Sitting of 4 March 1859

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Stirlingshire.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Midhurst, John Hardy, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1oPublic Offices Extension; Court of Probate, &c. (Acquisition of Site); Remission of Penalties.
2o Evidence by Commission.

BRITISH COLUMBIA.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM DUNBARsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Returns relating to British Columbia ordered by the House will be presented?
SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTONsaid, he had taken some pains to urge on the printing of those Returns, but they did not belong entirely to his department; some part, relating to the expenses of the Engineer's staff, belonged to the War Department, and that connected with naval matters to the Admiralty. When these should be received the whole would be ready, but he was afraid it would not be for a week or ten days.

EXEMPTIONS FROM PAPER DUTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he desired to ask the secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has considered the propriety of extending to school books generally the exemption from the Paper Duty which is
  1272
  now allowed on books in the Latin, Greek, Oriental, and Northern languages, printed by the Universities. Also, what books are considered to be free from duty under the description of "books in the Northern languages,"
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that such an exemption as that referred to by the hon. Member would scarcely be possible. In the first place it would be difficult to say what were really school books even amongst the lower classes of school books. In the higher classes it would be altogether impossible. Were an exemption given to all books printed by a University, it would establish a monopoly for Universities. The books considered to be free from duty under the description of books in the Northern languages were those printed in the Russian, Scandinavian, Danish, Dutch, and German languages.

NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Royal Assent is given to the Electoral Bill passed by the Legislature of New South Wales.
  SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON, said, there was a slight inaccuracy in the terms of the Question; for, under the constitution of New South Wales, the Royal Assent was not required, or, rather, unless the Crown interposed with a negative, the Bill was assumed to have received the Royal Assent of course. There would be no objection to lay on the table a copy of the Bill.

HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether he intends to introduce any measure for the better regulation of the Herring Fisheries on the West Coast of Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that he had been in communication with his right hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Home Department on the subject; and he wished, under present circumstances, to postpone his answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

  TENANT RIGHT,—QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he rose to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whe-

  1273
  they he cannot introduce, without further delay, the Bill which is intended to amend the existing relations of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the subject, as promised by the Government, had been consigned to his care, and the measure was perfectly ready to be introduced; but, as there were other important Bills for Ireland now before the House, he thought it would be more convenient to get them substantially disposed of before this was introduced. When the discussions on those Bills had closed, he would ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appoint a day for the introduction of the Bill which is intended to amend the existing relations between Landlord and Tenant in Ireland.

SUPPLY OF MARINE ENGINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. G. LANGTONsaid, lie would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as Her Majesty's Government have thought it necessary to apply for tenders for the supply of Marine Engines from Liverpool, Scotland, and most of the eminent houses engaged in this particular business, Bristol is included amongst the places to which invitations for tenders have been made?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, no invitations for tenders had been sent to any house in Bristol, but the Government had no desire to exclude any particular locality or any particular house whose competency and respectability brought it within the conditions required.

  CLAIMS OF BRITISH TRADERS AGAINST PORTUGAL—QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether steps are being taken to induce the Portuguese Government to satisfy the claims of British Traders for injuries done to them on the African Coast.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that Do effort had been spared by Her Majesty's Government to induce the Portuguese Government to satisfy the claims of those traders to whom the question of the hon. Gentleman had more immediate reference; but he regretted to say that repeated representations and remonstrances had had no satisfactory result. Besides the case
  1274
  referred to by the hon. Member, there was another, that of the Messrs. Horsfall, which arose in 1842—sixteen years ago. Her Majesty's Government had protested to the Government of Portugal against the treatment which British traders in that case received; but after sixteen years' remonstrance the only result up to the present had been the promise of a reply.

AUSTRIA AND THE ITALIAN STATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Treaties which subsequently to the Treaty of Vienna have been concluded between the Emperor of Austria and the different Sovereigns of Italy, and having reference to the internal Government of their Dominions or their Military Occupation by Austrian Troops, have been communicated to the British Government, and whether there are copies of them in the Foreign Office; and, whether there is any objection to lay them before Parliament?
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that as a general rule it had never been the practice of the Government to lay upon the table Copies of Treaties that were made between Foreign Powers, unless they were communicated directly by those Foreign Powers for the information of the Executive of this country. Perhaps, however, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) wished him to reply more in detail, and he would do so. With regard to the Treaty of Vienna, it was not necessary to lay it upon the Table of the House, because it had been printed, and any hon. Gentleman who wished to refer to it could do so in the Library. The next Treaty that would come under the question of the right hon. Gentleman was a Treaty admitted to have been made between Austria and Tuscany on the 12th June, 1815. Her Majesty's Government had no official knowledge whatever of that Treaty; hut it was printed in the Austrian collection of Treaties, and might also be found in the library. The next Treaty was one between Austria and Naples. Of that again there was no official copy in the Foreign Office; though, with reference to some portions of it, they had received such information as put them in possession of its nature and character. In the Morning Chronicle of the 10th October, 1848, would be found what, as far as Her Majesty's Government

  1275
  were aware, was the important part of that Treaty. There was another treaty between Austria and Spain and the Italian Duchies. This was a State Paper to which Great Britain was a party. It had been laid upon the Table, and would be found printed amongst other papers of a similar, character. The next Treaty to which the right hon. Gentleman's question had reference was one between Austria, Sardinia, Tuscany, and Modena; that also had been laid upon the Table. It was produced to the House in 1848, with the first part of "Affairs of Italy," page 237. The next Treaty was one of very considerable importance. It was one between Austria, Parma, and Modena, and gave Austria a right of passage of troops, and put her under an obligation of interfering in case of internal disturbance in the Duchies. That Treaty was of such importance that it was laid upon the Table of the House in a blue-book in 1848, and again in 1849, in the second part of the papers on "Affairs of Italy," page 78. There were some other Treaties which had reference merely to commercial matters, and which did not strictly come under the question of the right hon. Gentleman. There was one between Austria and Modena laid upon the Table in 1856. A Supplemental Treaty between Austria and Modena had reference only to the navigation of the Po, and did not come under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. There was then a Treaty of the 7th of May, 1850, between Austria and Tuscany; that was only a temporary one, and had reference to the temporary occupation and the subsequent evacuation of the Duchy by Austrian troops. There were no other Treaties that came within the class for the production of which the right hon. Gentleman inquired. Hon. Members would, therefore, see that the House was already in possession of all the Papers asked for by the right hon. Gentleman, with the exception of those of which Her Majesty's Government had no copies.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, that with reference to the question he had put to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he would suggest whether it would not be for the public convenience that there should be a reprint of the Treaties already presented, and that a Supplemental Return should be made of Close Treaties which had not been presented, but which were in the possession of the Foreign Office. He would now give notice of his intention to move for the production, in one document, of those Treaties
  1276
  which had not been communicated to the House, together with a reprint of such Treaties as were already in its possession, but which were not accessible to Members of the House without considerable trouble and inconvenience, and not accessible at all to the general public.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the Government had already at various times given a number of the papers to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred; and, in reference to the two most important ones, he had already stated that they were laid on the Table of the House in 1848 and 1849, and were to be seen in the Library of the House. With reference to the earlier Treaties, Government had no official document whatever; they had not been communicated to them in any official form. With reference to the Treaty of Vienna, it contained other stipulations, and he thought it would be a very inconconvenient thing to bring in a document of that extreme length when only a small portion of it related to the matter in question.
  On the Motion for Adjournment till Monday,

  ST. JAMES'S PARK—QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether he is prepared to recommend and to carry out the widening of the passage leading from Spring Gardens and Cockspur Street into St. James's Park, so as to allow carriages and persons on horseback to enter and leave the Park by that route, the Metropolitan Board of Works having announced their intention of immediately widening so much of the said passage as fronts Berkeley House. A favourable opportunity now occurred for carrying out the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons, that a passage should he opened for carriages into the Park from Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross, as it appeared that the Board of Works had purchased Berkeley House of Lord Fitzhardinge, which was about to be pulled down, and the Board offered the public a space twenty-five feet in breadth free of cost. He was sure Her Majesty would readily give her consent to the great improvement recommended by the Committee. As in this country, time was money, the passage would be an advantage to everybody.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he ad-

  1277
  mitted that any plan that removed carriages from the crowded streets would facilitate the traffic, but there was great reason to doubt whether, taking the carriages from the streets to put them into a Royal Park, was an arrangement that would conduce to the comfort of the people. The Committee that recommended the opening of the passage, stated also that any considerable increase in the traffic of the Royal Parks, would be very objectionable. It was only by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee that the recommendation of the opening of this particular passage was carried. He mentioned the fact to show that other members of the Committee did not take the same view as the hon. Gentleman. But the question deserved mature consideration, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman it should receive it.
  MR. TITEsaid, that Berkeley House had been taken by the Metropolitan Board for the erection of offices, and it was intended that the new buildings in the passage leading from Spring Gardens and Cockspur Street into St. James's Park should be set back in a line with Spring Gardens, and then turn in an obtuse angle into the line of Carlton Terrace, the effect of which would be to shorten the passage from 300 to 200 feet, and throw a portion of land into the Park, making the passage of the width of twenty-two feet. What had been suggested by the hon. Member for Perth was, that it would be easy, having effected that purpose, to carry the improvement further, as taking down one house would give an additional Width of twenty-five feet, and make a street into the Park forty-seven feet wide. The house was the property of the Government; and its removal would open a communication at once with Belgravia, the Palace, and all that part of the town, without having to pass round by Pall Mall. The improvement of the twenty-two feet passage would be at once put in operation and carried into effect. Berkeley House was advertised for sale on Tuesday next, and it would be immediately pulled down; and he had no doubt whatever that the very desirable improvement of which he had spoken would be given up to the use of the public within six months from this period, and without expense to the public.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to say a word in relation to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners). The noble Lord intimated that this improvement was only carried by the
  1278
  casting vote of the Chairman; but the same thing occurred with regard to the bridge over the water in the Park. That was now acknowledged by all to be a great public improvement, and he believed that so also would be the proposed widening of the entrance to the Park now under discussion.

  POSTAGE STAMPS—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will cause Postage Stamps to be issued of the value of ninepence for the convenience of persons despatching letters to India. When the great and beneficial change was made in the Post Office arrangements, and the old fashioned system of paying for a letter on its receipt was done away, the great boon to the public was the facility of prepaying letters by means of postage stamps. This new system had not been developed. In some cases it was impossible to prepay letters by stamps. At present the stamps issued were 1d., 2d., 6d., and 1s., whereas the variety of sums charged for the postage of letters was almost infinite. Prepayment of letters to India was compulsory; the charge was 9d., and it would be a great convenience to the public if the Post Office would issue a stamp of that amount. There was the same charge on letters to Ceylon and Australia. There were many places on the Continent of Europe to which it was impossible to prepay a letter by stamps, because the postage included a fraction of a penny. Thus, the postage to Denmark was 10½d; to Greece, viâ Belgium, 1s. 2½d.; Poland 11½d.; Russia, 11½d.; Switzerland, 10½d. The answer that the fraction might be easily raised to 1d., and that if the postage were 11½d. it might be made a 1s., could not he recognized as a matter of business. There was another point to which he wished to call attention; at present the postmen in the rural districts were authorized to sell stamps, but were not compelled to do so. They were bound to accept money in prepayment of letters, and to affix the stamps to the proper amount. The rural postmen, he knew, were a very honest class of men, but this arrangement subjected them to considerable temptation, which would be obviated if they were compelled to have a certain amount in their possession, so that persons purchasing them might affix them themselves. He would ask whether the Secretary of the Treasury would cause postage stamps to be

  1279
  issued of the value of 9d., for the convenience of persons sending letters to India.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to add another word to the inquiry. A promise was made last June that a stamp of 3d. should be provided for newspapers in India. He wished to know whether the construction of this stamp was in progress?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that with regard to the last question, of which the right hon. Gentleman had kindly given him notice, he was enabled to state that though circumstances had occurred to delay its preparation, the 3d.stamp had been in progress for a considerable time, arid would soon be completed. The work was one of a very delicate and peculiar kind, and there were only two persons who were known to be capable of executing it. One of these had declined to undertake it, and the other was occupied with a great deal of other business, and had had a long illness. With regard to the question put to him by his hon. Friend behind him, he (Sir S. Northcote) had inquired at the Post Office to know whether there was any objection to issue a Post Office stamp for 9d., and he had been told that it would lead to considerable complication of the accounts. Of course it was the object of the Post Office to supply the country offices with stamps in the number and of the value that were likely to be generally useful; and inconvenience would arise if a great variety of stamps that were not often called for were supplied to country postmasters, and bad to lie on hand with them till they got injured. There need be no practical difficulty experienced, whether in regard to a 9d. or 3d. stamp on the part of the public, because persons could easily have their newspaper wrappers stamped, and their envelopes for letters impressed with an embossed stamp if they employed a stationer to go to the Inland Revenue Department for that purpose. As to the other questions which had been put to him without notice, he roust put himself in communication with the Post Office before giving an answer to them.

ASSISTANT-SURGEONS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government now to confer any mark of distinction upon those Assistant-Surgeons late in the service
  1280
  of the East India Company who formed part of the Garrison during the whole of the Siege of Lucknow, and who were recommended in the Despatch of General Inglis, of the 26th of September, 1857, to the particular attention of the Government of India; or, if the rank of Assistant Surgeon does not allow such distinction to be conferred at the present time, whether he will cause that recommendation to be noted in the Books, so that on their obtaining the rank of full Surgeon they may receive a corresponding distinction to that already conferred on the four Surgeons named in the above cited Despatch? General Inglis, in his despatch of the 26th September, 1857, recommended that a mark of distinction should be conferred on certain Surgeons and Assistant-Surgeons. Some of them had received their reward by being appointed companions of the Bath, and Mr. Boyd had been promoted to the office of full Surgeon. But the Assistant-Surgeons in the East India Company's Service had not yet been noticed. Their position was a peculiar one. They could not receive the distinction of Companion of the Bath because they did not hold the rank of full surgeons, and they could not be made full surgeons because they belonged to the seniority service, and could not be promoted as Mr. Boyd had been. He wished to obtain from the noble Lord at the head of the Indian Department some public recognition of their services, and an assurance that at the proper time some distinction would be conferred upon those Assistant-Surgeons.
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, the Assistant-Surgeons who were named in Sir John Inglis's despatch of the 26th of September, 1857, were five in number. I am glad the hon. Member has given me an opportunity by his question, of paying, however tardily and casually, a tribute of respect to these gentlemen, who did their duty and did it well, under circumstances of very peculiar difficulty and danger. With regard to the mark of honour which the hon. Member suggests should be conferred upon them, he is, I think, aware that, holding the rank of Assistant-Surgeon, they are not eligible, according to the existing rule, for the distinction of the Bath, This disqualification they only share with other subalterns. With respect to the recommendation that they should be noted in the books so that on attaining the rank of full surgeon they might receive corresponding distinctions to those already bestowed on the four surgeons

  1281
  mentioned in Sir John Inglis's despatch, I have to state that the practice of recording names for future distinctions which the persons in question are not at the time qualified to receive, is one to which great objections on general grounds are entertained, and which is very rarely followed. At any rate, it could not be adopted without a previous recommendation from the Governor General and the Commander in Chief; and in the present case we have nut received any such recommendation. But though I am compelled to give the hon. Member this answer, which he may deem unsatisfactory, I have no hesitation in saying, on the part of the Government of India, that they will be glad to take every opportunity which may offer of recognizing, as they deserve to be recognized, the services rendered by these five gentlemen.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND). APPOINTMENT OF MR. C. H. JAMES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BEAMISHsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the fact that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has recently appointed Mr. Charles Henry James, an Officer in the "Ayrshire Rifles," one of the two official assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland; and, if so, whether the Attorney General can inform the House what are the qualifications of Mr. James for this office, and what is the amount of the salary or emoluments? He had no personal knowledge of the gentleman in question. He believed that he was a highly respectable person, and that his father was a commercial gentleman also of great re spectability. He felt, however, that it was highly important that the office in question should be filled by a person who, by previous training and acquirements, had acquired some practical knowledge of commercial affairs. By the 59th section of the Bankruptcy Act of 1857 it was provided that when any vacancy occurred in the office of official assignee it should be lawful for the Lord Chancellor from time to time to appoint a competent person, being a merchant, broker, or accountant, to fill the same. Now, this was unquestionably very plain language, and might easily be understood by any one. He was not aware, however, that Mr. James possessed any commercial information. He (Mr. Beamish) believed Mr. James was about thirty years of age. He found that he
  1282
  entered the "Ayrshire Rifles" in the year 1856; in 1857 he became paymaster of that regiment, and in February, 1859, he found him acting again as paymaster. He had no personal or political interest in the inquiry, and merely wished to be satin fled as to Mr. James's qualifications.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to have disclaimed having any personal or political object in asking this question; there never was any personal or political object in making such inquiries. He was glad that die hon. Gentleman had put this question, because it enabled him to explain the circumstances under which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland lied made this, the only one of his appointments to which the smallest exception hail been taken. Mr. James was appointed because he was the fittest man to fill the vacant office; as was fully explained in the following letter which he (Mr. Whiteside) had received from the Lord Chancellor:—
  "By the Bankruptcy Act the person to be appointed official assignee must be a 'merchant, broker, or accountant.' When the place became vacant, as the duty devolved on me to appoint, I received the testimonials of several applicants, and then made proper inquiries from eminent commercial men. Mr. James has been for some years a partner with his respected father, and for many years trained in mercantile pursuits, and thoroughly accustomed to business. He was for a few months the paymaster of a militia regiment, and I believe his accounts were as exact as military discipline could require. Mr. Henry Roe, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ireland, waited on me personally to recommend Mr. James as in every way qualified for the office of assignee. Mr. George Roe, of Nutley, wrote of him in the very highest terms as one whose appointment would be most satisfactory; Mr. Jameson also, Mr. W. Watson, and others of the most eminent and respectable commercial men. I did not know Mr. James personally, and he had no claim on me but this, that the testimonies as to his high personal character, exact habits, and experience in accounts and mercantile business, placed him at the head of the list as, in my judgment, the best man I could appoint to the office. I believe the emoluments arc above £600 a year, but I cannot speak with exactness on this."
  He (Mr. Whiteside) might add that the Lord Chancellor had never seen Mr. James until the place became vacant. Under these circumstances he thought that the hon. Gentleman might be satisfied that this appointment was one which would be creditable to the person who had made it, and advantageous to the public service.

  THE REFORM BILLS—QUESTION.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrew's)said, he rose to ask the Lord advocate whether,

  1283
  by the new Reform Bill for Scotland, it is intended to confer on Burghs and Counties a similar franchise to that provided for in the second, third, and fourth Sections of the first Clause of the English Reform Bill now before the House. Under ordinary circumstances he should have hesitated before asking such a question, but there were peculiar circumstances which rendered him desirous of giving the Lord Advocate an opportunity of removing doubts which had arisen in consequence of the statement he made the other night. A discussion then took place, originating with his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter). He did not altogether agree with him as to the mode in which he originated the discussion, but it resulted in his obtaining from the Lord Advocate a statement with respect to the intention of the framers of the Bill. The Lord Advocate stated that it was the intention of Government to originate such a measure, and that that measure would be based on the general principle which had been announced as applicable to England. On looking for the principle on which the Scotch Bill was to be based, he touched on this principle in the Bill which had been presented to the House for the reform of the representation of England, and he found in the very first clause the main principle on which the Bill was founded, namely, the alterations in the franchise. He found there certain matters which, although not possibly affecting England to a very large extent, certainly did affect Scotland to a much greater extent, It was provided—and he thought this was not stated the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that all holdings less than freeholds, long tenures, copy-holds, lifeholds, and so forth, were to be changed from the present qualifications of £10, to a reduced qualification of £5. Now in Scotland the £10 feu, that being the common holding of the country, if that were reduced from £10 to £5., as in the English Bill, there would be a very great difference. He was not going to argue that point; but what he wanted to ask was, whether they were to take for granted, from the statement of the Lord Advocate, that it was the intention of the Government towards Scotland that the principle adopted in the English Bill of reducing the long tenures—the £10 of the long tenure and the copyhold being for political purposes and qualifications strictly analogous to the feu tenure in Scotland—whether that principle were to be applied to Scotland? He did not think
  1284
  that the Lord Advocate would wish that any hon. Gentleman who might vote for the second reading of the English Reform Bill should do so from any misconception of his statement of the other night; and therefore he thought he was right in giving the noble Lord and an opportunity of clearing up that point, and stating whether the principle of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th section of the English Reform Bill were intended to apply to Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:—As soon after the English Bill has been read a second time as the pressure of public business will admit, it is our intention to introduce a Scotch Reform Bill. At present we contemplate introducing it before Easter, and I think the House will agree with me that it will be much more convenient that a general statement of its provisions should then be made than that on the present occasion we should give any partial information which might lead to very great misconception. I may also say to another hon. Gentleman who has a Question on the paper (Mr. C. Fortescue) that when the Scotch Bill has been introduced, and before it is read a second time, I shall take an oportunity of stating the course n loch the Government intend to take with respect to Ireland.
  MR. PALKsaid, he begged permission to ask a Question of which he had not given notice, relative to a speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) which he made a few nights ago, on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill for the amendment of the representation of England and Wales, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Birmingham said that was so unsatisfactory [Cries of "Order!"] He begged to ask if the hon. Gentleman was in a position to name a day on which he would place his Bill on the table of the House, as it was extremely desirable that the independent Members of the House should have an opportunity of choosing the best measure.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he would not follow the Ministerial practice of saying that he had not received notice of the Question, and request the hon. Gentleman to postpone it till some future occasion. Generally speaking, however, it was better for the House to attend to one thing at once, and probably, also, it would be better for the cause of Reform—and the Government, no doubt would prefer it—that the undivided attention of the House should be given to their Bill. Whenever he might think right

  1285
  to introduce the Bill which he had prepared he would give ample notice of his intention to do so.

