before him. Thus Chief Justice Carter said, and everybody admitted, that the question at issue must turn on the guarantee. That guarantee however must stand on its own grounds; no authority, provincial or Imperial, could be bound by anything but its strict interpretation. Mr. Ryland's income proved to be much less than he had expected, and he therefore urged his claim—he would not say unjustly or improperly, but certainly with perseverance—both on the Home and Colonial Governments. He applied to successive Governors-General, and to successive Secretaries of State; and, first, the present Earl of Derby, then his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and lastly, Earl Grey, had decided each in stronger terms than the other, that the responsibility of carrying out Lord Sydenham's guarantee rested solely and entirely on the Colonial executive. Lord Metcalf had expressed an opinion in which he entirely concurred, that the arrange-
  666
  ment was one in which the interests of this country were in no way involved; but that it had been entered into solely for political purposes connected with the establishment of a new system of Government in the colony, which ought therefore to be responsible for the claim. It would certainly have been more generous on the part of the Canadian Parliament if they had acknowledged the claim for compensation, but they had always steadily refused to do so. The ease remained in this position down to 1855, when the noble Lord the Member for London, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, did certainly stretch a point, and make on the part of the Imperial Government a very handsome proposal. That proposal was that the whole case should be referred to an impartial arbitrator or commissioner, who should make his award, and that whatever amount he might consider was fairly due to Mr. Ryland, should be liquidated in equal proportions by the Imperial and Colonial Governments. The question then, was as to who should be the commissioner. It was thought unadvisable that he should be a Canadian; it was deemed inexpedient that he should be an Englishman; and therefore it was thought best that he should be some distinguished person with colonial feelings and acquainted with colonial views and interests. And accordingly the noble Lord secured the services of a very eminent person—Chief Justice Carter, of New Brunswick—who in course of time, reported that he had made his award to the effect that a sum of £9,000 currency should be paid to Mr. Ryland. Mr. Ryland, though he had not given a written promise to abide by the award, appeared before the arbitrators and furnished all the information he thought necessary. The Canadian Government, which had made no promise, at first refused to recognize its responsibility, and declined to pay its moiety of the £9,000, although the Homo Government at once paid its portion—namely £4,500. The award, however, had now been carried fully into effect. His right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) used his influence with the Canadian Government in order to induce them to bear their part. He did not succeed; but his successor was more fortunate and induced them to carry out the arrangement. Mr. Ryland had now received the 4,500 from the Canadian Government, and therefore the case stood upon a wholly different footing from what it

  667
  did before the reference was made by the authorities of the Colonial Office. It was under such circumstances and in such a state of things that his hon. Friend had the courage to ask the House of Commons to reopen the whole question. Upon what ground? Could it be on account of the principle upon which Chief Justice Carter's award was founded. The Chief Justice was instructed to confine himself solely to the terms of Lord Sydenham's guarantee, and determine what amount of compensation was due thereupon. His hon. Friend was, however, of opinion that the inquiry ought to range over a much wider field. In that opinion he could not concur, and he should like to know what information his hon. Friend could hope to obtain beyond that already given in the papers before them. He spoke, indeed, of examining Mr. Murdoch, but he was authorized by that gentleman to say that he interpreted the guarantee as indeed any reasonable ordinary man would interpret it, and had no idea of any other construction being put on it than that which had been applied to it. He must say that the Imperial Government in their treatment of Mr. Ryland had gone even beyond the demands of strict justice, and had acted towards him with a generosity which they were not strictly bound to exercise. The award decreed that half the compensation should be paid by the Imperial and half by the Canadian Government. That amount Mr. Ryland had received. The question therefore now practically was, could it be the duty of the Colonial Office to advise the House of Commons to reopen the whole question by the appointment of a Committee. Such a step would imply a doubt, which his noble Friend the Secretary of State did not feel, as to the expediency of the course which had been pursued In his opinion they had no right to impose upon the tax-payers of this country any further contribution towards Mr. Ryland, and he thought it would be unfair towards Canada, as well as towards this country, to consent to such a course. What would the Canadian Government and Parliament say if they heard that the House of Commons had consented, at the wish of the Colonial Office, to reopen the whole question, the Canadian Government having already paid £4,500 as a final settlement? Did Mr. Ryland wish for a Committee for any other purpose than with a view to obtain further compensation—namely, for the purpose of
  668
  restoring his own character, or to get rid of imputations under which he might think he lay? If that were his opinion, then he must say he thought any such course was entirely needless. No tribunal was needed for any such purpose, for not the slightest stain or imputation rested upon the honour of Mr. Ryland. The only hard word that could be used of him was that he had pressed his claim upon the Colonial Office with pertinacity—that he had been a thorn in the side of the Colonial Office—but this could be scarcely said to be a very heavy accusation—such a charge as could only be cleared by the appointment of a Committee. He thought the gentleman might rest perfectly satisfied with the able statement made by his hon. Friend. After a careful study of the whole case, he felt satisfied that no useful or good purposes would result from the appointment of a Committee, and he therefore hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion.
  Question put—
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 235: Majority 215.

RAILWAY COMPANIES ARBITRATION.

  LEAVE.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable railway companies to settle their differences with other companies by arbitration. He was quite ready to answer any questions with respect to the Bill, but should at present confine himself to stating that its object was not to interfere with proceedings in Parliament, or with any law, but merely to enable railway companies to settle their differences with other companies by arbitration, a power which they did not possess under the existing statutes relating to railways.
  Leave given.
  Bill to enable Railway Companies to settle their differences with other Companies by arbitration, ordered to be brought in by Colonel WILSON PATTEN and Mr. DEEDES.

IMPRISONMENT FOR SMALL DEBTS.

  LEAVE.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to limit the power of imprisonment for small debts exercised by the County Court Judges. Having been one of those who had assisted in the formation of County Courts, and who had frequently advocated the

  669
  extension of their jurisdiction, especially in regard to the interests of the poor, he hoped that it would not be supposed that he was actuated by a feeling of hostility, either to those Courts or to the Judges who presided over them with so much learning and ability. He thought that, on the whole, the County Courts had worked extremely well, and with one exception had given general satisfaction. The power of imprisonment for small debts had been the subject of many newspaper articles in the provincial press. It had been presented by grand juries, and had been alluded to in the charges of Her Majesty's Judges. The Society for the Amendment of the Law, under the presidency of Lord Brougham, had given its attention to the matter, and a Committee of that body had made a Report. Under these circumstances, he trusted he should be pardoned if he detained the House by a brief statement of the facts. The power of imprisonment under process of the superior Courts was very different from that exercised by the County Court Judges. In the superior Courts imprisonment operated as a discharge of the debt, but not so in the County Courts. In the superior Courts a creditor had two courses before him. He might take either the goods of the debtor or the debtor's body. If he chose to take the body of the debtor, the law said his debt was satisfied; but not so in the County Courts. In the County Courts the power of imprisonment was a mere punishment which did not operate as a satisfaction of the debt. It was clear from the wording of the Act of Parliament that this was not the intention of the Legislature. The Act enacted—
  "That if the party so summoned shall not attend as required by such summons, and shall not allege a sufficient excuse for not attending, or shall, if attending, refuse to be sworn, or to disclose any of the things aforesaid, or if he shall not make answer touching the same to the satisfaction of such Judge, or if he shall appear to such Judge, either by the examination of the party or by any other evidence, that such party, if a defendant, in incurring the debt or liability which is the subject of the action in which judgment has been obtained, has obtained credit from the plaintiff under false pretences, or by means of fraud or breach of trust, or has wilfully contracted such debt or liability without having had at the same time a reasonable expectation of being able to pay or discharge the same, or shall have made or caused to be made any gift, delivery, or transfer of any property, or shall have charged, removed, or concealed the same, with intent to defraud his creditors or any of them,…. it shall be lawful for such Judge, if he shall think fit, to order that any such party may be com-
  670
  mitted to the common gaol or House of Correction of the county, district, or place in which the party summoned is resident, or to any prison which shall be provided as the prison of the Court, for any period not exceeding forty days."
  A subsequent proviso enacted that imprisonment might be awarded for new fraud or subsequent default. The Legislature appeared to intend, in accordance with the reasonable interpretation of the clause, that, if the debtor did not appear, the Judge should institute some inquiry in his absence as to whether he was able to pay or not, and whether he had contracted the debt by fraud; and if he were able to pay, or if he had contracted the debt by fraud, then, and then only, was he to be punished, on his refusal to pay, by imprisonment. This was the interpretation adopted by most of the County Court Judges. But the House would be surprised to hear that some of them had put a totally different construction upon the Act, and had interpreted it as enabling them to commit a defendant merely for not appearing, and without satisfying themselves that he had contracted the debt by fraud, or that he was able to pay and would not. The consequence was, that sometimes a poor man who was unable to pay his debts, and was prevented from appearing before the Judge either by illness or by poverty—for the loss of one or two days' labour might involve starvation to him—was committed, without inquiry, and without proof that he was able to pay or had contracted the debt by fraud. The process was this—John Smith's name was called. The officer said he did not appear. The Judge thereupon said, "Summons served?" "Yes." "Forty days."—"John Noakes. Does he appear?" "No." "Summons served?" "No." "Thirty days." Many persons were sent to prison exactly in this way. The imprisonment was ordered without inquiry, and it was a mode of administering justice, which he was satisfied the House never intended to establish. From a Return moved for by the late Attorney General, it appeared that in the year 1858 the number of persons committed to prison for not appearing pursuant to summons, or alleging a sufficient excuse for not so appearing, without proof of fraud, was no less than 8,361. This had attracted a good deal of attention. The grand jury of the county of Bedford made a presentment on this subject, and the Chief Baron, than whom a more humane Judge could not be found on the bench, in charging thorn, said—

  671
  "But the point to which special attention is called is the fact that, although there is such a pleasing decrease in the number of criminal offences, there is a very large number of committals on orders from the County Court. The consequence is, that the expenses of the county, and he might add of the country generally, are largely increased. A man who was taken into custody once, was supposed to satisfy the debt he had incurred; and it was seldom the case that he could get out without some liquidation or satisfaction of the debt; but under this statute that is not the case, and the number of committals for debt has very largely increased. The expense of these debtors in this county averaged, he understood, 10 s. 6d. per week. The Judge of the County Court has no power to commit beyond a certain number of days; but he has this power, that when the debtor comes out and does not pay the debt, he can again commit him; and there is one example of a debtor who was first committed in November, 1856, and he has been committed no less than eight times for the same debt. Five times he was committed for periods of thirty days, and three times he has been committed for periods of forty days. During the whole time of his imprisonment the county has paid 10 s. 6d. a week for his support, and every time he has been taken up the Treasury has had to pay for his apprehension. He (the Chief Baron) believed that the county had better have paid this man's debt ten times over, and the Treasury had better have paid it twice over than that such a process of imprisoning and paying out of the public funds should have gone on. It really is impossible to contemplate such a state of things with any degree of satisfaction. The debtor referred to is upwards of 60 years of ago, it appears, and he has been altogether thirty weeks in prison for this debt. A man might have committed a felony and had a much smaller imprisonment. The debt and costs originally amounted to £2 5s.; the amount has gradually increased from that sum in November, 1856, to £4 14 s. 6d. in January, 1859, when he was committed, one would hope for the last time, for forty days. But he may be committed again, and there seems no end to it. He found that there were many others who had been committed over and over again. The number of persons committed from the County Court on these small debts had increased considerably; and he found that in the year ending last Michaelmas there were no fewer than eighty-six males and thirty-one females. Above 100 persons were so committed for debts and costs which amounted altogether to £274 9s. 9d., the average of that being little more than £2 for each person's debt."
  If this man, whose debt had been originally only £2 5s., had committed a felony he would have been sentenced to a much shorter term of imprisonment. He might add, however, that the Judge of the County Court thus referred to by the Lord Chief Baron had taken the opportunity of replying, and giving him a Roland for an Oliver, saying that the Chief Baron could have had very little to do when he made so many irrelevant remarks; and to show his independence, when the old man came out, he recommitted him for the ninth time
  672
  for forty days. But the learned Lord Chief Baron was not fully informed of the magnitude of the evil, for he (Mr. Collier) found that one County Court Judge in 1857 committed 546 persons, and another no less than 749 persons in the same year. These committals were increasing in number, so that it was confidently expected the committals for the present year would exceed by 2,000 those of the year before. He found also that there was a great discrepancy in the practice of the Judges. While one Judge had committed no less than 749 defendants in a year for non-appearance, another had committed only 183, although the latter had a greater number of plaints by no less than 3,004. Again, another Judge who had no less than 14,293 plaints before him had only committed 85 persons in the course of the year. It seemed to him (Mr. Collier), then, that as the Chief Baron remarked, this was a state of things which could not be contemplated with any degree of satisfaction. He did not desire to abolish this power of imprisonment, because he thought that in many cases it would have a wholesome operation. He was desirous that the County Court Judges should have power to make men pay their debts; and that to this end the power of imprisonment might be necessary. But what he wished was leave to introduce a Bill to confine their imprisonment jurisdiction to the cases which he thought were originally contemplated by the Legislature; that no Judge should imprison a man merely for non-appearance, or without being satisfied that he had contracted his debt by fraud, or that he had the means of paying. He contended that the proper explanation of the clause was, that in the defendant's absence the Judge should satisfy himself on these points by other means; and this was the interpretation put upon it by some of the most learned of the Judges. One other point which he wanted to secure was this. There should be some limited period of imprisonment. If a man committed a felony he was imprisoned for a determined number of months; but the law, as interpreted by some of the County Court Judges, gave no limit to imprisonment for debt. If the old man mentioned by the Chief Baron had picked his neighbour's pocket of property to the value of £2, he would probably have been imprisoned for two or three months; but because he did not pay a debt of that amount he had been imprisoned for four times that period. The limit which he

  673
  would propose was this—that no defendant should be committed for more than twice forty days. [Mr. MALINS: Too long.] He was glad to hear that observation of his hon. and learned Friend as his own opinion inclined the same way, but still this would not be a quarter of the time this poor old man had already been imprisoned. He should propose that term—subject, of course, to such modifications as the House approved. In conclusion, he had to thank the House for the patience with which they had listened to him, and to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He considered the House was very much indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth for the manne in which he had brought the subject forward. For himself, the practice of the County Courts being out of his beat, unless he had heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement he could not have believed that such things were going on in this country. It was ore of the misfortunes of the County Courts that the business was carried on without the controlling check of a bar. It was carried on in the country, and it was therefore desirable that the proceedings should be most vigilantly watched. It did excite his astonishment that upwards of 700 persons should have been committed by one Judge in one year for non-appearance, caused generally by poverty or ignorance. If the proposed Bill passed into law it would be a great public advantage, although for his part he wont even farther, and said that the whole power of imprisonment ought to be most carefully guarded. In 1838 he rejoiced at the measures by which the abolition of arrest on mesne process was effected. Up to that time a creditor, merely on an affidavit of a £20 debt, could seize the body of the debtor; and he remembered hearing Gentlemen, many of them still living, argue that if this power were abolished, England's commercial greatness would be at an end. Now, no man would venture to point out a single mischief that had arisen from that abolition of arrest on mesne process. He contended that the abolition had been productive of signal benefit; and he desired to see the day when imprisonment for debt should be abolished altogether. Two courses were now open to a judgment creditor in the superior courts. Either he could issue a fi. fa. against the goods of his debtor, or a writ of capias by which to take his per-
  674
  son. If he took the goods he could not also seize the person, and if he seized the person, and afterwards let him out of custody, the debt was discharged. There was no previous arrest, unless the creditor swore that the debtor was about to leave the country. And this principle he would like to see extended to all cases. A debtor should not be seized by a creditor as a matter of right; he should only be imprisoned on special application to a Judge. To give a creditor power to seize all the property the debtor had was quite sufficient. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Collier) proposed to give to the County Court Judge power of awarding eighty days' imprisonment. That was not a power that he (Mr. Malins) was disposed to give. He would much rather restrict this power of imprisonment, and with regard to the power of imprisonment for non-appearance, take it away altogether.
  CAPTAIN STUARTsaid, he also thanked the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth for introducing the Bill, as he could bear testimony to the hardships which were inflicted under the present system. In his own county many poor girls and women were induced to incur debts with travelling dealers, and some time after were summoned, and failing to appear were at once committed to prison. As a magistrate he could say that great expense was thrown upon counties by the present system.
  MR. B. COCHRANEsaid, his only fear was that this Bill would be totally inadequate to meet the fearful tyranny which had just been disclosed to the House. He could scarcely believe that 8,000 persons had been committed to prison in one year for non-appearance. It was true that in those cases the Judge ostensibly committed for contempt of Court, but then everything was construed into a contempt. If a debtor did not appear, it was contempt of Court; if he could not pay the instalments which the Judge had fixed, that also was contempt of Court. Years ago he brought before that House the case of a man committed from a County Court, who was treated as a felon, and had his head shaved, in which condition he had to return to society on his liberation, after an imprisonment of three weeks. Of all tyrannies a legalized tyranny was the worst. It appeared to him that it would be better to introduce a Bill which would convey more strongly than the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman the disapprobation which they must all feel of

  675
  such oppression as that which he had denounced.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was prepared heartily to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for having brought that subject under the consideration of the House. He wished, however, to draw his attention to a fact which seemed to have escaped, not only his notice, but also that of the other hon. Member who had spoken. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked of "penal imprisonment;" but he had not informed the House that those parties were not really treated as debtors, but subjected to certain strict regulations issued by the Secretary of State, and that although they were not put to hard labour, they were exposed to special hardships in their diet and in other details of their treatment. The fact was, that these people were considered as fraudulent debtors. But there was every reason to doubt whether their cases were investigated at sufficient length to enable a Judge to decide whether or not their liabilities had been fraudulently contracted. In many cases the families of the unfortunate persons who suffered under this state of the law were maintained by the parish, while the prisoners themselves were maintained out of the county rates during their imprisonment; so that the punishment was merely vindictive. Whenever they should get into Committee, they would have an opportunity of considering all the details involved in the measure.
  MR. GEORGE CLIVEsaid, that the Government had no objection to the introduction of the Bill. On the contrary, they were of opinion that it was the duty of the Legislature to attempt to devise some remedy for the evils to which his hon. and learned Friend had directed their attention. But at the same time he must add that he did not believe that the House and those learned Gentlemen who were in the habit of commenting on the merits of the County Court Judges generally possessed that practical acquaintance with their proceedings which would entitle them to speak authoritatively upon such a subject. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), that it was very much a question whether or not they should ever subject parties to imprisonment for debt. That was a point which was fairly open for consideration. But he rose principally for the purpose of explaining what was the mode of proceeding adopted by the County Court Judges
  676
  in matters of that description; and he could state that he spoke upon the subject from a personal experience as one of those Judges, in one of the most populous districts in London, during a period of several years. His practice, and that of all the gentlemen who acted as County Court Judges in the London district, was very much of the nature of that to which the hon. and learned Gentlemen had awarded some praise; but he must say that it would be perfectly impossible to send an officer to search for a man in a district of twelve or fourteen miles, or to pursue a person in the metropolis, who perhaps had gone out of the way purposely to avoid the payment of his debt. As to the rapidity of the trials, it must be recollected that in nine cases out of ten the defendant admitted the debt; there was, consequently, no time required for that. Then, generally speaking, they had their own time for paying; the creditors were almost invariably very mild, both as to time and the amount of the instalments. If the debtor failed to pay, the usual thing was to take out a summons to show cause why he did not. Very often the debtor did not attend, because he did not wish to be cross-examined as to his means of paying. When that was the case, the creditor, whether he was hard, or dishonest, or otherwise, said that the debtor could pay; and further inquiry was impossible on the part of the Judge, for there was no one present of whom he could inquire. It might, however, be desirable to take away from the Judges this power of imprisonment altogether. In speaking of the number of imprisonments, it ought not to be assumed that all who were committed had been in prison, for the number was immense, in which payment was made rather than go to prison. Indeed, he had known frequent instances of debtors waiting outside the Court, unknown to the officer, until they had heard that they were committed, and then they would of their own accord come in and pay the debt. It must be admitted, that if there was no power of imprisonment, the debtor might set the Court at defiance.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, it appeared from the Returns that the number of persons committed for non-appearance was 8,361, while the number of those committed for fraud, alleged and proved, was only sixty-nine.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, he had to thank the House for the reception given to his

  677
  measure. The only objection made to it was that it did not go far enough, but that was a defect which might easily be remedied in Committee.
  Leave given.
  Bill limiting the power of Imprisonment for small Debts exercised by the County Court Judges, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLLIER, Mr. MALINS, and Mr. ATHERTON.

