Sitting of 11 March 1859

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Harwich v.
John Bagshaw, Esq., Chiltern Hundreds. PUBLIC BILLS.—2° County Courts.

THE REFORM BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House on the previous day that by his Bill no disfranchisement would take place. But there

11
was in that Bill a clause disfranchising the persons employed in dockyards. He understood, however, that existing rights would be saved by the new clauses which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce; he would, therefore, beg to ask whether, by any of the clauses the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce, the rights of artisans and others employed in the dockyards would be preserved?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had given him no notice of the question. He did not complain of the circumstance; but he thought the custom of giving notice was a convenient one. What he stated yesterday was, that in the Bill which he had the honour to introduce to the House no place and no person would be disfranchised. He was not aware that the artisans of the dockyards were disfranchised by his Bill. It was the intention of the Government, not that they should be disfranchised, but that they should be disqualified.

BILLETING IN SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. COWANsaid, he wished to inquire whether it was intended to make any alteration in the present mode of billeting the troops in Scotland?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that the only alteration which he proposed to make in the Mutiny Bill with regard to billeting in Scotland was to raise the allowance to innkeepers from l½d. to 4d. per day.

PAYMASTERS IN THE NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is intended to consider the Claims of the Paymasters with those of the Masters, Surgeons, and Chaplains of the Royal Navy?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that the Government did intend to include the claims of Paymasters with those of Masters, Surgeons, and Chaplains of the Royal Navy; and it must be understood that there would be a fair consideration of the claims which might come before them.

MORETON BAY.—QUESTION.
MR. MARSHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the separation of Moreton Bay from New South Wales will be completed?
SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTONsaid, that the question of separation was under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, and that if any delay had taken place on the subject, it was not the fault of the present Government.

HONG KONG—GOVERNMENT OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have received the Report of a Commission appointed to inquire into a charge brought against Mr. Daniel Richard Caldwell, for participating in the profits of piracy during the time he was holding an office under the Government of Hong Kong; also a Report of the Trial of the Queen against William Tarrant, which took place in the month of November last in the Supreme Court of Victoria, in Hong Kong, and in which trial it was sworn that certain papers implicating Mr. Caldwell in the above charge were destroyed by order of Dr. Bridges, Acting Colonial Secretary, at that time exercising, as is alleged, an unlawful authority conferred by the Governor of the Colony. If these Reports have been received what course Her Majesty's Government have taken with reference to the transactions to which they relate; and whether they will lay upon the Table any papers which may contain information on the subject?
  SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTONwas understood to say that the Government had received a Report from the Commission appointed to inquire into the charge brought against Mr. Caldwell of participating in the profits of piracy, during the time he held office under the Government of Hong Kong, and in order that the House might form some notion of the light reading which the hon. Gentleman proposed to add to the literature of the House of Commons, he had brought a small portion of the papers of which the cost of publication was suggested. [The right hon. Baronet here pulled out of his official box two bulky bundles of papers, which he laid upon the Table.] When those documents reached the Colonial Office he saw at once that they contained many points involving questions of legal evidence which it was necessary to submit to the indefatigable and zealous law adviser of the Colonial Department. Her Majesty's Government had not received a report of the trial of Mr. Tarrant

  13
  which took place in the month of November last in the supreme Court of Hong Kong; all. that they had received was the result of the trial from the Governor of the Colony. But the Governor promised to send a full report of the trial taken down in short hand, and consequently the Colonial Office had every day since that intimation reached them been shudderingly anticipating the threatened communications from Hong Kong. As to the third and material part of the hon. Gentleman's question he begged to inform him that the Commission had acquitted Mr. Caldwell of the charge of participating in the profits of piracy, of which, in fact, there was no sort of evidence. They also acquited him of several other grave charges, which, he (Sir E. B. Lytton) thought ought never to have been brought against him, especially by a brother official. Nevertheless during the course of the trial certain facts came to light, which he thought clearly showed that so far as the interests of the colony wore concerned Mr. Caldwell ought to be dismissed from the office he now held, unless he could make a satisfactory explanation, and he (Sir E. B. Lytton), intended to call upon him for such explanation. The mode in which Mr. Chisholm Anstey the Colonial Attorney General originated and conducted the inquiry was a breach of official confidence, and he had therefore been suspended by the Governor. With every respect for the talents, activity, and character of Mr. Anstey, he (Sir E. B. Lytton) could not but approve of that suspension, after having perused the documents transmitted to the Colonial Office. The right hon. Gentleman, having detailed some of the facts as contained in the documents and extracts from the Hong Kong newspapers, said he now came to the last question of the hon. Gentleman, which was an inquiry as to what course the Government had taken in reference to the transactions which the papers related. That question was very easy to answer. All he had done yet was to read the papers; but Her Majesty's Government intended to appoint a new Governor to succeed Sir John Bowring, whose tenure of office had expired, and to instruct that Governor to enter into the most ample investigation of all the facts, which could only be made on the spot. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government would lay on the Table any papers that might contain information on the subject to which they referred. He
  14
  confessed he shrank from the responsibility of laying all those papers on the table; it might be wiser to lay the table on the papers. He had, however, no personal or official objection to produce those documents if the hon. Gentleman moved for them; and if they were produced, he should look with compassionate admiration on any devoted Member who undertook to read them.

SAVINGS' BANKS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEROSSEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the case of the Depositors in the Tralee and Killarney Savings' Banks; and, if so, whether he can hold out any hope that compensation will be made to them for the losses they sustained by the failure of those establishments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was only acquainted with the facts of the case from the investigation of the Committee of that House; and, as far as he was informed, he saw no reason to challenge the justice of the Report of that Committee or its decision.
  On Question "That the House at rising adjourn till Monday next."

HUNTINGDON MAGISTRACY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can explain the cause of the recent large addition to the Magistracy of the county of Huntingdon. They were all Reformers now, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel great pleasure in answering the question. Huntingdon appeared to be one of the most favoured of counties; at the present moment it possessed more magistrates than it did policemen. The population of the, county was only 64,000, not so large as that of several metropolitan boroughs; but it had more magistrates and not so many policemen. Of those magistrates above one half were Tories. The Lord-Lieutenant was also a Tory, and had, besides, the honour of being Master of Her Majesty's Buckhounds. And it further had the advantage of being represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War. The borough of Huntingdon was

  15
  also a favoured one, because it having been determined not to disfranchise boroughs having more than 6,000 inhabitants, Huntingdon escaped being disfranchised, because it had 6,200. There had been no contest in the borough for thirty years, and for the best possible reason—because it was a pocket borough of the Master of Her Majesty's Buckhounds. Very recently an application was made to the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, and the names of three Liberal gentlemen were submitted to him to be put on the Commission of the Peace—rich men in the neighbourhood, and one, he believed, the Mayor of Huntingdon. These three gentlemen were passed over, one for a, very good reason, because he was a clergyman, and the Lord-Lieutenant on that account passed him over. The other two gentlemen were supposed to be too busied in other occupations, and they were also passed over. But almost in the same breath, an addition of six magistrates took place to the commission of the peace of Huntingdonshire within the last six weeks. Two of these gentlemen were civilians, and the other four were all clergymen. These six gentlemen took an active part in the last election. The two Liberal gentlemen who were passed over were highly respectable gentlemen, and two other gentlemen not in holy orders were made magistrates. One of these was Dr. Ward, residing in Huntingdon, a physician very eminent in his line, and in great practice. Therefore he could not attend much to his duty as a magistrate, and that was the reason why one of the Liberal gentlemen was not put in the commission. The people at Huntingdon thought that this Dr. Ward could not know much about law. and that therefore he was not a proper man to be put in the commission. About three months ago this gentleman got into a dreadful scrape with a commercial traveller, and, in the County Court, got the worse of the matter. He was, however, a very active partisan at the last general election. The other gentleman was Mr. Dennis Herbert, a common brewer at Huntingdon, who had a public-house in every village and every place in the county. ["Hear, hear."] He did not object to that, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman who cheered drank some of the beer; but the people of Huntingdon who did not happen to belong to the Tory party said that this gentleman was rather an awkward man to sit upon the bench on a licensing day. The other four gentlemen made magistrates were clergymen, one or two of whom had taken an active canvassing part
  16
  at the last general election. These six gentlemen, then, had been added to the number of magistrates, which was sufficiently great before, because there were more magistrates than policemen. These magistrates must have been added from one of three causes. Was it that there was a great increase of crime in Huntingdon? The Home Secretary knew something on that point; but by the report of the inspectors of constabulary it appeared that there were only thirty-seven persons committed for indictable offences during the last year. He hoped, then, that increase of crime was not the cause of this addition to the magistracy. Another cause would certainly justify the increase of the magistracy—namely, that those who were in the commission of the peace possibly neglected their duty. If so, a stipendiary magistrate had better be appointed for the county. Another cause for the increase of the magistracy, which the ill-natured world said was the real cause, was that it was done to please political partisans. The Master of Her Majesty's Buckhounds had pleased his political friends by making these six magistrates, and by passing over the other gentlemen with respect to whom applications had been previously made. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would give some explanation on this point, and disabuse, if possible, the public mind, particularly in the county of Huntingdon, by explaining the reason of the great increase made at the present moment to the number of the magistracy in that county. It was not yet too late to recall these appointments, as the new magistrates had not yet taken their seats on the bench. They would be sworn in next week, and he thought that unless some good reason were given by the right hon. Gentleman for the increase the four clergymen had better not be sworn in.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he really did not understand what the point was upon which explanation was required, or what feature in the case laid before the House by the hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was to appear in his place to defend or explain. Upon seeing the notice of the hon. Gentleman on the paper he applied to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, with whom the immediate appointment of those magistrates rested, and was informed that the appointments had been made upon the recommendation of the Lord-Lieutenant of the county. He (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), however did not think that it was his duty to apply to the

  17
  Lord-Lieutenant, not knowing what was likely to be the nature of the speech with which the hon. Gentleman would introduce the question, and not anticipating that any one of those gentlemen could by possibility be supposed to be under an imputation of. any kind whatever. But he roust say that if private character was to be drawn before the House of Commons on such an occasion, at least the individual who was called upon to answer the question ought to be put beforehand in possession of the particulars with respect to which an answer was desired. He would now endeavour to give the information which appeared to him to be required by the question of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said that the persons who had been appointed were in the proportion of two laymen to four clergymen; but that was not correct, for the proportion was the same, there being, in fact, three laymen and three clergymen. The name of the first was Arthur Stirling, Esq. The next was Dennis Herbert, Esq., of Huntingdon, whom the hon. Gentleman had spoken of as a "common brewer," and of whom all he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) would say was, that if it were true that he had a public-house in every village in the county, it showed at least that he was a man of property. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman, in reading the history of this county, should not have forgotten that one of the most eminent men in the history of this country had himself been a "brewer of Huntingdon," and that, although he, as a brewer, might not, upon the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis, have aspired to the office of a justice of the peace, nevertheless reached the position of chief magistrate of the State. The next was William Ward, Esq., and the clergymen were the Rev. Mr. Grove, the Rev. Arthur Fanshawe, and the Rev. Thomas Woodham. With regard to the latter gentleman, he only knew from the Lord Chancellor that, having made some objection to place the names of clergymen in the commission of the peace, he had been informed by the Lord-Lieutenant that there was a difficulty in finding laymen to fill the office in that particular part of the county. The clergyman to whom the hon. Gentleman had alluded as having been passed over, the Rev. Mr. Shafto, was a highly respectable man, whom he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) knew very well; and upon inquiring why his name had been omitted from the list, the answer given to him was that the reverend gentleman resided in the same parish with his brother; that his
  18
  brother was a well-known justice of the peace, and it was thought unnecessary therefore to add his name to the list. As to the two individuals upon whom the hon. Member for Finsbury had borne so hard with his imputation, (he meant this "common brewer" and this "doctor,") he would take the liberty of observing to the House that one of them had been mayor of the borough of Huntingdon three times, and the other mayor of that borough four times. Those gentlemen had, therefore, sat on the bench in their own town, and must certainly to some extent have possessed the good opinion of their fellow citizens and the public generally. But the real gist of the complaint, after all, was that these gentlemen belonged to one political party. He (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) knew nothing whatever about that. He did not know that it was so, though he had no doubt of it. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the practice of appointing political friends to the magistracy, if it were a fault, was a fault that was committed by pretty nearly every Government; and so long as the nomination was left in the hands of one individual, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, they could not escape from the consequence that he would naturally give a preference to persons of his own opinions. The hon. Member for Finsbury bad observed that the number of magistrates in Huntingdonshire was already excessive; that they were between thirty and forty; and that he believed that there were more magistrates than policemen. Now, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) did not know how many policemen there might be, but the number of magistrates was exactly thirty-three; and the hon. Gentleman would perhaps be surprised if he told him that there was scarcely a county in England in which the number of names upon the list of justices of the peace was not at least as great as the number of policemen in the county. To that, however, he did not see any particular objection. In a legal point of view there was but one objection which could be raised to the appointments now complained of, and that was the appointment of a gentleman as magistrate who was a brewer, and who could not, with propriety, take his seat on the bench when licences were granted. But the law made provision for this. In every county of England, perhaps, there were a number of gentlemen of the highest position in that line of business which the hon. Gentleman had described as that of a common brewer, but

  19
  the law had, very properly disqualified them from sitting on the bench to adjudicate cases in which the interests of their own trade were at stake; and this being so he certainly could not see that the hon. Gentleman had made out any ease to prove that the gentlemen who had recently been placed in the commission of the peace for the county of Huntington had not been properly appointed.
  MR. T. BUNCOMBEwas not aware that he had said anything that could be construed into an attack upon private character. In using the words "common brewer" to designate one of these gentlemen, he meant nothing offensive, for these were words which were posted over all their doors. With regard to Dr. Ward, he had made no attack upon his private character. He had merely said that he was a gentleman eminent in his profession, and that having a great practice he could not attend to his business.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT: Yes; and the hon. Gentleman also mentioned some unpleasant circumstances connected with a commercial traveller, of which, of course, I know nothing.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had not even heard of this addition to the magistracy of Huntingdonshire until he saw the Question of the hon. Gentleman on the paper. Why the hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary, therefore, to introduce his name into the present discussion, he was altogether at a loss to imagine. He was extremely happy, however, that the hon. Gentleman had done so, for it gave him an opportunity of bearing testimony to the character of two of the gentlemen who had been mentioned, and who were connected with the town of Huntingdon. He (General Peel) had had the honour of their acquaintance for twenty-eight years, and he ventured to say that there were no two men in any part of England who were more fitted to be placed in the commission of the peace than they were. One of them had been mayor of the borough on four different occasions, and the other on three different occasions; and he could safely take upon himself to declare that they both possessed the esteem and regard of all their fellow-townsmen, and that he did not think it possible to have selected any two persons in the county more capable of discharging the duties of a magistrate. The hon. Member was wrong in his facts from beginning to end. He was wrong in saying that there had been no contest in
  20
  the borough of Huntingdon for the past thirty years, for he (General Peel) himself had stood two contested elections. He was equally wrong in saying that it was a pocket borough of Lord Sandwich, which he begged most positively to deny, and of that he thought his own position was a convincing proof; for he had opposed the Corn Law and had voted against the Government of which the noble Earl was a Member in the division which led to its dissolution; and although the noble Earl undoubtedly possessed great influence in the borough, he had never attempted to use it against him, and that influence was derived quite as much from the noble Earl's high character and the regard in which he was held as from his property or any other circumstance.
  MR. FELLOWESsaid, he should not have thought it necessary, after what had fallen from his right hon. and gallant Friend, to address the House on this occasion, if he did not think he could put the House in possession of facts of which his right hon. Friend was of necessity altogether ignorant. He would observe, in the first instance, that the hon. Member for Finsbury had been very badly instructed, and that he had evidently received his information from some one whom he (Mr. Fellowes) would recommend him most earnestly not to trust again. With regard to the gentlemen who had been put into the commission of the peace, the hon. Member had stated that four were clergymen and two were laymen; but it appeared that in this respect the hon. Member was quite wrong, for three of them were clergymen and three were laymen. The hon. Member had also stated that the whole of these gentlemen had taken an active part in the late contest for the county of Huntingdon. He (Mr. Fellowes) begged to tell him that here again he was wrong. Two of the gentlemen, who were clergymen, resided in his (Mr. Fellowes) own neighbourhood, where for some time past a great want of magistrates had been experienced in carrying on the business of the petty sessions; and with a view to remedy this inconvenience it was suggested to the noble Earl who held the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county that it was desirable to increase the number of gentlemen in the commission of the peace in that district. In consequence he had nominated these two gentlemen, who happened to be clergymen, for the simple reason that there were no laymen who were qualified in the

  21
  district. With regard to one of the other gentlemen, who was a clergyman also, he resided in a part of the county where there was no magistrate within a considerable distance, and the necessity of having one was so great that it had led to this gentleman's appointment. But with reference to him, instead of taking an active part in the late contest for the county, he had taken no other part than to give one vote for one of the Tory candidates, and that candidate it was not his (Mr. Fellowes) lot to be. As regarded the other gentleman to whom the hon. Member had alluded, and whom he called a clergyman, that gentleman was a layman and took no active part in the late election for the county. He (Mr. Fellowes) did not know that he was even a voter; but certainly he did not vote. Since that, however, his father had died, and he had taken a very active part against the Tory candidates. With reference to the remaining two gentlemen, who lived in the borough of Huntingdon, sufficient had been said by his right hon. and gallant Friend, who was intimately acquainted with them; but he (Mr. Fellowes) could confirm every word which had fallen from his right hon. and gallant Friend as to the respectability of these gentlemen and their qualifications to act as magistrates for the county. He would only add to what his right hon. and gallant Friend had stated, that he was quite sure that in making these appointments his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant had been actuated solely by an anxious desire to do that which he believed to be for the interest of the county.
  SIR JOHN WALSHthought that a sufficient answer had been given to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury; but there was one rather unguarded observation which had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; and he should be sorry if it went forth as a correct version of the general practice of Lords-Lieutenant. He had understood his right hon. Friend to state, that it was the almost universal practice of Lords-Lieutenant to be guided by political motives in making appointments of this sort. Now, he must say, that he thought that view of his right hon. Friend was an erroneous one. He believed that the Lords-Lieutenant throughout the country were extremely cautious not to allow their political bias to influence them in these appointments; and that it would be found they had always noted upon that principle, and whenever it appeared that a
  22
  gentleman of opposite opinions was fairly and legitimately entitled to a seat on the bench, they almost always preferred appointing him to appointing one of their own party, if it were only for the mere purpose of avoiding possible imputations.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he knew-nothing of the circumstances of this case; but he thought it right, in justice to Lord Sandwich, to remind the hon. Member for Finsbury that no inference whatever of any kind could be drawn from the fact of a Lord-Lieutenant at one time refusing to appoint, and at another time appointing, a clergyman to the office of magistrate. In the case of his (Sir John Pakington's) own county, where they had a Lord-Lieutenant who, he was bound to say, exercised his high duties in as honourable and conscientious a manner as any man ever did, and never dreamt of what were the politics of any of the magistrates, the rule was not to put clergymen in the commission of the peace; nevertheless, he did appoint clergymen in districts where qualified laymen were not to be found; and in that part of the county with which he (Sir John Pakington) was connected there were abundant instances of his having in one case appointed a clergyman whilst in another case he had refused, and that in the most conscientious and honourable manner.
  Subject dropped.