THE IRISH REPRESENTATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he wished to ask what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the Bill to amend the Representation of the People of Ireland. He did not think that the Government had treated the Irish Members or the Irish people fairly with respect to the question of Parliamentary Reform. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, the other night, his Bill for amending the representation of the people of England, though he made a long, able, and elaborate speech, he made no allusion whatever to the intended Bill for Ireland; and when a question was addressed to him upon that subject by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. O'Brien), he contented himself with saying, that after the English Bill had been read a second time, and after a great many other things had been done, he would submit the Irish measure to the House. The way in which the Government were dealing with this matter was opposed to all precedent, and was unreasonable not to say unfair in its character. When the noble Lord the Member for London introduced his plan of Parliamentary Reform in 1831, he gave the House a full statement of the principles and provisions of the intended Bills for Ireland and Scotland; and on every other occasion, although the English Bill was taken singly, the main provisions of the other measures were laid before the House. In June, 1832, when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) again introduced his Bill, he unintentionally omitted alluding to Ireland, on which Sir Robert Peel remarked that the Government ought to make known their intentions respecting Ireland and Scotland, inasmuch as it was impossible fully to judge of the English Bill without knowing in what way the representation of those countries was to be adjusted. Upon that, Lord Stanley, who was then Secretary for Ireland, rose and promised an early introduction of the Irish and accordingly it was introduced and read a first time some days before the English Bill was read a second time. In 1852, when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) introduced his Bill, it was almost immediately followed by
  1286
  the Irish and Scotch Bills, and all three I measures were before the House together; and it the same course was not pursued in 1854, it was only because the English Bill had no sooner been laid on the table than it became evident no progress could be made with it on account of the impending war. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reply to the hon. Member for the King's County, stated that Ireland had recently got a Reform Bill of her own, and he seemed to imply that there was no occasion for doing much more, the Irish Members being satisfied with things as they were. It was true that an important and beneficial measure was passed by the Government of the noble Lord the Member for London; but when the noble Lord introduced his English Bill in 1852, although the Irish Franchise Act was then only two years old, he announced his intention to propose further changes in the representation of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that he had no prejudices whatever about Irish Reform. But, if not predjudices, the Government were bound to have opinions and intentions on such a subject, and, if so, he could see no reason why they should not communicate them at once to the House. The knowledge of what they intended to do in Ireland and Scotland might throw light upon their English measure, and he hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would still favour the House with, not a detailed, but a general statement of the intentions of Government with regard to the Irish representation.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that as representing one of the largest constituencies in Ireland, he was anxious to observe that the circumstances of England and Ireland, as regarded Parliamentary Reform, were entirely different. For example, England had had but one Reform Bill, whilst there had been several for Ireland. Thus, they had the Act of Union, when all the close boroughs were swept away, and only the most considerable towns left to return Members. Then they had the Reform Bill of 1832, and subsequently the Bill creating the county occupation franchise. Ireland was in possession of a county occupation franchise of £12; he had heard no complaints with regard to the present state of things, and he thought that all the interests of Ireland were pretty well represented in this House—the Protestant interest, the

  1287
  Roman Catholic interest, and the commercial interest. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, that there was no hurry to embarrass the House with another Reform Bill for Ireland until the measure upon the table had been disposed of.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he must complain that no answer had been given to the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. C. Fortescue). He thought it was essential that some answer should be given upon one or two short points as regards the Irish franchise. He must also give a flat denial to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), that the people of Ireland were indifferent on the subject of Reform—they were anxious now, but what would they be by-and-by when they found that a Reform Bill was about to be passed for this country and that no notice was taken of Ireland? If he understood the proposition of the Government it was intended that in England there should be a £10 occupation franchise in counties. In Ireland there was a £12 occupation franchise, and that too by rating, which was in reallity a £15 or £16 franchise—being at least 25 per cent more than an occupation value. Surely taking into account the state of the two countries, this would be eminently unsatisfactory. Surely it ought to be placed upon the same footing as in England. He also wanted to know something as to what would be the state of the Irish boroughs. Would the Government extend to the Irish boroughs the same religious protection as they were prepared to throw round the borough of Arundel?
  MR. BOWYERobserved that, no doubt all these were very interesting questions, but Irish Members might restrain their impatience till the Irish Reform Bill was brought forward.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not know whether he had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly, but he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there was to be no Reform Bill at all for Ireland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that until the House sanctioned the principles laid down in the Bill already presented to the House it would be inconvenient to discuss whether they should be applied in other instances. It was desirable before dealing with the latter that the principles of the Bill now on the table of the House should be affirmed.

ARMY ESTIMATES—ENFIELD FACTORY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished for a moment to advert to the excess of expenditure in the Army Estimates for the year 1857 and 1858. He wished some information to be given to the House respecting this very considerable bill incurred about two years ago. This sum of £1,050,000 had been spent without the authority of the House, and he wished to ask whether the Secretary of War would place on the table some documents showing how this considerable debt had been incurred.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he also wished to know whether a tabular statement of the total expense of the Enfield establishment would be laid before the House.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he intended when the Army Estimates were brought on, to give an explanation with respect to the excess adverted to by the hon. Baronet. With respect to the expense of the Enfield establishment, information would be obtained by a reference to the Estimates.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the organization of the Danubian Principalities, in as far as it was affected by the election of Alexander John Couza to be Hospodar of Wallachia, he having been previously elected Hospodar of Moldavia. It was well known to the House that these provinces stood in the relation of feudatories to the Ottoman Porte, and that by the treaty of Paris the Suzerain rights of the Porte and the rights of the Provinces were specially provided for. At the Paris Conferences a question arose as to whether these provinces should continue separate or be united in one homogeneous State. The representative of the French Emperor proposed the union, in which he was supported by the Earl of Clarendon. On the other hand, the Turkish Envoy, supported by Austria, was opposed to any such arrangement. It was admitted, however, that the interest of the provinces themselves should be mainly considered, and even Count Buol, the Austrian representative, admitted that

  1289
  at some future period they might with propriety be united. It was admitted that a constitution ought to be granted to the Principalities which should be adapted to the wants and the wishes of the country, and a Commission was appointed to ascertain what those wishes were. A Divan was also summoned in each Principality. The Divan of Wallachia, which was the larger province of the two, was, with three exceptions, in favour of the union, and though the first Divan of Moldavia was adverse, a second Divan, when the question came to be better understood, was unanimous in favour of the union. Then it was supposed by the people that the question was set at rest and that their wishes would be respected by the great powers. But a change came over the policy of England, and the line of policy followed by the Earl of Clarendon was departed from by Her Majesty's Ministers. Soon after a Motion was brought forward by the Member for the University of Oxford, (Mr. Gladstone) for an address to the Crown in favour of the union of the Principalities. That Motion was resisted by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the ground that the people were not in favour of a union unless they were to be united under a foreign Prince. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) concurred in that view of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also adopted the argument of the Under Secretary, and moreover repeatedly stated that there was the most complete identity in their views and policy between the Government of this country and that of France. The Motion was in consequence successfully resisted. The Conferences soon afterwards assembled in Paris, and a constitution was given to the Principalities which might well be called unexampled in political history. It might be described as duality in unity; for while there was to be a central governing commission, which was to sit at Fokschani on the frontier and dispose of questions that equally affected both Principalities, each State was to elect its own Divan and its own Hospodar. In the working out of this constitution the two Principalities had proceeded to elect their Hospodar, and M. Couza had been elected by both Divans and hailed by the enthusiatic voices of the people of both countries; thus showing the strong desire that existed in the minds of the people for unity. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would give the House some explanation
  1290
  of the policy they proposed to follow; and he trusted it would not be that of thwarting the desires of the people of the Principalities—that they would not oppose their strong and repeatedly expressed desire for union. He knew it was argued by some persons that the question of union was a mere pretence, and that some ulterior object was behind it. To a certain extent that might be true. It was in the nature of a generous people to seek the highest development of freedom. But though they might aspire to something higher, they would not reject the good within their reach. He did not believe it would tend to the injury of Turkey to confer on them the highest development compatible with the maintenance of her suzerainty. The only terms on which Turkey could henceforth exist in Europe were the good government of her Christian subjects, and the free development of those provinces towards which she stood in the relation of suzerain. The stronger and more prosperous those frontier provinces of Turkey became, the more powerful would Turkey herself be to resist her real enemy. The Emperor of the French lately said that the interest of France lay wherever was the cause of justice and civilization. That was a grand sentiment, and worthy of an Emperor. He did not apprehend that any of the present generation would look upon the destruction of Turkey, but they ought not the less to be prepared for the evacuation of her Christian provinces, when that time might arrive. The organization of a state was not for a time, but for all time. The strength of these Provinces, as well as of the other feudatories of the Porte, would be our best guarantee against the aggrandizement of Russia by the dissolution of the Turkish empire whenever that event should occur.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he would not detain the House with more than a few observations, for he was quite sure that the House and the hon. Gentleman himself must feel that it was impossible for him, on the part of the Government, to enter into a lengthened consideration of this very important question. On a former occasion, when the question was before the House last year, it was his duty to state the views which Her Majesty's Government generally entertained with reference to the question of the Principalities. Since that time a Conference of the European Powers assembled at Paris, and day after day and week after week the attention of the most

  1291
  able diplomatists in Europe was directed to this question, and their labours resulted in what must be deemed a solemn act on the part of the European Powers. The hon. Gentleman had stated that in his opinion the election of M. Couza as hospodar of both the Principalities was not contrary to the letter or the spirit of the convention signed by the Conference of Paris. He (Mr. FitzGerald) would not venture to offer any opinion on that subject, but this at least he would say, that such an election as that was not contemplated by those who formed the Conference at Paris. Neither would he venture to enter into the question raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the intention with which this election had been carried out in the Principalities, or its probable results. But this at least was clear, that the Power which was most seriously interested in the election—namely, Turkey—had protested against the election, on the ground that it was contrary both to the letter and the spirit of the convention, and had invited those who with her were parties to the Conference at Paris to meet in Paris and consider the very serious state of affairs at present existing in the Principalities. The European Powers had accordingly agreed to meet in Paris to consider what was best to be done. The hon. Gentleman said that before the Conference met Her Majesty's Government ought to state what were the views entertained by them on the subject, and what was the course they intended to adopt; but he (Mr. FitzGerald) thought the House would admit that Her Majesty's Government would be wanting in respect to those European Powers that had been invited to assemble at Paris to consider what was best to be done under the difficult state of circumstances that had arisen if they were publicly, prematurely, and indiscreetly to state what were their views upon the subject. He thought, therefore, that, having thus shortly stated the grounds on which he asked the House not to enter into a consideration of this very important question, he should best fulfil his duty by declining to say anything more upon it.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he quite agreed that the British Government ought not to speak on the present occasion, but there was no reason why the House of Commons should decline doing so. What was the question before them? It was that of a people endeavouring to be a people; and were they, as a House of Commons, not to express their opinion upon a question like
  1292
  that? In his opinion it would be no indiscretion on the part of the House of Commons, to say they hoped the efforts of the Moldavians and Wallachians to become a nation, and to gain their independence, would be successful. For his own part, he participated very much in their wishes, and hoped that, far from being the slaves of the diplomacy of Europe, they would retain their own dignity and work out unaided their own independence.

NAVAL DEFENCES OF AUSTRALIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the inadequate protection which is at present afforded to the Australian and New Zealand Colonies, through the small naval force which is at present stationed there, and to ask whether it is contemplated to erect a separate Naval Station for their better defence. Those colonies were justly entitled to greater consideration in this respect than they received, considering their immense wealth, which made them such conspicuous marks for attack in case of war. Many gentlemen connected with them, therefore, had been much disappointed that the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Navy Estimates had contained no promise of the force stationed for their protection. There were never above three or four small vessels off the coast at any one time, detached from the Indian squadron, while the admiral, during the late war, had been engaged up the Chinese rivers. If despatches were sent to him from Australia, they must go round by India and Ceylon to reach him. He held in his hand letters from various officers who had served on the Australian Coast, and among others from Admiral Sir Harry Keppel, and Captain FitzGerald, of the Sheerness Dockyard, deprecating the slight force that was kept up on the coast of Australia. He might refer to the case of an officer who was ordered in arrest on the coast of Australia, and who was brought home to England a prisoner because there was no superior officer at hand who might have settled the case. He believed that our present naval force in the Australian waters consisted of only one frigate of 26 guns, the Iris, and of three small vessels of 10 or 12 guns each. That was manifestly an inadequate force for the defence of our very important and wealthy possessions in that quarter. The

  1293
  French had established a naval station in New Caledonia, and were endeavouring in every way to increase their influence on the Pacific Ocean. They had now three islands there, one of which—namely, New Caledonia—was only 900 miles from Sidney. It was a beautiful island, surrounded by coral reef, and had an excellent harbour. It was 400 miles in extent, and was protected by five French vessels of war; but its trade by no means required so large a force. For what object, then, were those vessels stationed there? New Caledonia was certainly inhabited by a very savage race; and the necessity of adopting vigorous measures for keeping them in subjection was the only reason assigned for the presence of that large naval force But it was impossible that that could be the real reason. The object of the French must be to insure themselves the means of making a descent on the Australian colonies in the event of the outbreak of a war between them and this country. A very few years ago three American frigates had worked their way up to Sydney in the middle of the night, and the inhabitants had known nothing whatever of the movements of those vessels until they had seen them in the morning lying close to the town. If that force had come on an unfriendly errand there was nothing to prevent them from reducing Sydney to ashes, or levying on the inhabitants any contributions they may think fit. It was an important question to decide how far it was the duty of the mother country to protect her colonies, or how far the colonists should provide for their own safety. He held it to be the duty of the mother country to afford facilities to the colonies to form a separate naval force if they chose, and to give them sufficient protection till they had done so. He believed that the people of Australia would readily respond to any call made upon diem by this country to establish a naval militia for their defence; and one proposal he had heard thrown out upon that subject by gentlemen who spoke in the name of the colonists was that some of those old two-deckers, which the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had told the House the other evening it would not be worth while to convert into screw steamers, should be sent out to Australia. They could go out jury-rigged, carrying emigrants to defray the expense. They could take out heavy ordnance in their holds. Whey they arrived, one might be stationed at Sydney, one at Melbourne, one at Ade-
  1294
  laide, and one at Hobart Town. They would be manned by a colonial naval militia, the mother country merely furnishing a body of some twenty or thirty men for the purposes of instruction and command. In the event of any hostilities they might be towed out by a colonial steamer and placed broadside on to the enemy. Such a naval force would give confidence to the colonies; and the fact of their being there might prevent any attack. But the colonists generally were of opinion that there ought to be a naval station in Australia. This had been recommended by Lord Auckland, nut had never been carried out. If it should be impossible to carry out such an arrangement without making an addition to the pay of the sailors, in consequence of the many temptations to desertion which existed in that quarter of the world, he believed that the colonists would have no objection to meet from their own resources that increased expenditure. He did not see why the Admiral in the Pacific should not embrace within the limits of his command the Australian colonies, and why he should not remove his head-quarters from Valparaiso to Sydney. The whole subject was one which excited considerable interest throughout the Australian colonies, and any statement which the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty might make with respect to it would be sure to attract a large amount of notice among the colonists. In conclusion, he begged leave to ask whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to erect a separate naval station for the Australian colonies; and, if not, whether they would take into their consideration the necessity of giving those colonies a greater amount of protection from foreign attack than they at present possessed.

NAVY AND COAST-GUARD.

  RESOLUTION.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he rose to move that as the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that the Coast-Guard Ships are comparatively useless, the time has arrived when they ought to be replaced by efficient ships; and also to inquire when it is the intention of the Government to put in force the recommendations of the Commission for manning the navy? He complained that the Government, at the

  1295
  time they paid off seven sail of the line, did not embrace that opportunity to send proper ships to replace the nine block-ships which the First Lord of the Admiralty had himself described as useless. In the Baltic these block-ships were useless except for the purpose of battering; a stronghold when laid alongside. They were now lying in the outports, employed for two purposes, namely, to prevent smuggling, and to recruit and exercise the men; but they were looked upon as a disgrace to the British navy. He asked whether it was prudent or proper in these days, when the French were arming, and might send out their Channel fleet at any moment, to leave us dependent on such vessels? There were seven ships in what was called the first reserve, which were ready for sea, and two were actually in commission. He was glad of that. Nine more of the second reserve were prepared to go to sea. These nine ships he proposed should be brought round, fitted out, and then sent to replace the nine useless block-ships in the outports. Why the right hon. Gentleman did not do so was something which appeared to him as extraordinary. Could it be said, as it had been said, that it was from a fear of wearing out the decks of these good ships by the exercise of the men? If that were the reason we had better give up maintaining a fleet at all. It could not be urged that the Coast-Guard were only to be disturbed in case of an emergency, for they had already been called out once, so that that objection was overcome. It was a time when a European war was expected, and might break out at any moment. Arming was going on in France, in Austria, and in all directions, and although no one could be certain where hostilities might commence, or to what point they would extend it was high time to bestir ourselves and to adopt the most vigorous measures for the national defence. Why it was not done he could not for the life of him make out. It could not be put upon the House of Commons, for he was certain the money would not be refused, and that if the right hon. Gentleman would send twenty-five or thirty sail of the line into the Channel he would be applauded from one end of the House to the other. Nor would he blame the Government. The Government had asked money and had asked men. But the Admiralty would not make use of the materials in their hands. With regard to the Report of the Commission on Manning the Navy, he expressed a hope it would
  1296
  not be locked up as the report of the Commissioner on the same subject was till the ether day. It was universally admitted that those recommendations were of considerable value and importance, and no one would deny that, if they were to be adopted at all, the sooner they were adopted the better. The right hon. Baronet did not appear to him to be getting on sufficiently fast, and he should implore of him to go more ahead.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'as the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated that the Coast-Guard Ships are comparatively useless, the time is arrived when they ought to be replaced by efficient ships,'—instead thereof."
  MR. YOUNGsaid, he had himself been in Australia, and wished on that account to corroborate what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord A. Churchill). Owing to the course of legislation with regard to our Australian colonies, and the prosperity they enjoyed, they were as loyal and contented as any part of the world, and had not one grievance except this, of the want of naval protection for their extensive coast. They had a seaboard of 1,200 or 1,300 miles, with four or five harbours, all accessible to ships of war. They were naturally anxious in these times of rumours of war. and the more so on account of the gold which was brought down to the ports. During the Russian war they were in a state of consternation on that subject, and resolutions were taken as to the removal of the gold which it would not be politic to reveal. The whole, however, was known to the Secretary for the Colonies. He could assure the House, from personal inspection, that the harbour of Sydney was perfectly open to ships of war. He could confirm the statement of the noble Lord as to the approach of the ships of war to that harbour. He himself awoke and found them immediately under his house. If they had been hostile they might have destroyed the town.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I hope my noble Friend (Lord A. Churchill) will not think that I was guilty of any discourtesy in not at once replying to his remarks; because the gallant Admiral had given notice of a Motion with reference to the blockships, and if I had not waited for his statement, the forms of the House would have prevented my replying to him. I entirely agree with my noble Friend, that whether it be with respect to naval force

  1297
  or any other matter, the Australian colonies have the fullest right to every friendly consideration at the hands of the Government; but I am not equally disposed to admit the truth of the words used by him in his notice as to the "entirely inadequate naval protection" of those colonies. At all events, I am in a position to say that, be their defence adequate or inadequate, it is much more effective than it was when I succeeded to the Admiralty. At that time the Australian colonies were defended by one vessel, and I believe by one vessel only—I am sure by not more than two. The sappho brig was under orders to proceed from the Cape of Good Hope to strengthen that squadron, but unhappily she was lost, and I am afraid that all hands perished with her. Since that time the Aurelia sloop of war has gone to Australia from the Kooria Mooria Islands; and in the course of the last summer I ordered two other sloops of war to proceed from the China station to strengthen the Australian squadron. The result is, that at this time that squadron consists of four men-of war, two of which are screw steamers; and in a letter which I received very recently from Captain Laurie, the commanding officer of that station, I was assured' that in his opinion that squadron was amply sufficient for any necessity which could arise within the colonies. I hope that so far my statement will be satisfactory to my noble Friend. This question touches another matter—namely, whether we are prepared to erect a naval station in the Australian colonies. Since I have been at the Admiralty I have been in communication with the Government of Sydney with a view to obtaining possession of an island in that harbour called "Garden Island," and we propose to appropriate that island at least to the reception of naval stores for the benefit and assistance of Her Majesty's vessels in those seas. That arrangement is at present in its infancy. I mention it, however, to show my noble Friend that we are not unmindful of the necessity of having some naval establishment in those seas, and I hope that it will soon he so far matured as to meet all the requirements of our fleet. My noble Friend mentioned a fact of which I was not aware—that it was the intention of Lord Auckland to make the Australian station a separate command. It is my intention to carry out a similar arrangement. The Board of Admiralty have come to the
  1298
  determination that the Australian colonies ought not to be nominally attached to the India and China station, and we therefore propose to make it an independent command. I will now turn to what fell from the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir Charles Napier) with respect to the blockships. He complains that I, having stated that these are very useless vessels, still keep them round the coast as coastguard ships. I think the gallant Admiral rather overstates what fell from me with regard to the comparative inutility of these blockships. What I stated was, that as line-of- battle ships, as sea-going men-of-war, they are useless ships; but they are by no means useless as floating batteries. They are very powerfully armed, and in the event, which I hope will not occur, of England's being engaged in any naval war, these ships, defective as they undoubtedly are, would be found extremely valuable as floating batteries for the protection of our harbours. I am, however, quite ready to admit that I do very much wish that, even for their present purpose, I could see these ships succeeded by more effective and more useful ones. I think that would be very desirable, but I must ask the gallant Admiral to make some little allowance for the shortness of the time during which I have had to deal with these matters, and the amount of work that has had to be accomplished in that time. It, is the wish and intention of the present Board of Admiralty that, at all events as the commissions of these ships expire—I will not say that under some circumstances it might not be done sooner, but at all events as their commissions expire—they I should be replaced by stronger and more effective ships. At the same time I cannot, for several reasons, agree with the gallant Admiral that it is expedient simultaneously to exchange all these blockships for larger and more effective men-of-war. In the first place, looking to the duties which they have to discharge as training ships for the coast volunteers, who are there instructed in gunnery, and the consequent wear and tear to which they are exposed. I was unwilling, considering the state to which our effective strength was reduced, to expose one-third of it to such deterioration. By the end of the present year our line-of-battle ships will be nearly 50 per cent stronger than I found them, and I shall then be more, at liberty to deal with matters of this kind.