ARMY REGIMENTAL QUARTERMASTERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, that in the notice paper there appeared in his name the following notice of Motion:—
  "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give direction that the benefits conferred by the Royal Warrant of the 17th day of December, 1855, upon Regimental Quartermasters retiring subsequent to the date of the declaration of war with Russia be extended, so far only as the honorary rank of captain is concerned, to those regimental Quartermasters who completed the period of service specified in the Warrant, but who had retired previous to that date."
  The veteran officers in whose interest he had given notice of that Motion were advanced in age, being some seventy-five years old, and were limited in number, not exceeding thirty-nine. These men had come, not from that class, which it was the fashion to call "the Upper Ten Thousand," but had sprung from the people, who made the bone and sinew of the service—namely, the rank and file of the British army. They had enlisted as privates, and had raised themselves to the rank of commissioned officers entirely by their own merit. He would not occupy the time of the House by pointing out the various services which these men had performed, but he would give a couple of instances to show what was the nature of their merit:—Quartermaster Samuel Goddard fought with distinction at the battle of Waterloo and led the forlorn hope at the storming of Bhurtpore; Quartermaster M'Clellan, of the 10th Hussars, was publicly thanked for his extraordinary valour by general officers, no less than five times on five separate fields of battle. If such a decoration had existed at the time there was no doubt but that the services of these gallant men would have fully entitled them to the Victoria Cross. The House would be happy to hear that since he had placed
  678
  his Motion on the paper the military authorities had taken the subject into their favourable consideration, and had promoted these old soldiers. One of the last acts of his right hon. and gallant Friend the late Secretary for War was to make arrangements for this purpose. A more gracious act could not be performed before leaving office, and he was rejoiced to find that the right hon. Gentleman who succeeded as Secretary of War carried out the intention of his predecessor. He had received a letter from Mr. (now Captain) Goddard, written before he was aware of his promotion, in which he expressed his sense of the disposition evinced both by General Peel and the present Secretary for War (Mr. Sidney Herbert) to deal considerately with the representations made to them on this subject, and especially to improve the position of officers who had risen from the ranks. On behalf of the officers he had mentioned he begged to return their grateful acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred.
  MR. SPEAKERinquired whether the hon. and gallant Member had not a Motion to submit to the House.
  CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONreplied that he had no Motion to make.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was irregular on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, and contrary to the rules of the House to make a speech and not to conclude with a Motion.

VOLUNTEER CORPS.

  ADDRESS MOVED FOR.
  MR. PALKsaid, that on rising to move an Address to Her Majesty with reference to the arms, accoutrements, and ammunition to be furnished to volunteer rifle corps, he wished to state that he had received communications from various parts of the country, from which it was evident that the statements made by the Government with regard to their intentions on this subject had occasioned universal dismay and disappointment. The circular issued by his right hon. and gallant Friend below him (General Peel) had been very popular, and the utmost readiness was evinced in rallying to the call for Volunteer Corps, because it was felt that that circular recognized the right of Englishmen to arm and organize themselves for the defence of their country—a right which was recognized in all foreign nations, and even enforced in some. The desire to adopt this course was not attri-

  679
  butable to anything that was taking place abroad, but to the knowledge that the shores of this country were entirely open to attack, and that many of the forts maintained during the last war had in the long interval of peace been allowed to fall into a state of complete decay. Since the last great European war great convulsions had occurred in foreign countries, and great changes among the dynasties of the Continent, but amid all the changes which had taken place, one object had ever been foremost in the minds of the French Government—namely, the increase of the French navy, and the completion of those works which were commenced by the First Napoleon, and which were intended as means of attack upon this country. During this period, however, although great preparations had been made by other States, England had been totally quiescent. The shores of Russia were bristling with cannon, and were fortified with the greatest care, while her harbours were filled with steamers and gunboats; but England had altogether abstained from fortifying her coasts. Since the last war the introduction of steam, as applied to shipping, had caused ports which were previously deemed almost inaccessible by sailing ships to be most vulnerable, and to be the most likely to he assailed by any foe menacing these shores. He might instance the port of Dartmouth, the entrance to which was so narrow that during the late war it was supposed to be almost secure from attack by sailing ships; but the introduction of steam had rendered access to the port quite easy, and on more than one occasion French steamers had left the French coast and anchored in the harbour during the course of the same night, while it was well known that French ships had constantly been taking soundings on the coast. The plan of the Government seemed to be to encourage the formation of artillery companies in those towns where there were already fortifications and guns. This proposal, however, did not meet the cases to which he was referring. There might be some guns at Dartmouth, but he believed they were likely to be much more dangerous to those who fired them than to those at whom they were aimed. Dartmouth and many other places on our coasts, were, from their natural positions, peculiarly susceptible of defence, and if batteries were erected, and artillery volunteer corps were raised in their neighbourhoods, they might, in case of necessity, be defended by these volunteers until the suc-
  680
  cour of regular troops could be obtained. He believed that a force of this description, especially with the aid of volunteer rifle corps, would render the landing of any hostile force most difficult and hazardous. He thought, however, that the plan of the Government was extremely unsatisfactory. They proposed that twenty-five rifles should, under certain conditions, be supplied to every 100 men. One of these was that there should be a proper range for practice, while another was that there should be a proper place for the custody of the arms; another that there should be a military inspection of each corps; and another that its rules should be subject to the approval of the Secretary for War. He should be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed that the supply of arms should be limited to twenty-five for every 100 men enrolled, or whether the remainder of the corps were to be allowed to provide arms for themselves. He also wished to know if volunteers were allowed to provide arms for themselves, how those arms were to be obtained. He was informed that all the manufacturers of arms in Birmingham and London, the only places besides Enfield, where the proper weapons could be obtained, were under contract to supply arms to the Government, 2,500 rifles a week being furnished from Birmingham, and l,200 from London. He believed that unless greater facilities were afforded for obtaining arms the establishment of rifle corps would be materially interfered with. Considerable doubt existed as to whether the Government intended that the volunteers should be organized in regiments or in separate companies, and he had received a copy of resolutions which had been forwarded to the Secretary of State for War by the Bristol Volunteer Rifle Corps, expressing their regret at the statements made on this and other points by the Government. He also held in his hand a letter from an officer who had been selected as major of one of these corps, and who stated that he could hardly suppose that the regulation as to forming companies and not regiments was intended to apply to large towns. This opened a very wide question. To what extent did the Government mean to go in its attempt to raise volunteer corps? Were they to accept the services of every corps irrespective of locality, which presented itself. If so, even on the moderate percentage of twenty-five rifles to every 100 men they must be

  681
  prepared for a large outlay upon arms and equipments. On the other hand, if they adhered to the view which seemed generally adopted by the late Government, that the volunteer rifle corps should be at first formed as accessaries to the regular service, they could not do better than to organize them in companies, because it would be necessary on the coast, where they had not large towns like Bristol, Birmingham, and Manchester, to trust to the villages, and it would be much easier to get a company together in a district than to march men from great distances to form portions of other corps. The country had a right to demand that in all circumstances its shores should be rendered safe from insultor attack. Some said there was no danger abroad, and they could rot account for this constant fear of invasion, and the other night the gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) was twitted when advocating the increase of the navy by another hon. Member, for his constant fear of invasion; but on the throne of France there was a ruler, who, if he had kept faith with us, had broken it with his subjects; who, if he had been true to us, had been false to that republic which he had sworn to maintain. Not many months ago, too, the language of the French colonels had raised a storm of indignation; nor was it long since they had been informed that the preparations then making by the Emperor of the French were intended merely to replace the losses occasioned by the war in the Crimea, whereas it now appeared that they were sufficient to enable him to engage in a European war. Without disputing, then, the Emperor's good feeling towards this country, but looking to all the contingencies of the case, and having regard to the power which that great ruler wielded—having regard, above all, to his acts rather than to his words—we might entertain more confidence in the maintenance of peace if our population were duly organized and properly drilled to repel foreign attacks, and if greater attention were paid to the fortification of those portions of our coast which circumstances had rendered more vulnerable than they used to be. He would therefore conclude by moving—
  "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the necessary arms, accoutrements, and ammunition be furnished to Volunteer Rifle Corps, under the provisions of the Act 44th Geo. III., c. 54, as
  682
  well as to Artillery Corps in maritime towns, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
  CAPTAIN JERVIS, in seconding the Motion, observed that if the rule laid down by the Government were adhered to, the small arms could only be supplied to the extent of a few thousand of second-rate guns, which were in the stores of the contractors, and were sold by the gun makers at £5, probably not being worth £2. It was, of course, impossible to give as good a supply as could be wished, but he understood that his hon. Friend only wished to inquire into the whole subject. His object was also to ascertain from the Government whether, when the corps had been formed and drilled, they would be supplied with arms to the extent of 100 rifles to each company, so that they might be ready to act in case of invasion. The assembling of men to shoot at targets was merely a preliminary matter; the great point was to have them trained and prepared for actual warfare. As to the clothing of the men, that was a point of some importance. If the men were ever to be rendered available, they must have suitable clothing. A great many persons had contended that the proper attire consisted of an ordinary shooting-coat and a wide-awake hat; but they seemed to forget that an important point was to dress the riflemen in such a way that in case of their being taken they would be treated as prisoners of war, and not merely as peasants taken in a hostile country with arms in their hands, and who by the rules of war were subject to be hanged like so many dogs. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen would perhaps accept the authority of the late Duke of Wellington on that subject. On the entry of the British troops into France in 1814, there was some rising against them of the peasantry, and in a despatch to Marshal Beresford, the Duke said, "If I have to complain of this or other villages again, I will treat them as the French treated the peasantry in Spain. I will totally destroy the villages and hang all the peasants in arms." If the Duke of Wellington would do that for the protection of his soldiers the House need not expect that a French force would act more leniently in this country. It was, therefore, not a mere matter of fancy but an important point so to clothe the Rifle Corps that they should be recognized as prisoners of war in case of any of them being captured. He hoped that, in a matter requiring such serious consideration as the present, the

  683
  Government would make some statement of what was in contemplation with reference to the more efficient drill and discipline of the Volunteer Corps.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  MR. HENRY BERKELEYsaid, that the House was indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite for bringing this matter forward. The question was one that deserved the most serious consideration, and one on which the House ought to express an opinion. There could be no doubt that England was less prepared to resist an attack in case of invasion than any other country in the civilized world. The question of preparation simply amounted to this:—If they were prepared, they had men sufficient, and they only required to be furnished with that which constituted courage, namely, discipline; for, in the event of invasion, without discipline the inhabitants of a country, however individually brave, would become a frightened rabble. This was an opinion which every military-man in the House would endorse. As it appeared to him, both the present and the late Government had been wrong in their view of this question. The first occasion on which this subject had been brought before the Secretary for War was by the people of Bristol, who waited on Lord Panmure for leave to form a rifle corps, but Lord Panmure would have nothing to do with volunteer corps. He himself had subsequently laid an address before his right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (General Peel) in which the mayor, corporation, and people of Bristol desired permission to arm. First of all this had been denied to them, but when it appeared that the desire was general throughout the country permission was granted to form a corps, which was accordingly done. His opinion, not being that of a military man, was probably not worth much, but he gave the preference to the formation of companies over regiments. But he certainly did not consider, however, that the proper way to form a regiment was to commence with the staff and band; what was required was that men should be drilled to the practice of the rifle, and that in case of emergency they should be disciplined to a certain extent, but not disciplined with all that paraphernalia and pipe-clay which is deemed necessary at the Horse Guards. From time immemorial it had frequently been the fact that the undisciplined adherents of an army had done more execution than the army itself. In the American war the battles of Bunker's
  684
  Hill and Lexington had both been won by irregulars; for though Bunker's Hill was claimed by us as a victory, still it led to future disasters in teaching the Americans their own powers of fighting. In those days it was supposed that no soldier who was not well set up with an enormous stock, pig-tail, and pipe-clay to any extent could be of any service in an action; and it was well known that the Americans after shooting those extraordinary looking objects from the works of Bunker's Hill actually went to view their corpses as curiosities. The British authorities then said it was all very well for the Americans to fight with their rifles, but let our soldiers come at them with the bayonet, and they would soon rout them; and great slaughter did take place when they came up to them, but that was simply because the Americans had no bayonets. At Lundy's Lane the Americans showed themselves well able to use that arm. But to show how the pipe-clay system was invariably adopted by all the authorities, when the Americans got up an army they did not arm them with the rifle but with the musket, and the only place in which the superiority of the rifle was tested was at the battle of New Orleans, by an American irregular force, where the slaughter was so extreme that a rifleman might seem to have been shooting deer in some small park. During the French war, in which Napoleon I. contemplated the invasion of this country, the volunteer was armed and clothed by the Government, and he conceived that a similar course should now be adopted. There were sufficient reasons for such a measure. In the first place, the arms, if supplied to the volunteers, would be the property of the Government, and would not belong to the men, which he held to be objectionable. In the second place, if they allowed or made it incumbent upon the volunteers to clothe and arm themselves, they would exclude from that force the very best men in the country, the working classes, and confine the movement entirely to the middle classes, for no working man could afford to purchase his uniform or his weapon. Of the two propositions which had been made he preferred that of the late Government, which was to let the members of these corps arm and clothe themselves. But the idea of giving them a per centage of arms was, he thought, to cast great discouragement on the movement. For, did the House for one instant believe that 25 out of every

  685
  100 men would meet for drill, and that the remaining 75 would walk up and down with their hands in their pockets? These men naturally would obtain arms also, and then they would have a magpie set of troops got together—half-armed,—each man his own master, and all discontented with the Government. He hoped that the Government would take this question in hand, and that if the volunteers were to be called out, the movement would emanate from the Executive. If arms and clothes were not to be given, then he hoped all reasonable encouragement would be afforded to the middle classes—as in that case to obtain the assistance of the working classes would be hopeless. Above all, he thought his hon. Friend could not be too cautious in recommending that suitable practice grounds should be secured—so that the public might not be liable to the amateur practice of those gentlemen—because he could speak from authority in stating that at the present moment it was becoming rather dangerous. Only two days ago he had received a letter from Bristol in which it was stated that a gentleman and two ladies were out walking, when something whizzed by just over their heads. One of the ladies said "Is it not rather too early for a cockchafer?" when, just at the moment, another passed by and struck against the wall opposite. The gentleman went to the spot, took out his knife, and bad the satisfaction of digging out from the wall a Minié bullet. They had another very fine volunteer force in those old friends of his, the yeomanry. That body consisted of very fine men, but they were very ill-disciplined. He believed that in certain parts of the country attempts were being made to bring that force into something like better order; and here he believed rifles might be introduced with very good effect. Some such thing had already taken place in Kent and in Devonshire, and he believed if the yeomanry throughout the country were armed with the rifle, particularly with Terry's breech-loading carbine introduced by the late Government, and trained as the Cape Mounted Riflemen were, to exercise on foot as well as on horseback—he believed that from the rapidity with which their movements could be accomplished and directed to any point, they would be an invaluable force for the defence of the country. As he had always given his opinion boldly with regard to the yeomanry, he thought it only
  686
  fair to make this statement with equal candour. He had never failed to do justice to them as men who would do their work if they knew how—and he only hoped that hon. Members who belonged to that force would teach it to them.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that having had the experience of some twenty-five years in Her Majesty's service, he rose to express his sincere hope that both the House and the Government would be very cautious how they gave encouragement to the formation of these rifle corps. He was not one of those who dreaded invasion. He had no fears that any one, even the Emperor of the French, would be such an idiot as to attempt a descent upon our shores. But he feared that unless we exorcised very great discretion we might find ourselves drifted into the war now raging in Europe; and certainly he would oppose no reasonable vote of money that was demanded for the improvement of our forces, and especially for the increase and efficiency of our navy. After the navy came our army, which required a great deal of improvement; and then came the militia, on which a considerable sum of money was expended, and which might be rendered much more efficient than they had hitherto made it. They ought therefore to be careful lest by giving encouragement to volunteers they did not abstract that portion of the population more immediately available for the militia. For this reason he thought that every sum of money taken from other sources of defence to form rifle corps was just so much money thrown away. If they were to be at any expense at all with these rifle corps, it should be in serving out the ammunition at cost price, in order that they might be obliged to keep their weapons all at the same bore. He thought he gleaned from the observations of the Secretary of State for War the other night that he was not quite sure that it would be desirable to give too much encouragement to those rifle corps. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if he did not support the rifle corps movement he would be accused of running counter to the feeling of loyalty in that respect displayed in the country. But he (Colonel Dickson) hoped no Government would allow themselves to be influenced by a feeling such as that. He trusted the Government in the course they might take on this question would confine themselves to the formation of artillery corps in maritime towns, which would be a valuable