DISTURBANCES IN TRAVANCORE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he rose to put a question to the Secretary of State for India respecting the disturbances which have taken place in Travanore:—With respect to the burning of Mission Chapels; the ill-treatment of Missionaries and Native Converts; the interruption of Low Caste funerals by men of High Caste; and the alleged conduct of the British Resident. The hon. Baronet, who was almost inaudible, said that a letter had been received from the Rev. Mr. Baylis of Negoor, South Travancore, in which the following passage occurred:—
  "The higher caste Natives, especially the Nairs (the Malayan Soodras) are rising against the Shanars, especially against those of them who are Christians. Seven of our chapels have been burnt down. ! Last night seventy-nine houses belonging to Roman. Catholics in Kotar, a large place near Nagercoil, were burnt down, and a woman and child perisnea. The British Resident's bungalow (used when he is out on circuit) has been burnt down."

  23
  Mr. Baylis went on to say,—
  "The Resident gave us an interview, though not at first with a very good grace, and had the Dewan present."
  The following letter bad also been received from the Rev. Mr. Lewis, at Santhapooran, South Travancore:—
  "The present dispute is between the Soodras and other high castes on the one hand and the Shanars and other low castes on the other, and not between the heathen and Christian portion of the community."
  He states] that the Christian Natives and others also have adopted a sort of jacket to cover themselves from the waist upwards. The Soodras, enraged at this, are
  "Beating them unmercifully, plundering their houses, and setting them, as well as our chapels, on fire. In all this they are secretly, and in some instances publicly, encouraged by the Circar officials, all of whom are high caste men. The complaints of the Shanars on this score are rejected by the Government, and their evidence refused; the evidence of the Soodras only, the aggressors in the whole affair, is received by them. The British Resident, General Cullen, also sides with the high caste portion of the community, so that the Shanars, including all our Native Christians, being proscribed, have not a friend belonging to the Government who will speak a word in their behalf, or who has any desire to aid them what the people of Trarancore require, and what they ought to have, is the same privilege as the same classes enjoy in the neighbouring territory of Tin-nivelly,—namely, the liberty for men and women of all castes to dress and build their houses as they choose."
  He hoped the noble Lord would give the House an assurance that, while unbounded toleration would be extended by the Government to all religious beliefs, care would be taken that mutual toleration should be practised by religionists among themselves.
  LORD STANLEYstated that no official information had yet been received upon the subject to which the hon. Baronet had directed his attention, and he did not think it would be proper or convenient that he should enter into a discussion upon it in the absence of such information. He did not mean to cast any discredit upon the statements which the hon. Baronet had read to the House, but it must be recollected that they were made on the authority of private individuals; and he thought it would only be dealing fairly with the officers of the Government if he asked the House to suspend its judgment till the official statements and the opinions of the local authorities at Madras should have been received. As to that general pledge which the hon. Baronet asked him to give, he thought the best and most fitting pledge he could give
  24
  of his determination to do impartial justice was to wait till all the facts were before him, and then to deal with the question in that manner which the facts appeared to justify.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he would repeat his question next Friday.

CHURCH RATES—QUESTION.
MR. SCHNEIDER,in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock, (Sir J. Trelawny), asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government would consent to give his hon. Friend a morning sitting for the discussion of his Church Rates Bill, in order that Members might not have to wait night after night expecting it to come off.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock, though obliged to deal with an acrimonions subject, had always treated the House and the Government in so kind and courteous a manner, that he thought it his duty to accede to the suggestion which had just been made. He was sure, too, it would be the general wish of the House that a morning sitting should be appointed for the discussion of the Church Rate Bill, especially as the present position of public business, and the necessity of getting on with it, would deprive him of the power of appointing an evening for the discussion of the Bill. If Tuesday morning next would meet the wish of the hon. Baronet and his Friends he would arrange accordingly.

INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the intention of Government to recommend the appointment of a third Judge of the Landed Estates Court (Ireland), in the room of Judge Martley, lately deceased? He reminded the House that when this Bill was before the House last year it was proposed by the Government that there should be only two Judges of the Court, and that Mr. Hargreave, the English Judge, should return to this country at a full salary. But that proposition was generally opposed in the House, and at last the Government acceded to the Amendment that there should be three Judges instead of two, but upon the clear understanding that in the event of a vacancy occurring

25
it would not be filled up unless the necessity of the case required it. Now a vacancy bad taken place, and they had a return of the business which had of late been brought before the Court, from which it appeared that the business had greatly fallen off. In the old Incumbered Estates Court the petitions used to average 100 per month they had now fallen to fifteen per month and with regard to the new jurisdiction for investigating titles, there had not yet a single petition come before the Court. Under these circumstances he put it to the Government whether it was desirable that the vacancy caused by Judge Hartley's death should be filled up? It was true that the Solicitor General for England had introduced a Bill of a similar nature for this country, and he understood that if it should pass, Judge Hargreave was to be removed from Ireland to give the benefit of his great experience to this country. However, it was to be remembered that the Bill had not yet passed, and Mr. Hargreave might not be removed at all. He had called the attention of the noble Lord to this subject on Tuesday last, and he now repeated his Question, because, if this vacancy were filled up, for which be thought circumstances showed there was no necessity, any further allusion to it would be too late.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he could not understand he object of his hon. and learned Friend. When the Bill was before the House last year there was a strong feeling in which his Hon, and learned Friend joined, in favour of retaining three Judges, and in deference to that feeling the Government were obliged to give way. He denied that any reason whatever had been shown for altering their opinion. It was true the business had of late somewhat diminished; but he believed much of that might be attributed to the stringent rules which the deceased Judge had laid down, and which it was to be hoped would be given up. He hoped, therefore, that the government would discharge their duty, and fill up the vacancy.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALD,in explanation observed that what he had said in June last was that he hoped no third Judge would be again appointed unless it was found that the public service required it.

THE POLITICAL PRISONERS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT DEASYsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland,
  26
  whether there is any foundation for the statement which appeared in The Times, that letters from the persons accused of political offences in Ireland, to their professional agent, had been intercepted or delayed by the Government?
  LORD NAASsaid, he would answer the second question first. It was one of great importance, for nothing could be more improper or unfortunate than that any impediment should be thrown by prison authorities in the way of persons who were awaiting their trial, communicating in the most free, unrestricted, and confidential manner, with their legal advisers. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that in this case nothing of the kind had taken place; and, if the House would permit him, he would read one or two documents, which would show exactly what had happened. The by-law in force in Cork gaol, relating to the inspection of prisoners' letters, was couched in the following terms:—
  "All letters or parcels to or from a prisoner must be inspected by the Governor, who shall forward or keep the same according to the nature of their contents."
  He found that the regulations adopted in English prisons, were still more strict, and provided that no letters, addressed even to a legal adviser, should be sent out of the prison without being inspected by the Governor. The English rule was—
  "Prisoners under examination, or committed for trial, are to be allowed to deliver personally to their legal advisers (such being certified attorneys), or their authorized clerks, any confidential written communications prepared as instructions for their defence, without being previously examined by any officer of the prison; but all such written communications, not personally delivered to the legal adviser or his clerk, are to be considered as letters, and are not be sent out of the prison without being previously inspected by the Governor."
  According to the general regulations for prison discipline, then, all letters addressed to, or sent by, any prisoner awaiting trial, or after conviction, might be inspected by the Governor. The subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention, was first brought under his (Lord Naas's) notice, by the following letter, which he received on Monday from Mr. M'Carthy Downing, the solicitor for the defence of the prisoners:—
  "I have the honour of enclosing, for your Lordship's perusal, a copy of a letter which I this day addressed to the Governor of the gaol of the county of Cork, and as the agent of those young men, I respectfully ask your Lordship to communicate

  27
  to that gentleman by telegraph, that all communications from me to the prisoners, and from them to me, shall be delivered unopened by him, or any one else, otherwise, my Lord, my determination is to abandon the defence, unless my counsel are of opinion that such a course, even under such unprecedented circumstances, is not open to me. May I ask the favour of your Lordship's reply by Monday's post, directed to Tralee, care of Joseph O'Riordan, Esq.?"
  The moment he (Lord Naas) received that communication, he immediatly sent the following telegraphic message to Colonel Larcom, the Under-Secretary, at Dublin:—
  "Mr. Downing's request should be complied with. Telegraph to Governor of Cork Gaol, and write to Downing by to-night's post, stating that you had telegraphed to me, and that I had at once answered in the affirmative."
  Mr. Downing had, however, in the meantime made a communication to the Governor of the Cork gaol, and he was immediately informed by the Governor, that his request would be complied with, and that any communications he might make to the prisoners, or which they might make to him, should not be subject to the ordinary prison rules, but should be delivered unopened, and without being submitted to the usual inspection. In order that there might be no misunderstanding on the subject, Colonel Larcom, on the 7th of March, addressed by telegraph, the following communication to Mr. Downing:—
  "I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to inform you that your letter of the 5th instant to Lord Naas was forwarded yesterday to London, and a telegram has been this day received from his Lordship, desiring that directions should be given to the Governor of Cork County Gaol to forward, unopened, all letters on legal business to and from the prisoners charged with being members of an illegal society. A letter has this day been received from the Governor of the gaol, enclosing a copy of his correspondence with you, from which his Excellency learns with satisfaction that the course indicated above has already been adopted. And his Excellency's approval of that course has been communicated by this day's post to the Governor."
  It would be seen, therefore, that under the peculiar circumstances of the case the ordinary prison rules had been waived, so that all communications between Mr. Downing and his clients might be conducted confidentially on the subject of the prisoners' defence.
  With regard to the question that had been put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Ennis, (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) he was afraid he could only return the same answer he had given to a similar question last Tuesday. He thought, however, (hat the
  28
  hon. Gentleman made a somewhat extraordinary statement when he said that there was any compact entered into last year with regard to the appointment of the third Judge of the Landed Estates Court. He (Lord Naas) was present during the whole of the debate on that subject, and he certainly never heard that any such understanding was entered into. If there was any understanding at all, it was that the Court should for the future consist of three Judges; and the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in the speech he made on that occasion, expressed a very strong opinion as to the advisability of retaining the three Judges in the Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman said—
  "If this Commissioner was to be superseded, he ought to retire upon his full salary; but he must be permitted to add that it appeared to him most unwise to reduce the number of Judges at the very time when the proposed alterations would obviously have the effect of materially adding to the business of the Court.
  The Government originally proposed that the Court should consist of two Judges only, but the opinion of the House appeared to be so decidedly expressed in favour of three, that the point was given up by the Attorney General, and the number of Judges was fixed by the Bill accordingly. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the business of the Court had not increased, but he seemed entirely to forget that the rules under which the new procedure was established were only published at the end of last October, that the return which had been made was dated early in February, and that it therefore only refers to the proceedings of the Court during three months, which afforded no criterion of the business which was likely hereafter to be thrown into the Court. It was, however, clear that the public were not yet in a position to take full advantage of the Court. The new rules of procedure were not generally known, and it was impossible at this moment to form a judgment as to the ultimate result from the proceedings of two months, while the Court was, so to speak, in its infancy. He could only say, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that no decision had yet been come to by Her Majesty's Government; and that no appointment had yet been made. The whole question was still under consideration, and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that in arriving at a decision the Government would only be influenced by regard for the interest

  29
  of the public service and the future good working of this important Court.

IMMIGRATION.—EXPLANATION.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he wished to explain that having stated on Friday last that the Anti Slavery Society was opposed to all immigration, he had since been requested, on behalf of the Society, to state that its members were not opposed to a perfectly free immigration.
COMPENSATION TO PROCTORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government intends to bring in a Bill to enable Serjeants, Barristers at Law, Attorneys, and Solicitors, to practice in the High Court of Admiralty, without compensation to Proctors; and whether the yearly compensation to Proctors and other officers of the late Ecclesiastical Courts, made and to be made under the Probate Act, has been ascertained, and, if so, the probable yearly amount thereof; and what yearly amount has been received by way of contribution, in fees or otherwise, in diminution of such compensation to Proctors and other officers, and of the new Court of Probate, from suitors and parties proving Wills and taking out Administrations; and what may be the probable yearly amount of the expenses of the said Court of Probate, and of the compensation to Proctors and other officers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government at present to introduce a Bill for the purpose of enabling Serjeants, barristers-at-law, and attorneys and solicitors, to practice in the High Court of Admiralty. If such a Bill should at any time be introduced I think that will be the fittest period for considering the conditions under which that admission should take place. But I may state, in passing, with regard to compensation to proctors—in case that question should have to be considered again with respect to the opening of the Court of Admiralty, that the profits of the Proctors in that Court were not taken into consideration by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the amount of compensation which the proctors should receive. There are other inquiries of the hon. Member for Sheffield to which I will venture to give
  30
  an answer. The hon. Gentleman seems to consider that a very exaggerated estimate was laid before the House of the amount which would be required to compensate the proctors for their lost privileges. When the matter was first brought under my consideration an estimate was submitted to me which was necessarily drawn from vague and imperfect materials; it was essentially what is called a rough estimate; and it stated the probable amount which would be required to make good the total compensation to the proctors and the various officers of the court at £250,000 per annum. In the financial statement which I afterwards submitted to the House I found it necessary to provide a sum of £200,000 a year to meet that charge. Under those circumstances I thought it best to appoint a Commission, of which the Judge Advocate and my hon. Friend the present Secretary to the Treasury, who had then a seat in this House, were members. That Commission was nominated at the commencement of April; and at the commencement of July the Judge Advocate, in answer to an inquiry from an hon. Member, informed the House that the proximate estimate of the amount of compensation which the Commissioners were able to form, after three months' labour, was £170,000 a year. The inquiry is now almost completed; there are only a very few claims unsettled, while a very near estimate can be made of the amount of those claims; and the aggregate annual compensation to the proctors and all the officers of the Court may now be taken at not more than £130,000 a year. It is due to the Judge Advocate and to the present Secretary to the Treasury that an acknowledgment should be made of the public service they have rendered by the searching investigation which they instituted into those claims. I believe it is to that investigation we owe the large reduction which has been made in the charge. Perhaps I may as well state a fact which will show the searching character of that investigation, and the aid which has been received from the records of the Income Tax Commissioners during its prosecution. They had before them claims based upon incomes of many thousands a year, on which the compensation was to be calculated; but on a private reference to the records of the Income Tax Commissioners they found that the gentlemen who were alleged to have been in possession of those large incomes had reported themselves to

  31
  the Income Tax Commissioners as having been in the receipt of incomes of a very different character. So much has been said against the income tax that I thought it right to state an instance in which it has operated with so much advantage to the public. With regard to the fees and stamps to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded which are to be received from suitors, and are to go in diminution of the claims of the proctors, I think I may say that their amount is something between £50,000 and £55,000 a year; this is about the sum which will be required for the maintenance of the new Probate Court; so that the result of the whole transaction is that it will cost the country a sum of £130,000 a year.
  SIR RICHARD BETH ELLsaid, that in the Bill originally introduced by him, when the scheme for testamentary jurisdiction was of a much larger character than at present, he proposed compensation for the proctors. The last Bill, which was introduced by the Government, made no such provision. But the proctors had many influential friends in the House, and they compelled the Government to give them compensation as the price of the passing of the Bill. He at that time calculated the compensation to the proctors at about £60,000 a year, but that was only estimating their profits in causes relating to the administration of estates and to the probate of wills. The compensation which was ultimately given to them extended not only to that department but to the profits derived from marriage and divorce causes, which were the subject of another Bill; and he understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the aggregate amount of compensation to the proctors in both departments and to all the officers of the court amounted to £130,000 a year. In that was included, he believed, no less than £8,000 a year to the late registrar, a very considerable sum to his successor, Lord Canterbury, and large sums to the registrar, Judges, and officers of the abolished Court. Deducting these amounts, and the amount upon the marriage and divorce practice, he believed that there would not be much difference between his original Estimate and the sum which had been just named by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It might, therefore, be perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that this measure, in consequence of the kind and charitable interposition of Gentlemen opposite, would cost the country £130,000 a year
  32
  but deducting the fund which he had provided in order to pay the compensations, he ventured to think that there would in reality be little or nothing to pay on account of the change of testamentary jurisdiction. He (Sir Richard Bethell) had consented to the insertion of a clause throwing open the Admiralty Court; but it was struck out in "another place," and in consequence of the pressure of the Session he was compelled to assent to its omission. He had intended to bring in a measure for the same purpose, but when he quitted office the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had undertaken the task.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had estimated the compensation to the proctors and all the officers of the court at £130,000 a year. Now he should be glad to know what portion of that sum was to be paid to the proctors alone. He wished to obtain that information, because he believed it would show that the compensation of those gentlemen—a compensation of which he had been a decided advocate—was not by any means of the extravagant amount which many people at one time supposed. It should be recollected that certain fees which were paid for proctorial bills were to go to the fund for providing that compensation, and he believed that those fees would be sufficient or nearly sufficient, to meet the whole of the charge which the compensation would impose; so that no new burden, or at least no new burden of any considerable amount, would be thrown by that operation upon the consolidated Fund.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that it was no part of the duty of the Compensation Commissioners to inquire what would be the amount paid by way of fees in the new court; and he could give no information upon that subject. He could, with considerable confidence, state to the House that the whole amount of the compensation in that case for the proctors and all the officers of the court would not exceed £130,000 a year in England and Ireland. The sum to be paid, as far as the Commissioners had already ascertained, was £123,260 a year, of which £52,000 were to go to the London proctors; £12,500 to the English country proctors; and £8,900 to the Irish proctors, making a total for the proctors of £73,400 a year. Then there were for the Judges and officers of the court £42,010 in England, and £7,850 in Ireland; making a total for Judges and