  1299
  There are also other reasons to which I must request the attention of the gallant Admiral. One of these is the great expense which would attend the paying off and throwing out of commission nine ships of this class, and commissioning other ships in their places. That is a consideration which we must not altogether forget. But there is another, to which I attach greater importance—namely, that we cannot effect such an exchange without making a very considerable demand upon the strength and labour of our dockyards. From the causes which I explained the other evening, our strength in the dockyards has been, and is at present, so taxed to supply the defects to which I then alluded, that unless it was imperatively necessary I should be unwilling to throw upon them the additional labour of preparing an additional number of ships merely to substitute—for that is all that I should have it in my power to do—screw 80's for these blockships. I hope this explanation will be satisfactory to the gallant Admiral. In the course of his observations he travelled a good deal beyond the terms of his notice, and referred to the reserves which we have it in our power to call out. I do not think that this is quite a fitting moment to discuss that subject, and I will therefore limit myself to saying that in this respect Her Majesty's Government are more willing to go a-head—as the gallant Admiral calls it—than he gives them credit for. At all events, I can assure him that their attention is at present directed to the state of our naval defences, and I earnestly hope that at no future day will the gallant Admiral have cause to reproach us with having neglected them. It now only remains for rue to answer his question as to when it is the intention of the Government to put in force the recommendations of the Commission upon the manning of the navy. I will answer that question as frankly as I can. In doing so it is not necessary for me to become the apologist or champion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), who is so well able to defend himself; but I must say, that I think the observations of the gallant Admiral were eminently unjust to my right hon. Friend. In fact, his remarks with regard to the Report of the Committee of 1852 were quite incorrect. He said that the Report of the Duke of Northumberland's Committee of that year had been locked up, and
  1300
  no notice taken of it. Now, upon every occasion on which I have addressed the House upon this subject since I held my present office I have acknowledged the services which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle rendered to the country, when First Lord of the Admiralty, by taking most decided action upon the Report of that Committee. It is owing to the action then taken by Her Majesty's Government, by the adoption of the continuous service and coast volunteer systems in accordance with the recommendations of that Report, that our means of manning the navy at this moment are what they are. The gallant Admiral seems to have forgotten these facts, and has consequently dealt rather hard justice, not to the Government of which I am a Member, but to a former one, the Members of which certainly did their duty nobly in this respect. When the hon. and gallant Admiral asks me when the Government intend to put in force the recommendations of the Commission for manning the navy, I beg to remind him that the Report of the Commissioners consists of two distinct parts. The latter portion refers to the important question, how we are hereafter to connect our naval service with the mercantile marine in the event of any emergency arising. The hon. and gallant Admiral will admit that that portion of the Report is of a very comprehensive and complicated character. It involves a great outlay of public money; it involves considerable changes, which must be maturely weighed; and the measures which it recommends are of a nature which no Government, however anxious to "go a -head," could carry out upon the instant. Under these circumstances, I cannot say more than that we are sensible of the importance of the Report, and shall give it full and prompt consideration. The other part of the Report stands upon different grounds; it consists of suggestions of different modes in which the Commissioners think we may make the present continuance service system more effective for the public interests. I admit the great value of those suggestions, and with regard to most, if not all of them, I believe it to be competent to the Admiralty, without the assistance of Parliament, and without embarking into any considerable expense, at once to carry them into effect. We are prepared to consider them as expeditiously as we can, and, if they meet our approval, to put them in execution as

  1301
  promptly as possible. Some of them, in fact, have been already under our consideration; a very important one engaged our attention to-day, and I hope to-morrow we shall be in a condition to act upon it.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERexplained that he had never read the Report of 1852, nor had he ever seen anybody who bad done so.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am glad to find that the right hon. Baronet and my hon. and gallant Friend are perfectly agreed as to the expediency of replacing the floating batteries which are stationed at our different ports by effective ships, and that the only material difference which exists between them relates to the question of time. I think the right hon. Baronet has overstated the difficulty of exchanging the one class of ships for the other, because he admitted what was stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, that the effective ships which are proposed to be sent to our ports in lieu of the floating batteries are now ready for sea.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The noble Viscount is mistaken; they are not ready fur sea.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: Some of them are.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I presume they are nearly so; at all events, as appeared from the statement of the right hon. Baronet the other night, there is nothing which the Government desires so much as to be able at short notice to send to sea an efficient Channel squadron. Now, though it may be true that the block-ships would be effective as floating batteries for the defence of our ports, they are evidently not fit to take their posts in a line of battle. I hope we are not anticipating at an early period the necessity of defending our ports by block-ships against the attack of an enemy; the only thing likely to happen is that a superior squadron should appear in the Channel, and that we should not have a fleet of equal force capable of taking the sea immediately and acting its part in the usual manner of naval engagements. For such a purpose the block-ships are useless, and therefore I would impress upon the right hon. Baronet the expediency of accelerating the substitution of the one class of ships for the other. No doubt there are other works which are pressing, and I do not know whether an additional number of workmen might be obtained for our dockyards, but as the right hon. Baronet has admitted in principle that which my
  1302
  hon. and gallant Friend has recommended, I hope that as little time as possible will be allowed to elapse before the floating batteries are replaced by ships fit for sea, so that, if occasion should arise, we may have a fleet in the Channel adequate to the national defence.
  MR. CORRYremarked that, the only ships which could be substituted for the steam guard-ships were the 80-gun ships, for nobody would think of putting our three-deckers to do outpost duty along the coast. Now, the 80-gun ships were all, with one exception, in the second-class steam reserve, and it would be necessary to mast and rig them before sending them to sea. The expense of fitting them out would amount to £144,000. [Sir C. NAPIER: Why, all the stores are already in the dockyards.] It was true that the stores were in the dockyards, but they were not on board ship, and moreover as they were removed they must be replaced by others. He could assure the hon. and gallant Admiral that the 80-gun ships could not be equipped without great labour and expense.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, the First Lord of the Admiralty has not answered the question of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord A. Churchill) with respect to the expense of the squadron which it is proposed to station in the neighbourhood of the Australian colonies. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Young) who spent several years in those colonies, has given us a pleasing picture of their condition. He says, they have everything they want, with a single exception—that with which it is now proposed to furnish them. We know that they have all the land of Australia, and a constitution so free that the people of England are not permitted to hope for anything like it. We also know they have an increasing trade, and enjoy a prosperity such as is not equalled in this country. The rate of wages—everything in those colonies—forces us to the conclusion that the great body of the people there, those whom we should call the working and industrious classes, are in a condition of comfort equal to that of the middle ranks of society in this kingdom. Being so happy and prosperous, if there be one thing more wanted, and it consists of ships of war to defend their coasts and harbours, I think it is but fair they should pay the expenses. It is one of the most monstrous things ever heard of, and probably has never been dreamt of in any country Let tiffs, that we

  1303
  should have an extended empire, abounding in colonies, such as Canada and Australia, where the people are infinitely better off than we are, and yet that these great dependencies should contribute not a single farthing in any shape either to the sums necessary for paying the interest of the national debt incurred in past wars, or for the naval and military service of the home country. If they are to be parts of the empire, and allowed to demand military succour, I do not say even in time of war, but in time of peace—regiments upon their shores and fleets upon their waters—I say every farthing of the cost they ought to defray themselves. I protest against this constant loading of the over-taxed industry' of the people of England for the purpose, whether of protecting our rich and prosperous colonies, or of merely gratifying the taste and sentiment of persons living at the other side of the world. If we persist in the course which we have been pursuing for the last few years, and if the expense of our naval and military establishments is to increase as it has done during the last twenty years, by a sum equal to £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 per annum, notwithstanding the tranquillity which now exists, the time will come when somebody will see that "ugly rush" to which the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) referred the other night, and when there will be a ferment among the millions of our people which all the excited and exaggerated fears of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark will be little able to compose. You have been telling the House for years past that the only Power in the world which has a fleet of any pretensions whatever is your cordial Ally. You have flattered him, you have fawned upon him, you have expressed your faith in him in every form of words of which the English language is capable; but at the same time you are constantly increasing your military and naval expenses, for which there would be no sort of pretence whatever if a single sentence of what you say were true, or if you believed your own statements. I say your conduct is monstrous. You are playing false both to your Ally and to your country, and the time will conic when Government and Parliament will regret not having kept down with a strong hand a species of expense which in every age of the world has brought disaster upon thrones and States.
  SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTONsaid, that the hon. Member who had last spoken did not appear fully to understand
  1304
  extent of the contributions which had been made by our principal colonies towards the expenses, naval and military, of their own defence in 1856. Sir William Denison, then Governor of Tasmania, had proposed a plan for the naval and military defence of Australia, according to which that colony should bear all the naval expense required for purely colonial purposes; and when this was carried out in the more important colonies the Imperial Government would only be at the expense necessary for imperial purposes. It had been the object both of his predecessor and himself, to urge the larger colonies to contribute liberally towards that purpose, and there were at that moment proposals before the Government for their doing so.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he very much agreed with his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Bright) as to the necessity of the colonies of Australia providing for their own defence. A good many years ago, when he was Secretary for the Colonies, he had an application from the authorities of Sydney to construct a battery for the defence of that place; but he had told them that they ought to make it themselves. They expressed great readiness to do so, and since that time he believed that every Colonial Secretary had told the Australian colonies that if they did not wish to be surprised some morning by seeing a number of foreign ships of war before their ports, they ought to take means to defend the approaches to those ports and harbours. To expect that this country should impose on itself fresh taxes to protect the numerous harbours of its colonies in a distant part of the world, was a very extravagant idea. As to the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend for replacing block-ships by more efficient ships, he thought that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory. It must be left to the Admiralty to take such steps, from time to time, as they had the means and opportunity of taking. But he was not satisfied with the answer of the First Lord as to the important Report of the Commissioners on manning the navy. The right hon. Baronet could not be expected to go into detail on that occasion; but on another day, on going into Committee of Supply, it was desirable that he should inform the House what was the opinion of the Admiralty with regard to those important recommendations. Either the present mode of maiming the navy was sufficient or insufficient; either the methods

  1305
  proposed were judicious or injudicious. But he could not imagine that the right hon. Baronet was right in saving that such recommendations as the Admiralty thought proper to carry into effect, could he carried into effect without referring to that House and asking for additional means. The Report stated what would be the probable expense of the additions recommended; the improvements in the peace establishment they estimated at £104,671, and the additional reserves in the Queen's service as follows:—2,000 additional Coast-guardsmen, £116,525; 4,000 reliefs in home ports, £132,000; and 5,000 short service pensioners, marines, £45,625. Whether these recommendations were judicious or not, it was to be supposed that the Commissioners had taken pains rightly to calculate the expense of the additions they proposed. He could not, therefore, accept as sufficient the assurance of the First Lord that the Admiralty would consider these recommendations from time to time, and would carry them out without asking for any additional supplies or any additional Votes. On some day, which the right hon. Baronet himself should fix, he ought to state what was the effect of the consideration of the Admiralty, what part of the recommendations they proposed to carry out, and whether those 4,000 reliefs in home ports, to cost £132,000, would be adopted. That seemed a likely mode of facilitating the putting of ships in commission. It might be that it was not needed, that ships in commission were manned so rapidly that it was not required. But the House was entitled to know the opinion of the Executive Government on this Report, and there was no subject that more urgently called for consideration. It must be remembered by the hon. Member for Birmingham that the changes in the mode of naval warfare had entailed on us a very large expense; and there was really no question more important to this maritime nation than how to keep up an efficient navy, and how to man it. He therefore expected that the right hon. Baronet would, on some day, state what were the intentions of the Government with regard to this Report, and how it was possible to carry those recommendations into effect without having recourse to Parliament.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the noble Lord had misunderstood him. What he had stated was, that the Report was divided into two parts—one consisting of recommendations which involved very con-
  1306
  siderable expense, and therefore requiring matured consideration not by the Admiralty but by the Government. The noble Lord had forgotten that on Friday last he (Sir John Pakington) proposed a reserve—not of 4,000—but of 3,000 men in our ports, and stated that the Government had determined on that before they heard what the recommendation of the Commissioners was. What he stated Was, that the first part of the Report referred only to particular suggestions and detailed alterations in Order to make the existing continuous-service System more effective. Those were minor recommendations within the compass of the Board of Admiralty; and those recommendations they were now considering.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The question I asked was, how you were to carry out those recommendations without incurring expense.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that they were chiefly matters of detail and alteration which would not incur much expense.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he thought it could not be a satisfactory state of things when we were told that such were the recent changes in warfare that now, for the first time since England had been a great maritime nation, we were without that superiority which was necessary not only to maintain our supremacy but our existence as a great nation. These were new features, but unfortunately they were now notorious. They were admitted by the First Lord of the Admiralty and without saying whether we were likely to remain on friendly terms with a neighbouring Ally, without saying whether we were likely to have serious cause of apprehension from him, he could not but feel that if any unexpected emergency should arise—and in the present state of Europe no one could say that it would not—if we were plunged into a naval war with our Ally a disaster might ensue from which the nation could not recover in the lifetime of any of those present. Therefore he was glad when his hon. Friend came forward and drew attention to the insufficiency of our naval defences, and he felt that there was a responsibility on any Government and any Board of Admiralty which delayed a single clay to strain every nerve to give us once more that state of maritime efficiency which we were once in, and which from the amount of our commerce we ought to be in always. The distress which

  1307
  would arise from the interruption of our commerce, and the interference with our manufacturing prosperity consequent upon another Power having the command of the Channel for even two or three months, would dwarf into insignificance any expense which might be necessary in order to put our naval forces into an effective condition. He repeated that the house and the country ought to feel indebted to the hon. and gallant Admiral.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he had paid some attention to the relative forces of France and England, and was not prepared to agree with the statement that our inferiority was notorious, or that we had not at this moment the command of the sea. All that the First Lord of the Admiralty had said on this point was, that in respect of line-of-battle ships the English force, in comparison with the forces of other countries, was not such as it ought to be. That was the statement of the right hon. Baronet; that was the statement of the right hon. Member for Halifax when he moved the Estimates in 1857, and which he repeated when the Naval Estimates were discussed last year in that House. With regard to the Motion of the gallant Admiral, he confessed that he entirely concurred with him in the expediency of substituting for the block-ships ships of a more effective character; and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty would reconsider the declaration which he had made with regard to that substitution. The steps now being taken with regard to the manning of the navy in an emergency were the most important of any that had been adopted since the great peace of 1815. The House might be surprised to learn it, but at the present moment the Coast-guard and the Naval Volunteers would be able to supply crews for twenty line-of-battle ships, and they would be ready at the shortest possible notice. There were at present no less than 5,600 men in the Coast-guard. There were 7,429 Naval Coast Volunteers, all of whom had been trained, except a very few hundreds, who were now in training. With 250 of the Coast-guard and their petty officers and artificers, 250 Naval Coast Volunteers, 200 Marines, and with officers, boys and idlers, making up 857 in all, there was at once the crew of a line-of-battle ship. Well, the whole number of the Coast-guard and Naval Volunteers was 13,000; 500 of the crew of a line-of-battle ship were composed of
  1308
  Coast-guard and Volunteers; and, therefore, according to the rules of division, there was a sufficient number to provide crews for twenty-six ships, and he had put the number at twenty, in order that he might not overshoot the mark. As to the Manning of the Navy Commission, there was one point at least on which the Board of Admiralty might satisfy the House and the country, and that was, that the recommendation of the Commission with regard to the Coast-guard would be attended to, to increase the force to 10,000 men.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he must say a few words in defence of the Australian colonies from the charge made against them by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. He said, that so long as the Home Government disposed of the resources of the Australian colonies, while they were, in fact, our penal settlements, no steps were taken to provide them with defences of any sort. True, an attempt had been made to fortify Sydney harbour, but it was found that the fort was commanded by another eminence; it was then sought to erect a battery upon an island in the harbour, but the engineer blasted the rock on the island so effectually that nothing could be built upon
  it. The colonists now were anxious to have defences, and ready to pay for them, but it was not unreasonable to ask for one of the old liners, which were rotting in our ports, to serve as a guardship for the harbour, and a naval school for the youth of the colony. He hoped the lecture of the hon. Member for Birmingham would not deter the Admiralty from making these colonies a station for a commodore. We had stations on the coast of Africa and on the coast of South America, and surely we might afford a squadron to protect the gold ships on their passage to this country. It had always been a matter of astonishment to him that a fillibustering establishment had not been set up somewhere about the Straits of Magellan. No business could be carried on with greater ease, or with more profit. It might be the duty of the colony to pay for its own defences, but it never could be its duty to find fleets to defend the trade of the home country.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was constrained to agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham that a period of disaster would arise in this country if the disbursements went on increasing after their ratio

  1309
  of the last twenty years. This increase could only be met by increased taxation, which tie people of this country would not bear. The expenses of the Colonies were a material portion of the disbursements, and lie was glad to hear that they were making arrangements for their own defence.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I am quite satisfied that the First Lord of the Admiralty is correct when he states that there is no substantial difference between the opinions expressed by himself and the gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier); I therefore trust that there will be no division. The Coast guard ships, I think, ought to be retained in their present position, until the fifteen ships of the line, which are necessary to give us a superiority over every Foreign navy according to his promise shall be completed. It will then be the time to supply the present vessels with more sufficient ships when the dockyards will be comparatively free. The ships now returning from foreign stations will have at our disposal 4,000 seamen who would be sufficient to man such a number of first-rate ships as would render our Channel and Mediterranean fleets worthy of our claim to be the first maritime nation in Europe or the world, Let me impress upon the House the paramount importance of ascertaining before it sanctions an expenditure of the public money by the Admiralty, that the Board his paid that attention to the mode of construction which will ensure the efficiency of the vessel and an identity of speed under steam or sail. Let hon. Members dispossess themselves of the injurious and baseless thought that this country is inferior in naval power. The First Lord has assured us that, within a few months we shall have a fleet of forty-eight sail-of-the-line. It is not in the Dumber or the character of our ships that we are deficient—we lack men, without whom the most magnificent ship that ever floated would be simply useless; but I have no fear of good success in securing the services of good officers and an ample supply of men, if you will hold out (as you are bound in justice) due reward to the meritorious officer, and cherish and attach by encouragement the seaman. Win them to enter, make them love and become proud of the service; keep alive such a spirit in the navy, and rest assured, whatever may be the crisis, England will rise superior to it and be found able to defend herself.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he
  1310
  thought it right to remind the House, in reference to the observations which had been made as to the tardiness of the Admiralty in taking the question of manning the Navy into consideration, that they had lately received a most valuable Report from the Commission which had sat on the subject, as well as a very able letter by one of the members of the Commission, containing opinions on some points different from those in the Report. When such a difference of opinion existed the Admiralty ought not hastily to come to any conclusion on the question submitted to them. His own opinion was that some parts of the Report would be adopted and some parts of the recommendations of the hon. Member for Tynemouth. The hon. and gallant Member opposite thought that the Admiralty were in no hurry to remove the block-ships, but the First Lord had stated distinctly that he meant to replace them as fast as he could. With this declaration he thought the House ought to be satisfied.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he thought that it ought to be left to the Executive to say when these ships ought to be replaced. He was inclined to think that the country was a little disappointed that we had not a somewhat larger Channel fleet. When it came to be a question of only five sail-of-the-line with credit taken for one sail-of-the-line at present absent, there could be no doubt that that was a very small Channel fleet compared to what England could maintain. It was nut merely a show of ships that was wanted, but practice, and the appointment of officers who knew the coasts and harbours. A Channel fleet of any considerable amount in commission would also require a complement of gun-boats.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 37: Majority 37.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee. Mr. FITZTROY in the Chair.