  687
  means of defence, and that they would not give countenance to what he apprehended would prove a very useless force.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, there could be no doubt that the shores of this country in many parts were very inadequately defended, and that it might be possible for an invasion suddenly to be made where no immediate force could be brought to bear in repelling the attack; but it did not follow that a volunteer rifle corps would be the force best calculated to resist it. If we gave encouragement to them we could not do so under the belief that they would be adequate in themselves to afford all the requisite protection. He agreed that it was extremely doubtful whether the large amount of public money necessary for clothing and arming those rifle corps might not be more judiciously spent. He thought it right in the case of all maritime towns that power should be taken for establishing guns and something like a volunteer maritime artillery for an immediate purpose; but in doing that we ought to take especial care that we did not entirely rely on such a force. Steps should betaken to ensure the concentration of an adequate force on particular points of the coasts in case of a sudden emergency by means of railways and other means of rapid communication, and on which more reliance might be placed than on rifle corps. He found the greatest diversity of opinion prevailing with respect to those corps, and that diversity appeared also to obtain in that House. At the same time it could not be doubted that something must be done in the matter. It was clear at the present time the Government could not supply a sufficient store of arms for all the corps formed and forming throughout the country; and he thought all that was reasonable and necessary for the Government to do was to furnish adequate materials simply for practice. The subject, however, required to be sifted, and he trusted that soon they would be enabled to arrive at some definite conclusion.
  MR. W. E. DUNCOMBEsaid, he could not concur either with the noble Lord who had just sat down or with the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick (Colonel Dickson). It was an indisputable fact that from one end of the country to the other extreme anxiety was shown for the establishment of additional means of defence. In proof of that he might mention that at a meeting held recently in the division of the county (North Yorkshire)
  688
  which he had the honour to represent, it was stated that in the small country towns and villages large numbers of volunteers had already been enrolled. He thought, however, that the rules introduced in reference to the organization of Volunteer Corps in large cities would not apply to the country districts. He felt convinced both the present and the late Secretary of State for War were anxious to see these Volunteer Corps placed upon a wise, safe, and efficient system; but he would suggest that it would not be desirable, if it were even possible, to organize a larger force than companies in the country districts. There was a great disinclination on the part of men in those districts, willing to join a Volunteer Corps, to leave their avocations and go any great distance from home for purposes of practice or drill; and he would suggest that in rural districts companies alone should be formed in each petty sessional division, and that more than one practice ground should be allowed to each company, as was contemplated in the part of the country with which he was more immediately connected. There could be no doubt that the navy was the first line of defence of the country, but it possibly might be broken through on some dark night, and considerable mischief might be created by the landing of a body of troops. He felt convinced, from the spirit he had seen displayed, that the country was anxious to support the Government in the organization of Volunteer Rifle Corps, for the reason that the people had not sufficient confidence in the defensive power of the kingdom, and that they considered it was not such as the large sums of money voted every year for the express purpose ought to secure.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, that the difficulty in dealing with the Rifle Volunteer Corps arose from the uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government. Neither the late nor the present Government had stated whether the proposed force was to assume a permanent character. It was supposed by the public that the Rifle Corps were only recognized for a temporary purpose, and to meet a threatened invasion. Now, he was not one of those who believed that the Emperor of the French meditated an invasion of this country. He had heard with great pain and regret the remarks made in "another place" upon a friendly and neighbouring Power. He had no hesitation in saying that the Emperor of the French had behaved with perfect

  689
  fidelity and honour to this country; but a portion of the English press had thought fit to indulge in animadversion, invective, and abuse with regard to the Emperor, which ill became the press of a free country in speaking of a friendly Power. If these writers wished to be on terms of peace and amity with France they ought to abstain from the use of such language. During the last autumn he had travelled through a great part of France by Dijon and Avignon towards the Mediterranean. He had taken a great deal of pains to learn the sentiments of the people of France towards this country, and he found an extreme desire to cultivate the most friendly relations with this country, but they complained greatly of the language of a portion of the English press. It was impossible that the Rifle Corps should be an effective force without large assistance from the Government. The uniform might be found by individuals, but the arms and ammunition ought to be supplied by the Government. To supply only 25 per cent with rifles was a great mistake, because if an invasion should take place the whole country must be supplied. There was no other country with 30,000,000 of people which relied for its military protection upon 30,000 soldiers. The late Secretary for War said that the Government did not possess a sufficient number of rifles to justify their distribution to the Volunteer Corps. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, said that they were coming in at the rate of 1,500 per week instead of 1,000, which had formerly been the rate of supply. He trusted the Government would look at the subject boldly, earnestly and patriotically, and not with reference to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer might suggest in the way of saving a few pounds, for he was quite sure the British public would cheerfully pay any amount of money for their protection, so long as it was economically and wisely laid out.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that as he had been appealed to by the hon. Gentleman, perhaps the House would permit him to state the views of the late Government on this subject. The circular issued by them did not arise from any fear of invasion on their part, but solely in consequence of the numerous and urgent applications which were made to them for permission to form rifle corps, on the express understanding that they were to be of no expense to the country. The first application was from
  690
  Bristol, and no sooner was that granted, and the Government circular issued, than numerous applications were made to them to supply rifles. Those applications were refused on two grounds; in the first place, because there were not rifles enough in store to justify the Government in spreading them all over the country. The number of rifles then in store was 170,000, out of which the disembodied militia were to be furnished. The late Government made contracts for the supply of every rifle that could be produced in this country for the next two years. They then turned to Belgium, but before entering into contracts with the manufacturers of that country they applied to the Belgian Government to know whether their contracts with Belgian manufactures were likely to be interfered with, and whether there was any probability that the rifles would not be supplied. The Belgian Government replied that there was no probability of such an event, and contracts were then made with Belgian manufacturers. Contracts were now made for every arm that could be supplied in this country, and the weekly supply had been increased from 1,000 to 1,500 in the manufactory at Enfield, and yet after supplying the whole of the regular army and the militia there would only be 300,000 rifles in store at the end of two years. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) that if the Government gave the Volunteer Rifle Corps 25 per cent of rifles for drill and practice it would be quite sufficient. The companies would only have one musketry instructor at a time, and 25 per cent would be quite enough for rifle practice and drill. They must boar in mind that there was a great deal for riflemen to learn, besides the mere practice with the rifle. Unless, for example, they learnt the bugle sounds and were acquainted with all the drill and practice of riflemen they would be found perfectly useless as soldiers. He was aware that there was an opinion that this drill was not a difficult one, but he himself had been three years in a rifle regiment, and also in a light infantry regiment, the 71st, and he could assure the House that the rifle corps required more drill than any other. He hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) would adhere to his determination that the volunteers should be raised in companies instead of larger bodies, for they would not then require the degree of drill which would otherwise be neces-

  691
  sary and make it irkesome to the volunteer, and such a plan would be much more advantageous. It had been the intention of the late Government to have a drilled but not an armed population; but if it should be necessary to call them out, then to supply them with everything needful. Meanwhile, however, it should, as far as possible, be a voluntary movement. Those who provided themselves with arms and accoutrements were not likely to join the militia or the regular forces, and it was very important that the recruiting for those services should not be interfered with. The hon. Gentleman had represented the number of troops in this country as much smaller than was actually the case. The number of troops of one kind or other in. this country, including militia, was, when he left office, about 110,000; there was also a larger force of artillery than at any former time, and he believed it was in a most efficient state. It was most important to encourage the proposed Volunteer Artillery Corps. We had 3,600 guns in position, requiring ten men to work each gun, or 36,000. This being so, it was useless to talk about erecting more fortifications, for they required garrisons and troops which we had not got. The most efficient means of protecting our coast was, perhaps, by movable batteries, of which fifteen were already complete, and ten more ordered, so that here would be 150 movable guns which might be placed on any part of the coast, and when we had got these batteries composed of Armstrong guns, they would form the best possible defence which the country could have. Every effort should be used to induce the inhabitants of seaport towns to join these artillery corps; they should he supplied with ammunition and guns, and it might be even expedient to pay them for their services when engaged. If, however, these rifle volunteers generally were supplied with arms and ammunition, many would come forward and join them who would fire away a great deal of ammunition, and then perhaps retire from the corps altogether; for the Government, it should be recollected, had no hold upon them whatever. With regard to our coast defences, there were now in course of construction fortifications which would cost £2,000,000, and, including those that were contemplated, £4,000,000 would be spent in this way. Now, he said, on bringing with the Estimates that the House would do well to consider whether these were ne-
  692
  cessary or not. If they were, it was not right to vote the money in driblets, and to wait for their completion at their present slow rate of progress. Not that he feared invasion, and he believed nothing had ever fallen from him implying that he had any such dread; but at the same time they ought always to be prepared. At the present moment, he thought it hardly possible to decide what fortifications were necessary until the effect of rifled guns upon masonry and earth-works had been fully ascertained, and his belief was, that fortifications were now being built which might prove of very little service. As far as recent experiments had gone, the effect of rifled guns was less upon earthworks than upon solid masonry. It was obvious also, that fortifications constructed to meet a range of 4,000 yards would be almost useless against artillery with a longer range. It was proper, therefore, to decide what fortifications were necessary, and then to complete them as soon as possible. He believed that these volunteer rifle corps might be made of the greatest possible service. If, however, the Government interfered too much, they would probably defeat their own object. The various corps should be left to appoint their own hours of drill, and to lay down their own rules as far as possible; Government interference would only be likely to disgust them, and they would much prefer to be left to themselves.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he quite agreed that nothing was less becoming to a great country like England than periodic or chronic panics about invasion. He had not risen to defend the language that had been used towards a neighbouring Potentate either by the press or by individuals. He had just listened in "another place" to a speech made by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) upon our national defences, and it was because he believed that the House of Commons could hardly be expected to vote any increase to our already enormous Army Estimates that he thought it essential to have some additional means of permanent defence. This volunteer movement might he made a useful adjunct to the regular services. It was a fashion, indeed, amongst military men to say that volunteers would be of no use, and would in fact be in the way; but, though it might be presumptuous in him, he inclined to a contrary opinion. Besides, what else could be done? The most intelligent classes of our population were at

  693
  present of no more use for purposes of defence than so many old women. Take the 600 and odd Members of the House of Commons, for example. Most of them—except those, perhaps, who swore themselves off election Committees—were able-bodied; at least, their constituents believed they were, considering the duties expected of them with the Thames in its present state; but in the ease of invasion, only those hon. Members who had been in the army or militia would be of the slightest use. Of the upper ranks of artizans, and those engaged in trade and commerce, the same might be said; and the ex-Government simply intended that that class should, by a certain amount of training and organization, be useful, upon an emergency, for the defence of the country. With all deference to the opinion of military men, the country would be in a safer position against invasion if so large a number of the population were organized and made available. He had calculated that if the people of London volunteered for these corps in the same proportion as the population of Brescia volunteered for Garibaldi's corps, there would be in the metropolis alone upwards of 200,000 volunteer riflemen. The history of the Tyrol, of America, and of Switzerland proved the value of these riflemen in repelling an enemy, and in Italy the free corps commanded by Garibaldi had been of great service. The letters of The Times' correspondent on this point showed that these men learned their drill in an incredibly short space of time, simply because they belonged to the most intelligent classes of the community. Let the Volunteer Corps be properly organized, and he believed there was enough of spirit in our people to save us both from real dangers and from periodical panics. The Government had exercised a wise discretion in giving a proportion of arms, and he had no doubt their judicious liberality would be duly appreciated by the country as regarded the question of raising these corps.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, if the noble Lord were correct in his estimate of the number of men that would volunteer they would certainly be of some use if they were disciplined; but he was of opinion that those men would not undergo the necessary amount of discipline requisite to render them of any service to the country. He thought that we could not place the slightest dependence upon the volunteer corps. They would never consent to become regularly
  694
  drilled soldiers. The noble Lord said, "Let the House turn its attention to arms." Well, he (Colonel Dunne) had served in the army, but if he were called into active service, he should be very much inclined to look at the man next him to see what he ought to do. No doubt undisciplined volunteers might be useful in a country where they were well protected by woods and other natural shelter. But let them take the case of Perugia the other day. There the bravest men were unable to make he had against the Swiss battalions. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War how many volunteers had we in Great Britain at that moment? He did not believe we had more than 5,000. We should be deceiving ourselves if we thought that these volunteer corps would be of the slightest use except to excite a spirit for enlistment. It was the trained soldier upon whom we must rely for repelling an invasion. It was, no doubt, well to encourage this spirit of forming Volunteer Rifle Corps; it would be an amusing plaything for the people. But as regarded the military defences of the country, every one who had the experience of a soldier knew that they would not be of the slightest use unless they submitted to a regular course of military discipline. As to drill, it was a fact that the militia generally learned faster than the regular soldier; but the information they acquired was not so permanently impressed on them as upon the latter, in consequence of being at liberty after a few years to return to their homes. We must have 150,000 thoroughly disciplined men under arms to defend this country.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he could not but express his regret that the hon. and gallant Member seemed desirous to throw cold water upon this subject. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member was a great military authority, but he would forgive him if he said that at his (Sir John Shelley's) time of life he felt no great respect for great military authorities as far as progress or improvement was concerned. Had the country been left to them, our soldiers would now be armed with the old-fashioned ''brown Bess." He thought the House was much indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing forward this Motion. It might be true that there were no more than 5000 volunteers at present but the fact was that nobody knew how to act. There would be no lack of men when they knew better how to set to work, and he

  695
  hoped the Government would tell them in what way this corps was to he brought up so as to be of the greatest use. There was no wish on the part of the volunteers not to submit to drill or to become useful. He would only say that he thought the proposal of the Government to furnish 25 per cent of arms to the volunteers was extremely wise, for twenty-five men would thus become skilled in the use of the weapon, and the same arms would teach twenty-five men more.
  COLONEL DUNNE, in explanation, disclaimed any wish to throw cold water on the movement. He had merely spoken of what he considered likely to be the result of the movement.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Sir, I think the discussion which has taken place has been a very useful one. There is no doubt great diversity of opinion upon matters of detail, both in this House and in the country on the subject of Volunteer Corps, but at any rate by discussion we shall come at last to know what it is we want. I have been asked whether or not the Government ever contemplated the Volunteer Corps becoming a permanent force. If these corps turn out as useful as I hope and expect, they will become part of our permanent establishment; but when I say that I do not mean that for twenty or even 100 volunteers a single regular soldier will be displaced. We are willing to make as perfect a soldier as we can of every man who is willing to take our pay and subject himself to our discipline. In this country, however, there is very little military spirit. There is much martial but very little military spirit, although even in this House a great change has taken place since the militia was called into existence. Formerly the Army Estimates were discussed very coldly, almost the only speakers being a few military officers; but now we see how much the existence of the militia has spread a military feeling and imparted military knowledge to gentlemen of influence in their respective localities. That feeling, however, has hitherto been confined to the lower and to the upper ranks of society. What we want now is to get the middle classes imbued with an interest in our own means of defence, and I think the Volunteer Corps will be useful in doing that. My right hon. and gallant Friend the late Secretary for War has doubts, on account of the state of our stores, whether it was wise to issue rifles to these corps. If the present state
  696
  of our stores had been permanent, I should have hesitated to have pledged the Government to that step, but seeing there is a rapid increase every week, and that next year our stores will be much enlarged, I thought that it was right to issue a portion of these arms, and instead of allowing them to remain useless it would be better to have men behind them engaged in the practice of military exercises. If we had asked the Volunteer Corps to arm and clothe themselves, and pay for their own drill and musket instruction, and done nothing for them in return but put them under military law, the effect would have been discouraging in the extreme. We must have some influence over them, and unless there is some equity in the dealings between us, we cannot expect them to pay due deference to the military authorities. Such, at all events, were the reasons which induced us to offer arms, as far as our means would permit. I have been asked what we would do for them in case of war. In case of war, of course, they would be armed; but those who point to the times of George III. ought to recollect that circumstances are very different now from what they were then. People talk in a very loose way about invasion, but at that time it stared us in the face in the practical shape of a large camp within reach of our telescopes, and we were obliged to call out every man, and both dress and arm him. As regards dress, the gallant officer opposite fears lest the Volunteers, having no uniform, should, in case of war, be mistaken for armed peasants, and shot down without mercy. Now, at present my only fear is that instead of being negligent in that particular the Volunteers will be rather too fond of uniforms; at all events, we need be under no apprehension that in case of war they may be improperly dressed. As to raising them in companies or battations, there is a broad distinction to be observed. In thinly populated districts it would be impossible to raise them in battalions, for you may depend upon it that men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of life will not consent to attend drill or practice at a distance from their homes. There is a question as to whether these Volunteer Corps should he formed into battalions or companies. In case of war you must form into battalions, and therefore it will be a great advantage if some of them have a knowledge of battalion drill. There will be great facilities for this in large