  33
  officers of £49,860. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell) had said that the proctors had found influential friends on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; but the fact was that their claim had been strenuously supported by some hon. Gentlemen now on the Opposition benches, and more especially by the noble Lord the Member for London, who had evinced remarkable steal in their cause, and who presented their petition for compensation. Before he resumed his seat he wished to bear his testimony (and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done so had he posessed any practical knowledge on the subject) to the valuable character of the labours of Mr. Follett, the taxing master of the Court of Chancery, while serving as a Member of the Commission. That Gentleman possessed special qualifications for the due discharge of the duty with which he had been entrusted, and he had turned those qualifications to the most useful account.
  SIR RICHARD BETHELLbelieved that eventually it would be found that not a single shilling would have to be paid by the country for the compensation of these officials.
  MR. SALISBURYsaid, that Mr. Raikes, the Registrar for the diocese of Chester, had had £3,300 awarded to him as compensation. As soon as that gentleman heard that that amount had been awarded to him he wrote a letter (which appeared in the public journals) to the Bishop of Chester, stating his great surprise that the public money should be voted in that way, and promising to devote £1,100 every year out of the £3,300 to proper and charitable purposes in the diocese of Chester. He wished to know what sum had been given as compensation to Mr. Moore?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the amount was £7,990 per annum, that being the exact amount of Mr. Moore's income upon an average of three years before the passing of the Act. In all these cases the same principle had been applied in awarding compensation. As to Mr. Raikes, that gentleman had behaved with the greatest liberality, and said he did not wish to press his claim for any exorbitant amount. But it was impossible to proceed upon any different principle in considering his case from that adopted in other instances. Mr. Raikes was not entitled to the whole of what he received, but only to a certain proportion; but in consequence of the large amount of his business
  34
  and of his receipts he received the sum mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He had since devoted one third of his compensation, or £1,100 a year, to purposes connected with the church. This was much to the honour of Mr. Raikes, but surely it reflected no discredit on those who allotted the compensation.

ARMY PURCHASE, &c.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War the cause of the delay in laying before the House the Proceedings and Papers, or Data, relating to Sir Charles Trevelyan's Abolition of Army Purchase scheme, moved for on the 15th and 17th of February? There was also another question which he wished to ask, and that was, whether it be the fact that only 250 of the approved new rifled cannon are at present ordered or expected to be constructed within the current year; and, if so, whether this arrangement is adequate to the present wants of the army and navy; and whether it would be practicable to afford Sir William Armstrong greater proportional means of construction?
  GENERAL PEELrose to reply, but—
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that it was against the rules of the House that any hon. Member should speak twice upon the Question of the adjournment of the House.

FEMALE EMIGRATION.—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in cases of emigration by females due care is or will be taken, that the female emigants are placed under the charge of a matron duly appointed or selected by the Government? The usual course at present was, he believed, for the surgeon to choose out of the intending emigrants the one who seemed most fitted for the office; but it was needless to point out that such a system afforded no guarantee for the possession of the necessary qualifications. The character of these matrons ought to be of the best description; their position ought to be a permanent one, and lastly, they ought to be properly remunerated for their services.
SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTONbelieved that the subject had excited a good deal of interest, and he was very thankful to the hon. Member for calling attention to this or any other matter con-

35
nected with emigration. In all emigrant ships which were chartered by the Emigration Commissioners, matrons were appointed to take charge of the single women, and it had been recently decided to organize a class of matrons who should be allowed home passages from the Colonies, and should be employed as occasion required. This regulation would affect all ships chartered by the Emigration Commissioners; but no matrons would be appointed to the ordinary emigrant ships. There was no power by which these appointments could he made, and even if such a power existed, no authority could be given to the matrons thus appointed. Nor did he think it possible to procure that power, except to a very limited extent, even by an Act of Parliament, because a large number of emigrants went to America in American ships, and if even matrons were received on board, the moment those vessels left British waters away went British authority over them, and away, too, would go the authority of the matrons. As far as the Government was concerned, every attention in their power was given to the subject.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, his impression had been that back passages were only allowed to matrons from Sydney, and not from the other Australian colonies. Great evils had arisen in emigrant ships from the want of properly qualified matrons. Sometimes 300 or 400 single women were on board, and under proper control they might be taught needlework, and the voyage might be made very instructive. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would communicate with the Colonial Government on the subject, in order that proper salaries might be appropriated for the pay of these matrons, and that they might be provided with a passage home from all the Australian colonies.

VACCINATION.—QUESTION.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council of Education, with reference to the exercise of the powers vested in the Privy Council for the protection of Public Health. He had recently called attention to the enormous rate of mortality from smallpox in certain districts, a mortality which he thought must have resulted from the want of an efficient system of vaccination—at any rate, up to the present moment no good appeared to have
36
resulted from the exercise of the powers which had been vested in the Privy Council, for he found by the returns that during the last sixteen weeks there had been more deaths from smallpox than there had been during the preceding eighteen months, and that too in the metropolis alone. It appeared from the return of the Registrar General that in twenty-seven counties of England and in the whole of Wales this epidemic prevailed; and he wished to know if the powers given to the Government by the Act of last year had been carried out. It had been stated in another place that something had been done to secure an efficient supply of lymph, and that certain recommendations had been issued to the Poor Law Unions; but he believed that the important power given of framing regulations which should ascertain the qualification of the public vaccinators in the different unions, and secure the services of the best, had not been carried into effect. The returns showed that out of 1,000 properly vaccinated only three died from attacks of smallpox, but 150 out of 1,000 died of those who were improperly vaccinated. It was most important, therefore, that the best vaccinators should be obtained, and he wished to know what steps the Government had taken to secure that result.
MR. ADDERLEYadmitted that the epidemic to which the right hon. Gentleman had called the attention of the House prevailed to a considerable extent at the present moment; but he could at the same time assure him that the Privy Council had exercised to the utmost all the powers which had been conferred upon them under the Act of last Session. They had done everything, for instance, which that Act enabled them to do in the way of inquiry, of procuring reports and returns, of giving advice, and of setting in motion local authorities in many parts of the country. They were issuing such regulations to the boards of guardians for the purpose of raising the qualification of public vaccinators as they thought could be enforced. Some delay had been occasioned in the issue of those regulations, owing, in the first place, to the necessity of entering into a correspondence on the subject with the Poor Law Board; and, secondly, to the circumstance that a hope was entertained that security for due qualification of vaccinators could be most effectually attained through the machinery of the Medical Council, which had called into existence

37
under the operation of the Medical Practitioners Act. The conclusion had ultimately, however, been arrived at, that though much good could be properly worked out through that channel, yet regulations should also be issued to the boards of guardians providing that in the case of all contracts entered into between them and a public vaccinator his name should appear in the public register under the Medical Act as having passed an examination both on the subjects of medicine and surgery, and if that provision were not complied with the contract would be void. The Privy Council had also drawn up directions by way of recommendations for the more effectual performance of vaccination, which would be issued to every Poor Law Union throughout the kingdom, and had taken steps to have quarterly returns sent them from the various boards of guardians, showing the number of successful vaccinations which had taken place in each union, from the comparison of which returns with the number of births they would be able to detect whether their instructions had or had not been properly carried into effect in any particular union. In those cases in which they should thus discover the existence of neglect they would immediately send down inspectors, and take the necessary measures to enforce the authority which they possessed, and, if necessary, to set the law in force for the imposition of penalties. The Compulsory Vaccination Act had been to a great extent ineffectual from the want of officers to see its provision carried out, but this defect was fully supplied by the last clause in the Act of last year. They had, moreover, provided for the establishment of provincial depots of lymph in several parts of the country. The number of those depots in England would, he believed, be about ten, which would be put in communication with the National Vaccination Board, and by means of them an ample supply of lymph would be secured in all quarters of the kingdom. He might observe, in conclusion, that the Privy Council had instituted inquiries in the cases of Windsor, Conway, and other places in which they had learnt that sickness had become prevalent, and that the drainage was in an unhealthy state, and had in all such cases induced the local authorities to put in force the powers which had been conferred upon them, with a view of providing a remedy for those evils. All that they did would, in obedience to the law, be reported to Parliament; and when
38
the first Report on the subject was laid upon the table the House would be in a position to form a judgment how far they had performed their duly.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates.
Motion made and Question proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

RIFLED CANNON.—QUESTION.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it be the fact that only 250 of the approved new Rifled Cannon were at present ordered or expected to be constructed within the current year; and if so, whether this arrangement is adequate to the present wants of the Army and Navy; and whether it would be practicable to afford Sir William Armstrong greater proportional means of construction?
GENERAL PEELsaid, he would take that opportunity of answering some Questions which had been put in the course of the preceding debate. The papers relating to Sir Charles Trevelyan's abolition of army purchase scheme, moved for on the 15th and 17th ult., would he laid on the table of the House in a few days. He had also been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) whether it was the fact that only 250 of the approved new rifled cannon were at present ordered or expected to be constructed within the current year. He was not quite sure whether it was very prudent or politic to state the exact number of guns constructing. He had stated, on a former occasion, that the new artillery would be supplied as quickly as it could possibly be made, and also that the manufacture would be proceeded with at Woolwich, as well as at Sir William Armstrong's establishment at Newcastle. The hon. and gallant Member was mistaken in supposing that any grant had been given to Sir William Armstrong. All that had been done by the Government was this, to give a guarantee that whatever was laid out by Sir William in machinery or additional buildings fur the purpose of executing the Government order, should be refunded to him in event of the order being withdrawn, the amount to be ascertained by arbitration afterwards.

DOCKYARD EXPENDITURE.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETmoved an Amendment to the Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
"That, in conformity with the practice of Public Departments of laying before the House detailed Estimates for works costing above £1,000, it is desirable that a Statement in the following form, showing the proposed expenditure in the construction and conversion of Her Majesty's Ships be annually laid before this House with the Navy Estimates:—(form)"
He believed his Resolution was founded both in reason and good policy. If the rule that applied to all other public works were adopted with regard to the building ships of war, the country would not be liable to those periodical panics that now frightened the public from its propriety. There would therefore be nothing unusual so far as precedent went in such a rule as that which his Motion established. With respect to all other works, such as docks, warehouses, piers, &c, the Minister proposing their construction was obliged to tell the House of Commons what he proposed to do, and asked for the money to do it. The expenditure for great works of this kind was generally spread over several years, and the House of Commons had year by year an exact account of the sums expended, and to be expended on such works according to the form above mentioned, and were most wisely jealous of any tampering with those estimates and of any proposition for additional sums. If any additional votes of money were asked for on account of those works they were always met with some inquiry in the House; but if the works to be constructed were vessels of war the House knew nothing about them. In the present Navy Estimates more than £2,100,000 was asked for on account, they were told, of the cost of materials for shipbuilding; but they were not told whether it was to be used for building frigates, line-of-battle ships, or corvettes. They were asked for the gross sum, but they had no means of judging whether the money would be wisely laid out, or whether it had been wisely laid out in former years. He admitted that the First Lord of the Admiralty had this year to some extent broken through the old routine and reserve; he had actually taken the House of Commons into his confidence and told the House what he wanted to do; and consequently they were ready to vote him the money he required. But at the Admiralty they were all aghast at the innova-
40
tion; they could not believe there that the First Lord had told the House of Commons what he was going to build—what, in fact, he was going to do with the public money. The object of his Motion was simply to oblige—not the right hon. Gentleman, who, he believed would be quite ready to do it, but—his successors to adopt the same course, he wished to have it placed on record as a rule not to be broken through, that the House of Commons should have the same control over shipbuilding as over the construction of docks and barracks. The expense of those works could not always be estimated; their cost was liable to be increased by unforeseen circumstances—an irruption of water, or defective foundations. But the cost of ships of war could always he exactly calculated; and he wished the House to have, every year, a list of the ships the Admiralty had built in the past year, and of those it intended to build in the year following. If this Motion were accepted, he believed that such statements as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) made on a former night, and which had created such a painful sensation out of doors—namely, that after laying out £20,000,000 on a steam navy, simply for the construction of the ships, and exclusive of the cost of their engines and machinery, we were both in numbers and quality inferior to the French in line-of-battle ships, would be impossible. There was another reason, and a very strong one, that induced him to propose this Resolution. There had been a system of extravagant expenditure pursued by the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty, which, he maintained, ought to be thoroughly looked into. In the statement he was about to make the figures he should have to quote to the House really appalled him. If the right hon. Gentleman could correct or controvert them no one would be more pleased than himself he had last year brought this subject under the attention of the House during the discussion of the Navy Estimates; and the Government was then asked why it did not furnish some detailed statement of this expenditure for its own credit he had looked with some anxiety for this year's Estimates, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman, in deference to the opinion of several Members who spoke last year, would have given some little information in those Estimates as to what ships he was going to build. He had looked carefully through the estimates, and only in vote No. 10

41
could he see anything thing to show what the Admiralty was building. The only item for ships in course of construction was for two dredging machines and some mud barges; that was all there was to show what was being done for £2,000,000 of money. This really looked like a bitter pleasantry on the part of the First Lord. He had been requested by many Gentlemen last year to go into an examination of the expenditure under this head, and he had done so during the recess. He had taken the expenditure of four years, and had gone through the dockyards to see what the public had got for its money, with the view of calling the attention of the House to the subject. But since the meeting of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Member fur Halifax (Sir C. Wood) had moved for a return of the number of steam vessels added to the navy since 1848, or during a period of eleven years; and he had in consequence carried his inquiries back to that period which he would now present to the House. The result from this return was that we had during those eleven years built in the dockyards 24 line-of-battle ships, 21 frigates, 35 corvettes and sloops, I floating battery, 2 gun vessels, 14 gunboats, 2 tenders, and 1 yacht. During the same period we had converted from sailing ships to screw-steamers 9 line-of-battle ships, 7 blockships, 4 mortar ships, and 1 troop and store-ship. During the same period we had also purchased a great many vessels; but that did not affect the present inquiry. By the courtesy of the First Lord of the Admiralty he had obtained from the Surveyor's-office a statement of the cost of building these vessels. The line of-battle ships were as to cost divided into two classes, represented by the Duke of Wellington, which cost for the hull, £106,291, masts, yards, rigging, sails, and stores, £19,224; total, £125,515; (this was exclusive of the engines; and he begged the House to bear in mind that on both debtor and creditor side he entirely avoided any allusion to engines); and the Agamemnon, which cost for hull, masts, and yards, £106,000. Taking the mean between these two sums (which was rather favourable to the Admiralty)—namely, £116,000 the cost of the 24 line-of-battle ships would be £2,784,000. of the frigates, the Shannon cost £91,000. There had been twenty-one ships built called frigates, most of which were much smaller than this vessel;
42
but as the Mersey, Orlando, and one or two others were larger, he had taken the cost of all at that amount, which would make the expenditure upon frigates £1,911,000. Of corvettes, the Surveyor reported that there were three classes, the Pearl class, the Harrier class, and the Swallow class. The Pearl cost £46,850; and it was worthy the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty that, while that ship cost that sum for labour and materials alone, exclusive of the charge for plant and stock, a similar ship with the same scantling, only longer in the bow, of 1,524 tons builder's measurement, and surveyed by the surveying officers of Lloyds', was built for the Portuguese Government for £40,624. The 35 corvettes were built at a cost of £1,050,000; the floating battery, the iron plates for which were taken from the vessel which was burned in Mr. Scott Russell's yard, £30,000. (this amount he got, not from the Surveyor of the Navy, but from a private yard where one of these vessels was built); two gun vessels, £26,000 each, £52,000; 14 gun-boats, £8,000 each, taking the mean cost of the different classes, £112,000; two tenders, £2,000 each; and one yacht, the Victoria and Albert, £50,000—£54,000. The whole amount paid for building during the eleven years was therefore £5,993,000, or in round numbers, £6,000,000. He now came to the conversions. During the eleven years we had converted in the dockyards 9 ships of the line, 7 block-ships, 1 troopship, and mortar-ships, making a total of 21 ships. The right hon. Baronet stated the oilier evening that the cost of converting these ships ranged from £10,000 to £40,000. he (Lord C. Paget) had taken the average at £30,000, which he believed was much above the real cost, but which he intended to include masts, yards, and sails. That gave a total for the 21 ships of £630,000. He now approached a part of the subject in which he was sure that no practical commercial man would have any difficulty in following him; but which perhaps the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty, not being a practical sailor, might not so well understand—namely, the cost of the maintenance of ships during this period of eleven years; he could, however, assure the right hon. Baronet, that he had not arrived at the results which he was about to state to the House without consulting practical men both in the Government dockyards and in private establishments. He was ashamed to trouble the