  ARMY ESTIMATES.—SUPPLY.
  (In the Committee).
  (1.) 122,655, Land Forces (exclusive of Men employed in India).
  GENERAL PEEL: Before proceeding to make any comparison between the Estimates of the next financial year and those of tine present one, it is necessary that the

  1311
  House should fully understand them. The whole amount voted last year for the army was £11,577,755. The total Estimate he should ask for to-night was £11,568,060; between these sums there was a difference of £9,695. Any one not accustomed to examine the details of Estimates would naturally come to the conclusion that the £11,568,060 the House would be asked to vote was the full expenditure; but this would be an error; the full amount on the face of the Estimate for the last year amounted to £12,677,000, and the full amount of the Estimates for the present year was £12,668,060. The difference of £1,100,000 was made up of the sum due from the East Indian Government to the Home Government for the pay of the regiments serving in India; this would be available for the reduction of the expenses of the present year; the sum available for the same purpose in the ensuing year would be £700,000. It was necessary to make this explanation, in order that the House should understand what must otherwise appear to be a most extraordinary anomaly, that whilst the number of men to be voted was 7,480 less than during the past year, there was an increase in the pay and money allowance of £43,447. Instead of that, upon referring to page 7 of the Estimates, they would see that the real amount of pay and allowances for the men voted last year was £4,361,027; whilst that now required was only £4,174,474. But then there was deducted last year for the pay of men wanting to complete establishments, and the amount to be paid by the Indian Government for excess in the number of men sent to India, £680,000; whereas this year the deduction on those accounts was only £45,00. The money due from the East Indian Government was thus accounted for. When a Queen's regiment was sent to India in excess of the regular number there, the East India Government was charged for every man what he was supposed to cost this country in making bun a soldier, his accoutrements and his drill. That cost was for each infantry soldier £18 1s.; for the cavalry of the line £31 13 s. 11 d. per man; Royal Horse Artillery, £73 8s. 9d.; field batteries of the Royal Artillery, £50 5s.; and the Royal Engineers, £84 2s. 5d. per man. This large sum of money due from the Indian Government would be deducted from the gross Estimates of the present year. In addition there was a reduction in the expense of the transport of troops
  1312
  amounting to £200,000. The ensuing financial year was also leap-year, and the difference of the one day made a difference in the expenditure of nearly £20,000. But the amount of the Estimates was entirely governed by the number of men required for the service of the country. The Vote required for the pay and allowances of the land forces for the ensuing year was £3,24,474; for miscellaneous charges, £562,369; for clothing and necessaries, £400,000; for provisions, forage, fuel, light, barrack furniture and bedding, £1,003,604. Vote No. 2, for pay and money allowances; Vote No. 3, for miscellaneous charges; Vote No. 9, for clothing and necessaries; and Vote No. 10, for provisions, forage, fuel, and light, were simple sums in arithmetic, regulated entirely by the number of men that might be required. So with the Votes for the effective service; they were almost all of them governed by the same rule. For instance, the departments of the Secretary of State and the Commander in Chief could only vary in proportion to the number of men required and the duties which were thrown upon them; and those duties were not confined merely to the British establishment, but extended to the whole army; for although the East Indian Government paid for clothing the troops they employed, still all the contracts were entered into by the Department over which he (General Peel) presided, the East Indian Government paying 5 per cent. for departmental charges. Again, it would appear by the Estimate as if there was an increase in the Vote for warlike stores for land and sea service for the present year of £83,361; whereas in reality there was a decrease of £116,000, for there Was deducted from the Vote of last year £600,000, which was payable by the East India Company, and this year only £400,000. Consequently there was a decrease on that Vote of £116,000, and not an increase of £83,361. So far as the Votes for fortifications, civil buildings, and barracks were concerned, the Estimates did no more than carry out arrangements which had been agreed to by this House, and were not susceptible of reduction. Practically, out of a total of £12,000,000, there were not £2,000,000 over which the War Department had any power, or in which it could make any reduction. As the number of men must always be the basis of the Estimates, in stating what that number would be for the year. ensuing, he must observe that this

  1313
  was altogether an exceptional year; he did not think it possible to ask a greater or smaller number of men than he was about to require. There was an apparent decrease of 7,480 men in the British establishments, but this was occasioned by a transfer from one establishment to another, there being an increase in the Indian Establishment to the extent of 14,163. The total number of men to be voted for the ensuing year, for the whole British Army, was 229,557; this was an increase on the strength of last year of 6,683 men, the number of the army in the past year having been 222,874. He had really no power to increase or diminish the number required. In order to show this it was necessary to go back to the state of the army before the outbreak of the Indian mutiny. The army had then just been reduced to the peace establishment, and its strength was no greater than was required to perform the duties of the service abroad and at home. Before the Indian mutinies the British army consisted of twenty-three regiments of cavalry and 105 battalions of the line. Of these, four regiments of cavalry and twenty-four regiments of infantry, amounting to about 30,000 men, were upon the Indian establishment; leaving nineteen regiments of cavalry and eighty-one regiments of infantry upon the British establishment. Only two branches of the service were much affected by the outbreak—the cavalry and infantry; of these, the number despatched to India amounted to nearly 30,000 men; twelve regiments of cavalry, and seventy-three battalions of infantry were in India at the present time, leaving only seven regiments of cavalry and seventy-two battalions of infantry to do the whole of the home and colonial duty. But during the present year it was anticipated that several of these regiments and battalions would be spared from India for the Home Service. It was important that the House should know the data on which this Estimate was founded. He would, therefore, read a letter from Lord Clyde to his Highness the Commander in Chief, which would show that the calculation he had made was no wild speculation, or founded on mere conjecture. The letter was dated,—
  "Allahabad, Nov. 1, 1858.
  "In short, I think 1 can now predict, almost with confidence, that your Royal Highness's wishes with respect to the return of certain regiments may be accomplished early in the spring without real inconvenience to this country. I should imagine that it may be possible to dis-
  1314
  pense with the 86th from Bombay, the oldest regiment from Madras and from this Presidency, in addition to the four already ordered to England by your Royal Highness. As the Bengal. Light Cavalry ought to be almost fit for duty in the spring, I should hope that the 9th Lancers might also return home. Perhaps it might not be safe to extend reduction further for this season."
  He knew there was great anxiety felt to know what regiments were likely to return from India in the course of the next year, and it might therefore be interesting to the House to hear their names. Those regiments would all be borne on the British establishment for the next year, and were therefore included in the number of men which the House would be asked to vote. They were the 9th Lancers, the 10th Foot, the 29th Foot, the 32nd, the 53rd, the 78th, the 84th, and the 86th. It had been necessary that he should come to some arrangement with his noble Friend the Minister for India as to the number of regiments which should return from that country in the course of the year; for if any number came home unexpectedly, or more came than had been provided for in the Estimate, there would naturally be an excess on the force voted for upon the British establishment. This would require either a supplementary Vote to be proposed, or the Government would be obliged to reduce some of the second battalions which they had raised. He had therefore allowed in the course of the ensuing financial year for the return of seven regiments of infantry now in India, and one additional regiment of cavalry. This would give eleven regiments of cavalry and sixty-six regiments of infantry for the Indian establishment, and fourteen regiments of cavalry and sixty-five regiments of infantry for the British establishment. This would make five regiments of cavalry and sixteen regiments of infantry less upon the British establishment than there were previous to the outbreak of the mutinies. He trusted, then, the House would agree that it would be very impolitic, if not impossible, to reduce the number of these regiments, or to vote a single man less than he now asked for. He would next proceed to show that it would be equally impolitic for bins to ask for a larger number of men. If they wished for a larger number they could obtain them only by raising additional battalions; and there was every reason to believe, from the present state of India, that before they could be trained the British regiments would begin to return to England. There was not the slightest

  1315
  doubt that the Indian Government, looking at the condition of their finances, would be happy to dispense with the services of our troops at the earliest possible moment. But under any circumstances, for a long time to come, he believed they would not be able to diminish the force in India below fifty battalions of infantry. Taking that as the average and assuming that they carried out the system of reliefs—so essential to preserve the efficiency of the British army—which had been laid down, each regiment would not be kept more than ten years abroad, nor be allowed to remain less than five years at home. This required two-thirds of our force to be abroad, while the other third was in this country. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS inquired how many men were included in the fifty battalions?] He took the number at 50,000, though he could not pledge himself to the exact figures. Therefore to retain fifty battalions in India they must have twenty-five battalions more at home for reliefs, making together seventy-five battalions. Thirty-seven battalions were required for duty in the Colonies with nineteen at home for their relief, making altogether 131 battalions. It would be very unwise to add to the number of our regiments, or to raise fresh regiments which we were not likely permanently to require, because, as soon as they became efficient, there was every probability that they would be again reduced, and moreover, before they could raise them, they could supply their place in the meantime by the embodied militia, who are always better than the new levies. Fault had been found with him because, as it was said, he intended to disembody the militia lest they should become too efficient. So far from there being any truth in this statement, there was nothing on which he and his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief had more prided themselves, than on the efficiency of the embodied militia, a force by whose aid we had been enabled to furnish the very timely reinforcement of thirteen regiments for India, and to which we were also indebted, notwithstanding the great exertions for the suppression of the mutiny, to keep up in this country and in the Colonies a number of men equal to our requirements. At the present moment there were no fewer than 93,871 troops belonging to Her Majesty in India. He held in his hand a return of the troops on colonial stations between the years 1840 and 1855. In 1840 they amounted to 37,370 men; in 1845 to
  1316
  36,371; in 1850 to 35,942; and in 1855 to 28,598. At present the number was 38,711. He had also procured a return showing the available force of all arms in the United Kingdom, from 1820 down to last year. From this it appeared that the total force was as follows:—

  1820

  …

  …

  …

  55,032

  Men

  1825

  …

  …

  …

  37,622

  —

  1830

  …

  …

  …

  42,973

  —

  1835

  …

  …

  …

  44,014

  —

  1840

  …

  …

  …

  47,891

  —

  1845

  …

  …

  …

  55,668

  —

  1850

  …

  …

  …

  60,131

  —

  1855

  …

  …

  …

  58,477

  —

  1858

  …

  …

  …

  55,724

  —

  The total of 55,725 for 1858 was exclusive of the Indian depôts and the embodied militia, which were separately stated. On the 1st of February last the number of regular troops in this country of all ranks, comprising infantry, cavalry, foot guards, artillery, &c., amounted to 66,216. In addition to this there were no less than 16,427 men forming the depôts of regiments in India; besides 23,022 of embodied militia, making together a force of 105,685 men, exclusive of marines, pensioners, depôts at Warley of regiments belonging to the army in India, and the Irish constabulary. He did not mean to say this was a body of men sufficient to place our military establishment on an equality with those of foreign nations. We never could by any possibility enter into a competition with foreign countries in respect to the number of men. What he said was, that Her Majesty's Government had during the course of last year done all in their power to keep the largest obtainable force together; and when he spoke of 105,000 men, he should remark that it was quite as many as we could find barrack accommodation for. He thought, therefore, it would clearly be impolitic either to reduce or to increase the numerical strength of our army; and he hoped the House would have no hesitation in voting the number of men he proposed. He would now pass on to observe that more had been done for the welfare of the British soldier during the last few years than one could possibly have anticipated. Since he had himself been in the army the soldier had been better armed, better fed, better clothed, and better paid. More attention, in short, had been shown to his comfort in every respect. He had found things in a state of progress when he acceded to his present office; and all that he bad since done was to continue the work which others had begun. But there was

  1317
  no branch of the service which had not undergone important improvements. The spiritual instruction of the soldier had been provided for by an increase in the number of chaplains. He was afraid that what he had done in this respect might not meet the approval of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, but he would be happy to discuss the subject with that hon. Gentleman when they came to Vote 3. The education of the soldier had been carefully attended to within the last few years, and nothing could be more satisfactory than the reports received as to the results of these efforts. The soldiers were anxious to learn, and their commanding officers gave them every encouragement to do so. The schools, the libraries, and the reading rooms were well frequented, and the slight indulgence which his predecessor had granted and he had continued—namely, as to the introduction of innocent games of chess and draughts into the reading rooms had the effect of drawing the men away from the haunts of intemperance. On board the transports for India also means had been afforded for their amusement. Dictionaries of the Hindostanee language had been supplied to them, and, where practicable, persons had been appointed to instruct thorn on the voyage. Everything had, in fact, been done to raise the condition of the soldier, and promote his moral and intellectual improvement. Soon after he accepted office a warrant was issued raising the pay and improving the position of the medical officers, and its result had been that a very superior class of men, house surgeons from hospitals, and men who had taken prizes in different schools were now entering the army in that capacity. A Committee of that House had directed attention to the importance of attention being paid to measures which should prevent disease as well as to its cure, and he had no doubt that, under the able and energetic superintendence of Dr. Alexander, all the recommendations of that Committee would be carried into effect. Great improvements had also been made in the Commissariat, which, though small in numbers, as it must always be in time of peace, now afforded the nucleus of a department which might, whenever necessary, be easily and rapidly extended, and which he trusted would prevent the repetition of the miseries endured in the Crimea. It was intended that, in future, at the great camps of Aldershot and the Curragh, the provisions should be
  1318
  received in gross, and the soldiers should be taught to help themselves, by being their own butchers and bakers, and in all respects having to act as if they were on actual service. Another improvement which would be made would be the subdivision of contracts, so that they might not be given for such large quantities that, as was now the case, they msut always be taken by the same person. By means of this alteration and the supervision of the officers of the Commissariat, he hoped that the expense would be reduced, while the quality of the provisions supplied to our troops would be improved. Such were his propositions in respect of the number of men and their maintenance. Of course the country had a right to ask what amount of security they have to depend upon from this enormous military expenditure. Upon his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty must that defence mainly rest. It would be perfectly impossible to fortify the whole coast of England. It was the duty of the Government to protect the great naval arsenals and depôts—Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, Portland, and sucks places—and also the mouth of the Thames; but the idea of protecting the whole coast was perfectly absurd. It might be done as far as possible by providing movable batteries, which, to a certain extent, would be very effectual in checking an enemy; but an attempt to prevent an invasion by fortifying the whole coast would be perfectly useless. There was one feature on this part of the question of which the House had heard a great deal,—he meant the introduction of Sir William Armstrong's gun. It was impossible for any one to predict what would be the result of the general introduction of that weapon into the service. In the course of the summer he appointed a Commission to examine and report upon the different sorts of rifled ordnance which had been submitted to the Government. The Report of that Commission was that, after giving the fullest attention to the subject, they considered Sir William Armstrong's invention superior to all others. The gun submitted to the Government by that gentleman is a breech-loading, rifled, wrought-iron gun, peculiarly manufactured, and the peculiarity extends to the projectile, which serves at option as either solid or hollow shot, as shell, or as common case. This projectile could also be modified so as to be used by naval batteries and on board ships, and to have a very great explosive effect. The gun had

  1319
  great durability, he having himself seen one which had been fired 1,300 times without the smallest injurious effect being produced upon it. The great advantages of this gun were its extreme lightness, the extent of its range, and its accuracy. An Armstrong gun throwing a projectile of 18 lb. weighed one-third as much as the guns now in use discharging shot of that weight. The range of a 32 lb. gun, fired with a charge of 5 lb. of powder, was a little more than five miles and a quarter. However, guns would, of course, have a longer range, but the object of the experiments now going on were not so much to increase the range as the weight of the projectile. The precision of the gun was still more extraordinary than its range. The accuracy of the Armstrong gun at 3,000 yards was as seven to one compared with that of the common gun at 1,000 yards; while at 1,000 yards it would hit an object every time which was struck by the common guns only once in fifty-seven times; therefore, at equal distances, the Armstrong gun was fifty-seven times as accurate as our common artillery. Its destructive effect, also, exceeded anything which had hitherto been witnessed; the carriages had been very much improved, and their introduction into the navy would greatly diminish the number of men required to work the guns. Having ascertained the superiority of the gun, the Government could have no hesitation in at once doing everything in their power to make themselves masters of it. Great as had been the ingenuity and talent displayed by Sir William Armstrong in regard to this invention, they were exceeded by the liberality with which he at once presented to the Government his patents and drawings—the result of ten years' experiments—without condition or stipulation. He (General Peel) had not the slightest hesitation in saying that there was hardly any sum which the Government would have felt themselves justified in refusing for those patents, which were thus unreservedly yielded up. When his noble Friend at the head of the Government asked him (General Peel) to think of some sum which might be presented to Mr. Armstrong, he was at once relieved from all difficulty by that gentleman proposing to be considered as having been in the service of the Government for the three years he was engaged in making his experiments, and that they should allow him a salary of £2,000 a year. The patents then belonged to the Government,
  1320
  but to mark their sense of his services—the Government had appointed him Engineer for Rifled Ordnance. And, as it was desirable, in as short a period as possible, to manufacture the greatest number of guns he undertook to make them on the single stipulation, that the outlay in the works, in the event of the demand being stopped from any cause before he had been repaid for the expense incurred, then au arbitrator should decide what amount of remuneration he was entitled to for the loss so sustained in building; and the arbitrator he had himself named beforehand—he was to be the Attorney General of the day. He was convinced that the Committee would be of opinion that nothing could be more liberal than the manner in which Sir William Armstrong had dealt. with the Government; and would think that he well deserved the honour which, by her own special and personal desire, had been conferred upon him by Her Majesty. The manufacture of some of the larger of these guns was now being proceeded with by Sir William Armstrong's late partners; it was also the intention of the Government to make some of them at Woolwich under the direction of that gentleman, and when they had got some of the largest size they would be tried against masonry and earthwork, till which was done it was impossible to say exactly what effect they would produce upon fortifications. One thing he might predict, and that was that sooner or later they would supersede the whole existing armament of the country. He was afraid that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) must make up his mind to a large expenditure on that account; but he was sure that he would not grudge any money the expenditure of which would be for the benefit of the country. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear.] It might also be necessary to reconstruct a great many of the existing works; but he would not trouble the House with any observations upon that subject. Nor would he now enter upon the consideration of the different Votes. When the House came to them in regular order he would give a full explanation of the grounds of increase or decrease, as the case might be; but in the meantime would conclude by moving the Vote of 122,655 men, exclusive of those employed in India.
  Mr. W. WILLIAMSsaid he must beg to call attention to an extraordinary increase in the cost of the army in the present year as compared with what it was in 1852–3