  697
  towns, where you can raise a sufficient number of companies to form a battalion; and it may be accomplished in the manner which I to-day suggested to a deputation of gentlemen who are raising several companies, and wish to have them formed into a battalion. I explained to them the difficulties which attended that course, but said, "If you are going to raise eight or ton companies lot the gentlemen who have the management of them combine, let them all have the same uniform and the same code of regulations, and they can then at any moment he formed into a battalion without the slightest difficulty or expense," and the Government will be ready to entertain the proposition. I have stated that the Government are very anxious to promote the formation of these corps. As auxiliaries I believe they will be most useful. If ever they are made a substitute for a regular force, I believe they will be most mischievous. But that is not our intention nor theirs. The hon. and gallant officer (Colonel Dunne) says that without discipline a population is useless; but is not that a reason for attempting to drill them while you can? Every one says that you must keep up a large store of muskets—so many for the regular army, so many for the militia embodied and disembodied, and, beyond this, 200,000 or 300,000 stand of arms for arming the population; but, if you are going to arm the population surely it is wise to give them as much knowledge of the duties as you can. For all these reasons the Government feel most grateful to the gentlemen who have undertaken the formation of these corps. They have done so at the sacrifice of much time and often of lucrative employments, and I think that the country owes them a debt of gratitude for the exertions which they are making. I trust that in this House hon. Members will not press too hard upon the Government with the different views and theories which they may entertain. I think that we have got into a good groove, and that by steadily pursuing it we may effect much good, especially by the formation of Volunteer Artillery Corps. Not only have you now in position guns which would require 38,000 men to work, but you have every day an augmentation of batteries requiring additional men. A Volunteer Artillery Corps is not merely an auxiliary; it becomes a substitute for the Royal Artillery, which can be employed better and more effectually in the field. For these reasons the Govern-
  698
  ment are anxious to give every encouragement to such forces. In bringing forward this Motion my hon. Friend has done a public service; but as there seems to be a great unanimity upon the subject, I hope he will not press it to a division.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, a reflection had been thrown out by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Shelley) that military officers were opposed to all improvement, and that if their will had been allowed to prevail the British soldier would still be armed with Brown Bess. In answer to that remark, he felt it due to the memory of the late Viscount Hardinge, to state that he had effected great improvements in the army, and that to him in particular we were indebted for the introduction of the Minie rifle, He must add, that he highly approved of the formation of Rifle Corps, and thought they would prove most useful if they submitted to military discipline; if not, they would be more dangerous to their friends than their foes.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he wished to offer an observation to the House on a difficulty which had arisen in the formation of the Rifle Corps, but which was overlooked in the circulars both of the late and of the present Government, and which he thought might be removed without any expense to the country. The right hon. Gentleman had imposed as a condition upon the supply of arms to Rifle Corps that they should be in possession of a ground for practice. Now, he did not speak without experience on this subject, for the University which he had the honour to represent had taken an active part in this movement, and, in conjunction with the town, had formed what he had no doubt would be a model rifle club and a crack rifle corps. But a difficulty had arisen with respect to obtaining proper ground for practice. It was important that the ground should he in the neighbourhood of the town, and yet it generally happened that the ground in such a situation was in the hands of many different landlords and tenants, and it was scarcely probable but that some one or other of them would insist upon exorbitant terms before he would allow the Rifle Corps the use of his ground. What he would suggest, therefore, for the consideration of the Government was, whether it would not be advisable to bring in a short Bill, giving the Secretary at War the same powers of acquiring ground suitable for the practice of rifle companies, as were now given in the case of railway companies or Her Ma-

  699
  jesty's dockyards. He was aware that the power must be cautiously given, and still more cautiously exercised; but if some such power was not given, it would prevent the formation of many corps, for members refused to join till they knew whether the practice ground would be in such a situation as they could attend.
  MR. PALKsaid, he wished to explain, that in referring to the expenditure of money upon fortifications, he had only intended to say that no sums had been expended in fortifying that portion of the coast which was wholly unprotected. Having in a great measure attained the object with which he brought this subject, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  COURT OF ADMIRALTY.—LEAVE.
  Mr. HADFIELDsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to enable serjeants-at-law, barristers, solicitors, and attorneys to practise in the High Court of Admiralty. A similar Bill had twice before been introduced, and had been twice printed, and upon the last occasion its progress was only prevented by the close of the Session. The present hon. and learned Attorney General had put his name upon the back of one of the former Bills, and given his assent to the principles of the one which was now proposed. The principle involved had been admitted in the opening of the Probate Court to other practitioners than proctors, and the Bill only sought to remove the last vestige of monopoly in the administration of justice. The only question that could be raised was as to compensation for the proctors, but that was a point to be discussed in Committee, and, considering that the proctors had already received £69,000 compensation under the Probate Act, and were to receive more on account of the opening of the Divorce Court, he did not think they had any reason to complain, and he should certainly oppose the grant of any further compensation. With these observations he would conclude by asking for leave to introduce the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in giving his assent to the introduction of the Bill, he wished to state that he concurred entirely in the principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman as to the opening of the Court, though he saw some difficulty as to the manner in which they were to be car-
  700
  ried out. In one point the hon. Gentleman had understated his case. He said that the proctors had received compensation to the amount of £69,000, whereas the real fact was that they had received compensation to the amount of £69,000 a year. The question of compensation, however, was one which might be dealt with in Committee.
  Leave given.
  Bill to enable Serjeants, Barristers at Law, Attornies and Solicitors, to practise in the High Court of Admiralty, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HADFIELD and Mr. COLLIER,
  Bill presented and read 1°.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

  LEAVE. MOTION WITHDRAWN.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, that he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act (59 Geo. III., c. 69), so far as it relates to transports and store ships. In the Motion he was about to make, he had the support of the General Shipowners' Society. The Act which he sought to amend was brought in by Lord Liverpool in 1819. It was passed, no doubt, to put down the spirit of adventurous enterprize which had at that time been excited, the purpose of which was to give succour to the revolted colonies in South America. Previously to the passing of that Act there existed the Act of the 29th Geo. II., by which it was made unlawful for any subject of the realm to assist a foreign Power. That statute was passed to put down the Jacobites who were conspiring against the House of Hanover. Its provisions had, however, previously to 1819 become a dead letter, as the rebellious Jacobites had been put down. Accordingly the Act which he now sought to have amended was brought forward. It purported to repeal certain sections of the Act of the 29th Geo. II., but in reality it introduced a principle before that time unknown in the laws of England, and which, he thought, it had never been intended to apply. That principle was contained in the 7th section, which made it unlawful for any one to equip in this kingdom a transport or store-ship for any foreign Potentate carrying on hostilities against any other foreign Potentate, when this country was in a state of neutrality as regarded the contending parties. He complained of this provision. It was difficult to say what might be considered contraband of war.

  701
  The question had been raised since the commencement of the present hostilities as to whether coals were not contraband of war. The Austrian Government had lately declared them to be so, and therefore unless the Act were amended every collier now clearing in the Tyne or the Wear with stores of coal for the French Government—and there were many in that position just now—might be proceeded against by the English Government for an infraction of our municipal law. What the shipowners complained of was that our municipal law stepped in and enacted a special penalty for an offence which was already provided for by the law of nations. The Act was, moreover, full of difficulty and capable of perpetual evasion. For instance, it declared that no ship should be fitted out within the United Kingdom; a shipowner, therefore, had only to send his vessel over to some neighbouring port, and the Act would not touch him. Again, the Act was only directed against ships employed by any foreign "Power, Potentate, or Sovereign," so that by employing ships through the medium of some private citizen, any Government might completely evade the Act. Therefore, because this Act was tortured to a purpose it never was intended to apply because it rendered more complicated and difficult the neutral policy of the country, and was, moreover, open to evasion, he asked leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of amending it. If ever there was a time when this should be done, it was now, when such a modification had taken place in the spirit of international law that belligerent nations might carry on their trade in time of war, and when there existed such severe distress among the shipping interest that it might be truly said that there lay sicco subductœ litore puppes. That which was now denied to the shipping of this country other countries had the benefit of. America had no such provision as this, and at the present moment American vessels were chartered at high prices, some in the port of London, and some in American ports, and were going into the service of France, while British-owned ships could not engage in the same service.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act (59 Geo. III., c. 69), so far as it relates to Transports and Store Ships."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he conceived that the hon. and learned Member
  702
  had not made completely intelligible the full extent of the proposed change of the existing law to which he asked the House to assent. With respect to the Act which it was proposed to amend, he must, in the first place, take the liberty of remarking that it was not an Act the policy of which was confined simply to the prevention of privateering. It was an Act intended to carry into effect what at the time of its being passed was admitted on all hands to be a true principle of international law recognized by every country—namely, that it was the duty of a neutral nation not to interfere or give assistance to any of the belligerent Powers. The international obligation was not confined to the prohibition of privateering, but extended also to the prevention of furnishing supplies of war or other belligerent means to the parties engaged in war. This was the policy of the Act of 1819—a policy which was not by any means confined to England, but which the United States in particular had previously insisted upon in a remarkable manner, and which, in his belief, was embodied in their legislation, though he could not say to what extent. The Act of 1819 was therefore not brought into that House on the false pretext of amending statutes which had become obsolete; it was founded on an acknowledged principle, and had been the law of this country, recognized by all the different Administrations since that period. Such being the law of this country, embodying a recognized principle of international law, and there being now a war on the Continent, and the belligerent Powers appealing to this country to enforce the law, to the enactments of which attention had very properly been drawn by the Royal Proclamation which had been issued on the advice of the late Administration, what did the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the House to do? At the precise moment when the exact provisions of that law were of great importance, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked the House to alter those provisions in a material respect. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to repeal the enactment with respect to transports and storeships. By the existing law it was penal to equip a transport or storeship with the intent of its being used by one of the belligerent Powers. But if the alteration of the hon. and learned Member were carried, it would be lawful for a merchant in any English port to fit out a vessel for the service of France or

  703
  Sardinia or Austria. He confessed that for any such alteration of the law, even if abstractedly expedient (which he altogether disputed), the present moment appeared most inopportune; and such being the case, he did not feel himself justified, so far as he could collect the hon. and learned Gentleman's meaning from his speech, in assenting to the introduction of the proposed Bill. Therefore, unless stronger reasons were shown for this measure, he trusted that the House would acknowledge that the proposed alteration of the Foreign Enlistment Act would be a proceeding scarcely consistent with the national faith, and might be considered as affecting the neutrality which this country had faithfully observed up to the present time. He, therefore, trusted that the House would not give leave for the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, his objection to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was that he proposed to repeal provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which simply gave the sanction of the statute Jaw to the law of nations. The hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen into an error with regard to that law, for he laid it down that the law of nations only forbad the equipping of privateers or armed vessels to take part in hostilities between foreign nations, but the principle of law which applied to such vessels applied equally to the equipment of transports and storeships for the purpose of aiding any of the parties to a war between States with which this country was at peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed the repeal of the Statute Law on the ground that such repeal would prevent England from being involved in difficulties which might peril her neutrality, hut he thought such a course would have an entirely different effect, for it would render the Executive of this country powerless to prevent breaches of international law. It was true that vessels employed as transports or storeships would be subject to be taken as prizes by the Powers engaged in hostilities, but he thought the process of taking ships in the open seas by force, and having them condemned as prizes, was liable to much more inconvenience, and was much more likely to produce unpleasant feelings with foreign Powers than the simple process of providing by our own law that international law should not be violated in this country. The existing statute law enabled the Government to step in and to prevent breaches of inter-
  704
  national law in limine, and he thought such a course was much less calculated to produce angry feeling between England and foreign countries than if our subjects were allowed to violate international law, and foreign Powers whose interests suffered by such acts were left to do justice to themselves by seizing the offending vessels by force, and having them condemned as prizes. The principles of international law had been correctly laid down by the Home Secretary, and he would suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton would act wisely by not pressing his Bill at present.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer), on his part had mistaken the doctrine of international law. But however that might be, he understood the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour) to amount to this, that if other countries left their shipping to be dealt with according to the principles of international law we should do the same. If our merchants contravened the law of nations by fitting out their ships for transports let them be dealt with by the law of nations, let them be seized as prizes, but let us not interfere by a law of our own, in a manner that other countries did not deal with their shipping. If the question were whether we should legislate at all upon the subject—whether Parliament should assent to such an Act as was passed in 1819—he (Mr. Collier) would be inclined to oppose such legislation; but he felt the force of the observations of the right hon. Home Secretary that such a law being in existence, and hostilities being in progress, by any legislative interference at this time we should lay ourselves open to the imputation of abandoning our neutral position. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton would not press his Bill.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, as the general feeling of the House seemed to be that the present was an inopportune occasion for proposing an alteration of the law, he would not press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MEMBERS ACCEPTING OFFICE.

  LEAVE.
  MR. WRIGHTSONsaid, he wished to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act 6 Anne, c. 7, with respect to vacating seats in Parliament on accept-

  705
  ance of office. The object of this Bill was merely to prevent the forfeiture of a seat which occurred when a Member of that House who had received the sanction of his constituents to the acceptance of one office in the Government was promoted to another office.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act 6 Anne, c. 7, with respect to Vacating Seats in Parliament on acceptance of Office."
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman had felt it his duty to bring forward his Motion. Last year he had introduced a similar measure, which was negatived by a very considerable majority. He (Mr. A. Smith) thought this Bill would have the effect of removing an important constitutional security with regard to the acceptance of office by Members of that House. He knew it might be said they were now experiencing one of the inconveniences of the existing law, for the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson), who had a very short time since been returned to that House, had, in consequence of being transferred to a new office, been compelled again to solicit the confidence of his constituents. They must not, however, on account of the inconvenience to which a few individuals might be subjected, lose sight of the great principle involved in this question. An hon. Member of that House who had accepted office under the Government might subsequently be transferred to another office after the lapse of a considerable time, during which important political questions might have been discussed, and it was only fair that his constituents should have the power of ratifying or disapproving his acceptance of a new office. There were rumours recently in the newspapers that it was intended to form an Administration of which one-half should be composed of Liberals and the other half of Gentlemen who were members of the Derby Government. Now, if the Bill which the hon. Gentleman wished to introduce were in operation, a Government of that sort might have been formed without the sanction and against the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. Nay, some time ago in Canada, by means of such a law as it was now proposed to enact, a Ministry was formed out of the dregs of a former Administration, which had not the confidence of the country. He hoped, therefore, the House would not agree to
  706
  the introduction of this measure. It would look very bad if the first act of the new Parliament, which had put a Reform Ministry in power, was to carry a measure of this kind.
  MR. INGHAMremarked, that in former times, when the power of the Crown was greater than now, the existing restriction might have been necessary; hut now, when the power of the several Estates was more equally balanced, unless it was felt that there really was danger to the independence of the House, he thought they should go into a consideration of the measure. In times of emergency difficulties might arise in carrying on the affairs of the Government under the present system, and he thought it would be wise to make the proposed attempt to aid the Government. They saw at the present moment the inconvenience resulting from the absence of a member of the Government (Mr. Milner Gibson), who had already received the approbation of his constituents to his acceptance of office in the Government.
  Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 53: Majority 2.

TURNPIKE AND BRIDGE TOLLS.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, that the Royal Commission which he was about to ask had already been granted with the most satisfactory results in the cases of Dublin, London, Ireland, and Scotland. He had therefore a right, be thought, to ask it for England and Wales generally, and though he had no reason to expect the consent of the Government, he thought it could not very fairly be denied. The present bonded debt on the turnpike tolls of England and Wales amounted to £5,236,939. The aggregate amount of the income of the turnpike trusts was at present £1,024,382, but the amount paid in tolls by the people of this country for Turnpike tolls on roads and bridges was no less than a million and a half, so that the persons who rented the tolls got something like 33 per cent of profit. The plan which had been adopted in Ireland to get rid of turnpike tolls was to put the charge of maintaining the roads on the common law of the country. It was a principle of common law there, as it was of common sense everywhere, that the charge of repairing the highways should be borne by the owners and occupiers of land. The annual rateable value of the real property in England chargeable by law with

  707
  the maintenance of the parish roads was £103,500,000, and a tax of 2d. in the pound on all real property liable under the common law for the maintenance of the parish roads would yield £862,000. From this source 23,000 miles of road, at a cost of £20 a mile, or exactly one-half of what was now paid on all the parish roads in England, could be maintained; the aggregate cost amounting to £460,000 per annum, to which had to be added £156,000 a year for the purchase of the toll bridges. Then came the sum of 208,000 a year for interest at 6½ per cent in order to pay off the debt, bringing the whole outlay below the £862,000 that would be raised by the twopenny tax. The principle already adopted in Ireland was to defray the cost of the roads by means of a rate on the different baronies, and the system worked satisfactorily. His object now was to extend a similar advantage to the people of England and Wales.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  " That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into and report as to the best means of abolishing the Tolls on the Turnpike Roads and Bridges in England and Wales."
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The question which the hon. Gentleman has brought under our notice is one of considerable importance. Almost every person must feel an interest in it from the manner in which it daily affects him. But to the proposition before us it is impossible for me to give my assent without some further grounds being assigned for it than those adduced on this occasion. The principle to which we are invited to commit ourselves is that tolls on all turnpike roads and bridges in England and Wales should be abolished; that the principle should be at once adopted by the House, and a Commission appointed to inquire how it is to be carried into effect. Let me call attention for a moment to the present position of the turnpike trusts in England as explained by the papers recently laid on the table. If we examine the returns we find that the position of these trusts is in every respect improving. True, the toll revenue has diminished; but, then, the cost of maintaining the roads has also diminished in an equal ratio. The expense of improvements, which in many cases were merely a means of disbursing surplus revenue, has been reduced from £200,000 in 1837 to £40,000 in 1858. The expense of salaries, the law
  708
  charges, and other disbursements have likewise all fallen off. The interest of the debt, which in 1837 was £290,000, was in 1856 only £181,000. I will only read one statement as to a very material part of the case, namely, the large amount of bonded debt charged on the existing trusts, and which, if it should be proposed to abolish turnpike tolls, must, nevertheless, remain as a charge on some fund. I am speaking now of the turnpike trusts in England and North Wales, South Wales being under a different system. By the reduction which has taken place between 1837 and 1856 in the mortgage debt and in the amount of unpaid interest, there has been removed from the accounts a total charge of £2,680,000. I very much wish that it was in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an equally satisfactory statement with respect to the national debt. Looking to the financial state of turnpike trusts, I cannot admit that it presents any grounds for such a sweeping change as we are now invited to concede. A very material question to be considered is the bonded debt of £5,236,000. If you destroy all turnpike tolls, you destroy the security for that sum. It is not intended, I presume, to deprive the bondholders of their security, and it is understood that some other security would be provided for that large sum. The substituted security, I presume, would be the highway rates. The rate on land to the extent of 2d. in the pound would not, I am afraid, be sufficient to pay the interest and to maintain the roads. The hon. Gentleman omitted to call attention to the position of the turnpike trusts in the six counties of South Wales—not a very large portion of the kingdom, I admit, but still six counties. The hon. Gentleman will remember those riots which went by the name of the Rebecca riots, which he might have pressed into his service, as evincing the great dislike of that part of the kingdom to turnpike tolls. Their grievances were got rid of by spreading the debt on the tolls over a series of years, for which purpose a rather complicated financial arrangement was made, which will end about 1872. Does he suppose that the Act which was only passed a few years ago should be subverted, and that arrangement set aside. I conceive that such a proposition as the abolition of turnpike tolls cannot be assented to by the House. I have now stated in general terms the reasons why I think it is not desirable that this House should agree at this moment to a Commission, which takes