43
House with so statistical a statement, but be was convinced that unless they once for all went into details upon this subject, some day or other there would be a catastrophe. The House of Commons and the country would willingly give to the Government any amount of money which might be required, if it could only be assured that it was spent with economy; but it was right to look into these matters, and require the Government to give them a proper debtor and creditor statement. In arriving at the cost of ships in commission, he had been obliged to revert to the system of average. He lad obtained from the Admiralty a list of the ships in commission on the 1st of January, 1848, 1st of January, 1855 (at the height of the war), and 1st of January, 1859. The fine-of-battle ships in commission were, in 1848, 17; in 1855, 35; and in 1859, 25; the block-ships in 1848, 1; in 1855, 4; and in 1859, 9; making the total number of line-of-battle ships (because he wished rather to err for than against the Admiralty, and would therefore count all these vessels as of that class) in 1848, 18; in 1855, 39; and in 1859, 34. The mean of these numbers was 30, and that he had taken as the average number of line-of-battle ships in commission. The question was the percentage of wear and tear which occurred to one of Her Majesty's ships when in commission. Upon that point there would necessarily be some difference of opinion; he had, however, consulted men who had nothing to do with the Admiralty, and also men who had a great deal to do with it, and he believed he was as near the truth as possible when he stated that wear and tearat6 percent. The mean number of line-of-battle ships in commission during the last eleven years was 30; the average cost of each ship was £116,000, and 6 per tent on this would be about £7,000, which would represent the annual wear and tear of each of the 30 line-of-battle ships. This was exclusive altogether of the machinery, for the subject was so great that to mix up the inquiry into those two heads would be to spoil the inquiry in both. If he met with any encouragement from the House he would undertake to investigate into the steam department, where things were much worse he believed, than in the shipwrights' department. Allowing 6 per cent for wear and tear for eleven years, £7,000 each for 30 line-of-battle ships gave a result of £2,310,000. The mean number of frigates during the eleven years was 18. The mean cost of frigates he had suited us
44
£91,000; and taking the wear and tear at £5,400each,the total would be £l,089,000. Of corvettes and other vessels of the smaller classes, the mean number was 192, and the wear and tear of them in the eleven years at 6 per cent per annum was £2,530,000, making a total of wear and tear of the 240 ships in commission of all classes during these eleven years of £5,929,000. We had now about 500 old ships in ordinary—the sooner we got rid of them the better; but there they were, and cost something each every year, say £100, which would give £550,000 for the eleven years. This gave a grand total of building, converting, and maintaining ships for the eleven years of £13,102,000. This document he had shown to a great many people, in order that any errors in it might be set right; for it was his desire that a perfectly faithful statement might be laid before the public. The only point which had been suggested to him was, that there might now be an excess of stores over the year 1848, which might amount, perhaps, to £300,000. However, he had allowed £500,000 on that head, and £400,000 for sailing ships which might have been built in this time, making a total of £14,000,000 in round numbers for the eleven years. That was the creditor side, and now for the debtor side. The money which had been voted by Parliament during that time to build and maintain these ships was contained in Votes 8, 9, and 10; at least, he only took these Votes, because he wished only to reckon the material and of the labour employed on it; but he was bound to say that in a commercial point of view these figures were false, for in stating what a ship cost the country, you must take into consideration the cost of the plant and the cost of superintendence, the cost of the master shipwrights, master blacksmiths, master ropemakers, &c. These he had excluded, and taken only the mere cost of the labour to work up the materials, and the cost of the materials. Vote 8 comprised a large number of items, wages of artificers, labourers, &c, employed in Her Majesty's establishments at home. He would take the shipbuilding branch only, exclusive of labour in the steam factories, medical and victualling departments, &c, and for eleven years he found that they had taken for Vote 8, £6,968,844. That was what they had paid for labour. Vote 9 was for artificers and labourers employed in the dockyards in the colonies in repairing ships, with the same exclusions. It amounted in the

45
eleven years to £389,752. Vote 10 was for the purchase of timber, masts, deals, and other stores; and he had excluded the purchase of coal, the purchase and repair of steam machinery, and the cost of building a yacht for the emperor of Japan. The only information as to ship-building which he could get from these Votes for the eleven years was that we had built a yacht for the Emperor of Japan. Vote 10 for eleven years was £10,180,194. Besides this, during the last four years there had been expended a large sum for what was called "an excess." What that was for he had never yet discovered; but the excess for the four years amounted to £1,861,154. He was not at all disposed to aver that that sum was wholly on account of shipbuilding, for part, of it had no doubt been for coals, steam machinery, &c., though it was not mentioned to what the "excess" was applicable. From these figures they derived a grand total of expenditure of £19,399,944. This constituted the debtor side. In round numbers the figures on one side of the account were £19,000,000, and on the other £14,000,000, leaving a deficit, or discrepancy, or whatever they pleased to call it, of £5,000,000. This was a very serious matter. The House would permit him at once to state, upon his honour, that he had no notion that there had been any malversation—far from it;—he was personally acquainted with all the officers of the dockyards, and he knew them to be good, honest, and zealous servants, and he hoped it would be clearly understood that he had no intention whatever of imputing anything improper to them. He had no intention of attacking any individual whatever; he attacked the system. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to correct these figures; but, at all events, what he had adverted to showed the miserable system we went on. Were they to be left in utter darkness on these matters, and was all the world to be informed that after spending millions on millions upon the navy that we were unfit to cope with other maritime nations? He was bound to say that he did not share in the alarm, and he was bound! also to say that although the right hon. Gentleman's statement was the truth, and nothing but the truth, it was not the whole truth. He hoped that he made that statement without offence. What he meant was, that it was a very able statement to make out his case, first to attack the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him in office, and
46
secondly, to induce the House to grant a large sum of money to increase our line-of-battle ships, but he must say it also tended to create an alarm which he for one did not share. The First Lord for example, did not tell the House of an admirable class of vessels in which we possessed an immense superiority over the French—a superiority measured, according to the right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood), by 200 excellent small ships. He was not going to enter into a discussion upon the comparative merits of line-of-battle ships and gun-boats. But if he had a large sum of money to lay out he would prefer, not gun-boats exclusively, but certainly small vessels. However, without stopping to discuss that point, be would proceed to state how he could account for a considerable part of the enormous sum which he had mentioned bad been spent, how it was we had got so little to show for it, and how it happened that after an expenditure of £19,000,000 we had a fleet which, according to the First Lord, required "reconstruction." Much of the money had, in his opinion, been spent in reckless and extravagant alterations, both in building and in fitments. He did not think the House had the smallest notion of what had been going on in our dockyards in the way of tinkering vessels, amputating them, performing all sorts of surgical operations upon them. They had their heads cut off, they had their tails cut off, they were sawn asunder, they were maltreated in every possible way. Ships built ten years ago by Sir William Symonds were not in fashion at the present day, and nobody could blame the Admiralty for lengthening and altering them, because, as originally constructed, they were not now fit to go to sea; but he wished to speak of the reckless alteration of new ships. Their name was legion; almost every ship was altered; there was scarcely one that had not undergone some frightful operation some time or oilier. Take the case of a three-decker, the Howe, 121 guns. She was laid down only last year or the winter before, but the dockyard people were now pulling her down to put a new bow upon, her. Had any great improvement been made in the bows of ships within the last two years? Nothing of the kind had taken place that he knew of. Another case was. that of the Immortalité, a 51-gun frigate, now being built at Pembroke. That unfortunate ship had gone through a great deal of trouble. She was first of all

47
lengthened amidships. Last year, orders went down from the Admiralty to lengthen her five feet by the bow. Certain parties—he did not know who, but he had no doubt persons at Pembroke—thought that to lengthen a frigate five feet by the bow would be to make an imperceptible alteration, and would have no effect whatever. We lengthened yachts fourteen or twenty feet by the bow. But the authorities were inexorable, their orders were reiterated, and the poor ship was lengthened five feet by the bow. The result was, as might be naturally supposed, that either the First Lord himself, with his fine nautical eye, or some other member of the Admiralty Board, saw upon visiting her that she was not fit to go to sea, and ordered her to be pulled down again and lengthened fifteen feet. Such instances of official blundering would be amusing if they were not so costly. The Orlando,the Mersey, and, indeed, al-most all that class of ships, had been more or less treated in a similar manner; but, not to detain the House, he would now ask their attention to a case which was almost incredible. Some time ago a frigate, the San Fiorenzo, was being built either at Deptford or Woolwich. She was a great favourite with the London folks, who used to visit her in large numbers, and a beautiful model she was. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Where is she now?] The First Lord asked where she was now. Echo answered where. Why, she had vanished into thin air—gone, he hoped, to another and a better world. Vessels of the Lyra, and Racer class began life at 450 tons, but their tonnage grew with their growth until they arrived at 750 tons, when they were launched. Was not that a reckless expenditure of money? The fact was that scarcely a ship went to sea without costing more than the sum fixed by the original estimate. His object by his present Motion was to put an end to so extravagant a system. If his Motion were carried, the Admiralty would no longer

Name of ship.

Tonnage.

Horse Power.

Total Estimated Cost.

Amount already Voted.

Gross Sum already Expended.

Amount proposed 1859–60.

Further Amount required to complete.

Remarks &c.

instead thereof.
have the power to poll a ship down without their intention becoming known to that House. If they could show a good case every Gentleman would be ready to vote the money; but this reckless expenditure they would have the means of stopping. Nothing could have induced him to submit such a Resolution if he had thought or suspected that it would impair the efficiency of the service; but he had no such fear:—his object was to introduce economy, and without economy there could be no true efficiency. If he was right or anything like right in his figures, there was an unnecessary expenditure of £5,000,000 of money, and what did that sum represent in ships. The cost of a line-of-battle ship with engines, coals, and provisions on board, was a little short of £250,000, and if they took the cost at £200,000, we ought to have, in addition to our present vessels, 22 line-of-battle ships, with engines and all complete, ready for sea. The Royal Commission on Manning the Navy proposed that they should have a large reserve at a cost of something like £500,000 a year, and they had the money for that reserve if something like economy were introduced. They had heard a great deal lately about reconstruction, and he was fast coming round to the opinion of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) and the gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) that they wanted a little reconstruction at the Admiralty. The noble Lord then proposed his Amendment. MB. W. S. LINDSAY seconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words ' in conformity with the practice of the Public Departments of laying before the House detailed Estimates for works costing above one thousand pounds, it is desirable that a Statement, in the following form, showing the proposed expenditure in the construction and conversion of Her Majesty's Ships, be annually laid before this House, with the Navy Estimates:—
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am sure that every one who has listened to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, must appreciate the difficult task which I have to perform in answering it, inasmuch as it consisted throughout of details of the most minute character. Let me do the noble Lord at the outset the justice to say that he has addressed the House both with that ability and in that tone of moderation which he has shown on many former occasions. I am also perfectly confident that the object of my noble and gallant Friend is most patriotic. I entirely accept his statement at the close of his speech that his object is solely the benefit of the service. But recognizing the spirit of the noble and gallant Officer to this extent, I must add that I have heard this speech with the deepest regret, and that my belief is, that had he wished to do injury to the public service instead of to promote it, he could not have taken a surer mode than by the speech which he has just addressed to us. I assure hon. Gentlemen that I intend to meet the speech of the noble Lord as fairly as I can, and I will presently give reasons for the opinions which I have just stated. This is no ordinary moment with regard to the affairs of our navy. I stated the other night, with a fairness and candour which has been recognized by the noble Lord, as I felt it my bounden duty to state openly, the exact position in which our navy actually is. I told the House in what respects our navy had become inferior to the navies of other neighbouring countries. I pointed out the duty of Her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament and the nation to face that state of things and to grant an unusual sum of money to redress that inferiority and to restore our supremacy. My noble and gallant Friend now comes and makes a speech which, if it has any effect at all with the world, can only have the effect of shaking all confidence in the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty, and making the public believe that at a moment of great importance, when we are bound to make a great effort, those by whom alone this effort can be made are not to be trusted with the expenditure of the money which Parliament grants. [Lord C. PAGET: I did not say that.] I do not say that the noble and gallant Lord said it, but that is in the inevitable result of the speech which he has made. He told us that he was not making any attack; but, from the beginning to the end, his speech can only be rightly characterized
50
as one of the severest attacks on the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty which any man could possibly deliver against any public department. The obvious tendency of the speech was such that, instead of moving the future adoption of a particular form of the Estimates, I submit to the noble Lord that he ought rather to have concluded with a Resolution that Sir Baldwin Walker and the shipbuilding department of the navy are unworthy of public confidence. I submit to the House gravely that that is the Motion he ought to have made. And let me remind the House of a point that in fairness bears materially on the question, that as regards the subject matter of the noble Lord's speech I am wholly unconnected with it. It does not touch upon anything that can have taken place during the twelve months that I have been in office. I appeal to the House as regards my sense of partiality. I am not the champion, and on no grounds am I called upon, excepting from a sense of justice, to be the champion of the system. The results alluded to by the noble Lord occurred when the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me (Sir Charles Wood) was First Lord of the Admiralty, and when the right hon. Member for Carhsle (Sir James Graham) was in office, and during whose time these evils, if they exist, must have arisen, and not from anything that I have done during the last twelve months, and regarding which I am perfectly prepared to give the best and fullest explanation. It is clear that the censure of my noble Friend, and his intimation of want of confidence, applies to a state of things long before I had anything to do with the Admiralty. My noble Friend says that he wants to see something like decent economy. I may be allowed, in connection with this Motion, and another for to-night for referring the Navy Estimates to a Select Committee, to state how far I have endeavoured, since I have been at the Admiralty, to promote the observance of a decent economy, and what, in that view, I propose to do for the future. I stated to the House last year that I intended to appoint a Committee to investigate the state of the steamships. I stated the other night that I had appointed such a Committee, and that they had reported. I also stated that I had appointed a Committee to inquire into the dockyard expenditure with the view of seeing that the public money was spent with the greatest advantage, and that the public had full

51
value for their money. I told the House at that time that the Dockyard Committee had not yet presented their Report, nor have I received that Report, but I am daily expecting it; and what I wish to state to the House now is, that as soon as that Report is in my possession it is my intention to lay it and the Report of the Steamships Committee on the table of the House for their information. I am bound to add that Sir Baldwin Walker has been called upon to submit a reply to the Steamships Committee, and it is only an act of justice, also, to give that answer with the Report. There is another step which Her Majesty's Government have taken. Impressed with a deep sense of our responsibility in the proposals which it became my duty to submit for the increase of the navy, and impressed also with the conviction that the House had a right to expect the fullest possible explanation of the rapid increase during late years of the expenditure for the navy, Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable in the early part of the winter to appoint a confidential Committee, consisting of certain Members of the Government, in order to investigate what were the causes of that great increase. The years selected for examination were the financial year, 1852–3, and the now current financial year, 1858–9. The inquiry was intrusted to four most competent persons. The first was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Corry), and I cannot revert to the part which he took without recording my gratitude and my sense of the great zeal and extraordinary ability with which he has assisted me in my arduous duties at the Admiralty. Another member of that Committee, whoso name is enough to prove his efficiency, was the present Accountant General of the Navy—Sir Richard Bromley. The other two Members were Mr. W. G. Anderson, and Mr. George Hamilton, of the Treasury. Those four gentlemen went thoroughly into the question as to the cause of the increase of expenditure, and the other causes which made it the duty of the Government to propose to Parliament a large increase of the navy. The House will understand that there are portions of that Report which it will not be my duty to submit to Parliament; but every part of it which relates to financial matters and the increase of expenditure in the Navy, it is my intention to lay on the table for the further information of the House. I shall therefore within a few days submit
52
to Parliament the Report of this confidential Committee, so far as the finances are concerned, together with the Reports of the Committees on the Steam Navy and Dockyards. I hope this statement will convince the House and my noble and gallant Friend that on the part of Her Majesty's Government there is no desire to evade the duty which rests on them to promote to the utmost judicious economy. Then my noble and gallant Friend talks of the extravagant expenditure of the shipbuilding department of the Admiralty. Now, I cannot help saying that, looking to the inevitable tendency of his speech, it is very much to be regretted that the noble and gallant Officer should make any statements to this House of such a nature without having gone into those statements in such a manner as to satisfy himself of their certain accuracy. Those statements were calculated to shake public confidence. Now, to shake public confidence unnecessarily is a great misfortune. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: NO, no!] If the noble and gallant Officer would listen to me he would not seriously dispute that assertion. To shake public confidence unnecessarily is a great public mistake and misfortune That is my proposition, and I think he will be willing to concede it. It is my firm belief—of course I speak under correction—that my noble and gallant Friend has not taken the pains that he ought to have done to verify his assertions, and that, perhaps from inability to obtain better information, his statements cannot in substance and in fact be borne out. The noble and gallant officer took a period of eleven years, and he lumped together a number of line-of-battle ships, a number of frigates and a number of corvettes, and then assumed the cost of each, taking the cost of the Duke of Wellington and the Agamemnon as the standard of cost for the whole.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETbegged to explain that he had taken the mean of the two classes of line-of-battle ships as the cost of a line-of-battle ship, and that he had estimated the frigates and corvettes in the same way.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Precisely; and my belief is that, in calculating in this way the noble Lord inevitably arrives at an erroneous conclusion. The other day I took three 50-gun frigates, of which the Shannon was one, built at three different periods of ten years. The first cost £5,000, the second £71,000, and the third between £90,000 and £100,000