  1321
  when the present Government was in office. In 1852–3 the number of men was 119,519 now it was 122,655, showing an increase of only 3,136. The Army Estimates in 1852–3 amounted to £9,021,000; those of the present year amounted to 11,560,000, showing an increase of £2,539,000. He likewise wished to call attention to the number of general officers at present employed. The Commission of 1854 reported that no more than 234 general officers were required for our army, and yet he found in the Army List there were 500 Generals in the Queen's army, 34 Generals of Marines, and 220 Generals in the Indian army. He calculated that, including the regular army, the Militia, and the Marines on shore, the enrolled pensioners, the yeomanry, and the Irish police the Government had at its disposal an efficient force of 206,807 men—a force which he thought would satisfy the most nervous member of the community. He would add nothing further upon this Vote, but he would follow the right hon. and gallant General through the Votes, as he proposed them to the Committee.
  SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had no objection to offer to the number of men. He merely rose to ask the gallant General what was the regulation with respect to the payment of troops destined for the Indian service; when the period for trying the depôts commenced, and what their number was at present? It was clear that if the present military expenditure were kept up and India were called upon to pay its share of the cost, the exchequer of that country would soon be insolvent. How happened it that something like twelve batteries of artillery were destined for the Indian service, when the mutiny was apparently quelled? Was it intended that the artillery in India should be supplied from this country, and was the idea of a European artillery located in India given up? The expense of an artillery force sent from this country, with the necessary transports, would be so extravagant that the Indian finances would not be able to bear it. The Government must come to a decision as to the extent to which they meant to keep up the European force in India, and the result to the Indian finances of any attempt to maintain 106,000 troops there, constantly fed from this country, with all the expense of transports to convey them, must be insolvency. He wished the House to consider that there was maintained in this country for the In-
  1322
  dian service a large military force which did not come under the control of Parliament.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he concurred in several of the observations which had fallen from the Secretary of War. He admired the disinterested patriotism of Sir William Armstrong in making his invention unconditionally over to the Government, and he was happy to learn that the Government had taken steps to secure a large supply of that arm. Its efficiency was so thoroughly proved that he thought they were justified in waiving the usual caution not to spend too much money in the manufacture of a newly invented weapon lest further improvements should be found to supersede it in its present condition. But while agreeing upon this portion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, he still thought there were some points which called for explanation. There was a strong feeling in the country as to our recruiting system, and the speeches which bad been heard about it were almost alarming. He had moved for a Return which he trusted would show the whole state of the case. It was said that a Commission would be appointed, but he thought evils of that sort should be remedied by the authorities of the department themselves, and not be left to the remote contingencies of the Report of a Royal Commission. The situation of an officer on the recruiting establishment was regarded as a sort of retirement, but he would suggest that the recruiting establishment should in future be maintained independent of any such considerations, and that recruiting officers should be selected simply because they were adapted to the duty. He was at a loss to account for the great amount of desertion which had of late taken place in the army. That fact might in some degree be owing to the increased facilities for locomotion afforded by our railways; but it appeared to him that that cause could in a great measure be counteracted by keeping watch at the railway stations, or by adopting other precautions which he would not attempt to particularise. He feared that there must also have been some error committed in the mode of recruiting for the line and for the militia, inasmuch as it was stated that different recruiting officers had been employed at the same time for the two services at different sides of the same street, the line taking one side and the militia the other. It seemed to him that the inducement to enter the militia ought not to be so great

  1323
  as that to enter the line, because in the one case the service was but temporary and partial, and in the other continuous. The number of desertions, taking them at 20,000 for the army and militia, was so large that it was evident there must be something extremely faulty in the system. He wanted to know why, when the mutiny in India was most triumphantly put down, this House should be called upon to maintain there a force 15,000 men stronger than when the mutiny was raging? And now they heard that twelve batteries of artillery were under orders for India. Our artillery force in India had performed its duty admirably, and yet it seemed that an additional force of seventy-two guns which would be almost sufficient for an army in the field was to be sent to that country. He also thought our system of dispersing our force over the world had been carried too far. One half of the whole of the line and of the artillery was in India, and the remainder was about equally divided between the Colonies and the home stations. It was true the Mediterranean garrison sought to be strong, but he did not think that the force at home, nothwithstanding the statements of the hon. Member for Lambeth, was at all excessive; in fact, he should be glad to see it increased, for thirty-five battalions was by no means too great a force for the United Kingdom.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that in reply to the first question of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), as to the number of general officers, he had to observe that the real number was 262, and not 500, as stated by the hon. Member. As to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) respecting the depôts of regiments now in India, he might state that on the 1st of February the exact number of men forming those depots was 16,427, the whole expense of whom was borne by the Indian revenues. The hon. Baronet had also asked what was the meaning of sending out twelve batteries of artillery to India. In reply, he (General Peel) could only say, that having sat upon the Indian Commission, he found that the point most strongly insisted upon by the witnesses was the necessity of having no more Native artillery. The object of sending out the additional twelve batteries was to prevent the necessity of renewing the Native force of that arm. The expense of those companies would fall upon the Indian Government from
  1324
  the day of embarkation. The hon. and gallant General (Sir De Lacy Evans) deprecated the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the recruiting system; but, in fact, there were so many branches—the Indian, the militia, and the line—that it was desirable to institute an inquiry as speedily as possible, in order to put an end to the system of desertion which was now so flagrant. The Returns upon that subject should be laid upon the table at the earliest moment; but they could not give all the information that was expected from them, as they would give the number of desertions, but not of deserters, as many men had deserted ten or twelve times over. From a Return which he had he found that the whole number enlisted last year was 47,141 men; the number volunteered from the militia was 7,760; the number of those who deserted from their regiments was 9,637, of whom 1,976 afterwards returned, leaving a net loss to the service of about the same number as volunteered from the militia. A Bill had been passed at the end of last Session to enable militia regiments to be sent to the Mediterranean garrisons, and had any necessity arisen, no doubt there would have been plenty of volunteers; but owing to the zeal of the officers employed to raise the second battalions of regiments serving in India, those second battalions had become so efficient that no less than thirteen of them were now serving abroad, and he had received a letter from Malta speaking in the highest terms of the efficiency of those corps stationed there. He earnestly hoped that they should be enabled soon to devise some means of checking desertion, which had actually become a trade.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he hoped it was not intended to send out all the second battalions, for he found that the second battalion of the regiment which he had the honour to command, the 21st, was 600 under its strength.
  GENERAL PEELreplied that, of course, it was intended to send out battalions whose numbers were incomplete.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSthen asked for an explanation of the increase that had taken place in the amount of the army in India, from 92,000 last year, to 107,000 now serving there.
  GENERAL PEELexplained that the Indian establishment last year was increased at the urgent request of the Governor Ge-

  1325
  neral, who, even upon his own responsibility, called troops from the Cape and wherever he could get them. That raised the amount of the force from 92,000 to 107,000, its present number.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Sir, I am not quite sure that the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend with respect to recruiting is so unfavourable as it appears to be. I presume that, in the number of men lost to the service, he includes every vacancy created by a deserter. The deserter, however, may be a man who several times rejoins the army. I have heard, in deed, that there is one instance in which it was discovered that the same individual had deserted and re-enlisted with a fresh personation no less than forty-seven different times, having received forty-seven bounties from the service before he was ultimately fixed. The story is, perhaps, somewhat exaggerated, but it at all events serves to show to what extent many desertions may represent but one man. With respect to the difficulty of procuring men for the army, I would simply say that it is a matter which depends in a great degree on the impression which is produced on the minds of the peasantry and the working classes as to what are the conditions and the prospects of the soldier. The families of the working classes scattered throughout our villages are very slow to take in the changes which are made in the service; nor do I think they are yet thoroughly informed with respect to the substitution of short periods of service for service for life. They imagine that when a man enters the army as a recruit, he is cut off from his friends for ever—that he undergoes, as it were, a sentence of transportation, and are not alive to the fact that at the end of ten years he may come back to them with some money in his pocket saved during his time of service. Great improvements have been steadily going on in the army for some years, and I was very glad to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend at the head of the War Department, that he was doing his utmost to effect an improvement in the sanitary condition of our forces. It ought to be impressed not only upon the medical officers in charge of troops, but upon the combatant officers themselves, that to provide for the preservation of those who serve under them is one of their first duties. We are too apt to suppose that cure is everything; but what, let me ask, dues it effect for you in the army? It gives you men with constitutions debili
  1326
  tated by disease. It gives you pensioners whom you are obliged to pay, and who can do but little for you in return. But prevention gives you the fighting man, who repays by service the money which you may expend upon him. It would, I feel, be presumptuous on my part to express any opinion on the interesting statement of my right hon. and gallant Friend on another subject—I allude to Armstrong's gun. I may, however, be permitted to say, with respect to it, that it appears to me that being a discovery of the greatest importance, the Government deserve the utmost credit for their immediate adoption of this unequalled invention. I am aware that there are persons who say that to embark in a large outlay for the purpose of introducing into the service a weapon of this description, which is likely to be in a short time superseded by something better is impolitic. My answer to those who adopt that line of argument is, "Nations cannot afford to wait in the hope of securing this something better of which you speak." The true policy is to provide ourselves with the most efficient weapon which the present hour affords. The late Emperor Nicholas entertained, I believe, the idea that some invention would soon be brought to light in the scientific world by which railways would be completely superseded, and delayed in consequence the construction of those useful works. But in the meantime he lost Sebastopol owing to the want of a railroad to connect it with Moscow. I say, therefore, that whether with respect to steamships, guns, or anything else, it is unwise to wait for this something better, while other nations are arming themselves with the most effective weapons upon which they can lay their hands. I have heard it stated, however—I know not with what degree of truth—that however admirable for military purposes Armstrong's gun may be, there is some doubt as to its efficiency in naval warfare. The ground upon which that doubt is based is that a narrow bolt, projected with the greatest velocity, is that species of shot which does least injury to a ship. It passes through, making but a small hole, which is easily plugged, raises but few splinters, and kills a comparatively trifling number of men; while a shot of large calibre, and whose rate of velocity is slower, does infinitely greater damage, knocks may-be two port-holes into one, scatters splinters in every direction, and commits immense slaughter. The point

  1327
  was one on which scientific men alone can form a sound judgment, but it is, I think, one well worthy of attention when the applicability of Armstrong's gun to sea as well as to land service is to be considered. Now, with respect to the amount of the Estimates which have this evening been submitted to our notice, I can only say that they, as well as the number of men which we are asked to vote, seem very large. The amount of the Estimates is not, however, so great as it appears to be; for if you look to p.150 you will find there a very admirable table, which has been introduced for the first time, and which in my opinion will be found of the greatest use in pointing out the appropriation of money between the different manufacturing departments. From that table it appears that £419,235 of the sum set down as belonging to the Army Estimates properly speaking appertain to the naval service. Then there is a sum of £700,000 for old stores, which used formerly to be taken in deduction of the gross amount of the Estimates, but which now—I believe at the instigation of the hon. Member for Lambeth—is included in that amount. I confess I regret that the change should have been introduced, for there are few men who can scan these accounts and ascertain their true nature with the rapidity and accuracy of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir H. Willoughby); and it may therefore escape the notice of many persons that the two sums which I have mentioned, making together over £1,100,000, ought to be deducted from the total of the Estimates for the Army during the ensuing year. I am, moreover, of opinion that my right hon. and gallant Friend is wrong in including in the strength of our military establishment the police force in Ireland, inasmuch as they are men who cannot be detached from their peculiar duty. Nor do I think it is right to include the disembodied militia, because although they constitute a reserve force, yet they are a reserve which is not at once available. So also with respect to recruits for the Indian depôts; they cannot, in my opinion, be taken fairly into account in calculating the number of our military force, for they are not available for service. But, although those Estimates are large, although the sum required for the Army and the Ordnance alone is very nearly as greet in amount as that which was wanted for the Army, the Ordnance, the Commissariat, and the Navy in 1835, yet they could not, I think, be
  1328
  safely reduced at the present moment. We must recollect that we are getting into a new cycle of years. The prestige and spell of a peace which had lasted since 1815 was broken in 1854. Since that time the whole of Europe has resounded with the din of arms. At this very moment vast military preparations are in progress on the Continent. A strong martial filing scents to pervade the world. England is now the only country of Europe in which peace and war are looked upon otherwise than as mere questions of policy and expediency. The deep-seated feeling of the people of this country I believe to be that, except in defence of some great interest or under provocation which cannot be borne without dishonour, war is a great crime. I am not of opinion that upon the Continent, except in the case of a few individuals, Lily such doctrine prevails. There men look upon peace or war, as I said before, as a question of expediency; but we who entertain different sentiments, are nevertheless obliged to arouse ourselves and prepare for any emergency which may arise in consequence of the state of feeling which exist in foreign countries. I think under these circumstances that the Committee will be doing no more than their duty in giving a hearty support to this Vote.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he was informed that officers suffered great disadvantages in consequence of certain warrants passed by the Horse-Guards within the last few years. In 1854 it was thought that great rectifications of abuses bad been obtained; but there was another warrant in 1858 entirely rescinding in some respects the former warrant. There had, therefore, been two revolutions, and officers said that they did not know what would befall them next. The effect of those already issued was that the claims of a number of deserving officers had been unjustly disregarded. In proof of that statement, he might mention that there was now serving in India an officer of great distinction, a colonel of a regiment, who had been made full colonel for gallant conduct, who had served thirty years, and yet who would find himself passed over by an officer of the Guards of less than twenty years' service, owing to the operation of the warrant of 1858. He would ask whether an attempt could not be made to render time warrants directing the course of promotion more precise in their language. At present their meaning was often very

  1329
  doubtful, and if precision could be ensured by no other means, it might be well to employ a special pleader to draw them up for the future. A feeling prevailed that the Horse-Guards read the warrants their own way. [General PEEL: The Horse-Guards have nothing to do with them.] With reference to Armstrong's gun, he would suggest that the present system of fortification should not be proceeded with until the effects of that invention bad been ascertained. This gun might revolutionize the whole art of war, and it would be very undesirable to incur an expenditure upon fortifications which might turn out wholly useless. With regard to army clothing, perhaps the Secretary for War would publish all the complaints made by colonels of regiments respecting the clothing supplied to them. The observations contained in these letters would, no doubt, be very shrewd and practical, and he thought they would be of service to the House. Great complaints had been made of the pressure put on officers with regard to promotions abroad, and he trusted that those in high position who exercised their influence in this manner, would not continue that practice. He believed some difficulty had arisen with respect to the Indian troops, who did not consider themselves bound by any engagements made with the Company, and who were under the impression that they were not bound to serve. That was a subject of considerable importance, and ought materially to affect the number of troops sent from this country. On the subject of the Foot Guards, who at present did not do colonial duty, he would add a word that at least one battalion should be sent to India, where they would gain experience, and would at the same time lighten the labours of the infantry.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he must object to an expression made use of by the hon. and gallant General (Sir De Lacy Evans) with reference to officers on the recruiting service. According to the hon. and gallant General one would suppose that those officers were perfectly inefficient for service from age and infirmities. He (Colonel North) had the pleasure of being acquainted with a great many of those officers, and he believed a more efficient body of officers were not to be found. Most of them were in dm prime of life, and had been distinguished in active service. He had also heard many wonderful things from the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), but the most wonderful thing of all
  1330
  was his extraordinary grumble respecting the 500 generals. When the generals were increased to 262, they were not increased in proportion to the number of troops. If they had been, the number would have been 300 instead of 262. The hon. and gallant Member also complained of a statement made by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), who had said that there were too many generals in the English army, putting the number at 500, while the fact was there were not 300.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSexplained, that, nothing could be further from his mind than to cast any imputation whatever on the officers employed on the recruiting service. He believed, on the contrary, that to their own honour and credit those officers had been selected for their present duties because they had performed very gallant and meritorious services in every part of the world.
  COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, that for the last few years nothing had been done for the non-combatant officers of the army, and he was glad to find that such improvements had been made in the medical and commissariat branches of the service.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he must object to the remarks made by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) on the Guards. He did not think the hon. Baronet was acquainted with the real facts. At another opportunity he should be prepared to enter fully into the subject. To his knowledge the Commander-in-Chief offered the services of a brigade of the Guards for India, but for some reason or other the East India Company declined the offer.
  MR. PIGOTTurged, that one reason why recruiting for the army was not so good as it ought to be was the insufficient pensions granted to soldiers on their retirement.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he thought it was of no use giving an old soldier a pension unless it was sufficient to maintain him decently. Better not give so many pensions, but make them large enough to support a man. The present system had the effect of deterring men from entering the service.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, in his opinion the whole of our system of recruiting was disastrous to the country. Whether a man became a soldier from enlisting in a state of drunkenness, or from accepting a bounty, the system was bad from the beginning; and he was delighted to hear the other night that it was the intention of Her

  1331
  Majesty's Government to submit the whole subject to the investigation of a Committee. If the result should be a more expensive article in the shape of a soldier, we should have a much better article, and one that in the end would be of less cost. At the same time he hoped means would be taken to let it be generally known how great had been the improvement in the condition of the soldier. He should have been glad to have heard some more particular account of the plan which it was proposed to adopt with regard to the barracks. Their state all over the kingdom, and more especially in the metropolis, was such as loudly called for improvement.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the natural defence of the country was the navy; and he hoped it would be kept up in an efficient state. He wished to ask whether the twelve batteries to be sent out to India were part of the 7,878 men included in the present Vote.
  GENERAL PEELwas understood to reply in the affirmative.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he was glad to hear that an inquiry was about to be instituted into the principles and system on which recruiting was carried on. At present he regretted to say that several of the recruits were a disgrace to the service of which they ought to be the honour. The present system of recruiting was intolerably bad. It ought to have been abolished long ago, and in these days one would have expected to meet with it only on reading old novels. To tempt a man to enter into the army by giving him a bounty of a few pounds, which he would probably spend in two days, had a most demoralizing effect on the army. In time of peace we succeeded by this wretched means in procuring men for the army, but when a pressure came we failed miserably in obtaining a sufficiency of good men. The same was the case with the navy. This resulted from our not paying full value for the article at the time we wanted it. He thought that the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire, that a soldier virtually received pay to the amount of 14 s. a week, was too high. But, whether that was the amount or not which a soldier cost the country weekly, it should be recollected that a man on entering the army surrendered his liberty, his health, and his life. In past times and at present the English agricultural labourer was the best recruit we could obtain. His strength, power of endurance, steadiness, and moral
  1332
  character were the qualities required in a soldier. He did not deny that many quick and intelligent recruits were obtained from the manufacturing districts, but when you picked up from the streets persons devoid of stamina and character you threw away money upon a worthless article. Those persons could not endure fatigue, and had to be carried to the hospital almost as soon as they landed on a foreign shore. He hoped that for the future instructions would be given to the medical officers of the army to admit only such to it as were likely to be of service and not a burden to the country. He rejoiced to hear that energetic measures would be adopted for introducing the Armstrong gun into the service. England should have at her command, at whatever cost, the most destructive warlike weapons that could be invented. Paradoxical as it might sound, the introduction of such a weapon as the Armstrong gun would tend to diminish the destruction of life, for the greater the range of our guns the less necessary was it to expose the lives of our soldiers.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £3,724,474, Pay and Allowances (exclusive of India).
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought that the hon. and gallant General had rather misunderstood his observations when ha supposed that he urged the desirability of relying upon the Native artillery of India. It was very well known that some of the best artillery in the world had existed in the shape of a European force formerly in the pay of the East India Company. The question he wished to have explained was, why that force should not be retained, as it was a force accustomed to the climate, and, as he was informed, could be maintained at one-half the expense of a similar force sent from this country.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to call attention to some of the grievances under which the Royal Artillery and Engineers were suffering. Until these corps were brought under the Horse Guards, they could not expect the same share of staff appointments as the rest of the army. But when they were brought under the same command it was an understanding that officers of these corps should participate in those advantages. He wished to know how many officers of the scientific corps were employed on the staff? It was notorious that in the Russian and Sardinian services the highest grades of the