  709
  for granted that it is desirable to abolish that system. The hon. Gentleman says nothing about tolls on bridges, which he proposes to include. Tolls on bridges are in a different position. They have nothing to do with turnpikes, and most of them exist under private Acts, and it is almost impossible to deal with them on any general system. There are further difficulties to be considered with respect to the sudden abolition of turnpike tolls. The subject is not new. Commissions have been issued as he states. Some years ago a Commission was issued for Ireland. In the chief parts of Ireland there are scarcely any turnpike trusts. The roads are maintained by the grand juries. The few trusts which existed in Ireland became embarrassed, and a Commission was issued for the purpose of arranging their financial affairs. I believe an Act passed founded on the Report of the Commission, and the matter was settled. But it was a special case, and forms no example for such a Commission as is now proposed. There was a Commission appointed about this time last year to inquire into the turnpike trusts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. I quite admit that turnpike tolls in the immediate neighbourhood of the metropolis are a very serious evil. In the first place, wherever there is a gate in the streets it necessitates a whole system of side-bars, which puts the whole neighbourhood in a strait waistcoat. Every one must see that what is applicable in a rural district is wholly inapplicable in the vicinity of a large town. There is also another evil well known to hon. Gentlemen. A gate immediately adjoining the metropolis is very lucrative, and thus there is a great disposition, by putting one as near as possible, to make it pay the expense of the entire trust, which is, of course, an abuse and an undue tax on the inhabitants. There are special reasons why the turnpike system fails in its application to the metropolitan district, and accordingly a Commission was issued, of which the late Speaker, Lord Eversley, was a Member, and which is likely soon to report. If they should be able to propose any fair plan of relief, it will be an encouragement to extend the experiment, but until we have received their Report we ought to pause and not embark upon an inquiry so extensive as is now suggested. It is true that a Commission issued to inquire into turnpike tolls in Scotland. The object was not, I believe, the abolition of tolls, but some al-
  710
  teration in the system, and therefore that is not a precedent for the Commission now proposed. Having stated my opinion that the House is not now in a position to assent to the doctrine of total and immediate abolition of turnpike tolls, I will admit to the hon. Gentleman that I quite enter into his view that turnpike tolls are not the best mode of taxation which can be devised. But at the same time I wish to represent this consideration to the friends of what is called equitable taxation, that a more equitable tax than turnpike tolls cannot be conceived, because it is paid by those who use the roads, and only by them. Nevertheless, all must feel that it is a somewhat vexatious and unpleasant burden. But I cannot on that account say that sufficient grounds exist for issuing a Commission. We have already had a very large number of Committees and Commissions, and I confess I am very unwilling, without very strong cause being shown, to assent to another Commission being appointed by the Crown. If the hon. Gentleman can point out to the House the means by which the principle of total abolition can be carried into effect he undoubtedly can embody it in the shape of a Bill, and then we should be able to judge whether the plan could meet with our assent. If the general principle were feasible and expedient, and difficulties arose only with regard to its application, there might be reasonable grounds for inquiring as to the means by which the scheme could be effected. But I cannot think that in the present state of the question any hon. Gentleman is entitled to call on the House to address the Crown to issue a Commission. It is my belief that the great defect of the present system of turnpike tolls arises partly from the circumstance that a number of trusts whose financial position is bad have not yet undergone revision by Committees of the House, which a number of trusts that have expired in the last ten years have undergone with very great benefit to their finances. Another great evil which I find in the present system is the unequal size and smallness of many trusts. I believe that a far more economical expenditure of public money and a better administration of the trusts would be introduced if all the trusts in a county, or where the county is too large, of a division of a county, were amalgamated, and if the system were adopted which has worked well in South Wales, where there is a county Board for their general super-

  711
  intendence, and local trusts are abolished. Having offered these remarks, which I believe are more likely to tend to a practical reform, I regret that it is not in my power to support the Motion now before the House.
  MR. HOPEsaid, the experience which he had acquired with respect to the question under discussion in Scotland did not lead him to form an opinion favourable to its being met in the manner proposed by the hon. Member opposite. In the county with which he was connected the attempt had been made to establish a system of rates instead of a system of tolls, but although everybody seemed to agree as to the expediency of abolishing the tolls it was impossible to obtain any general concurrence of opinion as to the mode in which the rates should be levied. Still he thought tolls an unfair tax, for in some cases persons using the roads for miles never paid a farthing, while those who used it for half a mile were compelled to pay a very heavy toll. The substitution of a rate would dispense altogether with the expenses of collection and many other annoyances incidental to the present system, while at the same time many questions—such, for instance, as to whether land was to bear the whole burden, or horses a part, and other questions of a similar nature—would arise, and require solution. He thought it better to suspend legislation on the subject till they had ascertained the result of the late inquiry which had been instituted on the question.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he did not think the difficulty of substituting rates for tolls was so great as the hon. Member seemed to think. That plan had long been tried in the large county of Argyll with perfect success. He would suggest that the hon. Member should alter the wording of bis Motion, so as to assimilate it to the Scotch Commission; in other words, that there should be an inquiry into the possibility of substituting an equitable mode of assessment for the system of tolls. The decision arrived at by that Commission would not prejudice the case as regarded England, and in his opinion, therefore, the Motion, with the Amendment he suggested, should be agreed to.
  MR. BONHAM CARTERsaid, he objected to the laxity with which Commissions had of late been granted. During the last twelve years a great deal of good had been done by private legislation, all new Turnpike Bills being now drawn on
  712
  a uniform plan. He therefore thought it would be better to defer further action in connection with a question until the Commission which had been already appointed had reported.
  Question put and negatived.

ARMY (HALF-PAY OFFICERS).

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to move,
  "That this House will to-morrow resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an humble Address to Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to grant the half-pay of £400 a year, unattached pay, to certain general officers who obtained promotion upon half-pay under the provisions of the General Order of the 23rd day of April, 1826, who have since become general officers, and are now receiving only the halt-pay of their regimental rank, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
  He wished to explain that his Motion referred particularly to seven general officers who had been induced to retire under the Order of 1826—one of them having entered the army in 1796, and not one of them having done so later than 1807, and yet they were now only receiving 9s. a day, the half-pay of majors and lieutenant colonels.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he was sorry he could not accede to the Motion of the gallant officer, who did not appear very clearly to have understood the objects of the General Order of 1826. No doubt an Order was made to enable officers to go on half pay with superior rank to that which they held at the time of retirement, and without prejudice to their future claims; but that did not exempt them from the operation of regulations which existed then, and which had existed ever since. One of those regulations was that no one should receive the allowance of a general who had not served six years as a field officer. The only exception was that their widows should be entitled to the pensions of general officers' widows, but that very exception showed that the officers were not themselves entitled to the reward of general officers. It might be true that the seven officers referred to in the Motion had each been in the service fifty or sixty years; but the House must remember that there was another side to that question, namely, that some of those gentleman had ever done a day's duty since 1826. He thought, therefore, that to award them the increased allowance would be merely adding to the dead weight of the army without adequate consideration.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he took a different view of this case to that taken by his right hon. Friend. It was said that no general officer was entitled to full pay unless he had served six years as a field officer; but this case was similar to that in which a field officer was placed on half-pay by reduction. On what principle could it be said that their wives were entitled to the pensions of Major-Generals, and that they themselves were not entitled to the pay of their rank? He had strongly pressed the case on the Treasury.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask if these officers understood that they were not to receive the benefits connected with the rank of general when they went on half-pay. He believed they did not.
  Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 42: Majority 20.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF ACT AMENDMENT.

  COMMITTEE. LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he wished to bring in a Bill to amend an Act passed in the tenth year of His Majesty King Geo. IV., entitled "An Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects." The object of the measure he should propose was to repeal so much of the Act of 1829 as prohibited persons professing the Roman Catholic religion from holding the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. There were many reasons which it was easy to see why this clause of separation and exclusion should never have been passed, but what was difficult to see was what could have been the reasons which induced Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington to support it. The argument alleged by Sir Robert Peel was this—"From the office of Lord Chancellor the Roman Catholics are excluded, because the Church patronage in the hands of the Lord Chancellor is a right inherent in the office." But what was the fact? Why, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland did not possess a single scrap of Church patronage. It was remarkable that during the debates of 1829, although it was proposed that several other officers of State, such as the Secretary for the Colonies and the President of the Board of Control, should be placed in the same position, on the ground that they might influence the distribution of Church patronage in England, vet that no such measure of exclusion was passed, except in the case of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It was singular
  714
  that no attempt at resistance was made at the time of the passing of the Act of 1829, but he attributed it to the fact that when a generous measure for the relief of Roman Catholics was introduced, it would have been manifesting an improper feeling if the recipients of the benefits had cavilled because one omission was made. He would only add one word as to the time at which he had thought it desirable to introduce this measure. He had observed that at the late election some reports prevailed that in many instances candidates who had been distinguished in former times for their hostility to the principles of their Roman Catholic subjects had withdrawn their hostility to their political rights; and the Roman Catholics of Ireland were assured of a disposition on the part of these Gentlemen to grant them their just claims. He trusted he might rely on the support of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House professing these intentions, and at the same time that he might appeal to the aid of those old and tried friends of civil and religious liberty whom he saw around him. This was a small but he trusted a not unimportant measure of relief. He was sure, too, it would be received with favour by the Protestant part of the community. It would, too, be an indication from the new Parliament of a friendly disposition to Ireland. He understood that as the Bill referred to a subject of a religious character it was necessary, according to the forms of the House, that it should originate with a Committee of the House, He begged leave, therefore, to move—
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend an Act of the tenth year of King George the Fourth, for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects."
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTseconded the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would very cordially give his assent to the Motion of his right hon. Friend, and would also support the Bill in its subsequent stages, should leave be given to introduce it. He entirely concurred in the statement of his right hon. Friend that there appeared to have been a misconception in framing the Catholic Relief Bill as to the nature of the functions of the Irish Chancellor. Sir Robert Peel, when he proposed that measure, was under the impression that the Irish Chancellor, like the English Chancellor, had the distribution of church patronage; hut there was not the smallest

  715
  doubt that that was a mistake as respected the Irish Chancellor, for he had no share in the distribution of ecclesiastical patronage. He was, in fact, nothing but a Judge, and the very reason that would apply to the exclusion of Catholics from the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland would be equally applicable to their exclusion from the Irish Chief Justiceship. If this had been a mere speculative grievance he should not have joined in an attempt to remove it; but it could not be so regarded, for it was clear that the office of Chancellor in Ireland was merely judicial, and one to which Roman Catholics at large might reasonably aspire. For these reasons he entirely approved the Motion.
  SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, he believed that the inadvertence, as it was called, in framing the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 was no inadvertence, but an exclusion which proceeded on a full knowledge of the circumstances of the case, Considering, however, the feeling manifested by the House he would not oppose the Motion, though he felt he should have been wrong in allowing his silence to be construed into an approval of a total alteration of the principles on which the great men who were instrumental in passing that measure acted. He believed they had their reasons, independently of considerations arising out of the distribution of church patronage, for the exclusion in question, and that those reasons were still in full force.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend an Act of the tenth year of King George the Fourth, for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects.
  House resumed; Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE, Mr. HENRY HERBERT, and Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART.
  Bill presented and read 1°.
  House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEgave notice of the following Motion for Friday, the 8th instant:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, expressing the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's gracious Communication of the deeply important Correspondence on Italian Affairs presented recently to both House of Parliament by Her Majesty's Command; and gratefully acknowledging the unquestionable Evidence which that Correspondence affords of Her Majesty's earnest and impartial Endeavours to avert the Calamity of War.
  "That Her Majesty may be assured of the loyal Confidence with which this House relies on Her Majesty's Determination to maintain inviolate the Neutrality, as therein declared, of Her Majesty's Dominions.
  "That, finally, it be represented to Her Majesty, as the Opinion of this House, That while every suitable and vigorous Effort is made, under Her Majesty's Authority, for the Completion of our Defences on Sea and Land, the Operations of the belligerent Powers should be carefully observed, with a view in particular to such eventual

  615
  Offers of Mediation on Her Majesty's Part as may contribute with due Effect to the early Conclusion of Peace on just and comprehensive Terms."

ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH (No. 2) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYcalled attention to the fact that the preamble recited that certain additional agreements and arrangements had been made with the Government. He had been given to understand that an engagement had been entered into by the late Government to give 8 per cent on a capital of £600,000, amounting to a guarantee of £48,000; while other parties had offered to do it on terms which would not involve an expense of more than £20,000 a year. This seemed an improvident arrangement, and should not have been entered into without the sanction of Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the late Government were more responsible for the Bill than the present; but, at the same time, he knew of no reason why the Bill should not be allowed to pass, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not press his objections to it. He supposed the late Government had been actuated by the consideration that the Company had agreed to relinquish their exclusive right of laying cables on the shores of Newfoundland.
  LORD MONTEAGLEthought that a very important general principle was involved in the Bill. Before the Act introduced by Mr. Gladstone when Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was competent for the Government to have paid the expenses of any telegraphic line or packet service out of the gross revenue without applying to Parliament; but that Act had made a considerable alteration in this respect. The late Government, however, he was informed, had entered into a contract by which an expense of £70,000 a year would be incurred on account of the Irish packet service without the assent of Parliament being obtained. He had moved for a paper which he presumed was now before Parliament, which would show that annually a sum of not less than £1,000,000 had been disposed of by Government for contracts of this description, without any approval or any knowledge of Parliament in the first instance. This was a matter which required the most serious attention of the Legislature.
  LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that the noble Lord's complaint had been remedied by a supplementary contract.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he might state for the satisfaction of the noble Lord and the House that the whole subject was under the consideration of the Government, and would shortly be brought before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked whether it was true as reported—and he trusted that it was—that the Government intended to establish a telegraphic communication with Gibraltar without the intervention of any company?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the subject was under the consideration of the Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBYventured to urge upon the Government the necessity of an early decision on the subject, as otherwise it would be quite impossible to pass a Bill this Session. The late Government regarded the subject as one of great urgency—so great that they thought it their duty to make provision for the manufacture of a certain length of cable. No steps, however, had been taken for laying down the cables. If Her Majesty's present Government intended to proceed with the work, they ought to do so without delay.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it was desirable that further information should be obtained on the subject.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly (with the Amendments), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.
  LORD LYNDHURSTrose pursuant to notice to call the attention of the House to the Military and Naval Defences of the Country, and said,—My Lords, it was suggested to me that, after the discussion which took place the other night on the question of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and especially after the statement of my noble Friend opposite and the speeches of my noble friends the two noble Earls on these benches, I should withdraw the notice which I had placed on your Lordships' paper. At first I was inclined to do so; but the subject is one of such great importance that it ought to be repeatedly discussed, in order to satisfy the people of this country of the necessity of submitting to those charges and those expenses which our present situation requires. I was the more dis-

  617
  posed to proceed with this question because there is a party in this country—of whom I wish to speak with the greatest respect, a party likely very soon to increase in power and influence—who are not disposed to believe that we ought to expend our resources at present in any extension of our military and naval power, and that, so far from doing so, we ought to abstain from any extension of that power, because by such extension we might involve ourselves in hostilities. Now, my Lords, I beg leave, in the first place, to say that any observations which I shall make will be made, not with a view to aggression, but to defence. I shall say nothing whatever in any party spirit, for party can have nothing whatever to do with this question. I shall endeavour, as simply as I can, to point out those circumstances and those topics which I think are important to be brought under the consideration of your Lordships, leaving it to others who are more acquainted with military and naval details than I can pretend to be to fill up and supply the defects in the statement which I shall make. The first circumstance that strikes one in considering this subject is the great difference between our present and former position. That is a distinction which ought never to be lost sight of. We have hitherto felt the greatest confidence in our situation and in our domestic safety. We owe that confidence to our naval superiority—to the superior number of our vessels, and to the skill and gallantry of our seamen. We have been accustomed always to look to what we call "our wooden walls" as our best defence, and experience has justified us in that opinion. We have sometimes, indeed, received checks and affronts. The Dutch at one time sailed up the Thames, burnt our ships in the Medway, and in the river. At a much later period the combined fleets of France and Spain chased our fleets into the waters of Plymouth, under the heights of Mount Edgecumbe. But those clouds soon passed away. They were amply avenged, and we shone out with more distinguished lustre than before. My Lords, there was another source of our confidence and safety, and not an immaterial one—namely the difficulty of transporting any body of troops from the opposite coasts to our own shores. It was impossible to collect any number of troops on an opposite coast without being observed by us, and without giving us notice and allowing us time to prepare ourselves
  618
  against them. Besides, an expedition of that kind was necessarily liable to many casualties. Any joint operation, therefore, from different points was impossible, or nearly so. A few thousand troops might, perhaps, occasionally be landed on our coasts, sufficient, indeed, to give trouble, but not sufficient to excite any fear of danger. The greatest force that ever was landed here was that of the Prince of Orange, amounting, I think, to about 14,000 or 15,000 men. But that force was invited to this country by some of the most eminent men in England; it was received with enthusiasm by the people; it led to no catastrophe, and James II. retired from the country the victim of his own bigotry, folly, and tyranny. But that expedition was very nearly defeated by an accident. It sailed down the Channel with a fair wind; when it arrived opposite Torbay a dense fog arose; it passed therefore the place where it was intended to disembark the troops; it was followed by the English fleet; it was therefore in the greatest peril, but on a sudden the fog dispersed, the wind veered round, carried the Dutch fleet into Torbay, and checked the progress of the English fleet. The English fleet shortly afterwards was dispersed in a storm. I mention this to show the accidents to which, under our old system, enterprises of this kind were subject. This was our past situation—a situation of perfect security. What is it now? A great change has occurred. That change arises from the application of steam power to commercial navigation and to naval warfare. What do we know of the effect of that power as applied to naval warfare? We have had no experience of it. No person can venture to predict what will be its effect. I have consulted many officers, both of the army and of the navy, upon the subject, and I have never been able to persuade myself that any one can with any degree of confidence say what will be the result of this great change. I have read in the admirable work of Sir Howard Douglas that military officers in France believe that this change has a great effect upon our naval power, and will reduce it to comparative unimportance. There is one advantage which we hitherto have had in naval combat over our adversaries under the old system—the skill and experience of our seamen, and their knowledge of everything connected with the management of a vessel. Unfortunately, though we have not entirely lost that