53
This shows that in dealing with figures of the cost of shipbuilding it is very clangorous to take a mean. I believe that varying in cost as ships do according to their size and scantling, it is necessary to ascertain the cost ship by ship, and not to take so fallacious an estimate as the mean cost. The noble and gallant officer assumed the mean number of line-of-battle ships to be thirty. That was the number during the Russian war; but the number at that time was much greater than at any other, because after the war many were paid off. In a case where accuracy is essential it cannot he arrived at by assuming the number in this way. Then, my noble and gallant Friend arrived at the conclusion that the total cost of building ships during eleven years had been £6,000,000. The whole cost of building, converting, and maintaining ships, during eleven ye us, my noble and gallant Friend estimated at £13,000,000, or, with excess of stores and contingencies, £14,000,000. But has my hon. and gallant Friend in his calculation excluded machinery? [Lord C. PAGET: Yes.] If I rightly understand the noble Lord, although he may have excluded machinery in his estimate of £14,000,000, he has not deducted the cost of machinery from his estimate of stores. [Lord C. PAGET: I excluded machinery on both sides.] The noble Lord also went into a detailed statement of the cost of stores and the cost of labour and materials; bringing up the whole to £19,000,000, and then showing that there was a deficiency of £5,000,000. The noble Lord then told the House that this deficiency of £5,000,000 had been spent in reckless extravagance. If such a statement is not true—and I have the firmest belief that it is not true—or even if it cannot be substantiated, it ought never to have been made. I think that it is a very harsh charge, and that it does not rest on proof. I will not follow the noble Lord through the eleven years; but, as he told me the nature of the observations he intended to make, I thought it my duty to communicate with Sir Baldwin Walker, the Surveyor General of the Navy—[Lord C. PAGET: I said nothing against individuals]—and I hold in my hand some figures which do not travel over eleven years, but which accurately give the expenditure of the years between 1852–3 and 1857–8. I have here the cost of ship-building, converting ships, steam-machinery, repairing, fitting for sea, and in commission, troopships, yachts, tenders, &c, fitting for
54
steam ordinary, maintaining in ordinary, hulks, taking ships to pieces, and incidental expenses. The greatest items are shipbuilding, steam-machinery, and the third, the heaviest item of all, to which the noble and gallant Officer never alluded, is the labour devoted to fitting ships for sea, and the cost incurred upon them in commission. The aggregate for the six years is £12,286,517. The item for ship-building is £2,821,406. The cost of steam machinery is £3,423,023. The expenditure under the head "fitting for sea and commission," during these six years, was £3,825,922. So that the heaviest item of the whole my noble and gallant Friend took no account of, and this runs away with the greatest portion of the labour and outlay of our dockyards. The theory of our dockyard expenditure is, that you can launch every year three line of-battle-ships, three frigates, six sloops, and smaller vessels. The rest of dockyard labour is devoted to fitting ships and accidental expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) knows that during the time he held office at the Admiralty immense sums were spent upon these accidental expenses, to which the noble Lord hardly adverted at all. The noble Lord said that, in my speech on bringing forward the Navy Estimates, I attacked my predecessor, and omitted alt reference to the smaller vessels which he had constructed. I know that my noble and gallant Friend was prevented from being in his place on that occasion; but, if he had read what I said, he would have found that both accusations are unjust. I said,—
"It will be seen that during the time that that right hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Admiralty considerable additions of the smaller vessels were made, such as corvettes, sloops, and, above all, gun-boats. I am not sure whether the addition of gun-boats had not commenced in the time of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle; but our present gun-boats were chiefly added by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax, and I do not think a more valuable addition has ever been made to the navy than those gunboats."
I hope that, after reading that passage, the noble Lord will acknowledge that he was not justified in saying" that I had not done justice to my predecessor, and that I had not made reference to the small vessels. On the contrary, I fully admitted, whatever might be our position with regard to large vessels, our position with regard to small vessels was very satisfactory. I have endeavoured to follow the noble Lord

55
through his statement, and I hope that by the paper to which I have referred, and which I shall be happy to hand the noble Lord, and by the information which I have received from the Surveyor General, I have showed that, so far as the six years are concerned, there is no deficiency whatever. And in the same way I hope I shall be able to show that, instead of there being a balance of £5,000,000 unaccounted for, there is no balance whatever unaccounted for. Then, the noble Lord spoke of reckless expenditure. With respect to the San Fiorenzo frigate, I can make no answer, for I never heard of her before, and the noble Lord says she has gone to some better place. He has the advantage of me there. I really know nothing about her. However, of the Immortalité, I have heard. She was lengthened in the bows. I am not bound to defend everything done by the Admiralty during the last eleven years, or to explain any mistake in ship-building which the Department has at any time made; but this I may say, that the change in naval architecture in consequence of the introduction of steam-power has been very apparent of late years. It takes several years to complete a ship, and if the Surveyor of the Navy finds, in consequence of the more advanced state of science, that he can, while she is still in progress of construction, improve the sailing power of a vessel, alter its lines for the better, and give it finer bows, it is his duty to do so, and the duty of the Board of Admiralty to sanction the alteration. How is it that we have acquired our great naval superiority and reputation? Has it not been from the spirit and liberality with which at all times Parliament has voted whatever money has been necessary to effect and carry out these improvements? The noble Lord has made charges of a grave and painful application to those who have to bear them. I am not the man who has to bear them, and therefore I can speak impartially. The noble Lord has spoken of reckless extravagance. I believe that such a change is not just, and that the noble Lord will regret the language he has used. Those who are responsible for the efficiency of the British Navy ought not to be blamed for making changes rendered necessary by circumstances, and groundless fears, if excited, have only a tendency to paralyze the hands of those who are endeavouring to make our ships efficient, and to prevent them from carrying out improvements. Then comes the question whether the Motion of
56
the noble Lord will really cure the evil of which he complains. My deliberate opinion is, that it will not. The noble Lord says that if the form he prescribes were once adopted, there would no longer exist the power to indulge in all this expense. I do not believe that the adoption of that form would have the slightest effect whatever in preventing any such expenditure as the noble Lord has adverted to, if it were desirable that that expenditure should be made. Indeed, I should be sorry if the effect of the present Motion were to prevent any expenditure for the improvement of our ships. But my first objection to the Motion is, that it would only tend to delude the House. The noble Lord requires that on the commencement of the building of any ships we should give the names of the ships, the tonnage, and a great many other particulars, and the noble Lord says that thereby the House would know what at the end of each year would be accomplished. Now, I gave proof to the House, in my statement the other evening, that for ten years previously the plans of the Admiralty had never been carried out. And why? Not because there had not been a bonâ fide intention to carry them out, but because, on account of the exigencies of the public service, the labour had been diverted to other objects. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax will correct me if I am wrong, but I refer to the year 1855 or 1856, as affording a remarkable instance of this fact. At that period, in consequence of the pressure of the Russian war, the labour of the dockyards, instead of being devoted to the construction and preparation of line-of-battle ships and frigates, was devoted to the preparation of smaller vessels adapted to the peculiar nature of that war. The current year affords another remarkable instance of the same kind. Supposing I had come down with a form such as the noble Lord has suggested, to give the House a notice of what was to be done during the year. Why, no such programme as I could have produced would have been carried out. And why? Because in the month of August, owing to what we discovered with respect to the navies of other Powers, we diverted the labour of the dockyards from all the objects to which, under this form, they would have been devoted, and gave the whole strength to ships of the line. My opinion is that the House should look, not to a form, but to the responsible Naval Minister of the Crown in all such matters. That would

57
be a much better plan than tying down the hands of the Admiralty by such a form as that proposed. If there is to be a form of this kind, lot it be a retrospective one. Let it state what has been done during the year, not what it is intended to do in the year to come. I hope, then, the noble Lord will not press the adoption of this particular form. I think I should not promote the public service by accepting it, but I shall be happy to concur with the noble Lord in concerting the best mode of carrying out the object which we hold in common. My object has been to do justice to a Department of the public service to which I think the noble Lord, though unintentionally, has not acted impartially or justly. I believe he will find that the charge of reckless extravagance cannot be sustained—that it is, in fact, utterly unfounded. I hope I have been so far successful as to show the House that reckless expenditure cannot be fairly urged against that Department; and if the noble Lord will only look to this paper, to which I shall be willing to give publicity, I think he will agree with me that the charge falls to the ground.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he could not agree with the first Lord of the Admiralty that the speech of the noble Lord had done much to shake public confidence, on the contrary he thought it would establish public confidence. The right hon. Baronet suggested that the noble Lord, instead of moving the present Resolution should have made a Motion for the removal of Sir Baldwin Walker from the office of Surveyor of the Navy. He believed the noble Lord had no intention whatever of attacking Sir Baldwin Walker, but that officer must not be held responsible for what was done, for he had no power; he was not allowed to do what he pleased; the Admiralty decided what should be done. The Board of Admiralty was the source of the evil, and he (Sir C. Napier) thought that instead of the noble Lord moving for the dismissal of Sir Baldwin Walker, he ought to have moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the construction of the Admiralty. How was it possible that the naval department could be efficiently conducted when upon every change of Ministry the First Lord of the Admiralty, and generally all the other Lords, were replaced by new men? He believed this was the cause of all the waste and extravagance that existed. It was impossible with new Lords constantly
58
coming into office to have anything like harmony in the business of the department or economy in the expenditure, for every new First Lord came in with fresh crotchets and generally made changes turning everything topsy-turvy. Some doubt had been thrown upon the accuracy of the figures quoted by the noble Lord; but he (Sir C. Napier) found from papers in his possession that the cost of the Queen was £101,462 and his noble Friend bad stated that the cost of the Duke of Wellington was £125,000. When it was remembered that the Duke of Wellington was a much larger ship than the Queen, he thought it must be evident that his noble Friend's calculations were pretty accurate. In his opinion, the greatest evils arose from the constant changes at the Admiralty. It very rarely happened that the same Lords were in office for more than two or three years, and their successors brought with them new subordinates, whose notions were widely different from those of the officers who had preceded them. He complained of the system of altering and lengthening ships which had been partially completed. Such a system led to wasteful expenditure, and had been strongly condemned by Lord Auckland, who held that when a ship was begun they ought to finish her and any improvement should be tried on the next new ship. He could mention the ease of one ship whose magazines had been altered no less than nine times, and it was thus that the enormous expenditure complained of was incurred. He thought the noble Lord did not deserve the censure of the First Lord of the Admiralty, for he merely asked that before new estimates were proposed an account should be given by the First Lord of the outlay of the money previously voted. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had given such an account, but it was the first account of the kind that had been given in that House, and might have been very considerably extended. If the right hon. Gentleman remained in office—he (Sir C. Napier) did not mean to say he hoped he would, nor would he say he hoped he wouldn't—he thought he might get on tolerably well,—indeed, as well as could possibly be expected for one who knew nothing whatever about ship building or naval affairs in any way whatever. Unless, however, the present constitution of the Admiralty was entirely changed it would be impossible to avoid enormous and wasteful expenditure of the public money. He (Sir C. Napier)

59
believed that a great improvement would be effected if the principal officers of the navy, the Surveyor and the Superintendents of the Victualling Department, of Stores, and of the Medical Department, were permanent officers, with full authority, but responsible for the efficiency of their respective departments. He thought his noble Friend deserved the thanks of the House for the manner in which he had brought this subject before them, and, whether his suggestions were adopted by the Admiralty or not, his statement could not fail to produce some good effects.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he felt sure the House had listened with interest to the able statement of the noble Lord; but, whatever gratitude might be due to him, he thought the House would pause before expressing that gratitude to do justice to an absent man. It was all very well for the noble Lord to say that he attacked the system and not the men; but, having taken a period of eleven years, he contended that during that time there had been what he called a deficit of £5,000,000 in the expenditure of the Admiralty. Now, it so happened that during those eleven years, the only permanent officer of the Admiralty had been the Surveyor of the Navy, Sir Baldwin Walker, who must naturally think that this was an attack upon him. Sir Baldwin Walker had been created a baronet and a K.C.B. for his eminent services, and he would, no doubt, read with considerable astonishment to-morrow morning, that he was charged with having created in that Department, over which he had presided, in his (Mr. Osborne's) opinion, with so much credit and ability to himself, a deficiency of £5,000,000. He (Mr. Osborne) thought all who had listened to the noble Lord, however they might have been gratified by the lucidity of his statement, must have been astonished at the lame and impotent conclusion of his Motion. After maintaining that the system was so bad, so profligate, so rotten, that there had been a deficit of £5,000,000, for what did he ask? for a tabular statement of the ships built every year! If the noble Lord believed in the allegations he had made, he was hound not to stop there, but to call for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole administration of the Admiralty. If the Admiralty was so corrupt, and the Surveyor of the Navy so unfit to be trusted in the discharge of his duties, he repeated that the noble Lord was bound not to stop there, but to move for a Select Committee, before
60
whom an opportunity would be given of verifying the charges he had made, and to Sir Baldwin Walker of defending himself. He would not follow the noble and gallant Lord into his figures, but there was one matter as to which he would make a remark, as it showed that in one case, at any rate, his facts were liable to mislead. He spoke of a ship that was built on the same lines as the Pearl; but the noble and gallant Lord must know, though persons who were unacquainted with the subject, would not know, that it by no means followed that the ship was of the same size as the other, or of the same tonnage, because it was built on the same lines. The question was, was she of the same exact scantling? That was the only thing they could judge by. He (Mr. Osborne) merely rose in defence of Sir Baldwin Walker. The office of Surveyor of the Navy was a permanent one, and when the noble and gallant Admiral got up and said, "Let bygones be bygones," it might be very well to assume that there had been a deficit of £5,000,000; but the House of Commons would not be satisfied with a bare allegation like that. He (Mr. Osborne) said, in defence of Sir Baldwin Walker, and a former Board of Admiralty, the noble Lord was bound to prove his accusations. He (Mr. Osborne) having acted as Secretary to a Board of Admiralty, by whom it was asserted £5,000,000 had been unprofitably squandered, challenged the noble Lord to prove that allegation. It was totally impossible to answer off-hand a statement of figures made unexpectedly. He had not, for a moment, apprehended that such an indictment was to be preferred against Sir Baldwin Walker, or he would have been prepared to meet it. He suspected the noble Lord had made a mistake of something like £3,000,000; and that when the noble Lord presented himself before a Committee of that House, where ad captandum appeals would be inadmissible, and his figures would undergo a severe scrutiny, he would find that, instead of there being a deficiency of £5,000,000, his credit for accuracy would be materially impaired. He (Mr. Osborne) had said so much on behalf of an absent friend As for what was said about the total alteration that took place in the management of the naval yards, and the mode of constructing ships, he begged to inform the noble and gallant Lord and the House that Sir Baldwin Walker was not the man to hold such a position as that described—he was not the man to be made a tool or a

61
catspaw of, either by a First Lord or Secretary. He thought that, in justice to Sir Baldwin Walker, he ought to have been informed of these charges that were to be preferred against him, before they were brought forward, and then he would have had an opportunity of defending himself. There were, however, some points in which he himself felt inclined to agree with the noble and gallant Lord, namely, as to the old ships in ordinary, which amounted, in number, to about 500. He had always been of opinion, that it would be better to wipe them off the list altogether; they were a considerable expense, and were only a navy on paper, and deceived nobody. He thought that the suggestion made by an hon. Member the other night, was not a bad one—namely, to present some of these old two-deckers to our Australian colonies. They would serve to protect them, and it would be by far the cheapest way for us to deal with them in the end. As to the gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier), who had got on his old hobby for the reconstruction of the Admiralty, let him move for the Select Committee on the expenditure for the last eleven years, and he would see how the present system had worked.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he shared in the opinion which he believed was entertained by the House, that the object of his noble and gallant Friend was anything but to make an attack on the Surveyor or upon any absent man. If he understood his noble Friend he did not mean to attack the man but the system, and in this attempt to attack a system which he (Mr. Bentinck) had always maintained was founded on a most erroneous principle, he had earned the thanks of the House. Moreover, he (Mr. Bentinck) had not heard one word from his noble Friend which was capable of being construed into an attack upon the Surveyor of the Navy in particular, nor would it have occurred to him that his noble Friend had done so if it had not been suggested by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. Neither did he believe that his noble Friend meant to attack his right hon. Friend the First Lord, who, when he found himself in the position he now held, without a Channel fleet, and in the midst of circumstances of great difficulty, contrived to learn his lesson, and do his duty in a manner that reflected the greatest possible credit upon him for his ability in adapting himself to the situation, and acquiring a knowledge
62
of a trade of which previously he could have known nothing. The hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Osborne) said that the error he assumed in the noble Lord's figures was to the extent of £3,000,000. [Mr. OSBORNE: No.] He had so understood him. But he it what it might he had not heard from the First Lord any refutation of the statement of figures made by his noble and gallant Friend. He was inclined to think, however, that his noble Friend, though he had done good service on this occasion, had not taken the best course which circumstances would suggest, and that the proposition he had made would not meet the difficulties of the case, supply the information required, or tend to the attainment of the object he had in view. It had been truly said that the House of Commons was prepared to vote any sure of money for the defence of the country, and he believed that any man who would grudge money, well expended, for the naval defence of the country, must be either a madman or a traitor. But because he would not put into the mouths of such men an argument for objecting to the Navy Estimates, he would gladly co-operate with any hon. Member who might originate such a system as would satisfy the House and the country that the money voted was faithfully and judiciously expended in the public service. He was prepared to contend—and he begged it to be understood that he was not attacking men, but a system—that under the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty efficiency and economy were utterly impossible; that so long as the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty existed so long would the House hear annual appeals like that which had been made to them to-night by his noble Friend, and the only result would be that they would have a continuance of the same want of economy and efficiency that had characterized their naval arrangements for so many years past. He had asked many of the most eminent owners of private yards in the country this question: "Supposing you were to carry on your yards upon the system on which Her Majesty's Dockyards are conducted, what would be the result?" And the invariable answer had been, "If we were to approach that system with the Bank of England at our hack, we should be ruined in six months." From that opinion he had never yet heard any deviation, and he would undertake to say that if a Committee were appointed to inquire into this