  1333
  service were open to officers in the Artillery, and why was that not so in our service? Again, it was a remarkable fact, that in our service there were fewer officers in the Artillery in proportion to the number of men than in any branch of the service. The Artillery had reason to complain that the advantages which were promised them several years ago when they were joined with the Engineers had not been accorded to them.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he could only assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as he knew of the matter, that understanding had been carried out. It was, however, his unpleasant duty to reduce the staff instead of to add to it. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Artillery and Engineers ought to have their fair share of promotions.
  MR. MONSELL: Would the hon. and gallant General say that any Artillery officer had been placed in a position of importance, except his hon. and gallant Friend below him (Sir William Fenwick Williams) the commandant of Woolwich, and one other General of Artillery now employed in Ireland?
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Artillery officers had not their fair share of appointments. The Engineers were a special corps; but the Artillery united in their duties the functions of Infantry and Cavalry. No branch of the army, therefore, was more likely to be competent for employment than the Artillery.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he thought that the gallant General had drawn rather an unfair distinction between the Artillery and the Engineers respecting those appointments. As far as regarded the knowledge of the art of war, he did not think it was just to say that the one corps was not as deserving of reward as the other. He would remind the Committee that General Cavaignac and other distinguished men in the French service belonged to the Engineers.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSdisclaimed any intention of casting an imputation on the merits of the officers of Engineers.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he wished the gallant and right hon. General to explain why the Vote for our home staff had so much increased of late years. This year it stood at £136,000, while last year it was only £112,000. There had been a gradual rise in this item, which five or six
  1334
  years ago was only £65,000. That was for the staff at home. Then the staff for the Australian Colonies had increased front £12,000 to £18,000; that for Canada had risen from £9,000 to £18,000; for the Cape of Good Hope it had risen in the same period from £15,000 to £29,500. A rise to about the same extent had taken place as to Gibraltar and the Ionian Islands, and he trusted that the right hon. and gallant General would give sonic explanation on the subject.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that the rise in the staff at home took place in consequence of the improvements which had been made during the course of the present year. The new Medical Warrants increased the pay of the medical officers, and the new Commissariat Warrants increased the pay of the commissariat officers. With regard to the Colonies, he should be extremely happy if they paid their own expenses, but while they came upon the Army Estimates, it would be necessary to charge them here.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that, as the number of men was to be 7,480 less in the present than in the first year, there ought to be a corresponding decrease in all the items. He observed, however, that £4,000 more was charged for the men's beer. In saving this, however, he begged it to be understood that he bad no wish to "rob the poor men of their beer!"
  GENERAL PEELexplained that the increase was owing to the fact that the sum voted last year was quite insufficient in amount.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £562,369, Miscellaneous Charges (exclusive of India.)
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he wished to express the gratification he felt at observing that there had been a saving of £500 effected upon the allowances to the Deputy Judge Advocates, £1,000 upon the subsistence of men in confinement in civil gaols and barrack cells, and £9,000 upon regimental agency.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, there were various expenses of recruiting which he desired to bring to the notice of the House. The total cost of recruiting was, in a round sum, £100,000. But he had made a calculation of the cost of desertion to the country from the Parliamentary returns for last year; and he found that during the first six months of 1858 the number of desertions from the Militia and the Army in England amounted to upwards of 13,000. If the six months' rate were

  1335
  to be taken for the whole year at the rate of £5 per cent. a man, a sum of £130,000 would be expended every year owing to desertions.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the Deputy Judge Advocate General was a gentleman whose services might be dispensed with. In the matter of Divine Service he was not going to refuse the army that just privilege, but what were the duties of eighty-one commissioned chaplains at a cost of £19,700, and of more chaplains at a cost of £17,000? What was the meaning of the stock purse of the Guards? What was the meaning of £18,000 for the German military settlers at the Cape of Good Hope? Were they military, or what were they?
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without testifying to the zeal and ability of the gentleman who filled the office of Deputy Judge Advocate General, and from whom he received the greatest assistance. He was a gentleman who abandoned his profession, in which he was rising to distinction, and took the office which he had now filled for ten years.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he did not see any charge for the Director General of Artillery. Did the right hon. and gallant General mean to suppress the office, the only one of importance to which our artillery officers could aspire? There was a major-general to inspect the cavalry, a major-general to inspect the Guards, a lieutenant general to inspect the infantry, and was there to be no officer to inspect the Artillery?
  GENERAL PEELexplained, that the increased charge for chaplains arose from the changes explained by him already as having been introduced into the army. The Government found, on coming into office, that the army was divided between three forms of religion—the English Church, the Presbyterian, and the Roman Catholic. Consequently, when there was no chaplain attached of the religion to which some of the regiment belonged, these men were marched from parade to the nearest clergyman of the persuasion in question. When he took office also, the chaplains were paid according to a sort of sliding scale, namely, 10 s. for a member of the Church of England, 7s. 6d. for a Presbyterian, and 5s. for a Roman Catholic. He had, however, placed all chaplains, whatever their religious persuasion, upon exactly the same footing, the remuneration of each being proportionate
  1336
  to the number of troops who benefited by his ministrations.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that when the German military settlers went out it was understood that the whole of the expense relating to them was to be borne by the colonial fund. Last year the amount that had been voted fur them was £309,476, and this year it was £18,133. He wished to know whether the Government contemplated using them as part of the usual troops of the Cape, or as a part of their ordinary military force, and intended to apply for further grants for them in ensuing years?
  GENERAL PEELwas afraid that this was not the last that the right bon. Gentleman would hear of these German settlers; because, although the arrangement made with them was that they should receive half-pay for a certain number of years, they had, he believed, been kept on full pay ever since their arrival in the colony. More than one-half of them had enlisted in the Indian army, and were now serving in India. This was the last year during which they were to receive half-pay, and therefore, so far as these Estimates were concerned, they would not again come under the notice of the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £150,000, Embodied Militia.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSasked for some explanation.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that this sum was to be voted for the pay of those regiments of Militia which would supply the place of regiments of the line which were upon the establishment, but were now serving in India, and were paid out of the revenues of that country, The amount was deducted from the general Vote for the pay and allowances of the troops. It might have been transferred from that Vote by the authority of the Treasury; but he thought that it was better that it should appear as a separate Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) —88,000, Volunteer Corps.
  MR. BERKELEYsaid he drew a distinction between the volunteer force employed as a rifle or artillery force, and that employed as mounted yeomen. No one could deny that our nearest neighbour possessed a navy equal to our own and an army superior to ours. He held, that in the present state of the defences of the country, the people would not hear of £80,000 being spent on a mounted yeomanry force which was merely a toy of the nobility.

  1337
  He knew he would bring upon himself a large amount of squirearchical indignation, and he was prepared to bear it; but to prevent it as much as possible, he would admit at the outset that he considered them individually as brave as Julius Cæsar, but as a corps, they were very bad soldiers and inefficient constables. How could they make efficient cavalry corps out of forty-eight hours' drill? It took three or four months before a trooper could be placed on his horse and twelve months before a common cavalry recruit was fit to enter the field, and then he was not so good as he might be. Then in Heaven's name, how could these men be trained? Were they born horse soldiers? He said, therefore, take these men off their horses and place in their hands the rifle, which was equivalent in modern times to what the bow was in ancient times. Let the country gentlemen then put up targets in their parks, and place themselves at the head of their men, as their ancestors did in the days of Agincourt and Cressey. But while they allowed this tomfoolery to go on with the squirearchy, they turned their backs on the middle classes, who came forward and said, We are unacquainted with the use of arms—give us weapons, and let us practice the use of that fatal weapon which was lately invented. If they answered that prayer they might in the event of an invasion turn every hedge into a fortress, instead of having a cowed, frightened, and panic-stricken population. But this reasonable petition was not listened to; he himself had presented a petition for this purpose from the mayor and corporation of Bristol as the gallant General knew [General PEEL, "Hear!"] It was said that there was a hitch somewhere at the Horse Guards, but he hoped the gallant General would get rid of it and establish these corps of volunteers. In the meantime he would move that this Vote be expunged.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he had never heard in that House a speech more indiscreet and absurd than that of the hon. Gentleman. He himself was in the yeomanry and had been for twenty-five years in the army, and knew something of both forces. It was an ancient and most constitutional force, and as to their forty-eight hours' drill, he could assure the Committee that for the seven days they were out at drill they were at the work from morning till night. The yeomanry corps was most efficient in internal disturbances, because each yeoman knew his man in an excited crowd,
  1338
  and said as he rode along, "John Thomas, I'll mark you." The effect was indescribable, because the ringleaders knew they were marked men. He should like to see the hon. Gentleman at the head of the Bristol volunteers. No doubt they would prove a most unruly, insubordinate corps, and would make the hon. Gentleman exclaim—"I have raised the devil, and I can't put him down again!" They would be shooting here and shooting there all over the country, and the day might come when they would shoot the hon. Gentleman or any one else. The only suggestion he could make was that a battery of artillery should be added to the yeomanry.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he believed that the loyalty and patriotism of the middle classes had prevented the threatened invasion from Bonaparte. Since then the moral tone of the people had much improved, and all classes were heartily attached to the Throne and the institutions of the country. There was not reason then to suppose that the people of this country if taught the use of arms would turn them against the Government.
  MR. PIGOTTsaid, that no class of men in the world knew how to manage a horse better than the farmers of England, and he would suggest that if the hon. Member for Bristol was generous enough to offer a cup for competition among the yeomanry troops of his own or any other district he would soon find out, that at all events they knew very well how to ride.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid he thought that it was of the utmost importance that the peasantry of the country should be taught rifle practice. They would then feel confidence in themselves, and prove a most important aid should an invasion ever be attempted.
  GENERAL SIR W. F. WILLIAMSsaid, he also concurred in the opinion that if the peasantry were trained to the use of arms they would become invaluable. Not only would they prove invaluable guides in a country teeming with hedgerows, but would, if trained, be the best force that could be devised against an invading army.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Bristol to withdraw his Motion, and to ask for a Committee to consider the propriety of establishing rifle corps throughout the country. He himself was in favour of a volunteer force for the defence of the country; but the yeomanry was a volunteer corps, and for that reason ought to be maintained.
  MAJOR EDWARDS: It was not my intention to have troubled the House with any remarks upon this occasion, but I cannot allow this discussion to pass without expressing my opinion upon the subject of the importance of the yeomanry as a part of our national defences. Yeomanry regiments are composed of men who are taken from all classes of society in this country. In them you have the farmer and the shopkeeper, the mechanic and the peasant, associating together, presided over by the nobility and gentry of England, and forming in the aggregate a force which is more constitutional than any other, and which might be relied on to the utmost in case an invasion should ever be attempted, and which, though some people affect to think a very improbable contingency, it is as well to provide against. With regard to the drilling of the yeomanry, I differ most materially from the hon. Member for Bristol. That hon. Gentleman has chosen to say that the men are drilled only forty-eight hours in the year. I can tell him that the yeomanry regiment to which I have the honour to belong is drilled more than ten times that period, and the same remark, I believe, applies to most other regiments, for although only paid for eight days' duty by the Government during their annual training, many of the men are out in detachments or troops once or twice during the week for six months under permanent serjeants, and generally in the presence of some of their officers. Believing as I do that this is one of the best forces that can possibly be organized, I hope that the hon. Member will not, when the Estimates come before the House next year, grudge a great extension to so constitutional a force. It is one which I think might even be doubled with great advantage to the country, and I believe that the country would not object to see it thus extended. No one will deny it furnishes us with good horsemen. In my regiment we have riding schools in each town, and these buildings have been erected for its use by the inhabitants. My experience is that all classes have shown themselves interested in the yeomanry. So far from causing by their conduct a bad feeling in the neighbourhood to which they belong, I can bear testimony to the fact that the very best possible feeling exists, and, instead of their being, as was stated by the hon. Gentleman. "despised and disregarded," I car tell him that they are very much respecter by all classes of Her Majesty's loyal sub
  1340
  jects. I believe they are able and willing to assist in protecting the interests of their country whenever they may be called upon, and of this I am convinced, that they are always found a most valuable force for the protection of the districts in which they reside. But even if, as has been alleged by some hon. Gentlemen, they would under the present system be useless acting against an organized military force, I contend that they are of the greatest possible advantage when their services are called into requisition for the purpose of quelling intestine disturbances. Many hon. Gentlemen might recollect the services which they rendered during the riots which occurred in the country so recently as in the year 1842, and their efforts upon that occasion were gratefully acknowledged by the Government. As a marked instance of their energy and activity, I may mention that, out of the 111 men of which the Halifax squadron of the 2nd West Yorkshire Regiment is composed, 101 marched in the middle of the night, having had only five hours' notice, from that town to Bradford, to assist the regular troops when danger was apprehended by the authorities; many of the men living at a distance of five miles from the town. What more valuable source can there be for the formation of good cavalry than is to be found in the yeomanry troops? I tell bon. Members that it is to this force and the militia they will have to look for the forces which will be required for Home Service when at any future time it is necessary to employ our army abroad. A gallant officer on the other side of the House has made some allusion with respect to the propriety of arming the yeomanry troops, and the people generally, with rifles. This I quite approve as regards the former, but at the same time I should altogether disapprove of that becoming a general practice among civilians in this country. We have, Sir, a pretty fair example in France of the effect of training every one of the population to the use of arms. Whether such a practice would tend to strengthen the Government of the country or not, is a point upon which I will leave hon. Gentlemen to form their own opinion. I do not think it would; but I except from these observations regiments which are now taught the use of the carbine. This arm cannot be said to be as efficient as the rifle, and therefore I trust that the Secretary at War will think proper, as soon as practicable, to substitute

  1341
  the rifle for the carbine, as in the regular cavalry; for bad as the present carbine is compared with that recently given to many of our cavalry regiments, its use has not been altogether neglected. I believe it to be a common custom in most regiments for the officers to give prizes to the best marksman in each troop, producing an amount of rivalry amongst the men Which cannot be too much encouraged. I say, Sir, that properly armed, there is no body of men who in the fastnesses of Yorkshire and Lancashire, or of many other parts of this kingdom, from their great knowledge of the country; intersected as it is with so many hedges, roads, streams, and other obstacles to the progress of an enemy's force, would prove so valuable and so efficient as a well trained yeomanry corps.
  MR. CROSSLEYcould not agree at all with the hon. Member for Bristol on this question, considering that the yeomanry were most valuable as a means of quelling all local disturbances. In an emergency of that kind the object was to disperse the mob and not to shoot them down.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he also would join in the appeal made to the hon. Member for Bristol to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. H. BERKELEY, in reply, said he Would not press his Amendment, as he had attained his object, which was to elicit an opinion touching the necessity for rifle practice.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Marriage Law Amendment.
2a Burial Places.

REMOVAL OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
LORD LYNDURSTrose, pursuant to notice, to call the Attention of the House to the Royal Academy, and to the proposal to remove the Establishment form
1242
the National Gallery to a new Situation, and the Conditions of such Removal, and said:—My Lords, shortly after the meeting of Parliament, in answer to a question put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman stated, according to report, that there was an intention of removing the Royal Academy from their present residence in Trafalgar Square to a new site, upon certain terms which were not distinctly stated. My Lords, I consider that much misapprehension has existed respecting the tenure under which the Royal Academy hold their apartments at present in the National Gallery Much misapprehension appears to me also to exist as to the character, the duties, and the means of performing the duties of the Royal Academy, and much misrepresentation has taken place in consequence of such misapprehensions. I am, therefore, desirous to have an opportunity of entering into an explanation upon these points, because I think it will be satisfactory to your Lordships, and will redound to the credit of the society to which I have referred. I hope, my Lords, I shall not be charged with going out of my province in entering upon this subject. My justification, or rather my excuse may be, or must be, that in the course of last Session I presented a petition to your Lordships from the Royal Academy, requesting your Lordships to pass some Bill for the purpose of extending the law of copyright to paintings and other works of fine art. In consequence of this, I have received repeated communications from members of the Royal Academy, and they recall to my recollection many circumstances of my early life when I attended the lectures of Sir Joshua Reynolds, of Mr. Barry, and other professors, when I was very much associated and very conversant with the proceedings of the Royal Academy, and when I was intimately acquainted with many of its members. My Lords, there is ore circumstance, and a remarkable circumstance, that distinguishes the Royal Academy in this country from all the other academies that exist on the continent of Europe. There is not a single academy for the purpose of promoting the fine arts upon the Continent

1243
of no charge whatever to the State, and in this respect resembles many other of our institutions, which would in foreign countries look for aid to the Government, but which in this country are supported by the energy, the vigour, and enterprise of individuals. This is a peculiar characteristic of our free State, and it does, I think, great honour to the independence and spirit of our people. Some persons have said that the Royal Academy is to be considered as a society of private gentlemen united for the purpose of promoting the fine arts; while others have said that it is to be viewed as an incorporation. It is a singular circumstance, that at the institution of the Royal Academy there was an Incorporated Society of British Artists then in existence, consisting of a numerous body of professional gentlemen. In consequence, however, of disputes among that body and the disorders consequent upon them, some of the leading members applied by memorial to George III. for the purpose of establishing an academy under his patronage. After some consideration, the King assented to their request, and established the Royal Academy, exclusively under his protection and support. A code of laws was prepared under the immediate superintendence of the King, and he himself devoted a considerable portion of time to their consideration. Many alterations were proposed; but at last the code was complete, and it was then handed over under the sign manual to the Royal Academy; so that the Royal Academy exists, not as a private assemblage of individuals, but as an establishment under Royal authority, and under the sign manual. As for these laws I may describe them in a few words. The society consists of forty Academicians and twenty Associates, and it is provided that when there is a vacancy it shall be supplied by election, that election to be conducted by the Royal Academicians. But no person is allowed to hold the office of Royal Academician except with the assent of the Crown, and before he is placed in that situation he must have a diploma from the Crown, pointing out his rank and position in the society. Part of the system is the establishment of a very extensive and gratuitous school for the instruction of students in the fine arts. Certain professors are appointed, four or five in number, and also certain officers who are necessary for carrying on the establishment. I remember hearing manyyearsago—nearly
1244
seventy years ago—that the whole system and code of laws were referred to and considered by Lord Camden. I find that at this time Lord Camden was the possessor of the Great Seal, and we know, according to the practice of those days, that the Lord Chancellor was in daily private communication with the Crown. It is therefore almost impossible that a scheme of this kind should be established, and this system of laws could not indeed well be constituted, without the King taking the advice and opinions of the Lord Chancellor. I own, my Lords, that the various documents under the sign manual are not countersigned by any officer of the Crown, and there might be some doubt raised whether this Academy is to be considered an institution, patronised and under the support of the Crown in its private or its public character. My Lords, I do not think it very material to enter into these nice distinctions. What I am stating relates to the frame, the constitution, and the circumstances tinder which the endowment was placed. Now, my Lords, a word or two in respect to its local position. The Royal Academy was founded in 1768. Three years afterwards, in 1771, it was transferred from its original place of residence in Pall Mall to the old palace of Somerset House, by the authority of the Crown. It remained at the old palace of Somerset House until the new building was erected. That building, or series of buildings, was erected under the authority of an Act of Parliament. That Act of Parliament pointed out the particular offices which were to be accommodated in this building; I think they were to be ten in number; and it provided that on the site of the old palace such other buildings and offices should be erected as His Majesty should think proper to direct. It was under this reserved clause that His Majesty directed that that part of the present building which fronts the Strand should be erected for the accommodation of the Royal Academy, the Royal Society, and the Society of Antiquaries. The keys of that part of the building intended to be occupied by the Royal Aademy, were directed by His Majesty to be handed over to Sir Joshua Reynolds, who was then the President. It is clear that at that period the apartments which were assigned to the Royal Academy were held as part of the old palace of the Sovereign, and at the will and pleasure of the Sovereign. They continued in the occupation of those apartments undisturbed for a period of nearly

1245
sixty years. At the expiration of that time it was found convenient to transfer the Royal Academy from the position they then occupied, in order that other offices should be established on that position; but on that occasion a special engagement was entered into between the Crown and Parliament, in which the Royal Academy joined. By virtue of that agreement, and with the consent of the Crown, the Royal Academy was transferred to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. It was stipulated at the time as part of the arrangement that they should hold those premises precisely on the same tenure and with the same rights and privileges as they formerly held the premises in Somerset House. His Majesty consented to this arrangement, Sir Martin Archer Shee being at that time President of the Academy. Thus the matter stands as to the right of the Royal Academy to the apartments they now occupy. They do not hold them of the nation, but of the Crown, and at the pleasure of the Crown. I pass over that part of the subject. I have stated that the Society is self-supporting; the source from which they have derived their income is the annual exhibition. The profits of that exhibition have advanced by degrees to their present amount. The average for the last ten years has reached the sum of £7,000 a year. From the very first the Academy has conducted itself in the management of that fund with great discretion. They have set apart a sum for accumulation with a view to the perpetuity of the establishment. I know, my Lords, some persons suppose that the members of the Royal Academy may apply this fund as they think proper. Some think they have distributed a portion of it among themselves. Nothing can be more unfounded. They have no power whatever over the fund. They cannot dis. pose of any part of it without the consent of the Crown. Upon one or two occasions they have advanced large sums towards the aid of the country in times of emergency. In 1798 they voted £500 for that purpose in aid of the Government. They voted afterwards a similar sum for a similar object; but the Crown refused its consent, and the money was not advanced. I have shown, therefore, that these funds are held not for the purposes of the members of the Society, but that they must be disbursed according, to regulations provided for their application. For what purpose is the fund then to be applied? There are certain officers appointed with the view to the schools
1246
and the instruction of the students; among others, a professor of sculpture, a professor of architecture, and a professor of anatomy—all branches of art necessary for an artist, the importance of which is duly recognized. These and certain other officers receive stipends on a very moderate scale for the discharge of the duties devolving upon them. But the great object of the institution has reference to the schools. The schools are on a most liberal establishment. Any of Her Majesty's subjects have a right to claim and to receive gratuitous instruction there; nothing more is requisite for that purpose than the production of a certificate of good moral character and of a qualification in drawing. With those qualifications they are admitted to the schools and are instructed gratuitously during as long a period as they think proper to remain. Many hundreds of students have been instructed in the schools connected with the society. At this very moment the number of students is something like 400. Your Lordships may ask what has been the result of this instruction? The answer is most satisfactory. During the last fifty years by far the larger proportion of eminent artists in this country have been taught in those schools. Two-thirds of the present Royal Academicans had their education in those schools. I have a list in my pocket of the names of those to whom I refer; but I could not trouble your Lordships to read them all, and to read a few would be invidious; but I will repeat in distinct and precise terms that the most eminent men that have figured in the arts of this country have been educated in those schools—that two-thirds of the present Royal Academicians were so trained and so educated. There is another circumstance worthy of mention. Not long ago it will be recollected that premiums were offered for cartoons to be employed in the decoration of the Houses of Parliament. Eleven premiums were so assigned, and more than two-thirds of them were awarded either to students of the Royal Academy or to persons who at some former time had been students of that society. I happened to be in Paris at the time of the exhibition there of works of industry and art. A room was allotted there to the leading schools, including the English; and I have reason to know that many foreign artists of eminence expressed their admiration of our native works of art there, and their surprise they had known so little of the