  619
  advantage,—it has greatly lessened under the new system. There is, moreover, a change in the armaments, in the materials, in the construction, and in the form of war vessels. A great facility of boarding arises out of the new system, and numbers, therefore, would have a great advantage. Above all, the new system of manœuvring which must follow this new system is such that it is doubtful what would be the issue of a naval contest. I have stated these points for your Lordships' consideration, because you will be satisfied when you have considered them that we cannot, as heretofore, leave everything as heretofore with perfect confidence to our naval defences. Still, however, and perhaps more so in consequence of what I have stated, it becomes necessary that we should carry our naval machinery and everything connected with it to the highest point of efficiency, and that we should refuse no sums necessary for that purpose. Let me now, my Lords, call attention to what is the actual state of our navy. I will begin by referring to last year. I speak of the spring of last year, and of steamers, which are the only vessels which it is material to consider. Last year we were in this position:—France exceeded us in line-of-battle ships in a small proportion, but she exceeded us in an enormous proportion in steam frigates. At present we surpass her in line-of-battle ships considerably, but we are still greatly inferior in those important vessels, steam frigates. We shall, in the spring of next year, surpass her still more in line-of-battle ships, but we shall still be inferior to her in steam frigates. This is a point for the consideration of your Lordships and for the consideration of the country. Give me leave, my Lords, to mention one circumstance which I think most material for our consideration when we are considering the subject of naval warfare. You will make a great mistake if you suppose for a moment that the relative power depends entirely on the number or size or force of the vessel. A more—I will not say a much more important, but a very important power consists in trained crews of vessels. The French for several years have had a system of training of a most perfect kind—training in the conduct of the vessel, and training not only in the conduct and management of the vessel, but in gunnery. The moment a French ship is afloat and ready for sea, that moment they have trained men ready to go on board her. I am sorry to say, from all I hear and all I
  620
  observe, we have not such a system as that to which I have referred—a system of the utmost importance, but which in this country hitherto has been almost entirely neglected. Now, with respect to force. What is required, first, in the Channel? We require not only a force for warfare equal to France, but we require something more. We require a powerful reserve. France requires no reserve. The reason is this, and I beg your Lordships to mark it. If in a combat of the two fleets the English fleet should be victorious, we have no power of landing with any effect upon the French coast; whereas, if we have no reserve and our fleet is destroyed in a contest with the French fleet, we are entirely at the mercy of the enemy. We have seen lately what France can effect. Suppose the English fleet defeated and driven from the Channel, the events which have passed almost under our eyes within the last few weeks show the great peril to which we should be exposed from the extraordinary facility with which a military force to an immense amount might at once be landed on our shores. But it is not sufficient for us to have a Channel fleet capable of coping with the country directly opposite to us. Our Channel fleet must certainly and necessarily be of an amount sufficient to cope against any two Powers which may be united against us. We know full well that at this moment the Russians have seven or eight line steamers fitted for sea. If by any accident or by any event—which might easily occur—we should be engaged in a dispute with France and with Russia, we should be in a very unfortunate situation if we had not a naval force sufficient to combat both those Powers. Our naval power is essentially defensive. It is absolutely essential to our security. The naval power of France is not defensive—not necessarily so. It is aggressive in its character. Then, I say, with respect to the amount of the Channel fleet, if we wish to be in a state of security, if we wish to maintain our great interest, if we wish to maintain our honour, it is necessary that we should have a power measured by that of any two possible adversaries.. It is not very easy beforehand to say what that power should be; but we must watch events and extend our naval power according to the necessity of the case, and whatever necessity requires, whatever the expense, we must submit to incur that expense. But the Channel fleet is only one part of the force necessary. We must have a fleet sufficient to command

  621
  the Mediterranean. If we have not a fleet sufficient to command the Mediterranean, every one of our strongholds will inevitably fall into the possession of Franco. Not only would that be the case, but the desire and the wish of the First Emperor to convert the Mediterranean into a French lake would at once be realized. Do your Lordships suppose that that idea is abandoned? Far from it. I recollect very well that when the present Emperor—of whom I wish to speak in terms of respect—made his southern tour, and when he, arrived at Bordeaux, declared that "The Empire is peace,"—I recollect in that progress, when at Marseilles, and about to proceed from Marseilles to Toulon in a fleet of war ships, reference was made to this desire of Bonaparte the first Emperor. Was it repudiated? It was adopted by the present Emperor amid the enthusiastic cheers of the audience assembled on that occasion. But, allow me to say, with respect to a fleet necessary for commanding the Mediterranean, if France has the command of the Mediterranean, what is the inevitable consequence? She will be able to leave and return to the Mediterranean at her pleasure. She will be able to take our Channel fleet in flank at any moment. She will be able to unite her Mediterranean and Channel fleets. She will be able to cross the ocean, and one by one to take possession of our Colonies, and she will be able to sweep the ocean of our ships, and destroy our whole commerce. It is necessary, then, not only to have such a Channel fleet as I have stated, but such a fleet as will enable us completely to command the Mediterranean. Something further is still necessary. We must have a fleet for the protection of the West India Islands. I admit not a strong fleet, nor do I pretend to say where that fleet should be stationed. I must leave that to military and naval persons to determine. There is another point with respect to the Mediterranean, Unless we have the command of the Mediterranean—if we are driven out of the Mediterranean—what is our situation with respect to India? We cannot communicate with India, except round the Cape of Good Hope, while France will be able to communicate by a direct and easy course by means of Egypt and the Red Sea. What would be the result of that state of things I leave your Lordships to imagine. I have thus shortly directed attention to what I conceive to be necessary in reference to a Channel fleet, a fleet in the Mediterranean,
  622
  and a force for the protection of our colonies and to take care of our commerce. There are one or two points more to which I beg leave to refer. I find by examining the Report of the Commissioners for Manning the Navy, that they recommend a reserve of seamen. That reserve, I consider, should be made immediately, without the least possible delay. It should be so considerable and so well-trained as at any moment when necessary the men might be placed on board any ship, put into commission, well instructed in all the arts of gunnery and the management of a ship. There is another point, my Lords, to which I beg leave also to refer. It relates to a matter of great importance—the efficiency of our arsenals. It is of the utmost consequence that they should be as effective as possible, and that the docks and slips should be of such dimensions as to be adapted to the present size of our vessels. In that respect they are, as yet, greatly defective. There ought to be, also, such a system of machinery as to enable us, at a moment's notice, and with the greatest rapidity, to fit out armaments for our ships of war. These, my Lords, are the observations which I have to offer on this occasion with regard to the naval part of the case. I trust that what I have stated in that respect will meet with your Lordships' concurrence. Of this I am persuaded, that the more you examine the different parts of the subject and investigate the whole, the more strongly will you be impressed with the necessity of incurring the expenditure, whatever it may be, that may be requisite for the purpose of accomplishing the objects to which I have called your attention. But, my Lords, that to which I have been alluding constitutes only one portion of this important subject. Hitherto, as I have already observed, you were, notwithstanding the absence of your fleet, comparatively in a state of domestic safety for the reasons which I mentioned. But what is your position now? In what state would you be if your Channel fleet were dispersed or absent, or from any cause removed for a short time from its proper station? The noble Lord the leader of the other House of Parliament has told you in very emphatic words that steam has converted the Channel into a river and thrown a bridge across it. These are truly emphatic words, but they hardly exceed the reality. They are scarcely exaggerated. Mark, my Lords, the state of things which has been more than once detailed. We

  623
  know from recent experience that the materials of war may without exciting any observation he placed on board ship on the opposite side of the Channel. We know that in a few hours a large army may by means of railways, and without any notice whatsoever, be brought down to the coast to different points of embarcation. The facility of embarcation is quite extraordinary in consequence of the new provisions made for that purpose by France. We know that such a force as that to which I refer may within a few hours—in the course of a single night—be landed on any part of our shores. With so much certainty, indeed, can the movements of such a body be regulated that from different quarters it3 component parts might arrive at the point of disembarcation without any difference in point of time. That is the state of things, my Lords, with which we have to deal. You will very naturally ask what probable force could be brought together in the manner I have described. It is not my province to give an opinion upon such a question. Military and naval men are the proper persons to form a judgment with respect to it. I may, however, be permitted to state one or two circumstances which may serve to guide you in arriving at a just conclusion on the point. I know that in 1849, when France sent troops to Civita Vecchia one frigate carried, a distance of 300 miles, 2,000 soldiers with all the munitions of war. I am further aware that a much larger force than that can be embarked for a short period of time on board a frigate, and a force still greater on board a ship of the line. I know from information which I have received, and the accuracy of which I do not doubt, that the French are at the present moment building steamers for the purpose of transporting troops, each of which is being constructed to carry 2,500 men with all the necessary stores. This, therefore, is the description of force which you must prepare yourselves to meet. I do not mean for a moment to say that there is no risk in such an adventure as that against which I would call upon you to be on your guard. No great military enterprise can ever be undertaken without some risk; but I believe from all I have read and heard, and from all the consideration which I have been able to give to the subject, that the risk in the case to which I am adverting is much less than it has been in many instances in which the result has been attended with success. What, then, my Lords, does it become our duty to do?
  624
  What precautions does it behove us to take? What force ought we to maintain in order to be prepared for any emergency which may arise? My answer is, a force of regular troops—not volunteers—not undisciplined men; but, I repeat, a force of regular troops, capable of opposing any military force which in all probability can be landed on our shores. It is absolutely imperative upon us to maintain such a force. It is a duty which we owe to ourselves. It is a duty which we owe to the character of our country. But, my Lords, independently of all this we must provide for our garrisons, and also for that which is of greater importance still—our arsenals. They are—I regret to say it—at present in a very imperfect state of defence. Much exertion, much expenditure, and much engineering talent will be necessary for the purpose of placing them in such a position as to prevent their being seized upon as the result of a sudden attack. If I am asked what is the force which the safety of the country demands that we should keep up, my answer is, that after consultation with many persons competent to form an opinion on the point, I put down that force at, at least, 100,000 regular troops—and when I say regular troops I include the embodied and trained militia—while I think there should be an equal force of disembodied and trained militia. Every observation, my Lords, which I have made on this subject applies as well to Ireland as to this country. Perhaps the precautions which I have indicated may be even more necessary in the case of the former than the latter. Ireland may possibly be looked upon on the other side of the Channel as one of the "oppressed nationalities;" as a country trampled upon by a nation differing from her in customs, in language, and in religion. We cannot tell what misrepresentations may be made. We must, at all events, my Lords, provide equally for the safety of Ireland as for our own. In the years 1804 and 1805, the only periods, I believe, in which we were threatened seriously with invasion by France, the force which we maintained was much greater than that which I have just mentioned. But that was merely a temporary force; while that which I have just indicated as necessary to meet the existing state of things ought, in my opinion, to form part of the permanent force of the country. If we wish to live in security, to maintain our interests abroad, to uphold the honour of the nation, we

  625
  must be willing to make every exertion necessary for the accomplishment of an object something like that which I have pointed out. I have experienced, my Lords, something like a sentiment of humiliation in going through these details. I recollect the day when every part of the opposite coast was blockaded by an English fleet. I remember the victory of Camperdown and that of St. Vincent, won by Sir John Jervis; I do not forget the great victory of the Nile, nor, last of all, that triumphant fight at Trafalgar, which almost annihilated the navies of France and Spain. I contrast the position which we occupied at that period with that which we now hold. I recollect the expulsion of the French from Egypt; the achievement of victory after victory in Spain; the British army established in the South of France; and last of all, that great victory by which that war was terminated. I cannot glance back over that series of events without feeling some degree of humiliation when I am called upon to state in this House the measures which I deem it to be necessary to take in order to provide for the safety of the country. But I may be asked, "Why do you think such measures requisite? Are we not in alliance with France? Are we not on terms of friendship with Russia? What other Power can molest us?" To these questions, my Lords, my answer shall be a short and simple one. I will not consent to live in dependence on the friendship or the forbearance of any country. I rely solely on my own vigour, my own exertion, and my own intelligence. Does any noble Lord in this House dissent from the principle which I have laid lown? I rejoice, my Lords, to find that such is not the case. But while this is a matter for congratulation, I regret to be obliged to say that we do not stand well upon the continent of Europe. I do not think late events have improved our position in that respect. But I go further, my Lords, and express my belief, as the result of my own careful observation, that if any plausible ground of difference should arise between this country and France, and that difference should lead to hostilities, the declaration of war with England on the part of the Government of that country, would be hailed with the utmost enthusiasm, not only by the army of France, but by the great mass of the French people. If I am asked, "Will you not rely upon the assurances, and the courtesies of the Emperor Napoleon?" I reply that I have a great respect for that
  626
  high person, and that I will not enter into any explanation on the subject, but will leave every noble Lord to draw his own conclusions, and to form his own opinions. This, however, I will say, and I can say it without impropriety. If I am asked whether I cannot place reliance in the Emperor Napoleon, I reply with confidence that I cannot place reliance in him, because he is in a situation in which he cannot place reliance on himself. He is in a situation in which he must be governed by circumstances, and I will not consent that the safety of this country should depend on such contingencies. My Lords, self-reliance is the best road to distinction in private life. It is equally essential to the character and to the grandeur of a nation. It will be necessary for our defence, as I have already stated, that we should have a military force sufficient to cope with any Power or combination of Powers that may be brought against us. I know there will be great opposition to the expense. I feel and observe this. But look at the opposite coast. An army of 600,000 men, admirably disciplined, admirably organized, superior to any other force of the same kind in Europe, lies within a few hours' sail of our own shores. That army is composed of brave troops, skilful, well-commanded, eager for conflict, enthusiastic, fond of adventure, thirsting for glory, and, above all, for military glory. That is the Power arrayed against you. I do not ask you to combat that Power aggressively, but only to put yourselves in a state of sufficient defence to resist it, What have we seen within the last few weeks? France, with a peace establishment, with no preparation for war, no desire for war, a nation that could not reduce its establishment because it had never advanced it—so the Emperor told us, and I am bound to put faith in that statement—was yet able in the short period of five or six weeks to transport an army of 170,000 men to the banks of the Mincio, with 200 pieces of cannon, and a siege train, gaining two great battles in its progress, besides other lesser fights, while she has a fleet of fifty war steamers in the Adriatic at this moment, with, I believe, an army of 40,000 men. Cross the opposite coast, then, and you find the power of action, of motion, of hostility, of injury. Are we to sit supine on our own shores, and not to prepare the means necessary in case of war to resist that Power? I do not wish to say that we should do this for any aggressive purpose.