63
question the gentlemen to whom he referred would probably be examined before that Committee, and he pledged himself that if a similar question were put to them they would, word for word, give the same answer. He was glad to see the late First Lord (Sir Charles Wood) in his place opposite. He remembered that when that right hon. Gentleman was called upon, at a time of great emergency, to construct a powerful fleet his efforts were attended with the most successful results, and at the close of the Russian war the country possessed one of the finest, if not the very finest, fleet that ever floated on the ocean. But what was the course then adopted by the right hon. Gentleman? He did that which his predecessors in office who were civilians, had always done, and which all his successors, so long as they were civilians and Members of this House, actively employed in the struggles of political life would continue to do, he lost sight of the nautical interests of the country, in order to adapt the position of the navy and its expenditure to the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and so reduced the most magnificent fleet which the country had ever possessed to so low a limit, that we were now in the very act of voting large sums of money to supply the deficiences created by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt the right hon. Baronet could give plausible reasons for the course he took; but the fact was that as long as political arrangements were more considered than the interests of the navy the same thing must occur. It came to this, in fact, that the Board of Admiralty was made nothing but a political jobbing office, and one of the temptations that were held out to distinguished men to become members of a Cabinet. He contended that the navy ought to be placed upon the same footing as the army, and that if they were to reverse the case, and proposed to place a civilian at the head of the army, the outcry raised in this House would be loud. He undertook to say that they might find 500 civilians who were tolerably competent to become commanders in chief of the army at the shortest notice, for one civilian who possessed the slightest fitness for the duties of First Lord of the Admiralty. In private affairs they selected for the head of a department a man whose antecedents, education, and acquirements best fitted him to discharge the duties of the office. What was the case with the Board of Admiralty? They selected men to pre-
64
side over it without any reference whatever to their antecedents, and without asking them if they knew a line-of-battle ship from a jollyboat, or were acquainted with the views and opinions of naval men. All they asked was, "Will this gentleman acquiesce in the arrangements that are necessary to compose the Cabinet?" and if he consented, they at once stuck him at the head of the Admiralty. But was that the way in which the most important arm of the country was to be dealt with? He repeated, if they must have such a system in operation anywhere, monstrous and absurd as it was, in the name of common sense do not let it be in the navy. Transpose it; he should infinitely prefer seeing it practised in the army rather than in the navy; and if any hon. Gentleman would propose that the system should be reversed for the future, and that a naval man should be placed at the head of the navy, and a civilian at the head of the army, he should be glad to second a Motion of the sort. It was said that naval men were too prejudiced, or entertained too strong professional notions, to be fitted for the chief control of that department; but that was a suggestion which he could hardly adopt, and he could not agree that it was better to select men who knew nothing at all of the subject with which they were called upon to deal. Then, again, it was sometimes said that it was necessary to have at the head of the Admiralty men of enlarged ideas and political influence, and that civilian First Lords were guided in circumstances of difficulty by the advice of the naval Lords. What was the result of that system? The civil First Lord could do nothing of himself, for the simple reason that he knew nothing, except as he was primed; that the naval Lords at the Board of Admiralty, who were said to be unfitted for the post of First Lord, actually pulled the strings, did the duty of the First Lord, and instructed him what he was to do and say when he came down to this House, whilst the responsibility for all that was done rested not upon their shoulders, but upon those of the First Lord himself. It was his strong conviction, then, that so long as the present system continued it would be perfectly impossible that either efficiency or economy could be secured in the Department of the Admiralty. He believed that the maintenance of an efficient navy involved the very existence of the country, and no man was more willing than he was to vote all that might be required

65
to secure that object; but seeing that the demands on the public purse must henceforth be very large, and feeling the necessity which existed for scrutinising the expenditure, he was prepared to support any investigation or inquiry which would tend to prevent the possibility of a mal-expenditure of one shilling for the service of the navy.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that no blame could be attributed to the noble and gallant Lord for having brought the subject forward, but he thought that his Motion was very little calculated to remedy the evils which he thought existed, because the Return asked for would be hardly worth the paper on which it was written. Why did not the noble Lord go to the real way of doing business and move for a Committee, in which the noble Lord's figures might be fairly tested? Nobody could follow the noble Lord's figures as they were delivered; but why not have a Committee and see if they were correct? Probably it would be found there that the noble Lord was a better sailor than calculator, and that he had omitted a great many items which ought to be taken into account. His (Sir Francis Baring's) impression, however, was, that an inquiry into our increased naval expenditure was advisable; and he was sorry that the House allowed such statements as had just been made to pass without an inquiry. An hon. Friend had defended Sir Baldwin Walker. Now-a-days nobody was attacked. If any jobbery or wasteful expenditure were pointed out, it was always "the system," not any individual, that was attacked. But he knew Sir Baldwin Walker well enough to feel that the speech of the noble Lord would give him great pain—for everybody knew that the actual responsibility was in his bands—and that he would look anxiously for au opportunity of meeting statements which, though no personal attack was made, must in a great measure affect him. He (Sir Francis Baring) would again press the House not to be content with these vague accusations, but to go to work like men of business, and examine into the general expenditure of the navy. He was quite sure that good would come from such an investigation; the Admiralty, like other folk, were liable to mistakes; and these revisions of the establishment were from time to time extremely valuable.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLthought the Motion of the noble Lord would be attended with the good effect of bringing about
66
an inquiry. He hoped his noble and gallant Friend would push his inquiries till a conclusion had been arrived at. As to Sir Baldwin Walker, he was sure his noble and gallant Friend meant no attack on him. There never was a more able, a more amiable, and a more excellent public servant than that gallant officer.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that if the noble Lord had moved for a Committee he would have supported him, for he thought that inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty was much needed. That a civilian should be First Lord of the Admiralty seemed to him as great an anomaly as if an Admiral were put into the Court of Common Pleas. As to the reconstruction of the navy, he did not think the Return asked for by the noble Lord would help to effect that object. He should recommend an examination of the American mode of dealing with their navy, for he thought there many points which might be advantageously adopted by us. What he blamed the Admiralty for was, that at the time when steam was first introduced they had not caused the whole subject of naval architecture to be thoroughly investigated, and had not pointed out to the country that the then existing navy would soon be utterly useless. He was convinced that, had a proper investigation taken place at that time, large sums of money would have been saved to the country. Even now we had not arrived at anything like perfection. Perhaps our 90 gun ships were as near the mark as it was possible to be; but the question yet to be determined was, whether they could maintain their stations during the winter off a given point. There were many similar questions which ought to be investigated by a Committee. The noble Lord opposite in bringing forward the subject that evening, had, he believed, no intention of making any personal allusions; but he was nevertheless of opinion, from the turn which the debate had taken, that it was absolutely necessary the inquiry should be pursued further, and that a Committee should with that view be appointed. With respect to our frigates, of which mention had been made in the course of the discussion, he could only say that he looked upon them as being unequal to the expectations form-ed of them; the same class of American vessels he understood to excel them in mint of stability. In support of that opinion, he might observe that he had a Few days before seen a letter which had

67
been received from Greytown, in which the writer stated that having little or nothing to do he and his friends amused themselves in looking at the Diadem rolling. Now, if such a vessel as the Diadem, which was one of the handsomest ships in the navy, could be spoken of in that way, was it not fair, he would ask, to suppose that there were others still more open to objection upon the score of being ill fitted to encounter bad weather? As to the gun-boats which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty seemed to think the most efficient class of ships in the navy—[Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I said they were very valuable vessels]—he must pronounce them the most miserable specimens of naval architecture which were ever constructed for sea-going purposes, though, no doubt, they had answered the purpose for which they were constructed. The justice of that opinion it would be easy to ascertain, if a return, setting forth the length of time occupied by some of those gun-boats in their passage to China, were laid upon the table of the House. In one instance the time so occupied was, he believed, eleven months, while none of them, he was informed, had reached India in less than six months. He understood, also, that one of their number was thirteen days off the Cape of Good Hope, running before a gale of wind, no victuals during that period having been cooked on board, so that her crew were obliged to eat raw meat. He heard that some of those vessels were to be despatched to Vancouver's Island, but how such creatures were to get round Cape Horn, he, for one, could not make out. All he could say was, that he should be very sorry to be on board one of them if they were to make the voyage in the winter time, for he deemed them to be thoroughly inefficient as foreign-going craft. In stating his opinion thus candidly he did not seek to cast blame upon the shoulders of any person or party in particular, but he could not refrain from expressing his conviction that a great deal of the money which had been laid out upon our navy had been misapplied. As a single illustration of such misapplication he might mention the case of the Sanspareil, which had come under his own observation. She was built on the lines of one of the finest line-of-battle ships we had ever succeeded in taking from the French, but having been so built she had been changed into a screw. Long 32-pounders had been placed upon
68
her main dock; 8-inch guns on her lower deck, a 96 cwt. gun on her forecastle; an engine of 400 tons between her main and mizen masts; the result of the alteration having been that she looked more like a sand-barge than a man-of-war, and on her way out to Lisbon rolled to such a pitch, that she was only righted by being struck by the sea. At one time she was over forty-seven degrees. It was into transactions of that description that inquiry ought to be instituted. Such an investigation might lead to some result, but inasmuch as that was not the course which it was proposed to take, and as he did not think the Motion of the noble Lord was calculated to be of any practical operation he could not support it.
MR. MILNER GIBSONrose for the purpose of observing that if they were to have a Committee upon the naval expenditure of the country—which he thought was generally assented to by the House—it appeared to him that whether the Estimates should be presented to the House in this particular form would be a very fair subject for the Committee to inquire into and report upon. That was a matter which should come from the Committee rather than that the House should lay down any particular form. He would, therefore, respectfully suggest to his noble Friend not to press his Motion to a division, but rather to substitute for it a Resolution to the effect that a Committee should be appointed to examine into our naval expenditure, as proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring). He must, however, observe that he had felt rather taken at the first blush by the proposal for a Return, for it appeared to him but reasonable to suppose that if those connected with our naval departments were required to submit beforehand a statement of the amount of expenditure which they contemplated making for any particular purpose, they would be much more likely to deliberate upon the undertaking duly, than when they had merely to receive the money and lay it out without question. As in the case of erecting barracks, so in the case of shipbuilding—the necessity of furnishing such a statement might operate as a practical check on unnecessary expenditure. For his own part, he never heard that Mr. Cunard, or any of our other great steamship proprietors were continually making alterations in their vessels, such as was constantly being done by the Board of Admiralty. He believed, however, the expe-

69
diency of framing such a formal naval Estimate as was proposed would be best decided upon by a Committee of the House of Commons on naval expenditure. Having stated that to be his opinion, he might be allowed to allude to the observations which had fallen from the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to the comparison which he had drawn upon a former occasion between the English and French navies. Now, he had read with great care the speech in which that comparison was made; and having done so, he could not help arriving at the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman had underrated the strength of our own navy while he had exaggerated the efficiency of that of France. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to him, indeed, to have instituted a comparison rather between a particular class of ships in the two countries than between the aggregate of the steam naval force of both, and he regretted that a more complete account of our relative positions in that respect had not been laid before Parliament. He should next advert for a moment to those 500 sailing ships, of which it seemed no use whatever was to be made, and which were permitted to block up the river Med-way and the upper part of Portsmouth harbour, to the great annoyance of those who were connected with the merchant shipping of the country, and to the obstruction of our navigation. Of course, if it were necessary for the public service that those vessels should be thus maintained, the inconvenience must be borne; but as he understood all idea of converting them to any useful purpose had been abandoned, he should like to know from the Secretary for the Admiralty whether any plan had been formed for disposing of them? Some time ago Baron Dupin made a report upon naval affairs to the French Chambers, in which he alluded to a "formidable armament" which England was creating under the "inoffensive name of steam coast guardships," and represented it as an absolute necessity that France should complete an armament of the same kind—the armament referred to, which had excited such apprehension, being nothing else than these very block-ships to which he (Mr. M. Gibson) had alluded. He believed that the vessels which had been built by the French in imitation of those block-ships had been included in the Estimate given by the First Lord of the Admiralty of the steam navy of France. ["No, no!"] He believed that it was so; but he only mentioned the circumstance to
70
show how apt we were to exaggerate the forces of other nations. He suggested that the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich should withdraw his Motion, and move the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry instead.
LORD JOHN HAYsaid, he would not have trespassed upon the House but for the statements made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone). That hon. Member had made an attack on the gun-boats; now he knew something about them, and he begged to observe that they were a class of vessels that had rendered the greatest service during the Russian war. They were not built to go long distances, and when the hon. Member talked of the time they had taken to go to China, he thought it was highly creditable to them that so many had gone to the other side of the world without an accident. If any of the crews did not cook on their voyage out, it must certainly have been from their preference for raw meat, because he could testify that the gun-boats had every facility for cooking, the same as other ships. He spoke with the more confidence because a considerable number had been placed under his direction to test their merits, and though he did not mean to say that they could contend with an enemy on the open sea, yet they would do good service in protecting our commerce and putting down piracy in various parts of the world. With regard to the Motion, before the House, he thought it would he better to have a Committee of Inquiry; but he believed that the noble Lord had greatly overstated the case. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had recommended them to adopt the system of the United States, where the plans of vessels were submitted to a Committee of Congress; but the results of that system were as bad as possible. They had no doubt heard a great deal about the magnificent American navy, and the vessels of that country went, he might say, "swaggering" over the world and creating a great deal of fuss; but a close inspection of those vessels did nut bear out what was said of them. He supposed there was not a Member in the House that had not heard of the extraordinary powers of the Merrimac. Well, he had gone on board that vessel, and he found, in the first place, that she could not carry all her guns. Next, though she was very long in the how, which was a shape much in fashion at present, and all the advantages which American vessels

71
were supposed to possess, she could only go seven miles and a half under steam in the most favourable circumstances. Then she certainly carried very heavy guns; but he observed no signs of their having ever been cast loose. Then she could only carry coal for a few days—every hole and corner was stuffed with coal bags in the case of a long voyage. So much for the Merrimac. There was another vessel much talked of, the Wabash; but it was admitted now that she was an extremely slow sailer. Then there was the Niagara, but he thought the House would do well to pause before they adopted her for a model. She could not steam any faster than our own vessels, and though she was of 5,000 tons burden she only carried twelve guns. These were not results to tempt this country to imitate the system of the United States. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had spoken of the Diadem rolling off Greytown; but it must be remembered that there were heavier rollers in that neighbourhood than in almost any part of the world; and, therefore, it was no proof, because a vessel rolled there, that she would do so in other places. He thought that the noble Lord had rather exaggerated the estimated expense of building, and he joined in the suggestion that it would be better to appoint a Committee than to agree to the Resolution before the House.
SIR JAMES ELPH1NST0NEwould say one word in explanation. The reason why the crew of the gun-boat to which he alluded ate raw meat was, that they could not cook because they were obliged for twelve days to scud before a gale of wind.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that instead of the Motion of his noble Friend the Member for Sandwich doing injury to the navy, he who exposed what he considered to be its abuses or shortcomings rendered a service both to the public and to the navy. His noble Friend had investigated the subject with great labour and great industry through a period of eleven years, and he found, to his great regret, that there was a deficiency of no less than £5,000,000. In point of fact the right hon. Baronet the First Lord had admitted some days ago the substance of what the noble Lord had now stated. The right hon. Baronet was aware of the figures which his noble Friend had stated, and he had armed himself on the present occasion with statements from the Surveyor of the Navy in explanation. That statement in effect confirmed what his noble Friend had said as to the large
72
expenditure incurred. The hon. Member for Dovor had stated that his noble Friend had in his comparison of the Pearl not made allowance for the difference of the scantling. But scantling was determined by the tonnage of the ship, and his noble Friend had shown that a vessel of the same tonnage and scantling as the Pearl built in a private yard cost considerably less than a similar vessel built in a Government yard. He suggested that his noble Friend should withdraw his Motion, and substitute one for the appointment of a Committee to inquire—not into the administration of the navy, because that was far too comprehensive a subject for one Committee to deal with—but into the expenditure incurred in the construction of Her Majesty's ships. He much doubted the policy of these conversions and lengthenings and rebuildings of vessels which the right hon. Baronet had stated were taking place. He would suggest that it was worthy of inquiry whether it would not be more advantageous to dispose of those ships for what they would fetch and build new ones in their stead. He believed that £7,000,000 properly applied would go as far as £10,000,000 now went in building our ships of war and in our naval expenditure generally. There was a strong opinion abroad that there was a very unnecessary expenditure in our public Departments, especially in the navy, and that was another reason why he thought that some such inquiry as had been suggested was necessary. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would not object to the appointment of a Select Committee.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: I am as willing, as others have been, to bear testimony to the ability as well as the calm and moderate tone with which the noble Lord has brought forward his Motion. I quite acquit him and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken of any intention of intending to make an attack on the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) or myself, or any of the other gentlemen who were my predecessors in the office of First Lord of the Admiralty during the last eleven years. The noble Lord says, that only the system is assailed; but that does not prevent some of the statements that have been made from being a most painful attack on Sir Baldwin Walker, one of the most valuable and efficient officers ever employed by the Board of Admiralty. I am rejoiced to find that this attack has elicited such a general expression of opin-

73
ion of his services which is as just as it is called for. It is perfectly true that the Admiralty is responsible for the orders it gives as to the building and alteration of ships of war. But the Surveyor of the Navy is the responsible adviser of the Admiralty on the form and construction of those ships, and many of them have been loudly condemned by the noble Lord; and the inference is that if the Surveyor of the Navy has advised so imperfectly, he is unworthy of the position he holds. Now, the character and ability of Sir Baldwin Walker are known, not only to those under whom he has served, but even to those unconnected with the Admiralty; and I will quote to the House a very short testimony to the merits of that officer from one very competent to form an opinion. It is a portion of a paper read before the Society of Arts, and I cannot better express my sense of the services of Sir Baldwin Walker than in the words of the passage which states that "the ships of Sir Baldwin Walker are the embodiment of all the soundest principles and improvements essential to vessels of war." The noble Lord says it is an error to alter the construction of any ship after it has been laid down; other hon. Gentlemen have made the same assertion. What is it they would do? It is well known that the science of naval construction advances rapidly, and calls into existence many changes and improvements. Even while a ship is in course of construction improvements are discovered which it is necessary to adopt—such, for instance, as finer lines, or increased sharpness of the bow; or, a vessel laid down as a sailing ship is to be converted into a steamer. A more extravagant mode of employing the public money, or a system more fatal to the efficiency of the navy, I cannot well imagine, than to bind yourselves to complete a ship, although she has been laid down on bad lines, but might be easily improved at a small expense. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) did not bear testimony more strongly to the merits of Sir Baldwin Walker; he said he was not bound to be the champion of the Surveyor of the Navy, or his predecessors. As to his predecessors, they can take care of themselves; but I must say, that a public servant in the position of the Surveyor of the Navy, when he is attacked in this House, has a right to be defended from those attacks by his official chief, who has a seat in this House, The
74
head of the Department is bound to defend those under him from such imputations. As to the amounts and sums of money cited by the noble lord (Lord C. Paget), it is quite impossible for us to follow him through such a mass of figures; even the First Lord of the Admiralty, with the advantage of having received a previous intimation of the sort of statement the noble Lord was about to make, said he was utterly unable to deal with them. Many suggestions might be made that would tend to show the noble Lord's figures to be inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman said, and said truly, that in matters of this kind any averages involve a great possibility of error. The noble Lord estimates the cost of wear and tear of our navy at 6 per cent on its cost, which in eleven years would amount to a sum total of £6,000,000. Suppose the rate to be 10 per cent instead of 6; or, as one hon. Gentleman estimated it, 15 per cent, He would then have to allow £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 on this account; and more than the whole sum which he says has been wasted would be accounted for by this simple change in the rate of wear and tear. In dealing with figures of this kind in such a general way it is impossible to know whether they are trustworthy or not; yet on their perfect accuracy rests the whole assertion that there has been wasteful expenditure in the construction of the navy. I am not called on now to go into the question of the expense of building our vessels of war; it is quite enough at present to show there is a possibility of inaccuracy in the figures assumed, sufficient altogether to impeach the authority on which the noble Lord makes his charge of extravagant expenditure. With regard to the Motion itself, there appears to be a general opinion that no good end would be obtained by affirming it. If the Return the noble Lord wishes to see were made out and laid before the House, it would only be of the nature of a programme of what ships are to be built in the year; and that scheme would probably not be carried out. When the First Lord of the Admiralty has been a little longer in office he will find out what all his predecessors have discovered, that the amount of work to be done in the course of a year is always over-estimated. In the course of twenty years I do not believe any programme laid down by the Department at the beginning of a year has ever been adhered to. If hon. Members suppose that such a paper would