1247
English school. I think, then, that so far as relates to the duties of this society, and the mode of their performance of them, I have given most satisfactory evidence. My Lords, besides what I have stated as to the application of the society's funds, I must mention that there are medals and premiums awarded to students who attain a high degree of proficiency, and that there is also a fund appropriated to defraying the expenses of promising young men in travelling on the Continent for the purpose of visiting the Schools of the Ancient Masters, with the view to their improvement. My Lords, there is another application of their funds, which I am sure will meet with your Lordships' hearty concurrence. There is no profession which affords more immediate pleasure and delight than the profession of the arts; but, unfortunately, pecuniary reward to any extent does not always accompany exertion in that vocation. Occasionally from advancing life band its failing energies, sometimes from loss of sight, those who devote themselves to it are unfortunately reduced to poverty and distress. The Royal Academy also appropriates a portion of its funds to the relief of persons of that class, and of widows of artists who may have been left destitute. These are charitable objects, but they are not confined to the members of the institution, the aid is distributed freely to the profession at large; and a much larger sum is given to those members of the profession who are not and never were connected with the Academy than to those who are so connected. I find that about £400 a year is subscribed for the relief of persons connected with the institution, and upwards of £900 for that of persons in the profession not so connected. I think your Lordships will feel that that application of the funds in the manner I have described has been a correct, beneficial, wise, and prudent application, and that the administrators are deserving of our thanks for the manner in which they have exercised their rights and performed their office. My Lords, there are one or two objections which have been made to which I wish to refer before I sit down. It is sometimes complained that the walls of the Academy and the Exhibition are too much confined to Royal Academicians, members of the society. Whether that be the case or not I cannot undertake to say, nor whether the exhibition would be better and more profitable if the works of Royal Academicians were reduced in number and those of
1248
other artists admitted in greater numbers. I will not enter upon that subject, because, as it is understood that more extensive buildings are about to be erected, that complaint, if well-founded, can be removed in future. Another point to which I wish to allude is an objection which is sometimes made that favouritism prevails in the selection of the members. Where election is not made by the public voice it is impossible to say that favouritism may not sometimes exist; but here it is held in check by the voice of the profession, who have always their eyes directed towards the proceedings of the Academy, when an election takes place, and it is still further controlled by the influence and authority of the Sovereign, who must be satisfied of the propriety of each nomination, for no person elected can hold office until his election has received the sanction of the Sovereign and a diploma of appointment. But this I will say, that during the last fifty years no artist of eminence has lived in this country willing to become a member of the society who has not in course of time been elected a member. There have been one or two exceptions, the reasons for which I will not enter upon, because they are of an unpleasant character; but I say generally in broad terms, that every artist of eminence who has existed in this country during the last half century has been a member of the Royal Academy. My Lords, I feel considerable satisfaction in being able to state these facts to your Lordships, and through you to the country. Now, one word before I sit down upon the proposed change of site. I believe that as far back as 1830 it was suggested that it would be proper to remove the Royal Academy from its present position in order to afford more room for the National Gallery, and I think in 1854 Lord John Russell proposed to advance £40,000 to enable the Academy to procure another residence. What was the result of that offer I do not know, except that it was never completed; but this I do know, that it was not very favourably received by the Royal Academy, and for a very obvious reason. They have always considered themselves to be under the immediate supervision of the Crown. If they consented to receive a sum of money from the public purse they considered, and properly so, that they might be called upon from time to time by the House of Commons to make returns, to be examined, and to assume a political character quite foreign to the tranquil state so

1249
necessary for the well-being of art. Therefore I am sure the offer could not have been accepted by them. But other offers have since been made, and now it is proposed that a site should be granted in fee to the Royal Academy upon part of the ground occupied by what is known as Burlington House. No situation can be better for this purpose. They are grateful for that offer; but still they fear what I have before suggested, that a grant from the nation, unless an equivalent was offered by themselves, would place them in the position I have just mentioned. Their object is, and always has been, to remain solely under the control and supervision of the Crown. Therefore what they now propose is this—they will accept the grant upon the condition that they on their part shall he allowed to expend an amount equal to the value of the site in the construction of buildings necessary for the Academy, to be permanently applied for the purposes of art. Thus the grant from the nation will be paid for by that equivalent, because both the land and the buildings to be erected upon it are to he devoted in perpetuity to a great public object. I think that if this kind of arrangement can be carried out it will not affect the position of the Royal Academy, and they will remain, as before, under the immediate supervision, control, and government of Her Majesty. I was anxious, my Lords, to make this explanation, because I was sure, as regarded the conduct and management of the Academy, I could say nothing but what would redound to the credit of that body. I think also your Lordships will not object to the view they take as regards the proposed change of site, that the acceptance of a grant should be conditional upon the arrangement which I have mentioned. What is the precise sum they will expend I ant not prepared to state at present; but I imagine it will be some £40,000 or £50,000, which will be a complete equivalent for the land to be granted to them. I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships at such length, but I was glad to have an opportunity of addressing you upon a subject which, from the position I now stand in, and in which from the earliest days of my life I have stood in relative to these matters, naturally possesses great interest for me.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am sure the House is indebted to my noble and learned Friend for the statement which he has addressed to us. He has explained with
1250
his usual clearness and precision the various arrangements which have been made from time to time between the Crown and the Royal Academy. My noble and learned Friend has referred to the beneficial influence exerted by the Royal Academy; and, without entering into details. I think the principle is now recognized on all hands that, while the Royal Academy has no right to claim exclusive possession of this or that particular building, yet it has a right to claim on the part of the public that they shall have some means provided for carrying on their labours, from which I readily admit the public have for a series of years derived the greatest benefit. I believe my noble and learned Friend has only done justice to the zeal with which these labours have been undertaken, and to the services which the society rendered to the fine arts in this country. I should not have risen now, as there is no particular point involved in the remarks of my noble and learned Friend, but that I think it is expedient your Lordships should be put in possession of what is the real position of the Government and the Royal Academy towards each other. Your Lordships are aware that for a series of years there has been a growing feeling that the building constituting the National Gallery, occupied partly by the national collection of pictures and partly by the Royal Academy, was insufficient for both purposes, and that it was desirable to separate one portion from the other. For a long time the question has been agitated whether the National Collection should be removed and the Academy left in possession of the original site; but the result of inquiries by Commissions and Committees appears upon the whole to be that there is no site better calculated than the existing National Gallery for the exhibition of the pictures which belong to the nation. That being the case, it was thought that some other place should be found for the Royal Academy, and the society has hail under consideration the offer of other sites for a building. In that state of things the late Government purchased the valuable property called Burlington House, with the gardens and courtyard attached. In order to give some idea of the extent of space required, I may state that the superficial extent of the National Gallery is 13,000 square feet, while the superficial area of Burlington House and grounds is 143,000 feet, or nearly eleven times as much. It must not, however, be supposed that there are not

1251
numerous claims on this valuable site. Engagements have been entered into with various other societies for portions of that space. I have here a list of those societies which have received promises of accommodation. They are the Royal Academy, the London University, the Royal Society, the Linnæan Society, and the Chymical Society. But, besides these, the Astronomical, the Geological, the Antiquarian, tile Ethnological, the Asiatic, and the Water Colours Societies, which are now located in Somerset House, are claimants for accommodation in Burlington House, while strong recommendations have been made to the Government of allotting a portion of this site to the Geographical and Statistical Societies. Under these circumstances you will, I am sure, admit that it is a matter of some difficulty to meet those various conflicting claims; but the principle on which the arrangement with the Royal Academy is to be carried out has been entirely agreed upon, the settlement of details being left as a matter for future consideration between it and the Government. The principle of the arrangement is this—it appears to me to be a reasonable one,—that, in order to secure the Royal Academy from the inconveniences attendant upon frequent change of place, to afford them more ample accommodation than they now possess, and, at the same time, to provide for the public at large that amount of space which is necessary to the adequate realization of the specific objects which the Academy has in view, they should, out of their own funds, obtain for themselves a site, to be conveyed to them in freehold. whereby they would be relieved from all apprehension of future removal, while the advantage would be secured to the country of having a building suited to the purposes for which the Royal Academy is designed. The proposition made to them, therefore, was that a considerable portion of the site of Burlington House should be appropriated to their use, and should remain over to them in fee simple, upon condition that upon that site they should erect a building adapted to the purposes of the Academy, and not in its style and character incongruous with those other buildings which were now or might hereafter be erected in the same locality. Neither the precise site nor the exact extent of space to be allotted at Burlington House to the Academy has as yet been decided upon. Those points are under negotiation; but I understand that they desire to have half of
1252
the entire frontage of the present building facing Piccadilly, and also a large portion of one of its sides. Now, that application for no less than half of the site occupying 143.000 square feet is one, I cannot help thinking, with all due respect for the labours of the Royal Academy, of rather an extensive character, considering that there are six other societies to whom, as I have already said, promises of accommodation have been made, and seven or eight whose claims have been strongly pressed upon the attention of the Government. Her Majesty's Ministers, however, have deemed it right to ascertain, in the first instance, what amount of space the Royal Academy may reasonably be supposed to want; and, in the next place, before they allot them so large a portion of ground, to be assured that the amount of their funds is such as would enable them to cover, either now or at some future time, with buildings adapted to the objects of the institution, the whole of the site which they require. We have taken this course because it appeared to us it would be extremely undesirable and impolitic to assign to the Royal Academy, or to any society, a considerable space of valuable land, part of which, while they did not need it themselves, they would prevent others from occupying. Of course, so far as the advantages of securing to them a particular aspect and a sufficient amount of light are concerned—matters so necessary for the purposes of the Academy—Her Majesty's Government are disposed to deal with them with the utmost favour and liberality in making their selection of a site. The price paid for the entire site of Burlington House amounts to no less a sum than £140,600; and, if, therefore, we should comply with the wishes of the Royal Academy we should be allowing them a space of ground of the value of £70,000, which is a very considerable sum to dispose of to any one society. I think it right to make this explanation to your Lordships, and to inform you that the site to be set apart for the Royal Academy, and the principle on which we propose to act in dealing with it, have been agreed upon. As to the amount of land to be alloted to them, and the particular position which they are to occupy at Burlington House, I can only say that these are questions the solution of which must, to a certain extent, depend upon the claims of those other societies to whom promises have been made, and also upon the sufficiency of the funds

1253
of the Royal Academy to enable them adequately to occupy the ground which may be assigned for their use.
LORD MONTEAGLEwished to call the attention of their Lordships to one fact, and that was that neither the Royal Academy nor any other of the learned societies having apartments at Somerset House could have any Crown right derived from the original occupation of their official residences, the fact being that Somerset House was public property, and had been erected at the public expense. What right they had had been inferred from usage, and an occupation during pleasure and had never been confirmed by Act of Parliament, which would have been indispensably necessary to give them the vested interest which the noble and learned Lord had argued they possessed. In respect to the future, the noble Earl at the head of the Government proposed, however, most properly, in consideration of the erection of the new Gallery at the expense of the Academy, to solve the question by granting them by statute a site in fee, so that now for the first time the Royal Academy would possess an indefeasible right in the land upon which the building they occupied stood. Any title to the building in Trafalgar Square, derived from the delivery of the keys to Sir M. Shee, the President of the Royal Academy, was wholly untenable. The Crown had no power of creating such a title in that or any other way but by Act of Parliament. The building neither was nor ever could be the property of the Crown. He was glad to hear the explanation which had just been given by his noble Friend opposite, and in no portion of his statement did he more cordially concur than that from which it appeared that the Government were prepared to pay due regard to the claims of other societies, and not to allow a site of such immense value as Burlington House, situated as it was in the centre of the metropolis, to be monopolized by any one single body. The services rendered to the public by the Royal Academy were such, he was prepared to admit, as entitled them to the utmost consideration; but he regretted to hear any claim advanced of exemption from the power of Parliament. He was not desirous that Parliament should intermeddle officially in the management of the Academy, nothing could in his opinion tend more strongly to defeat the success of the negotiations now in progress or of their successful termination, than that the friends of the Academy should endea-
1254
vour to place that institution beyond the scope of Parliamentary examination and inquiry. It was contrary to our Constitution, and to their own interests that they should endeavour to do so.
EARL STANHOPE, after expressing his gratification at the statement of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, wished to observe that as far as the Antiquarian Society was concerned, they made no claim whatever upon the Government for a portion of the site of Burlington House. That society had held apartments at Somerset House, but a short time ago a new arrangement had been made with the Government, which was perfectly satisfactory to the council, and they had no intention to make any claim upon the ground at Burlington House.

SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH FROM NAPLES TO MALTA.—GUARANTEES TO TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he had lately seen a statement in the newspapers that a company which had extended its telegraphic communication as far as Sicily were disposed to carry it to Malta, but that the authorities would not permit them to land the cable upon that island. Now, he knew nothing of the merits of the company which had made this proposal, and possibly there were good reasons for refusing it; but at first sight it certainly appeared as if some monopoly were set up in favour of the existing line, that line being connected with the Submarine Company, which at present enjoyed a monopoly of the communication with France; whereas the company which sought to extend the cable to Malta was in connection with a rival line, the International and Electric Telegraph Company. The question was of some importance as a matter of principle, because it involved the mode in which the Government were to deal with the whole telegraphic system in the Mediterranean. His own opinion was that we should have done well to have Malta the centre of our telegraphic communications in the Mediterranean; and obvious reasons existed in favour of such a course. In all probability we should then have had four lines touching at this island—one from Cagliari to Malta, another from Ragusa to Malta, a third by Naples and Sicily, and eventually a fourth, which would be of still greater importance—namely, a direct line from England, pass-

  1255
  ing by Gibraltar; and in this case we should have held the key, as it were, of the whole system of telegraphs in the Mediterranean. He feared, however, that the opportunity for making such an arrangement had been lost. In a very able Treasury minute, dated February 22nd of last year, reasons were given for the decision which had been arrived at in favour of the Austrian line by way of Ragusa and Candia to Alexandria; but still he thought it of importance that no principle should be laid down which would prevent future independent communications from being made. He wished now to call their attention to the necessity of watching the extension of the system of subsidies and guarantees. The telegraphic system, and especially that of submarine lines was in its infancy. Although, owing to the failure of the Atlantic cable, such plans were now somewhat out of favour, and although it might at present be impossible to lay down cables of such length with safety and at a moderate expense, yet, looking to the progress of science, and the immense importance of such communications, it was not to be doubted that means would be found for overcoming all difficulties. If this were the case, of what importance did it become that the Government should not give premature guarantees, and should not for want of properly considering the lines laid down, prevent the future advantageous development of telegraphic communication! If the Government had no distinct plan upon which they proceeded they might find that they had not patronized the best lines, and what was still worse, that they had prevented more advantageous lines from being formed. We had already given a guarantee to the Mediterranean Extension Company—the Company which had laid down a telegraphic cable from Cagliari to Malta, and from Malta to Corfu. Then, since last Session a guarantee had been given to another and more important line of communication—the Red Sea line. Here he might remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore), that the answer given by him upon this subject at the close of last Session was not altogether accurate. The noble Earl stated that the Government had under their consideration the competing lines, and although no decision had been come to, it was possible they might choose that by the Persian Gulf, whereas it so happened that the very next morning the newspapers stated, and quite accurately, that the Government had decided in favour
  1256
  of the Red Sea line. He (Lord Wodehouse) did not complain of that decision, which was probably the best which could be arrived at under the circumstances; and, looking to the difficulty of getting any company to undertake the work, and to the state of the money-market at that time the Government were probably justified in the guarantee they had given. It was said that the Turkish Government would proceed with their line to Bussorah, and it would then, no doubt, become a question whether some assistance should not be given to connect it with Kurrachee. Again, negotiations were in a forward state with a view to a guarantee to the Ragusa, Corfu, and Candia line; and another guarantee had been given to the Atlantic Telegraph Company. He did not know precisely what was the agreement at present existing between this last Company and the Government. The original subsidy was £14,000 from the English and one of a similar amount from the American Government; but he understood that the Company had applied for a considerable increase, and he should be glad to hear what conditions had been agreed upon with regard to it. Whatever might be the result, their Lordships would observe that these guarantees were already of considerable magnitude, and he did think that if we were to increase them some definite system should be adopted on the subject. It might be doubted how far it was politic to give any guarantees at all. In certain exceptional cases they might be necessary; but upon the whole he believed the Government would act wisely if they declined, as far as possible, to involve themselves in any such engagements. He might add that it would have been a most excellent management if some means had been found of connecting the telegraphic system with the Post Office; but he feared the time for that had gone by. He would now conclude by asking the question of which he had given notice—Whether it is true that the Proposal of a Company to lay a Submarine Telegraph from Naples to Malta has been refused by Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, upon what Grounds: Also, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant Assistance, either by way of Guarantee or Subsidy, to other Companies beyond those which have already received such Assistance.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he should be able to give a short and conclusive

  1257
  answer to the questions of the noble Lord. With regard to the first question that had been put by his noble Friend, Whether any proposal made by any company to the Government to lay down a submarine telegraph from Naples to Malta had been refused by Her Majesty's Government, and, if so, upon what grounds, he might state that there had been three applications made upon the subject by different parties for establishing a submarine telegraphic communication—not between Naples and Malta, but between Cape Passaro and Malta. Two of these were made by private individuals. They were made to Her Majesty's late Government, and were refused by them. The overtures have been repeated to Her Majesty's present Government, and they had been equally refused by them. The third overture had been made to the Government by the company to which the noble Lord had referred—the Mediterranean Telegraph Company, established for carrying out a proposed small line from Malta to Cape Passaro, a distance of seventy miles, if the company succeeded in making proper arrangements with the Neapolitan Government, Her Majesty's Government would not offer, upon their part, any opposition to carrying out the telegraph proposed; but that, on the other hand, they were not prepared to offer any aid or assistance to the Company. He thought the noble Lard laboured under a misapprehension when he spoke of what would have been the case if Malta had been made the great centre of telegraphic communication in the Mediterranean, and in expressing his belief that the accomplishment of that object had been prevented by the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to sanction a line of telegraph between Naples and Malta, and partly by their adopting the line of telegraph established by the Austrian Government by way of Trieste. Now, so far as Malta was concerned, he did not hesitate to say, that he thought it ought to be the central point of communication for the various submarine telegraphic lines radiating to and from the Continent; but for all that, he did not think it by any means followed, that because Malta should be the central point of telegraphic intercommunication, that therefore the Government should avoid availing itself of other means of telegraphic communication that presented themselves with the East, and consequently the Government had made a negotiation with the Austrian Government, by which, in conjunction with
  1258
  them, a line would be carried by way of Ragusa. He would not enter into any discussion relative to other lines adverted to by the noble Lord, but he would proceed to answer his question with regard to the Atlantic telegraph, and he was glad the question had been raised, because it gave him an opportunity of stating generally the principles on which Her Majesty's Government thought they ought to be guided in their dealings with these various companies for telegraphic communication. The noble Lord had stated that under a former arrangement Her Majesty's Government had agreed to give the Atlantic Telegraph Company a subsidy of £14,000 a year, the same sum to be received from the United States Government, but under certain conditions; and the noble Lord stated he understood that negotiations were at the present moment going on between the Atlantic Telegraph Company and Her Majesty's Government, by which it was to be agreed that a much larger guarantee was to be given to that Company. Now, in making that statement the noble Lord confounded two things together which were entirely and absolutely different—namely, subsidies and guarantees. He wished to call attention to the distinction, because it affected the basis on which the Government proceeded. The Atlantic Telegraph Company made very praiseworthy efforts to establish a telegraphic line of communication between England and America, but most unfortunately sank the whole of their subscribed capital in the attempt, and they were consequently unable, contrary to their expectations, to prosecute their undertaking effectually; and, if they were to continue their attempt, it became necessary for them to enter into an entirely new arrangement. That being the case the arrangement previously entered into fell to the ground, and became inoperative, seeing that it was granted so long only as the Company's line of communication was in process of working, and it therefore naturally and entirely fell to the ground. The Company then requested that Her Majesty's Government would either grant an additional subsidy for the purpose of raising new capital, or that they would give a guarantee on such capital as should be raised. Now, there were two kinds of guarantees, and there was also a system of subsidy, and these three modes of assisting telegraph companies were entirely and absolutely distinct from one another. In the first place, propositions