  627
  What I insist upon is that we are bound to make every effort necessary for our own shelter and protection. Beside this the question of expense and of money sinks into insignificance. It is the price we must pay for our insurance, and it is but a moderate price for so important an insurance. I know there are persons who will say, "Let us run the risk." Be it so. But, my Lords, if the calamity should come, if the conflagration should take place, what words can describe the extent of the calamity, or what imagination can paint the overwhelming ruin that would fall upon us. I shall be told, perhaps, that these are the timid counsels of old age. My Lords, for myself, I should run no risk. Personally, I have nothing to fear. But to point out possible peril and how to guard effectively against it, that is surely to be considered, not as timidity, but as the dictates of wisdom and prudence. I have confined myself to facts that cannot be disputed. I think I have confined myself also to inferences which no man can successfully contravene. I hope what I have said has been in accordance with your feelings and opinions. I shall terminate what I have to say in two emphatic words, words of solemn and most significant import—Vœ Victis!
  LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, he was not entitled by any long standing in this House to interpose between their Lordships and the noble Earl who had just risen (Earl Granville). Indeed, even without reference to that noble Earl, he had no claim to address the House on a subject of this kind. But he believed he should reflect the general feeling of the House when he expressed his gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for calling attention to this most important and solemn question, at so anxious a time as the present. It seemed to him that he might read in the address of his noble and learned Friend a strong evidence of the sentiment prevailing throughout the country on this subject. When he remembered that, although the supplies necessary for taking the precautionary measure now suggested, could not originate in this House, that nevertheless, those measures had first been brought under consideration there—when he remembered that the noble Lord did not belong to the naval or military profession, but that his honourable—he might say his glorious—public life had been passed in pursuits of a totally different kind, and moreover when he saw him rise at a very advanced age and overcome the infirmities of that
  628
  period of life in order to perform a solemn duty towards the country, he could not but feel the deep importance of the subject—he could not withhold his support from the noble and learned Lord while thus engaged in pointing out the dangers to which the country was exposed, and the growing sentiment which prevailed among the people in that respect. And indeed the subject had not been brought under their Lordships' attention without adequate reason. In all countries possessing free institutions, there might be observed a certain unwillingness to prepare for defence in anticipation of war. Such institutions tended to bring out the feelings of our nature, and among them were those of self-reliance and a general reluctance to endure sacrifices before a strong conviction of their necessity had arisen. He said, therefore, that it was with good reason that the noble and learned Lord had called attention to the present question. It was, however, well known that considerable preparations of a defensive character were in progress. Assurances had been given as well by the late as by the present Administration—indeed they were to be found in the language of the Crown itself—that the whole matter was not only under consideration, but had for some time been the object of vigorous exertions on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He confessed that it had given him much satisfaction to remark some few days ago the tribute so justly paid to the late First Lord of the Admiralty by the noble Lord who is now at the head of the Foreign department when addressing his constituents in the City. He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) that the point in question was by no means what degree of confidence might be reasonably placed by this country in foreign Powers or in the Emperor of the French, but that it was a just cause of shame, and an intolerable humiliation that a great Empire like ours should appear, though it were only for one hour, to exist by sufferance, and at the good pleasure of a forbearing neighbour. A condition so wholly at variance with our national character was not only calculated to inspire a sense of shame which we ought indignantly to repel; but its necessary tendency was to render us incapable of performing those duties which we owed to the world and to Providence who had placed us in the proud position of doing good without limit. As far as his information went the noble and learned Lord,

  629
  he believed, had in no respect exaggerated the offensive means of which our neighbours could dispose. When we looked to the extent of those means, to the relations in which we stood towards other countries, to the spirit which was thought to prevail, but too generally in Europe respecting us, there was ample room for anxiety, and still more deeply might that anxiety be felt, if we fully appreciated the altered proportions of our national power when viewed comparatively with respect to the marvellous extension of scientific discoveries as applied to military operations and navigation. When we looked, moreover, at the growing demands upon our naval and military services for the protection of many distant settlements, and at the extent of our daily-increasing commerce with all parts of the world, he could not but recognize additional motives for requiring and submitting to augmented means of defence, and submitting to those sacrifices which were necessary to secure the safety of our shores and to maintain a salutary influence in our negotiations with other States. He was not one of those who laid an exclusive stress on the danger of invasion. Whatever reason we might eventually have to apprehend a hostile attack upon our shores, he was willing nevertheless to believe, that with a prudent and at the same time a firm policy on our part, and with some feeling of regard for right and consistency on the part of others, we were not likely to incur any immediate danger of that kind. But there were other considerations which made it an imperative duty for us to lose no time in completing the national defences. It could not with any shadow of reason be denied that in hastening to accomplish that indispensable object, we should only work out what the honour and interests of the country alike demanded at our hands. He was free at the same time to admit, that in contemplating the high pitch of prosperity to which we had attained, the concord and union of sentiment that existed to an almost unprecedented extent among us, and our command of resources nearly unlimited in amount, it was not easy to entertain any serious apprehensions for the fate of England. Our danger—if danger there was—would be found to arise out of a careless self-confidence, a complacent recollection of past successes, and, more especially, out of our constant unwillingness to recognize those important changes which had of late unquestionably, though gradu-
  630
  ally, taken place. He was, nevertheless, convinced that if the warning now offered were frankly accepted, if the country would boldly look the defects of its naval and military system in the face, and seasonably turn to account the mighty resources at its disposal, far from having any reason to dread a conflict with France or any other foreign Power, the day on which we should be called upon to defend our honour and interests would prove, with the blessing of God, the most glorious day that ever shone upon the destinies of England.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I fully concur in the feeling of admiration which has been expressed by the noble Lord who has just spoken with respect to the speech of the noble and learned Lord opposite. I fully admit that in this remarkable intellectual effort the noble and learned Lord has put his views before your Lordships with his usual clearness and eloquence, and that those views, so lucidly stated, contain much of truth, and picture vividly the patriotism and the spirit which pervade the country on this all-important question. At the same time I cannot refrain from asking myself whether any great practical good is likely to result from what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord. I am not sure whether the object of his observations is to stimulate the country or to stimulate the Government; but I have no hesitation in saying that, as regards other countries and other Governments, I cannot foresee any advantage likely to arise from the course which has been taken. There is nothing which gives such weight to this House as the debates which take place in it upon all the important subjects relating to our connection with foreign States, but at the same time it cannot be denied that upon each individual Member—and certainly upon each individual Member of the Government—rests a grave responsibility in regard to what may be spoken by him. During the first three months of the present Parliamentary year, I think we had only three debates upon the delicate subject of our foreign relations. Those debates were not devoid of spirit or of frankness, but they were conducted with a prudence and discretion which were not only highly approved by the public at large, but produced a good practical effect on the Continent, and even in some countries where our free institutions are little loved. Since the accession of the present Government to office, this House has sat only four nights, and during

  631
  three of them sharp discussions have taken place upon some delicate matters connected with our foreign relations. One noble and gallant Friend of mine, whom I do not see in his place, spoke on two consecutive nights with an eloquence and facility and a precision which are certainly most remarkable in one whose professional career has prevented him from acquiring experience in Parliamentary or any other kind of public speaking; but at the same time, I must say, that his attack upon the head of a Government which is at present in friendly alliance with us, and still more the irritating remarks which he made upon the whole French nation, were not well calculated to be of advantage in the existing state of affairs. I am bound to state, however, on the contrary, that the two noble Earls whom I now see sitting together—I mean the late Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary—having recently felt the responsibility involved in the conduct of public affairs at a crisis like the present, have abstained from observations of an imprudent and injurious character. The noble Earl who was at the head of the late Government—though never backward in debate—has carefully abstained from taking any part in the discussions to which I have referred; while the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has confined himself almost entirely to a very legitimate personal defence against attacks which he thought had been made by myself and by two of my colleagues in the present Government. But I cannot say that the same discreet line of conduct has been pursued by all the Members of the late Administration. One noble Earl, who for some time held the office of President of the Board of Control (the Earl of Ellenborough) told us, with that strength of language which stereotypes every thought that comes from his lips, that he believed with the certainty of prophecy that sooner or later an attempt at invasion would be made. I feel reluctant, my Lords, to admit the contemplation of such an event; and it is some comfort to me to reflect that prophecy when uninspired is one of the most fallacious guides in the political conduct of the world. If there be anything more likely than another to give to prophecy a realization in truth, it is possible that another noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke), who held one of the highest offices in the late Government, observed, during the last year, a singular silence upon public affairs;
  632
  but the very moment he got out of harness, like Cowper's
  "Post-horse, right glad to miss
  The lumbering of the wheels,"
  he gallopped about without thinking what mischief he might inflict, or where he might place his foot. I do think that when that noble Earl, in defiance of all international law, and in defiance of the feelings of a great maritime Power—our neighbour, declared what his ideas were of the limits of the British shore, he ought to have recollected that such remarks were but ill fitted to preserve the peaceful character of our foreign relations. And now, my Lords, we have this evening been addressed upon the same subject with greater weight, greater moderation, and greater temper. But I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord opposite has been judicious in all he has said. If a feeling of hostility does exist, as he says it does, not on the part of the Emperor Napoleon, but on the part of the French people, I doubt that his speech will tend to allay it. When he points out in the most marked way the defenceless character of our shores—when at the same time he boasts of our former victories, and when he makes something like insinuating and sneering allusions both to the Government and the people of France—I am afraid that, coming from such lips as his, such language is not well calculated to promote the object of unbroken friendly alliance. When you consider how much irritated a majority of the public and of Parliament were last year by the foolish phrases of a few foolish French colonels, isolated in their garrison towns, and smarting under an attempted assassination of their Emperor and commander, you will be able to estimate the effect which such language as we have heard to-night is likely to produce upon a people so sensitive as the French. Again, my Lords, I have to ask myself whether such speeches are necessary to stimulate our countrymen at home. I believe they are not. It is impossible to read the language of the public press, or the speeches made at public meetings, or to see the points upon which even theologians think the election of a Member for Oxford University ought to turn, without seeing an indication on all hands of the readiness with which the people are prepared to make sacrifices in order to preserve the inviolability of our shores, and maintain the national honour—it is impossible not to see that the feeling so eloquently described by the

  633
  noble and learned Lord is one which is fully participated in by the people at large. Unquestionably a proper feeling in that respect already exists, and the only fear is that it may be excited beyond its legitimate work. The noble and learned Lord has talked of invasion; but that I believe is at the present moment out of the question. While we are on the best possible terms with the United States, while Russia is notoriously not prepared for war, and while France is engaged in a bloody and costly contest in Italy, at such a moment, we are certainly not in danger of an invasion. But what we all feel is, that it would be absolute folly for a great and rich country like England not to take those permanent precautions which at all times will relieve us, not only from invasion itself, but from the very alarm of invasion, so injurious as it might be to our commerce and our prosperity. If there be any truth more clearly to be derived from the teachings of practical political experience than another it is this—that if we excite a feeling to an unnatural degree that excitement will be followed by a reaction, and the probability is that if the people are too much agitated now they may at some future time be seized with a fit of economy which will prevent the Government of the day from continuing those permanent means of defence, which I, for one, consider of the most absolute necessity that this country should provide. I now come to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and to the question whether it is necessary to stimulate them with regard to this most important subject, My noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) and myself have already had occasion to make in this House explicit declarations upon this point, and I am glad to have the opportunity of repeating that those declarations are not mere expressions of individual opinions, but the authorized statement of the views of the whole of the Cabinet intrusted with the Government of the country. I know nothing in the character of Lord Palmerston, the head of the Government, which should excite alarm in this respect. I believe that all who have seen anything of that noble Lord know that for years there has been no man—except perhaps the late Duke of Wellington—who, both in private and in public, has more anxiously pressed the importance of maintaining our national defences in a proper state of preparation than he has done. Some doubt may have been created by what fell from the noble
  634
  and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) with regard to the state of the navy at the beginning of last year, which was cheered by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), and which must have been founded upon a statement made by the noble Earl himself the other day, that at that time the navy was in a state of "weakness, impotence, and decrepitude." [The Earl of DERBY: Hear, hear!] The noble Earl cheers; but I really venture to ask him how he reconciles that cheer with the statement made by the head of the Department concerned last year? I do not wish to trespass upon your Lordships' attention, but perhaps I may be allowed to give you a very short sketch of what has occurred with regard to the navy. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) referred to the great difference in the comparison between the forces of France and England which resulted from the application of steam to navigation. No sane person can doubt that whereas it had formerly been impossible for the French nation to equal us in sailing vessels, as soon as steam was introduced the terms became equal, and the race equal to both countries. In the year 1852, however, we were superior to the French in steam vessels by, I think, 52 ships. During the war we maintained our superiority both in the Baltic and in the Black Sea. At that time I think 284 ships, besides 107 mortar vessels, were added to the navy. In 1858 we bad 16 large ships in excess of the number possessed by the French; and although it might be true that we were deficient in frigates, we had 224 smaller steam vessels more than they had. At the cessation of the war the country required, and to a certain extent reasonably required, a reduction of our armaments. The Government did not entirely comply with those requisitions. They reduced the navy, but instead of returning to its condition previous to the war, they went hack to the standard of the first year of preparations for war, which exceeded the peace establishment by about 1,000 men, and in the shipbuilding department by about 50 per cent. Last year a cry arose in the country, which was most eloquently enforced by Mr. Disraeli in Parliament, that not only our civil but also our military and naval expenditure must be reduced in proportion to the reduction of our taxation. The charges which were made against the then head of the Admiralty (Sir Charles Wood) were that he was spending too

  635
  much money and building too large ships. Her Majesty's late Government acceded to power, and ten days afterwards Sir John Pakington, their First Lord of the Admiralty, went down to the House of Commons and said that the Navy Estimates of the preceding Government were so large that the Ministry could not take the responsibility of proposing them to Parliament without due and mature deliberation. They took one month to consider the matter, and then Sir John Pakington in his place in Parliament proposed reductions under three not unimportant heads,—the wages in the dockyards, the purchase of steam-engines for ships, and the extension of Keyham yard; and he defended these reductions on the ground that the Government, after ample inquiry and careful deliberation, had come to the conclusion that those reductions could be made without in the slightest degree impairing the efficiency of the navy. Sir Charles Wood remonstrated with him; and in reply to his remonstrances Sir John Pakington proved, or endeavoured to prove, that Sir Charles Wood's calculations were erroneous; that there was a greater difference between the French and English fleets than he supposed, and that with regard to weight and number of guns especially, the latter was greatly superior. His whole argument was to show that Sir C. Wood was wrong in proposing such large Estimates, while the Government was quite right in reducing them. Later important intelligence was received by the Government as to great activity in the French dockyards. I believe that this great activity commenced after the change of Government took place; but whether that was so or not, it certainly afforded a sufficient stimulus for exertion on our side. Well, but Her Majesty's late Government did not then either propose large additional Estimates to the House of Commons, nor did they on their own responsibility spend large sums of money for the expenditure of which they might subsequently be indemnified. What they did was this. They diverted workmen from the establishment for repairs to the conversion of ships, which otherwise could not have been effected. They converted four ships—that may have been right, but at the same time they sacrificed an amount of money which might have been usefully employed in other repairs—and they energetically pressed the completion of eight ships of the line, which were almost ready to be launched when the previous Government
  636
  retired. I am really afraid of wearying your Lordships with these details, and I do not refer to them with the slightest intention of throwing blame upon the late Government. On the contrary, I am ready to admit that from the beginning of this year they have shown the most laudable energy and activity in increasing the navy to the greatest possible extent. Within a recent period they have prepared additional Estimates. Those Estimates are very large, but I believe them to be strictly necessary; and when the time comes for their discussion in "another place" it will be found that, if there is any difference, it is that the noble Duke near me (the Duke of Somerset) has in some cases looked a little further than even Her Majesty's late Government. It is not necessary for me to enter into a defence of the army. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) repeated the other day what he so handsomely stated when he took office—namely, that he was surprised at the number and efficiency of the troops which he found in this country. I quite admit that the army which we now possess is not large enough to meet any great force coming suddenly upon us; and I think it is clearly the duty of the Government to direct its attention to these questions of the army, and of defending our arsenals so as, if possible, to make them impregnable, to consider most carefully those applications of practical science which have already produced weapons of so deadly a character, and, moreover, to consider the vitally important point of the means of defence against such murderous weapons when directed against ourselves. To these must be added the question of the embodied militia, the experience of which has been most satisfactory to the country, and of other systems. I do know anything that would be more likely to be valuable as a means of defence than the formation of volunteer corps of artillery, while I believe that rifle corps will afford considerable assistance. It will also be the duty of the Government to consider how far they can encourage the formation of a reserve. I beg, however, to state explicitly that no person in this House is more convinced of the necessity of putting our national defences in proper order than is every Member of her Majesty's Government. There is no desire on our part to conceal our preparations from foreign nations. We have no reason to be reluctant to explain to them that, however much we may deplore that all Europe

  637
  should be arming, yet when all Europe does arm, we cannot be left entirely behindhand in the race, and that we require to he placed in such a position as shall give us the influence which we ought to have in the counsels of Europe when the proper opportunity comes for restoring peace, and shall enable us to ensure the conditions most favourable to the happiness and interests of all who are concerned. But while we are engaged in this difficult, this responsible, and this all-important task—while you allow us to retain our seats on this bench—I think we may with confidence ask your Lordships to give us your support and your assistance, and not in any way to embarrass us—a result which, I think it will appear to your Lordships, on cool reflection, cannot be secured if on every occasion of our meeting we rush tumultuously into the consideration and discussion of questions of the most delicate character.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the speech delivered by the noble and learned Lord, which he concurred with the noble Lord (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe) in thinking was as patriotic and useful as it was important; and he thought that it would be pleasing, not only to their Lordships' House, but to the public at large, from its calm and dispassionate review of the condition in which, under present circumstances, we might be placed, and which we had a right—not he trusted, to anticipate as rapidly approaching, but at least to contemplate as possible. When we considered that the British empire composed of numerous and detached portions of the globe—separated by the ocean, the common highway of all the world, and that if the forces of the two great maritime nations should by any accident be combined against us, they were not in a condition to satisfy the people of this country that they were secure, matters assumed a serious aspect. We were an unaggressive power, thinking of defence and not of offence; and he, for his part, desired to speak only in terms of high respect for the man who ruled the great French nation. But there was nothing improper in a Member of their Lordships' House, calling the attention to the defensive condition of the country at a time like the present; but the noble Earl (Earl Granville) instead of pursuing the patriotic course, seemed to be desirous to divert the debate into a mere party question, whether a ship more or less was built during the
  638
  late Administration—instead of addressing himself to the great question, the noble Earl seemed to consider himself in the light of a criminal, and that he was obliged to raise party questions in order to defend himself; when, in fact, the noble and learned Lord had not meant to throw the slightest reflection on him or the Government. The noble Earl had described him (the Earl of Hardwicke) as one who, when the drag-chain of office was on, had been steady and quiet; but having got rid of it, galloped here and there until he at last got so far as to say, that the boundary of this country was the low-water mark on the French coast. He would recommend the noble Earl to gallop to the same conclusion as fast as he could for purposes of defence; the power of shutting up the French fleet in their ports, or of making them fight on their own coast, and not on ours, was what he meant and not that which had been attributed to him, that he was so foolish as to say that the British Channel should be the property of this country. If any French naval officer thought that England was an aggressive power, would he not recommend that if possible the British Channel should be considered the French Channel, and that the low-water mark of England should be the frontier of France? It was to the importance of putting our navy into such a position, that at the breaking out of a war it might be able to blockade the enemy's ports, that his noble and learned Friend addressed himself when he spoke of the necessity of our having ready an overwhelming naval force. Were they going to wait until there actually was war? The time to prepare was now, when we were at peace, by building and manning our ships; for, otherwise, instead of our being able to drive the enemy to the opposite shores, we should be compelled to retreat into our own ports and incur the chance of the war arriving to this country in another shape. As to the party question. What the noble Earl said in reference to the condition of the fleets of England and France when Sir Charles Wood was in office was, as he understood, that we had something like 160 or 200 vessels more than France; and no doubt it was true if you took every vessel propelled by steam, without regard to quality or size, to say that the excess was 140 or 150, but it was made up of gunboats, of which France had twenty-eight, and England 160. As regarded line-of-battle ships we had been reduced