75
give them any idea of what was likely to be done in any year they are entirely mistaken. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) has stated that in the year 1846 I improperly reduced the navy in compliance with the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that in consequence of that proceeding we now have to incur the great expense of reconstructing the navy; and a few nights ago the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty made observations which seriously impugned the character of the Board over which I had the honour to preside, as having neglected the building of certain classes of ships, and thereby subjected this country to the humiliation of being inferior to her neighbours in those classes of vessels, and exposed our coasts to great danger. It is true that at the same time the right hon. Baronet disclaimed any intention of making an attack upon his predecessors. Such, however, is not the construction which any one will put on the language he employed. That statement was one for which, from what had previously fallen from the right hon. Baronet, I was so little prepared that I had with me no papers which would enable me to meet it; and I have been looking forward with some anxiety to our going into Committee upon the Navy Estimates, in order that I might have an opportunity of vindicating the Board with which I was connected from so serious and so grave an imputation. I entertain no doubt whatever of being able to satisfy the House that we did not neglect our duty, but that we were alive to the necessity of increasing the number of ships of a large class, and had provided means of effecting such additions to our naval forces. It would, however, be impossible for me to enter upon such a discussion at this hour (ten minutes before eleven o'clock), and in the course of a debate raised upon a different subject. I shall, therefore, not refer further to the statements of the hon. Member for West Norfolk and the right hon. Baronet than to say that they are not justified by the facts, and that I hope to be able, when the proper time comes, to satisfy the House that the coasts of this country were not, when I left the Admiralty, in any danger from a deficiency of ships of the larger class, quite independently of that number of small vessels to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) alluded, in which our superiority is manifest, undoubted, and unquestioned, and
76
which, in connection with the ships of the larger class, constitute a means of defence as large or larger than any that this country has for many years possessed.
MR. CORRYsaid, he regretted to learn from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had been understood not to have defended Sir Baldwin Walker against the attacks of the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich in the speech with which he introduced this Motion. He (Mr. Corry), on the contrary, had understood his right hon. Friend to have made such a defence, and to have denied that any extravagance had taken place under the management of Sir Baldwin Walker. For himself, for his right hon. Friend, and for every Member of the Board of Admiralty he could say that they entertained the highest opinion of Sir Baldwin Walker who was a most able and efficient officer, and a man of the highest integrity. The right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) had stated that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had under-estimated the English steam navy, and had over-estimated the steam navy of France; but he (Mr. Corry) could undertake to state from authentic documents, to which the First Lord of the Admiralty had adverted, and which had been produced before the Committee which had inquired into that subject, that the statement of his right hon. Friend was completely and literally correct. An hon. Member had asked what was the use of our old sailing ships, and he had to observe in reply that many of those ships could be converted into efficient steam vessels, and those which could not be so converted would be wanted to serve for training ships, hulks, harbour ships, and for a variety of other purposes. With reference to the statement that no less a sum than £5,000,000 could not be accounted for, he did not hesitate to say that there was not the slightest foundation for any such a charge. If the subject was fully entered into, it would be shown to the satisfaction of every reasonable man that every farthing of the money voted for the navy could be accounted for. In proof of this he quoted a return showing the sums which had been expended during the six years from 1852 to 1857, both inclusive. The return did not go far enough back to include the whole of the eleven years referred by the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich; but an account could easily be

77
prepared for the whole period. The whole amount expended during the six years on materials in the dockyards and in the purchase of timber, steam machinery, and stores of all sorts, was, omitting fractions, £20,000,000. Of that sum £3,130,000 was spent upon building and converting ships; £2,441,000 on the purchase of contract-built ships; £3,423,000 on the purchase of steam-engines; £2,867,000 on coals; the repairs of ships and bringing them forward for the steam reserve, of which the noble Lord took not the slightest notice, cost £668,000; maintaining the ordinary harbour ships and hulks, £447,000; establishments, namely, salaries of officers, &c., £624,000; fitting ships for sea, including wear and tear, £4,616,000. These items accounted for the whole sum of £20,000,000, with the exception of £2,218,000, which he suspected his noble Friend bad entirely overlooked, and which was expended in the general service of the yards, and was accounted for in what was technically called No. 88 return. That was for only six years, and the expenditure on that account for the whole eleven years, which the noble Lord had included in his statement would, along with the expenditure on the steam reserve, account for the whole of the £5,000,000, which the noble Lord said he could not find. He therefore denied that any portion of the expenditure remained unaccounted for. Instead of 6 per cent., as the noble Lord had calculated, the wear and tear of ships, including machinery, hull, and rigging was 8½ percent. A 90 gun ship cost for wear and tear about £12,000 a year; a 50-gun frigate, £10,000 a year; a 30-gun ship, £6,800 a year; and a corvette, £4,600. The noble Lord had stated, that ships cost much less to build in a merchant's yard than in Her Majesty's dockyards. That was, to some extent, true, but then the work in the dockyards was very much better done, and there was, at least, the money's worth in greater strength and durability. The cost per ton of a sloop of war built in the dockyards was £25 13 s., while the cost of a corvette built in a private yard on the Thames some years ago was £23 10 s., and at this moment there were several corvettes being built in private yards for foreign Governments at £25. The noble Lord maintained that the Admiralty could not build ships, and in the course of last year he sent in a design for a frigate which was to do everything that the Ad-
78
miralty ships, according to him, could not do. This design was referred to the Surveyor of the Navy, and he (Mr. Corry) would read an extract from his report respecting it:—
"From the above estimate, it appears that the displacement is too small by 615 tons. Hence the ship would be immersed two feet beyond the draught of water given, and the greatest transverse section would be increased from 645 square feet to 720; and that when all the guns, as was intended, were fought on one side, the inclination of the ship would leave only seven feet three inches for the height of the mid-ship port in smooth water, and that to carry, as proposed, 1,000 tons of coals, it would be necessary to stow COO tons on the lower deck."
So much easier it was to find fault than to suggest any real improvement. If hon. Gentlemen had the duty of weighing arguments for and against adopting particular courses, between which the Admiralty had frequently to choose, they would be ready to make more allowance for mistakes even if they sometimes happened. The hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing a hope that the noble Lord would not press his Motion.
LOUD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the estimate was drawn by a gentleman who had built a corvette for the Portuguese Government, which had beat all our ships of the same guns and with the same machinery.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I cannot but think that this question is not in a satisfactory position. There are two matters before the House—the Motion made by my noble Friend, and his statement with regard to the Motion. I do not think it would be satisfactory to the House, in the imperfect state of information in which it must always be about shipbuilding, to prescribe a particular form in which ships should be built or altered. On the other band, I do not think that it can be satisfactory to the House that the whole statement of my noble Friend, which he has evidently studied with great care, and which he makes on his own responsibility, should be entirely set aside. His statement, and that of the gallant Admiral, leave an impression on my mind that there ought to be some further inquiry. In 1818, 1828, 1838, 1848, we had Committees of Inquiry on naval and military expenditure; so that the course is not unusual, and these statements do call for some answer by way of inquiry. It is not fair to say that statements and motions of this kind are attacks

79
upon Sir Baldwin Walker. I have the greatest respect for that officer, and I am aware that he deserves the confidence which the Admiralty repose in him; but I should like to know whether he has unlimited discretion in ordering what vessels are to be built and how they are to be built, or whether the Admiralty ever interfere with him? When money has been voted by Parliament for a ship of 400 ton, is it in his power to increase it to 700 tons? If this House had voted a certain sum for the Foreign Office, it would be rather astonished to be told that the Commissioner of Works did not think it enough, and had ordered twice as much to be spent. If the increase is caused by the continual advance of scientific improvements, that may be some answer; but it is not satisfactory to the House that the Estimates should go on increasing as they have of late years, and that we should have no means of knowing whether the money has been properly expended. In saying so I do not wish to impute blame to any person. I have no doubt everything has been done for the benefit of the public service; but we ought to know whether due economy has been observed. My noble Friend put the wear and tear of vessels at 6 per cent, the right hon. Member for Halifax says it may be 10 per cent, and the Secretary for the Admiralty tells us it is 8½ per cent, with the machinery. But then, perhaps, the machinery requires 15 or 20 per cent for repairs; and therefore that is not an answer to the statement of my noble Friend. If an inquiry should be made I do not mean that it should take place in any inconvenient shape. I have no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty and my noble Friend could arrange the terms of it; but some inquiry appears to me to be necessary. I should be unwilling to vote for the Motion as it stands; but certainly I would rather do that than express myself contented to pass by all the statements which have been made by competent persons, who are themselves distinguished in the naval service, or to allow the House to go on spending enormous sums of money without asking whether it is properly expended or not. I still hope that the Government will agree, instead of forcing us to a division on the present occasion, to accede to an inquiry of some kind, which is so far from being unexampled, that it is without precedent that we should go on for more than ten years without an investigation into the administration of naval affairs.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government, as a general rule, have no objection to inquiry into any branch of public expenditure; but if a proposition of that kind is made, let it be so fairly, let it be brought forward with due notice, let us have time to consider so grave a proposal, and let us not be hurried into a Resolution to inquire into the expenditure of a great Department without being convinced that there are valid grounds for taking such a step. It is not our duty, nor would it be advantageous to the public interests, to accede to so important a proposition when made in an incidental and casual manner. But the Government have been inquiring. We have had three inquiries of a very laborious and minute character with respect to the expenditure of the navy, and my right hon. Friend the First Lord has offered to place the results of those investigations before the House. It would be better for the House to be in possession of the facts and statements which we are prepared to submit before they come to a resolution that more information is necessary. There has been an inquiry into the dockyards; there has been an inquiry into the expenditure upon steam machinery; and there has been a confidential inquiry into the general expenditure of the navy. All those inquiries have been, conducted by men of the greatest ability, whose devotion of time and intelligence has been eminently praiseworthy. The First Lord of the Admiralty has voluntarily offered to submit the results to the House; but before they have been so submitted, before the noble Lord had seen them, before he can judge whether there are any points on which additional information is desirable, before he has satisfied himself whether further investigation is necessary, he is surprised that the Government, without any notice whatever, should not at once agree to the appointment of another Committee of Inquiry into the general condition of the navy and the expenditure of that Department. I must say that the noble Lord is somewhat unreasonable. Let him avail himself, in the first place, of the offer which my right hon. Friend has made. It may be that he and the House will then find themselves in a position to form, from the most ample materials, an opinion upon the subject now under consideration. That opinion may be favourable or unfavourable, to the administration of the navy, but when there are materials in existence which the House does not possess, but which the

81
House will soon possess, surely it would not be premature for the Government on the present occasion to accede to the institution of a fresh inquiry into the general condition of the navy. I do not know what information the noble Lord may have received respecting the relations between Sir Baldwin Walker and the Board of Admiralty. I can only inform him that he is labouring under a complete misconception if he supposes that Sir Baldwin Walker is interfered with in any maner in the execution of his duty. Sir Baldwin Walker has the entire confidence of the Government, and there has been no interference whatever with his conduct of affairs, beyond being subject to that inquiry from us which was natural when so vast an expenditure was incurred, and when so great a responsibility attached to the Executive Government. I repeat that when the House has been put in possession of the results of the three inquiries which have already taken place it will then, in my opinion, be more competent than at present to decide whether further investigation is necessary or desirable.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he would not venture to enter upon the general question, raised by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) but would merely make a few observations on the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich. The House would recollect that the noble Lord had said that, after close inquiry, he could not account for the sum of £5,000,000 sterling in the accounts of our expenditure upon shipbuilding. He thought he (Mr. Baring) could satisfactorily account for at least a part of that sum amounting to £2,000,000. The noble Lord compared the expenditure upon shipbuilding, repairing and converting, with the receipts in Votes, numbers 8, 9, and 10. That comparison gave £14,000,000 for expenditure, and £17,000,000 for receipts. That made a difference of £3,000,000. Then the noble Lord added £2,000,000 for excesses under those Votes during the last eleven years. He (Mr. Baring) had taken the pains to examine the accounts, in order to investigate how far the noble Lord was justified in taking that excess into account. That excess did amount to £2,000,000, but when he turned to the expenditure of this excess, he found that it consisted, for the most part, of outlays for steam machinery, which, the House would recollect, had been expressly excluded by the noble Lord from his calculations; and of this £2,000,000, therefore, as far as he (Mr.
82
Baring) could judge, the noble Lord should have taken but £500,000, at the outside, as expended upon shipbuilding. But, further, the noble Lord, while he calculated the excesses, bad omitted to calculate the surpluses. The exact sum voted was not always expended. Some years there was an excess, and others, a surplus, and on these Votes there were surpluses to the amount of £780,000. The noble Lord had not only calculated £2,000,000 instead of £500,000, but he had omitted to place to the credit of the shipbuilding fund this surplus, amounting to £780,000. There was, therefore, in the calculations of the noble Lord an error amounting to about £2,200,000. He did not say that the remaining sum of £2,800,000 was not a sum that ought to be inquired into. He thought the House was indebted to an officer of the distinction of the noble Lord in bringing forward this subject; but as this omission occurred in one of the noble Lord's calculations, perhaps some others might not be so conclusive as the noble Lord seemed to think. Connected as he (Mr. Baring) had been with the late administration of the Admiralty, he looked forward to the result of this inquiry with the greatest confidence, knowing that the shipbuilding department of the service had been pre-sided over by an officer than whom no one-was more capable, or more deserving of the confidence of the House and the country.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he believed that if the debates in the House were compared with the Notice on the Paper, there would be found to be very little connection between the two. They had heard a great deal respecting the nature and the number of their ships, but all that had nothing to do with the question. This was a Motion for an inquiry into the mode of conducting business by the Admiralty; and the discussion about Sir Baldwin Walker had for two hours been treated as a personal question, although no one had attempted to take exception to the capacity, integrity, or honour of Sir Baldwin Walker; on the contrary, every one had admitted his ability and energy. The hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Osborne) had gallantly proposed a Committee of Inquiry, and the House was met with the statement that, as inquiries of a confidential nature were being made by the Admiralty, they ought to wait until the result of those inquiries was before them, and then the House, if they thought proper, might institute further inquiry. He did not think that was

83
the right way in which to treat the noble Lord. His was a substantive Motion. It was not pretended that it was impossible to furnish an estimate of the cost of each ship, by which the House might see how far the expenditure tallied with the Estimate. Netley Hospital was a case in point, because if there had not been an Estimate of the cost at £154,000, the House would never have known that it would cost £260,000. In all public works there ought to be an estimate laid before Parliament. Every mercantile establishment in the country which was engaged in the manufacture of all descriptions of machinery, knew the actual cost of each particular machine, and there was no reason why the Admiralty should not be prepared to give the same information. He bad often been ashamed of the manner in which the House had voted millions of money without knowledge of what they were voting, or how it was to be expended; and, if there were one department more than another which required super-vision it was the navy, because in that department there were facilities for making changes, such as they had heard to-night, of an extraordinary, complicated, and expensive character. He hoped that a Committee would before long be granted; but, meanwhile, he would accept this as an instalment. He should vote for the Committee when proposed, and he should now certainly vote for the Motion.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 97: Majority 20.
Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he trusted the right hon. First Lord of the Admiralty would not compel him to bring forward, at that late hour, the Motion of which he had given notice, that the Navy Estimates be referred to a Select Committee. He would move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion; but having voted the men and wages, he would now consent that the House should go into Committee to vote the Victuals.
MR. W. WILLIAMSconsented to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GILPINalso consented to postpone
84
to another Supply night the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the Destruction of the 26th Native Infantry.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Supply considered in Committee.
Mr. FITZROYin the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
£995,647, Victuals.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that as this Vote was one of those referred to in the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Manning the Navy, it might be desirable if the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty would state when it would be convenient for him to state the views of the Government generally on the recommendations contained in that Report.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that the Report of that Commission consisted of two separate parts. The Board of Admiralty had taken into consideration all the recommendations relating to improvements in the condition of the sailor which were comprised in the first part of the Report. He was happy to say that the Board of Admiralty approved of and had adopted every one of those recommendations, which they had considered seriatim; and he believed they would have the effect of improving the condition of the sailor, and facilitating the manning of the navy. It was the wish of the Admiralty, if they received the sanction of the Treasury, to carry out every one of those recommendations. But with regard to the second part of the Report of the Commission, which related to certain arrangements proposed for obtaining sailors from the mercantile marine, the evidence had not yet been received, and before the Government could make up their minds on so important a plan they should see that evidence.
MR. W. S. LINDSAYremarked, that the first part of the Report of the Commission recommended an expenditure of not less than £100,000 of money. There might be some hon. Members who thought that it was not necessary to incur that increased expenditure, and who believed, as he did, that we should find no difficulty in manning our navy in time of peace. It would be advisable to take the sense of the House upon that Question.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that the First Lord of the Admiralty seemed pleased that the ships lately commissioned had been manned so soon, but he must

85
remember, that they had been manned by drafts from other ships. He hoped he would issue an order at once to let the sailors know that they should have power to allot their money to their wives, and also that their pay should be received regularly.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the regulations would be promulgated as soon as all the details were settled.
MR. CARDWELLexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. Baronet. The Commissioners recommended that there should be an increased allowance for provisions to the extent of £42,000, and he wished to know whether the present Vote would be increased by that amount.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that the Board of Admiralty had sanctioned that recommendation, but it was impossible to carry it into effect without a detailed arrangement, which was being prepared at present.
MR. CARDWELLsupposed, then, there would be a supplemental Vote.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEwished to know when the Reports of the three Committees promised by the Government would be laid upon the table?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had not yet received the Report of the Committee on the dockyards. The others had been received, but had not yet been submitted to his Colleagues; but after that they should immediately be laid before the House.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported on Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS,

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  £1,222,383 8s. 9d., to make good deficiencies Grants for 1858–9.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce any measure in reference to the issue of public money.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he mentioned the other night that there were three Bills which had been prepared, and one of them referred to the subject alluded to.
  Vote agreed to; as was also one for the grant of £11,000,000 for Supply.
  (1.) Resolved—That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the deficiency in the Grants for the Service of the years ending the 31st day of March,] 858 and 1859, the sum of £1,222,383 8s. 9d. be granted, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  (2.) Resolved—That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £11,000,000 be granted, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  The House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

EAST INDIA LOAN BILL—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
LORD STANLEYproposed to fill up the blank in this clause with the sum of £7,000,000.
MR. CRAWFORDthought that some notice ought to be given of the way in which the Government intended to avail themselves of the powers created by this clause. The cause of the depressed state of Indian securities was owing to the fear of constantly increasing demands. He wished to know whether it was to be raised by one sum to be paid in instalments, or by sums to be raised at different periods?
LORD STANLEYthought that the matter ought to be left to the discretion of the Executive Government. All or nearly all of the sum was needed for the actual home expenses of the Indian Government. He could not be more definite on the subject.
Clause agreed to.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYinquired if it were necessary for the Secretary of State for India to apply to the House for leave every time he required a loan of money. When the Company was in existence it had to apply to Parliament for such power; but as the colonial Governments could of their own motion raise money, he wished to know if the Indian Government possessed an analogous power.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he had taken legal opinion upon the point, and was informed that the Government of India had succeeded to all the powers, responsibilities, and liabilities of the Company. The Secretary of State might raise what money he required without the sanction of Parliament, but only by a circuitous process.