  1259
  had been made at various times from various companies, and among others from the Atlantic Telegraph Company, for what he would call an unconditional guarantee; that was to say, supposing the Company undertook to expend a certain sum of money for the prosecution of certain works, that the Government should guarantee to them the receipt of a certain amount of interest on the amount so expended. Now, although this had been done in one case, he held it to be an indefensible arrangement, because it was quite clear that if they guaranteed a company 4½ per cent for 25 or 50 years, they had no security that the work undertaken and stipulated for would be properly carried out, and they ran the risk of being compelled for a length of time to pay a very considerable sum of money for a service that after all might not be accomplished; and although the money might be expended and actually lost, the company would be receiving 4½ per cent upon its capital; so that the company would gain, while on the other hand the Government, in the event of failure, would lose, and in the event of success would have no portion of the profit, and derive no profit or advantage from the result. He thought under these circumstances, and that if this were to be the case, that it would be much better (though it was not a plan that he recommended) the Government should take entirely into their own hands the construction and carrying out of the works and the arrangement generally; because then, instead of paying 4½ per cent upon the company's capital, they would probably raise the money at 3½, and if the undertaking were unsuccessful they would lose no more by it than by the system of absolute guarantee; while if they were successful, they would derive all the profits over and above the outlay of capital. But in the other case of guarantee, the Government would run all the risk without any possibility of profit. He did not concur in the view that had been taken with regard to unconditional guarantees, as a principle upon which Government ought to proceed in reference to a national enterprise which was at present only in the cradle of its infancy. But a conditional guarantee was a very different thing. A conditional guarantee he took to be perfectly legitimate in a case where there was a considerable prospect of success, but where at the same time there was considerable risk of failure; and where, in the event of success, it was perfectly
  1260
  legitimate to guarantee a considerable and high rate of profit on the outlay, in consideration of the great amount of risk originally run by the company. In such a case he did not think it at all illegitimate to give a guarantee to a great undertaking, which if it failed the Government were not in any way responsible for, and which, if it succeeded, was likely to produce great results to the public, and great pecuniary advantage to the company. Take, for instance, the Atlantic Telegraph Company. The Government were negotiating at the present moment with that company, and the company had asked the Government for a sum of money to be expended under the supervision of the Government, and that they should have from the Government a guarantee for a certain number of years at 8 per cent on the outlay, so long as the telegraphic communication was in working order and capable of performing its functions. Now, it was highly probable that if telegraphic communication were established between this country and America by means of a submarine cable—if the company formed for that purpose, after incurring considerable risks, succeeded—he thought there was every reason to expect that the profits might ultimately become 8 or 10 per cent, or even more. If they amounted to 8 per cent—and in saying so, he was supposing that the terms were acceded to by the Government, which was not the case at that moment—but if the profits reached 8 per cent, the Government were subject to no payment whatever, while if they reached 6 per cent the Government then, on the attainment of the great and important national object, were subjected to the payment of 2 per cent and no more on the guaranteed capital. In cases where the risk of failure was great, but where the profits and pecuniary advantages in cases of success were considerable, the Government, he thought, exercised a wise and a judicious course and discretion in guaranteeing a considerable amount of interest. Then there was a third class of cases—and in these cases be alluded, not only to submarine telegraphs, but to other large matters of expenditure in connection with the Post Office and Packet Service. He thought no subsidy ought to be given, except in cases where the object in view was one of great political and commercial importance, and where it is clear that, as a mercantile speculation, unaccompanied by any subsidy, the project must inevitably fail of success. In that case I think it is per-

  1261
  fectly legitimate on the part of the government, for great political and commercial projects to make a payment wholly irrespective of the profit and loss that the company would otherwise sustain, and to pay a certain sum of money in aid of the company to carry out the object. In that case the Government knew the full loss the public had to sustain in case of failure; the loss was known, and whether the object was equivalent to the probability of loss was a matter for consideration. With regard to submarine telegraphs and cables, and Post-office and packet communication, he thought that absolute and unconditional guarantees could baldly be consented to by the Government. A conditional guarantee—that was to say, not a payment made but assured to the company, in addition to the interest given by the Government—was legitimate where the risk was great and the prospects of profit in case of success considerable; but a subsidy ought to be granted only where the prospects of remuneration in any other way were not such as to justify the matter being undertaken as a mercantile speculation, and when the attainment of important political and commercial objects justifies the payment of such subsidies from the public funds. In every proposition that may be submitted to the Government for electric telegraphs, he thought when projects were in other respects equal, the Government ought to give a preference to those schemes which provide that the whole line of telegraphic communication shall be, if not upon British territory, at least exclusively and absoutely under British control. Having stated the rules upon which he thought these propositions ought to be considered—namely, the solvency of the company, the magnitude of the object to be attained, the prospect of better offers, the risk to be run, and the interests to be served—the terms must always be a matter of calculation in each separate case; but it was impossible to lay down any rule as to the proportionate assistance which Her Majesty's Government ought to give, but he hoped he had stated distinctly the principles by which, in dealing with the subject, he thought Her Majesty's Government ought to be guided.
  EARL GREYsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the noble Earl's statement, and thought that the principles he had enunciated were perfectly sound and right; and, above all, he had heard with great satisfaction the intimation that
  1262
  a preference would be given to those lines that would be entirely under British control. It appeared to him to have been a very great mistake in the original arrangement with the Atlantic Telegraph Company, that the line which went from one Dart of the British dominions, Valentia in Ireland to another, Newfoundland, was to be in any way connected with a foreign Government, He thought that allowing the United States Government any control whatever over any line from one part of the British dominions to another, was one of the greatest possible errors; but he inferred from what had been stated by the noble Earl, that such an error was not likely to be repeated. He concurred with what the noble Earl had said as to the conditional guarantees; but there was one precaution that had nut been mentioned; that if they secured to the Company a certain profit on their capital, it was absolutely necessary that the Government should have some control over their working expenses, and so have the means of ascertaining that jobs were not perpetrated or extravagance permitted. He could not help concurring with the noble Lord who had put the question in thinking that it was of great importance that they should, as soon as possible, have an independent sea-line of telegraph to Malta—a line from some point near the Land's End to Gibraltar, and brought up to that central point in the Mediterranean, Malta—and it ought to be accomplished as soon as circumstances permitted.
  LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYsaid, he also concurred in the desirableness of having the telegraphic system placed under English control, and as far as possible on English territory. The monopoly that had been conferred on the Atlantic Telegraph Company had prevented any others from entering into competition with them, and that being the case he had hoped that the Government would hesitate in giving any pledge or promise of guarantee or subsidy until the Company had given up that monopoly. If the aid demanded was to be entirely contributed by the English Government, it was all the more essential that the Government should cancel the privilege of monopoly, and that the line should be under the entire control of England, and irrespective of American control altogether. He wished to know whether, in the case of the Red Sea line, there was an absolute or a conditional guarantee. From what he had heard he was rather inclined to

  1263
  believe that there was an absolute guarantee irrespective of its operation. He had always expressed an opinion that the whole of the electric telegraph communication of this country and its connection with foreign countries should be brought under the general postal arrangements, and that the expense should be defrayed by the Government. Great advantages in the shape of concentration and a saving of expense would result from such a system.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was quite ready to admit, that the terms obtained by the Red Sea Company, owing to circumstances, were of a very favourable character. In one sense the guarantee might be considered absolute on a certain amount, but, on the other hand, the Company contracted to the Government to have the line laid and placed in working order; so that it was not until the line was in that state that the guarantee of the Government came into operation. As to the Atlantic Telegraph Company, he was glad to say the Government had insisted as a first condition in the negotiations now pending that the monopoly of the Company should he abolished, and that the Government should be at liberty to sanction and assist any company which might be disposed to undertake to lay down other lines. If the Government guaranteed a particular Company, it was not the interest of the Government to diminish the profits of that Company by encouraging a number of competing lines. But the principle adopted was to repudiate any monopoly, and to hold the Government free to agree with any other Company if they should think it desirable to do so.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Arrest in Execution restrained)
  LORD WENSLEYDALEobjected to the clause and the clauses which followed, because they would totally abolish imprisonment for debt except in certain specified cases. He thought it was often the fear of arrest which prevented non-traders running into most extravagant expenditure, and he was supported in his objection to the total abolition of imprisonment for debt, not only by the petition which he presented to-day, but by the Reports of Royal Commissions composed of many learned men, who, in 1832, 1840, and 1854 had considered the subject. He wished to render
  1264
  the measure as effective as possible, and would refrain from moving the omission of the clause, but would leave the matter to be dealt with by his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) in considering some Amendments which he intended to propose hereafter.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2, (Present Power of Arrest unaffected in certain Cases).
  LORD TEYNHAMexpressed his opinion that in no instance ought the personal liberty of the subject to be vested in his fellow-subject, but should only be taken away under the immediate supervision of the law. In a Return just made of the proceedings of County Courts in 1857, he found that the total number of warrants of commitment issued by the registrars of County Courts was upwards of 27,000, while the actual arrests were only 10,620. So that upwards of 17,000 warrants had been held against debtors which had not been put in force. If a creditor had at his option the power of arresting a debtor, he might sell that power not only for money, but for any and everything that the covetousness of the human heart desired. That power ought never to be left in the hands of any man. He trusted that the noble and learned Lord would reconsider the clauses relative to the power of arrest, so that this power might remain from first to last in the hands of the Court.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the law was not altered by this clause.
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, his desire was that it should be altered.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was proposed by this Bill to abolish arrest in execution, except in certain cases. There were three classes of cases in which there was arrest in execution—first, where judgment had been obtained in actions of tort: that was the law under the Insolvent Act; second, where the Judge at the time of trial, or a Judge afterwards, certified that the debt had been incurred under false pretences or breach of trust, or that the defence had been vexatious and frivolous; that was the law under the 7 & 8 Vict., by which arrest on executions for less than £20 was abolished; and third, where a creditor had reason to believe that his debtor was about to abscond; which also was the law under the 1 & 2 Vict. He could not understand, therefore, why the noble Lord should desire an alteration in the Bill for the purpose of taking from the

  1265
  creditor any power he might possess under it of arresting the debtor. If the noble Lord wished to have an alteration in the existing law, he should propose a distinct Amendment.
  LORD TEYNHAMsaid, he did not wish to do away with arrest when the debtor was deserving of imprisonment, but he wished to render the arrest certain in such a case; the arrest being always in the power of the Court alone, and execution never issuing without arrest actually taking place.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that as there were penal clauses in the Bill, it would be better that the noble Lord should propose an Amendment when they were under discussion.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 struck out.
  Clauses 14 to 92 agreed to with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 93. (Creditors may choose Trustee instead of Assignee.)
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he objected to the alteration in the law which was proposed by this clause, and which he did nut think would be conducive to the interests of creditors. The effect of the clause was that the system, which was founded by the Act of Lord Brougham in 831, with regard to official control, should be abolished. The proposed abolition of the present system of the law Would lead to much wrung being committed. On a recent occasion the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said that he could bring as many witnesses to give their evidence against official assignees, and that they should be abolished, as could be brought in favour of their retention. Under these circumstances, let their Lordships calmly look at the question, and see upon what the arguments rested. Before 1831 the estates of insolvents and bankrupts were managed by persons selected by the creditors and under that system the funds of the estates were so badly collected and administerd that in many cases creditors, though no doubt angry at first at the loss sustained, wrote off the bad debts from their books and forget them. Upon the creation of the official assignees in 1831, those officers in a very short time collected and distributed more than £2,000,000 of money belonging to various estates which had lain neglected. It was now proposed to revert to the old system by giving the creditors power to dispense with the service of the official assignee;
  1266
  but he thought it could not be but that the creditors selected to manage the affairs would neglect, after a time, the interests of the other creditors. For that reason he could not help most deeply deploring that his noble and learned Friend had been induced to listen to suggestions to put it in the power of creditors to place the affairs of the estate under the old system if they pleased. He knew that this clause would, to a certain class of persons, be a very great sop, and that there was a wish among a great mass of professional persons to see this clause passed. But that ought to pre-eminently put that House upon their guard, and induce them to take care they did not do anything which might result in causing grievous loss to small creditors, who looked to them fur protection. For these reasons he thought this clause ought to be omitted, It was evident that the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) was distrustful of the principle recognized by his clause, inasmuch as by the 95th clause he provided that the creditors if they thought fit, might appoint a Committee of their own body to check the trustee or assignee they might choose. It was a vicious principle to get rid of the public functionary in question, whose payment depended upon the realization of the property, the economy and the expedition observed in obtaining it. Now, the trustee to be appointed under the clause in question had Do such interest in the cheap or speedy realization of the property or in getting rid of the expense of litigation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the great difficulty the Government had to overcome in tins matter was to understand what was the best course to adopt among the conflicting opinions by which they were besieged upon this subject. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had presented that evening a petition, signed by 800 merchants and bankers of the City of London, objecting to the abolishing of imprisonment for debt; last Session he (the Lord Chancellor) presented a petition signed by 4000 merchants and bankers, praying that they might have a greater control over the effects of bankrupts. In order to give their Lordships a sample of the feeling out of doors on this subject he would call their attention to a paper which had been sent to him. There were two classes of persons who formed different opinions on this subject—one desiring publicity, the other secrecy. The gentleman who sent him the paper to which he had alluded said, "he did not think any legislative

  1267
  assistance should be given to enable any creditor to control any minority of creditors, however small. He would not allow 99 creditors out of a 100 to control the hundredth man; and he believed that nothing was so agreeable to some insolvents as secrecy, and nothing so disagreeable as publicity. He considered such people to be in a conspiracy against all honest men." He (the Lord Chancellor) believed that this Bill would meet the demands of the commercial community in every possible way, inasmuch as it would combine publicity with secrecy by making it optional with the creditors to have either a private or a public investigation into the affairs of the insolvent. A noble Lord, who was supposed to represent to a great extent the views of the commercial community on the subject under discussion, (Lord John Russell) had introduced in the other House a Bill in which he had gone even further than the Government in dispensing with the services of official assignees, inasmuch as he proposed to make it compulsory on the creditors to decide whether they would choose an official assignee or appoint their own trustee, whereas the Bill of the Government left it entirely at the option of the creditors to select their own trustee or to make use of the official assignee in that capacity. His noble and learned Friend said it was very hard upon small creditors that they should be overborne by a smaller number of larger creditors, because the latter would select a man who at first would do his duty, but would gradually become negligent, and then the small creditors would be placed in the hands of a solicitor who would only work for his own advantage. He (the Lord Chancellor) had had some little experience in commercial affairs, and he always found that creditors, whether large or small, were likely to look after their own interest, and that if they were to choose a trustee instead of an official assignee, they would take care that he did his duty. The question really was this, considering the difficulties of the case, and that the greater part of the commercial community were desirous of having a greater control over their affairs titan they now possessed, had the Government not chosen well in adopting that system which they found was desired by a very considerable class of the commercial community, being perfectly aware that if they adopted a different system they would not have disarmed opposition. Under these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would not consent to the clause being struck out.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSwas of opinion that the creditors ought under due regulations, particularly giving publicity to the transaction, to have the power to appoint their own trustees: there was no danger in these times that creditors would not look after their own interests.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he would not press his objections further.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 94 to 110 agreed to,
  Clause 111, (Estate Tail of Non-Trader Insolvent not in Possession—not to be barred without his Consent.)
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid that this and the following section would commit a most monstrous and unmitigated injustice. Under the present law an insolvent was forced to give up the whole of his property, and his noble and learned Friend did not, propose to alter that provision in respect to traders; but when a non trader became insolvent it was proposed now for the first time to enact that, if he had any real property in reversion, it should be sold at the time when it would be most convenient to himself to sell. The reason given was that otherwise "vindictive" creditors might dispose of the property at a time when it would be productive of but little advantage to the insolvent. But meanwhile the creditor might be ruined if his debts were not at once paid. What answer was it in such a case to say what the reversionary interest would produce more if the sale were delayed until it came into possession? Why, delay might ruin the honest creditor and drive him into the Gazette. In some other respects the Bill was perhaps rather too favourable to debtors; but this seemed to him the introduction of a principle which he deeply regretted should originate in this House. It would put abroad the notion that they were legislating for the sons of the landed aristocracy at the expense of the honest tradesman.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEentirely concurred in these objections to the clause. Every man who incurred debts should be liable to the sale of his property to satisfy those debts, and if any loss were sustained in selling, the insolvent must expect to bear it. He could not conceive why the debtor should be called upon to postpone his claims. Such a principle was quite unprecedented.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that as the Bill for the first time compelled non-traders to surrender their property for the benefit of their creditors, it was right that settled estates in remainder should be

  1269
  protected in the manner proposed by the clause. If the sale of a reversionary interest were forced, it might not be worth one-half or one-twentieth of the sum it would fetch when it came into possession. It did not take away the property from the creditors. Creditors were still to receive, to the extent of their claims, the produce of the estate; but they would not be empowered to sell it before it came into possession, unless the insolvent consented. It did not prevent the sale with the consent of the debtor.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, it was true that you could not now force an insolvent non-trader to surrender all his property, but you could imprison him until he did. This Bill now substantially took away the power of imprisoning for debt, and he entirely approved of the proposal; but surely it ought to be accompanied with even more stringent powers of enforcing the distribution of property. It was said that these estates would realize much more when they came into possession; but that might not happen for fifty years, and in point of fact they might never can me into possession; for if the tenant in tail in remainder died without issue in the lifetime of the tenant for life, they could not be sold at all, but would pass to the ulterior remainder. When, therefore, it was said that the sale should not be anticipated, so as to guard the interest of the debtor, non constat but that by delay that interest might become wholly exhausted. He was sure the clause would be misunderstood and misrepresented out of doors, and it would be said, not without the appearance of truth, that their Lordships were passing a law to prevent the sons of landed gentry from being imprisoned, and at the same time to prevent their reversionary interests from being sold for the benefit of their creditors.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had been observed that a reversionary interest might not come into possession at all; but what would be the value of such an interest if it were forced to a sale?
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought the compulsory sale of reversions would be most objectionable.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 112 to 140 agreed to.
  Clause 141. (If suspended on Rehearing subsequent Creditors to prove first against subsequent Property.)
  LORD WENSLEYDALEintimated an opinion that some provision should be
  1270
  made to render liable the after-acquired property of an insolvent not-trader for payment of his debts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the clause in its existing right seemed just and right, and therefore he trusted their Lordships would not assent to any alteration. By the existing law bankrupts were discharged by their certificate from all claim on after-acquired property; but insolvents were obliged to give a warrant of attorney before they were discharged, which allowed the creditors on application to the court to issue execution against such property. The practice of the insolvent Court had been never to touch property subsequently acquired by au insolvent's own industry, and only to require a third of other property coining to him by bequest, to be given up for the benefit of the creditors. Such a practice showed an impression that the system was not a just one, and the Government considered that when it was proposed to abolish the distinction between traders and non-traders, and to compel non traders, for the first time, to distribute the whole of their property for the benefit of their creditors, it would be Only just and fair to place them on the same level as bankrupts. Since by the alteration of the law they were about to allow the creditor to strip the non-trading debtor and turn him naked on the world it seemed to him they ought to extend to him the same benefits which were given to the trader debtor. He mentioned, on moving the first reading of the Bill, that the power of the Court to compel the application of after-acquired property principally affected small traders, as of 1,042 persons who applied last year for the protection of the Insolvent Court only fifty were non-traders and of above 4,000 who applied in the country, there was a much smaller number. There were very few cases in which the power was ever exercised, and he knew no valid reason why insolvents should not have the same benefit as bankrupts, when they were to be made obnoxious to the same liabilities.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the blame to be ascribed to a non-trader for getting into debt was much greater than the blame attributable to a trader, and he feared the public might think the change was made to protect non-trading spendthrifts—sons of the richer classes—whose after-acquired property was now liable. Although there might be some doubt, his feelings inclined

  1271
  him to concur with his noble and learned Friend.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 142 to 146 agreed to.
  Clause was inserted, providing that in any indictment or information for misdemeanour under the Act, it should be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged without alleging or setting forth any debt, act of insolvency, trading, petition or adjudication, or any summons, warrant order, rule or proceeding, of or in any Court acting under that Act.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Amendments made.
  The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.