  639
  to a condition which we had never before been reduced to within the memory of living men—that of having two or three ships of the line less than was possessed by Prance, and being very considerably weaker in the matter of frigates. It was perfectly true that the First Lord of the Admiralty of the late Government did offer to reduce, or did actually reduce, the Navy Estimates by a small amount, but as soon as that Government became acquainted with the real state of the navy their minds were directed to its improvement. They found that the way in which the construction of the navy had been conducted by their predecessors was this: they had taken from Parliament certain Votes for the construction of ships, but, instead of applying it to that purpose, they applied part of the money to shipbuilding and the rest to other purposes in the dockyards. He did not say whether it was necessary or not that they should do so—that was not the point, but the effect produced was that the public, believing that the navy was increasing in proportion to the money voted, were deceived by the money being laid out for other purposes. What course did the late Government take? They determined to produce as much as they could for the money, and instead of frittering away a portion of the fund in repairing paddle-wheel steamers, and altering ships which never could be of any use, they devoted the whole of it to the construction of new steam-ships, and to the conversion of sailing vessels into steam vessels. That course enabled them in a very short time to launch seven or eight ships, and this year they demanded from Parliament money sufficient to enable them to raise the steam navy to something like fifty sail of the line at the close of 1859, and in 1861 it would be fifty-eight or fifty-nine. The late Government also increased their building power by directing a certain number of vessels to be built by contract. They turned all their energies to the improvement and construction of ships, and they took counsel over the whole country on the subject; and if their course of procedure were followed out there would be large and powerful armaments forthcoming when the country needed them. During the late recess, too, the Government, on their own responsibility, had offered a bounty to induce seamen to enter the navy, and altogether had left the navy on such a footing, that if the noble Duke opposite, now at the head of the Admiralty, followed up the
  640
  measures of his predecessors the country might depend on having a powerful navy forthcoming whenever an emergency arose., He advised the present Government to let no time be lost in raising their fleet to 100 sail of the line, and not to grudge the cost, for they might depend upon it that, although such force might not be needed they would be laying out the money in the best possible manner. They would by so doing strengthen our alliances; they would greatly assist the Foreign Minister in his communications with other countries; they would render commerce secure wherever the British flag floated; the fluctuations in the price of funds, in consequence of the slightest breeze on the other side of the water, would cease, and they would improve their position in the opinion of the great man that now ruled France. He was firmly convinced that the Emperor of the French would rejoice at a considerable augmentation of our naval strength, because it would furnish him with a powerful argument against such of his subjects as desired an invasion of this country by France. He believed that that ruler would much rather quiet than stimulate that desire of invasion, and would be glad to see the maritime power of this country raised to a considerable pitch, that the question might not be pressed upon him as to whether he should make war upon England or not.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETmust express his regret that a question of such grave importance as that of the naval defences of this country had been treated as it had been by the noble and learned Lord. In the observations which he himself made the other evening upon this subject he carefully abstained from saying anything to irritate the feelings of any other nation. With reference to the noble and learned Lord's charge that his noble Friends, when in office before, had reduced the naval force of the empire—he had had nothing to do with that Government, and therefore he was perfectly free to express his opinion on that subject. He thought that the charge refuted itself; for noble Lords opposite, when the Conservative party accepted office, found that the former Government had left the navy in such a state that after a month's consideration the new Government made up their minds to reduce the Estimates. In consequence of what had been said in their Lordships' house the other day, he had looked at the records of the Admiralty, and found that

  641
  the information relative to the growing superiority, or rather great increase, of the French navy had been received here at the commencement of July, 1858. There was plenty of time to have come down to Parliament that Session and ask for increased Estimates; but nothing of the kind was done; but on the contrary, the works in the dockyards were reduced, and the order went forth to stop the extra jobwork. But he admitted that at last the late Government did come to Parliament and state the growing increase of the French navy, and that they vigorously set to work to improve the state of our own navy. He greatly regretted the exciting language which their Lordships had just heard. If such language were persevered in it would be necessary to have not only a peace but a war establishment. There was no peace whatever in the language of the noble and learned Lord. All he said was for war. That language was calculated to excite the passions of England and France, and he thought it most unwise to talk as the noble and learned Lord had done of two great nations. The noble and learned Lord might have done good service if he had simply shown the present position of affairs, and had urged upon the Government the necessity of increasing our naval force and the land fortifications of the country; but instead of doing so he had used exciting language which would spread throughout the country, and which, as it came from a man of so much eminence, and from a man who had recently taken so distinguished a part in foreign policy, would have a very bad effect. He well remembered the strong language which the noble and learned Lord used not long ago when pleading the cause of Italy. His sympathies were then with Italy, but they were now utterly gone, and nothing remained but his anger with France. During the short time that he (the Duke of Somerset) had been in office he had done everything in his power to increase the power of this country by sea. He had thought it his duty to continue works in the dockyards which had, indeed, been begun by the late Government, but as they had only taken a Vote for six months, they must have been discontinued had the late Government continued in office, and 3,000 workmen would have been dismissed from the dockyards next autumn. He (the Duke of Somerset) on the contrary, had thought it necessary to take an additional sum for the works now in progress, in order that they might
  642
  be carried on until the commencement of the next financial year. He hoped that the people of this country would not be induced by exciting language to demand armaments on a war scale, for the putting of armaments on that scale led to war. He thought it was our duty to steadily increase our armaments, but he would not adopt the language of the noble and learned Lord who said that we must at once prepare for defence in every quarter of the globe where the English flag floated.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, they seemed agreed on both sides of the House, without one single exception, as to the expediency, or, indeed, the necessity, of defensive preparations. In that there was nothing invidious either towards foreign nations or their rulers; but it was simply caused by the posture of affairs in Europe, where the different countries were swarming with great armies under the control of a few individuals possessing absolute and unlimited power, and whose caprices might any day lend to a breach of the peace. Under such circumstances we were bound to stand prepared in our own defence for whatever might happen, without expecting anything to happen, or dreading anything that might happen. He deeply lamented what had been said by his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Howden) who was not in his place, in reference to the feelings of the French people with regard to the invasion of England. He (Lord Brougham) positively denied that the feeling was such as had been represented. There was no desire on the part of the French people to engage in war with this country; but, on the contrary, there was an almost universal desire to maintain peace. With respect to the rulers of Russia, of Austria, and of France, it was not safe to allow either of them to encroach ever so little upon the rights of others. There was an old maxim to the effect that they whom you allowed to go but a very little beyond the line which divided right from wrong, were very apt to go a great deal further without your leave, cui plus licet quam debet eum semper plus velle quam licet. If you gave them an inch they would take an ell. He had confidence in the Emperor of the French, but whether we trusted him or mistrusted him we certainly ought to trust to ourselves; and without expecting war or dreading war we ought to be prepared for our own defence whatever might happen. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst)

  643
  and his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Hardwicke) seemed to have performed the proverbially superfluous office of preaching to those already converted, for no one denied, or even doubted, that we should be fully prepared for all accidents. As to the French people we had no mistrust of them; but there existed but one opinion as to the absolute necessity of our being fully prepared in the present state of Europe. We had no distrust of foreign nations; but on the other hand, they had no right to complain of our being prepared when they had proved themselves to be prepared.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I have only a very few words to offer, but I cannot leave the House with satisfaction to myself without taking the opportunity of expressing to my noble and learned Friend my most grateful thanks for the great service which, in my opinion, he has performed. My noble and learned Friend has put an end to that fatal course of self-deception in which this country has for so many years been indulging. He has distinctly placed before the House and the public the picture of what we were and what we are—of what we are under circumstances the most perilous which have occurred for the last half century. I feel convinced that upon the most mature after-reflection my noble and learned Friend will not find one word in the great speech which he has delivered to-night which he would desire to alter. My Lords, the people of this country have, by almost all who have been in the habit of addressing them, both within the walls of Parliament and at public meetings, been led to think much more of the past than of the present, and not at all of the future. They have been resting upon the memory of past glories, and they have been imagining they were only on the morrow of Waterloo and Trafalgar. That is not my feeling, and it is now twelve years since I took the opportunity of calling attention to the great changes which had then taken place in the circumstances of Europe since the year 1815, and urging upon the House the adoption of some other measures than the mere law for ballotting for the militia, now enforced for the purpose of giving us the requisite security. I have since upon several occasions pressed the same considerations, as far as I could, upon the public mind. Of all the nations of Europe we are the most vulnerable at sea, because we have, in addition to our own territory, our Colonies and our great commerce to
  644
  defend; and if we have not superiority at sea we are more vulnerable than all other nations on land, because we have a much larger frontier, and one much more exposed than any other nation. On all sides we are exposed to attack, if we have not a naval superiority to protect us. My Lords, we have been desired to-night to change the language which some are disposed to use with respect to the armaments and councils of our neighbours. My Lords, were we to do so, it appears to me that we should adopt a course of conduct very inconsistent with our duty as Members of the Legislature. In what part of the world will liberty of speech take refuge if it is not to be permitted to take refuge in this House? What are the circumstances of the war, and how has that war been described on both sides of the House? I believe, since we met after the dissolution, I have heard the word "iniquitous" applied to it. No one has questioned the correctness of that description. It is certainly a war without justification. Even if the object be a good one, it is not justifiable by wrong and bad means to attempt to accomplish it. But I do not believe, nor do I think any one believes, that the pretended object of the war is the real one. We see a war, which is declared to he iniquitous, entered into for the purpose of changing the existing distribution of Power in Europe, and the settlement made in the year 1815, which has lasted untouched from the Treaty of Vienna to the present time. We are desired to regard that war, conducted as it is by such an extraordinary force, as if it were an event which could not in any manner produce alarm in the mind of any man in this country. My Lords, France in this war appears almost as a new Power in Europe. If it be true—and I accept the declaration of the Emperor that he made no preparations—it is on that account I entertain the greater alarm. If, without any previous preparation, the Emperor of France can in six or eight weeks place 200,000 men, perfectly equipped, for military operations in the centre of Northern Italy—if he can send 80,000 of these men by sea most rapidly, with most perfect arrangements, with all that is required of munitions of war and provisions carefully packed as if there had been forethought, and as if intended for transmission by sea—if, in addition to that, in a small space of time, he can place from 30,000 to 40,000 men in a powerful fleet in the Adriatic, and there propose

  645
  a descent and a rehearsal of the invasion of this country—when I see these things done, when I see the diminished force of this country, as detailed by my noble and learned Friend, in comparison with the force of France, I do feel apprehensive, and I do feel that it is the bounden duty of Government and of Parliament to place this country in a state of unattackable security. I am not satisfied with the expressions of the noble Earl (Earl Granville). I am not satisfied that merely ordinary means should be adopted, that "what is proper" should be done. What I desire is that the country shall be placed in that degree of unattackable security, that strength shall be restored to our diplomacy, that we may be able really to interfere with effect in putting an end to this war and preventing the commencement of any general hostilities. Until we do that all our diplomacy is valueless. I have often heard of "moral influence." Moral influence varies exactly as the amount of physical force behind it. No one, I think, unless inspired with a feeling hardly English, can speak of the present ruler of France as one calculated, of himself and by himself, without any association of force, to exercise moral influence in Europe; yet no man in Europe has more moral influence, because no man commands greater force. And noble Lords opposite may depend upon it that, until they place this country in a degree of security which renders it hopeless for France or any other Power to attempt to attack our shores, all efforts to terminate the war by intervention and negotiation will be entirely without avail. During the last eleven years—since 1848—all the Powers of Europe have been endeavouring, partly from distrust of each other, and partly from distrust of their own subjects, to increase their military force. They have effected that object; they have effected it by great financial sacrifices. I dread both their financial weakness and their military strength, because I know that against the burdens to which they have been submitting their only hope of remedy and relief is by a combined war on this country. My Lords, it is not safe for this country to remain unarmed in the midst of armed nations. When of two neighbouring nations who have ever been rivals, and have often been engaged in desperate hostilities against each other, one determines to apply all her energies to making money, and the other to making preparations for war, it is obvious enough with which of the two nations all
  646
  the money must ultimately remain Our only security is in our own energies, and I trust the Government will adhere precisely to those expressions of firm resolve, and will follow out that decided course which in the first instance they seemed determined to adopt. But I confess I am not perfectly satisfied with what fell from the noble Earl to-night. I fear there is a slight variation from the decided course which in the first instance they said they were fully determined to pursue. I trust they will adhere absolutely to that course, as I believe it is by that only they will secure the confidence of Parliament and the safety of the country.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, I can assure the noble Earl who has just sat down that the fear he has now expressed is entirely without foundation. No such change, as he appears to suspect, has come over the intentions of the Government; but the demands made upon the Government and noble Lords opposite are daily rising. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Hardwicke) told us a few nights ago, that seventy sail of the line would be the requisite provision for the defence of our shores; but to-night his estimate has risen to 100. And if the speech of the noble and learned Lord to-night—a speech remarkable for dignity and eloquence—were to be taken as indicating the overture now put forward upon this subject, it would follow that the Government must at once produce a war Estimate, and provide for war taxation. That doctrine was neither more nor less than this—that we must at all times maintain a naval force that shall be equal to the combined navies of the rest of the world. I believe such a course would be productive of the most mischievous results. It might be possible in a time of general suspicion and alarm to propose such measures with success. They might even be received with popular satisfaction for the moment; but a re-action would inevitably follow: the Opposition would take the advantage of that re-action, as Oppositions always did, and then would follow a clamour for reduction of expenditure, leaving us, probably, in a worse position than before. This has been the usual order of events; and in so far as we can he said to be suffering at all, we are suffering from the cause at the present moment. I very well recollect that when the Government of Lord Aberdeen was first formed, it was a period of popular alarm about invasion: and the earlier meetings of his Cabinet

  647
  were much occupied by the subject of the national defences. The Estimates of our predecessors were increased. The noble Earl at the head of that Government was, with his usual strong sense, the first to call a halt in the measures pointed at by the general feeling of the time. Then followed soon after the Russian war. Our navy was raised to a position of great power—involving, of course, large expenditure, and corresponding taxes. What happened on the peace? A cry for immediate reduction; and at the beginning of 1857, we could not reduce rapidly enough, or to a sufficient extent to meet the urgent demands of the Opposition. Very unjust complaint is now made against Sir C. Wood, on the opposite ground that he allowed the navy to fall too low. Yet, what are the facts? His Estimates for (1858) were accepted by the Government of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) not only without complaint that they were inadequate, but with many apologies and excuses for adopting Estimates so very high. Sir J. Pakington explained that they were so high, that he must ask time to consider whether he could not reduce them; and at the end of a month he came down to the House of Commons, explaining that he could only effect a comparatively small reduction—that reduction being principally in the very item—steam machinery—in which our comparative backwardness is now laid at the door of Sir C. Wood. Depend on it, my Lords, if we were now, on the ground of vague suspicions merely, to ask for war taxation to cover war expenditure, there would be a speedy re-action, leaving us, probably, in a worse position than we were before. There is another point with respect to which I wish to say a few words before I resume my seat. The present war had been described by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) as an iniquitous war on the part of France and Sardinia. I can assure the House that it was with the utmost reluctance that he had sat silent during the recent discussions which had taken place on the subject. I do not mean to say that circumstances of very grave anxiety with respect to the origin of the war did not exist, but I beg most decidedly to dissent from the opinion which, without argument, would assume that the present war was one of an iniquitous character, so far as France and Sardinia were concerned. Such an opinion would be inconsistent with the language held by the late Go-
  648
  vernment, for it would be found in the papers which were to be discussed on Friday next that the war had been denounced in language stronger than I should be disposed to use—by the noble Earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs—as resting entirely on the head of Austria, which it certainly did, in so far at least as that it was she who took that last step which had led to the immediate commencement of hostilities.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he thought their Lordships owed a great debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord who had brought the subject under discussion before the House. It was, he thought, of the utmost importance that the country should be placed in such a position of defence as that we need not be under the necessity of relying for our security on any man or any nation, and he could assure the noble Duke who had just spoken, that there was no occasion to be alarmed at any reaction on the score of expenditure for that purpose taking place in the minds of the people of England, so long as great armaments, such as at present existed, were maintained on the Continent of Europe. When the war in Italy came to a termination, and those armaments were decreased, it would be time enough to look for that change of public opinion which the noble Duke seemed to apprehend. He did not mean to contend that this country was likely to be invaded by France; but he thought it right we should be prepared. He could remember when the other House was considering whether it was advisable to adopt the principles of Free Trade, they (the House of Lords) ventured to remind them that by possibility, although we had been thirty years at peace, war might again break out. And what was their answer? They said that war was now an impossibility, with the advancement and enlightment of the age. And what ensued? First, in 1854, we engaged in a war with Russia. That was, in his opinion, and he said so at the time, a most unfortunate war. It was of the most sanguinary character, and it was in the contest then carried on that, in his opinion, the seeds of the present hostilities were sown. Who, then, would he so bold as to tell them that this country would never be invaded, and that therefore they should not be prepared for such an event? He for one would not be so rash as to arrive at any such conclusion. But his principal object in rising was to point out to the noble Duke at the head of the

  649
  Admiralty (and who he was sorry to say had now left the House) what he believed had not been alluded to by any noble Lord who had addressed the House that evening. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had said that very much of the defences of this country must depend on the "wooden walls of Old England;" and he added, what was more important, the spirit and efficiency of our seamen. Now, he (the Duke of Rutland) must remind their Lordships that the Navigation Laws had been repealed. He was not going to argue the policy of that measure, but only to say that before it was passed it was necessary that the master and three fourths of the crew of each merchant ship should be British seamen, and from whom the Royal Navy was largely recruited; but the repeal of the Navigation Laws had done away with that, and left the British shipowner in competition with all the world. But when the Legislature exposed the British shipowner to competition with the world, they very properly and justly felt that it was only fair to take off all restrictions from him; previously every ship or vessel of 80 tons and under 200 was obliged to carry at least one apprentice;

  200 and under 400

  2 apprentices;

  400 and under 500

  3 apprentices;

  500 and under 700

  4 apprentices;

  700 and upwards

  5 apprentices;

  but this was done away with when the Navigation Laws were repealed, and there is now no nursery for seamen. He believed it to be expedient that if a supply of efficient seamen was to be secured, that an alteration of the existing rules, as to manning the mercantile navy, should be effected, and his object in rising was to draw the attention of the noble Duke to the subject. For his own part, he would not be so rash as to arrive at any such conclusion, and he should therefore earnestly impress upon his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty the necessity of rendering as efficient as possible those "wooden walls" which his noble and learned Friend who opened the discussion had so justly designated as the main defence of the country. In order to secure that object it was expedient, as his noble and learned Friend had suggested, that there should be an ample supply of efficient seamen, and he therefore trusted the existing rules in relation to employment in the merchant service would be so far modified as to attain that end.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.