87
The Government of India, in India, might, by its agents here, raise the money; but that, although within the letter, would be contrary to the spirit of the law.
MR. CRAWFORDinquired if the debentures under this act would rank pari passu with those under the Act of last Session?
SIR FITZROY KELLYreplied, that there would be no preference.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

COUNTY COURTS BILL

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WILSONasked what were the objects of the measure?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreplied that it was to repeal the 32nd clause of the County Court Act, which excepted the high bailiffs of Westminster and Southwark from its provisions. The two gentlemen who held those appointments were since dead, and it was therefore thought desirable to place those appointments on the same footing with those of the other high bailiffs.
  MR. AYRTONwould take that opportunity of calling the attention of Government to the treatment of County Court prisoners, who were treated in the same manner as criminals.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the question referred to a subject alien to the objects of the Bill, but yet one of serious importance. He had heard certain reports which bore out what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, and had asked for returns. Should he, when he obtained them, find that what had been stated was the case, he should loss no time in applying a remedy.
  Bill read 2°.
  House adjourned at a quarter before one o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Church Rate Relief.
3a Anniversary Days Observance, formerly Occasional Forms of Prayer.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  NOTICE OF MOTION WITHDRAWN.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, a Motion stands in my name on the paper for Monday next, for certain papers respecting proposed alterations in the constitution of the Ionian Islands, and I have to inform your Lordships that in consequence of a letter which I have received from the noble Earl at the head of the Government I do not intend to make that Motion. The noble Earl has stated to me so strongly that public inconvenience will result not merely from the production of these papers, but from any public discussion of the question, that, although my own judgment still remains unchanged, and although I still believe that a discussion of the principle and policy on which those proposed alterations were based would be attended with public advantage, still, in the face of the strong contrary opinion expressed by the noble Earl opposite, and supported by the opinion of the present and late High Commissioners of the Ionian Islands, I am not prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of persevering with my Motion.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I must ex-
  2
  press my sincere acknowledgments to the noble Earl for the very frank manner in which he has acquiesced in the suggestion I took the liberty of making to him; and I am the more indebted to him, because he has taken this course in opposition to his own judgment. I hope it is unnecessary for me to assure your Lordships that in offering that suggestion I was actuated by nothing but a sense of what was really for the interest of the public service. Since the noble Earl first placed his notice on the paper, I have been examining carefully the voluminous documents connected with, the recent history of the Ionian Islands, and while I felt that this discussion could not have been adequately conducted without a full knowledge of those voluminous documents, of the events which led to Mr. Gladstone's mission, and of the results which attended it, I found from an examination of those papers that it was almost impossible to give extracts from them, and equally impossible to lay the whole of the Correspondence before your Lordships, especially those parts relating to some of the proposed Resolutions, without producing a vast number of documents which would have involved recurrence to facts which had much better be buried in oblivion, and which, if revived, could but have cast considerable censure on some persons not here to explain or defend their proceedings. I took upon myself the liberty of requesting the noble Earl to forego the exercise of his own judgment in bringing forward this Motion;

  3
  but I assure your Lordships that I would not have taken that course if I had not been very strongly confirmed in my views by a conversation which I have had with Mr. Gladstone since his return, and also by the strong expression of Sir Henry Storks, who, in writing, has stated the great anxiety with which he looked to the probable effect of any discussion whatever in Parliament at the present moment on the minds of the Ionian people. I think I should not do justice to ray own opinion if I abstained from taking this opportunity of expressing my strong sense of the public spirit and patriotism which induced Mr. Gladstone, at great personal inconvenience, to undertake a very laborious, a very invidious, and a very thankless task, and to expose himself, as he naturally must, to much misrepresentation and misunderstanding. I think it right to take this opportunity of saying with regard to Mr. Gladstone that not only did he undertake that task at the request of a Government with which he had no political connection whatever, but that one condition attended the acceptance of the office, and that he made a sine qua non—namely, that beyond the payment of his actual expenses he should receive no remuneration in any shape or manner for his services. Mr. Gladstone's mission has had no positive results; but I cannot say that I regret it, for, although it has not led to any changes by legislation, whether desirable or not, it has had the effect of placing this country with regard to the Ionian Islands in a right position. It has shown to the Ionian Islands, to Europe, and to the world at large, that she is not the oppressor, but the protectress of those Islands, and that she is perfectly prepared to give them an ample measure of free institutions—larger, perhaps, than some persons think desirable, yet, at all events, so large as bonâ fide to constitute them that free and independent Republic, under the protectorate of this country, which was declared by the treaty assigning that protectorate. I have only again to return my thanks to the noble Earl for having acquiesced in the request which I ventured to make to him. I am sure in so doing he will best consult the public interests, and give great satisfaction to the present High Commissioner, whose position is one of considerable difficulty, and to whom in such a position it must be the wish of your Lordships to show every consideration and afford every moral support in your power.

THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether a Proclamation which appeared in The Times that morning, and which purported to be signed by "Alexander John Couza I., Prince"—not Hospodar—" of the United Principalities," was genuine or not? After the caution which the noble Earl gave their Lordships the other evening he should not now advert to the question of the election of Colonel Couza, and the possible doubt of its validity, nor to the question of the union of those Provinces. But as this proclamation distinctly declared that the gentleman who called himself Prince Alexander John I, was about to mount the throne by virtue of his election, and made no mention whatever of the necessity of his investiture by the Ottoman Porte, or of the suzerainty of that Power, which was distinctly and expressly proclaimed by all the great Powers at Paris in August last, he was justified in asking the noble Earl whether that proclamation was or was not genuine. For his own part, he believed that the absolute independence of those Provinces was an absolute impossibility. Unless they were under the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte they must naturally fall to Russia, and that result would hardly be satisfactory to this country, which lately embarked in a great war to maintain the existing territorial limits of that Power.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had had his attention drawn to the proclamation published in The Times, and apparently issuing from M. Couza. He had not seen it before, and he had not received it officially at the Foreign Office. Whether it was a genuine document or a forgery could signify very little at the present moment. The Porte, according to the convention signed last year, had called the Powers who signed that convention together to judge of certain events and acts which had taken place since the constitution which that convention established had been put in force: stating that certain acts of illegality, and acts contrary to the spirit of the convention, had taken place in the provinces, and it would be for the Congress to consider and decide the points laid before it by the Porte. He hoped the congress would be able to meet next week. It could not have met sooner, as the Turkish Ambassador had only just re-

  5
  ceived his instructions. Lord Cowley was expected to reach London on Sunday, and would be in Paris a day or two afterwards, and he believed there was nothing to prevent the Congress meeting to discuss these matters next week.

DEBTOR AND CREDITOR BILL.

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported according to Order.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there were some alterations made in the Bill, and also some clauses which he proposed to add. The alterations were merely intended to meet some minor objections which had been raised by some of his noble and learned Friends when the Bill passed through Committee. With regard to the clauses, they were of a penal nature, and referred to judgment debtors keeping out of the way to avoid judgment, and also to concealing their property. These he thought were necessary when the power of the creditor to imprison his debtor were taken away. There were also penal clauses as to vexatious losses and making false representations with regard to property. There was another clause in the Bill of some considerable importance. The clause in the Bankrupt Act which enabled a landlord to receive a twelvemonths' rent from a bankrupt's estate was proposed to be altered in the Bill to six months. That proposition, however, had been objected to; and when he came to consider that parties not subject to the bankrupt law—such as farmers—would now be subject to the law, he felt that he ought to omit the new clause, and allow landlords to receive the twelvemonths' rent under the Insolvent Act.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEwas of opinion that a case which had lately come before one of the Courts showed the necessity for a clause such as he had proposed in Committee, to guard against the fraudulent transfer of property by an insolvent to his wife or daughter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he believed the noble and learned Lord referred to a particular case, that of Mr. Stephens and the Eastern Banking Corporation; but, in that case, Mr. Stephens made the settlement on his marriage, and at that time was in good credit and circumstances, having no reason to suspect that he would ever be insolvent. Afterwards the trust money was dealt with in a way which amounted to a breach of trust, and on the insolvency of the bank the creditors
  6
  filed a bill for the purpose of making the trust property available in satisfaction of their debts. It was decided in the Court of Chancery that, although there had been an improper dealing with the trust money, it would not affect the original bond fides of the settlement. There were no grounds for impeaching the settlement, and the judgment of the Court of Chancery was, therefore, in favour of its validity. His noble and learned Friend founded his argument for the necessity of introducing a clause making settlements of that description penal on this case, but it did not apply, and he was not aware of any public grievance which rendered it desirable that such a clause should be introduced.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that cases might often occur in which such a provision would be desirable.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he should renew his Motion for the omission of certain clauses on the Third Reading.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS,in rising to propose a clause relative to the sequestrations of livings, said that if a young clergyman went into a living a little embarrassed in circumstances the expense of stamps upon his presentation, institution, and induction, and the outlay in furnishing his house frequently compelled him to borrow money. If he got into the hands of a common money-lender his fate was sealed; but if he went to a respectable office and obtained money on fair terms, what happened? He could not give a satisfactory security, and the office covered the risk by requiring him to insure his life. As these assurances were made for more than the whole sum advanced, it happened that, although every year the debt became less and less, yet the payment of the policy of insurance was a given quantity. It frequently occurred, too, that the office did not like to take the whole risk, and applied to another office to guarantee them the payment of the interest and of the premium on the policy. Each office required for its protection deeds of security, covenants, and the right of sequestration; and when the clergyman received his income he frequently found it inadequate to meet the demands thus made upon him. The result was his utter ruin. He had in the meanwhile become involved in debts with the tradesmen of his vicinity, and when the crash came—as come it must—the office stepped in and obtained the first sequestration. The whole tithe rent-charge was then taken into the hands of the sequestrator. The sequestration was

  7
  that of the particular debtor, and he took the whole of the tithe rent-charge for the extinguishment of his particular debt. The result was that all the honest tradesmen were excluded from the payment of their debts. A curate was appointed by the diocesan at a small salary to discharge the duties, and the great office swept away the rest. Some of the offices obtained a lease of the tithe, in order to insure a percentage for the collection of the tithe rent-charge. The lessees, after deducting their commission, paid the money to the sequestrator, he charged his commission, and in this way a sum amounting to 9 or 10 per cent was deducted for the mere receipt of the tithe rent-charge. The residue was paid to the registrar, who also took a certain allowance, and he paid the balance back to the very man who originally received it. As arrest for debt was not at present abolished, a clergyman who was in debt had no other resource but to leave the country, and his diocesan usually gave him a licence to reside abroad, where he lived the life of an outlaw, not daring to come home. If the present Bill passed, that clergyman could not be prevented from coming into his parish and performing his duty. But in the meanwhile all the proceeds of the levy would still go to one creditor, to the exclusion of the rest, and of the incumbent. He should propose that after this Bill passed no clergyman should be enabled to charge his living in favour of one or more of his creditors. What he proposed was that so long as a clergyman's conduct had not rendered him unworthy of the pulpit his diocesan should be authorized to pay to him the same income as he was now by law authorized to assign to the curate who would otherwise perform the duty. The noble Lord concluded by moving the insertion of the following clause:—
  "The sequestrator shall allow out of the profits of the benefice or curacy to the insolvent, whilst he performs the duties of the parish or place, such an annual sum, payable quarterly, as the Bishop of the diocese in which the living is situated shall direct; and it shall be lawful for the Bishop to appoint to such insolvent such or the like stipend as by law he might have appointed to a curate duly licensed to serve such benefice in case the insolvent had been non-resident; and no sequestration, except under the last foregoing provision, for any debt of any clergyman or curate, shall issue; and every sequestrator appointed after the 11th day of October, 1859, shall hold the profits of the benefice or curacy, wholly discharged of any lease which the insolvent may have granted, or attempted to grant, of his tithe rent-charge."
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he did
  8
  not rise to offer any opposition to the clause proposed by the noble and learned Lord. He wished it, however, to be understood, on his own part and that of several of his right rev. Brethren whom he had consulted on the subject, that it appeared to them that somewhat of a wrong principle was involved in the noble and learned Lord's proposal. They thought the point to be regarded was the spiritual interest of the parishioners, and that that was not distinctly brought out as the object of giving the discretionary power in question to the Bishop of the diocese. He (the Bishop of London) felt as much as anyone the present miserable state of things; and he fully concurred in what the noble and learned Lord had said, that some legislative measure was required for the cure of this very great evil; but he hardly thought it wise to encourage the young clergy, whether they incurred liabilities either by the process described by the noble and learned Lord, or by any other process, to consider that they were not subject to the same responsibility in respect to their debts as all other people. The spiritual interest of the parish it was the bounden duty of the Legislature to guard, and he should be very glad if a remedy could be devised for the present unsatisfactory state of things. He should like to see a larger portion of the stipend assigned to the person who had to do the work of the parish. But he thought it would be a preferable course to the one now proposed, if the noble and learned Lord would bring in a Bill with a view to settle the whole question. Such a measure would receive his fullest concurrence.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his noble and learned Friend, by the clause which be proposed, was making use of his Bill for a totally different purpose to that for which it was really intended. He had never by his measure proposed to consider the effect of sequestration. The Bill was one for the alteration of the law of debtor and creditor, Under the present Bankruptcy Law, there was no provision for sequestration. A clergyman could not become a trader, and consequently could not be made a bankrupt; but he might become an insolvent, and his object was to leave the law as it at present stood. He had, in fact, transplanted the clause from the present Insolvency Act into his Bill, without alteration. He must guard his Bill from being diverted from its original objects by the introduction of the clause of his noble and learned Friend. He hoped, however,

  9
  that his noble and learned Friend would bring forward the question involved as a separate measure, when it should receive his most careful attention.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, when they authorized the sequestration to issue, it was his endeavour to provide for the proper application of the money in the hands of the sequestrator. His object was to pre-vent a clergyman from borrowing money on the credit of his preferment, and if he became insolvent to do for him what any honest man would do if he could—live, performing his duty on a diminished income, and apply the surplus amongst all his creditors equally. There was no weight in the objection of his noble and learned Friend. The sequestration clause was copied from 1 & 2 Vict., and properly admitted of the addition of his clause. How could this divert the Bill from its original object? There never was a Bill which altered existing law so much—it classed together bankrupts and insolvents, it rendered it optional to retain the official assignee, it rendered the future estates of insolvents free from the debts, and limited the right of the creditors against some of the present property of insolvents. Surely, then, a new appropriation of the tithe-rent charge of an insolvent clergyman amongst all his creditors might well find its place in this Bill. He could assure the right rev. Prelate that nothing could be further from his intention than to advise any step that was at all calculated to introduce into a cure any person that was not competent and acceptable for the performance of the spiritual duties of the place. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon his Amendment, if it were the intention of the Government to oppose it.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he did not pretend to know more about this matter than what had been stated, but it appeared to him that the stipend of an incumbent ought to be divided amongst men who were his honest creditors, if it were to be spent out of the parish at all. If his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) went to a division, be should support the clause.
  On Question "whether the said Clause shall be there inserted?"
  Contents 9; Not-Contents 18: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Saint Leonards, L. [Teller.]

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Teynham, L.

  London, Bp.

  Wynford, L. [Teller.]

  10

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Rosslyn, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Strathallan, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.))

  De Ross, L.

  Feversham, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Malmesbury, E

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Portarlington, E.

  Amendments made. Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

CHURCH RATE RELIEF BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHbegged to lay on the table a Bill to relieve certain persons from the payment of church rates. He could not now enter into the details of the measure, but would simply state that it proposed that persons who had already contributed to their own place of worship, should be allowed to make that a ground of exemption from contributing to church rates. A Bill had been brought into the other House of Parliament which it was hoped would have been considered a fair settlement of the question; but as that Bill had been rejected, he begged to be allowed to introduce this measure, the full details of which he would enter into on an early day.
  Bill to relieve certain Persons in England and Wales from the Payment of Church Rates, and to amend the Law relating to the Collection thereof, presented, and read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.