Sitting of 16 February 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Consolidated Fund (£407,649); Religious Worship.
2° Oxford University; Marriages (England and Ireland).

THE AMERICAN COASTING TRADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken upon the American Law of 1848, which confers exclusive privileges upon American vessels engaged in the trade between New York and California, either by Panama or by Cape Horn, and defines such to be a coasting voyage? Whether the exclusion of British and Foreign Ships from any participation in a coasting trade, so defined, is or is not a violation of the Treaties in force between this country and America, which stipulate for a reciprocal liberty of commerce; and, whether there is any objection to produce Copies of all Correspondence that has taken place between the British and American Governments upon this subject?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken generally whether the trade carried on between New York and California could properly be called a coasting trade, and their opinion was that they considered it was a coasting trade. With regard to the question whether the exclusion of British ships from that trade was a violation of the Treaties between this country and America, the American Government said they were prohibited from admitting our ships by the articles of their Constitution. They admitted the Treaties for equality of trade, but they said that by their Constitution, in the way they understood it, they could not grant the coasting trade to Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman would see
  1132
  that it was hardly possible to dispute with them as to the construction they gave to their own Constitution, but Her Majesty's Government had several times applied to the American Government to give Great Britain the same privileges which were granted to them, and especially that trade in which the cargo was unloaded, carried across the Isthmus of Panama, and shipped on board another vessel. It did not appear to the British Government that in any sense of the word that could be properly called a coasting trade. Lord Lyons had very recently brought the subject under the notice of the American Minister for Foreign Affairs, who replied that he would take the opinion of the Treasury about it. The hon. Gentleman would see that, as the correspondence was going on, it was impossible to give it at present. He had carefully considered the question as to whether it was a violation of treaties, and although it might not be a violation of treaties, at the same time it was a great disappointment after what the hon. Gentleman would recollect were the professions of the American Minister in this country in 1849, when we proposed to repeal the Navigation laws. Mr. Bancroft, who was then the American Minister, stated to Mr. Labouchere, the President of the Board of Trade, "If you are liberal, we shall be liberal; if you give much, we shall give much; if you give all, we shall give all." It was only just to say that the American Government did give equivalent advantages on passing the Navigation Act; but, although in 1854 we threw open the coasting trade, what had been done by them in that respect was still very unsatisfactory.

DRILLING IN SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid he wished to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Committee can authorize or encourage a system of military drilling in the Schools which have participated in the Education Grant?
MR. LOWEsaid, the hon. Gentleman was doubtless aware that the management of the Schools was not in the Committee of Council. There were Local Committees of management, and therefore it was impossible for the Committee of Council to take any direct step to authorize or encourage a system of military drilling in the schools. The question, then, was, could they take any indirect step? The hon. Gentleman must also be aware that what the Committee of Council did was to

1133
make grants in aid of schools on certain conditions, not strictly educational. He must confess that, in his opinion, however desirable it might be to extend drilling, it was not desirable to attempt to exercise authority upon a new subject, and to impose fresh conditions different from those on which the Committee of Council had hitherto dealt with the Committees of management. The business of the Council was education. In his opinion, they should confine themselves to that, and not be led aside in the promotion of any other object, however desirable it might be.

RUSSIA COMPANY'S DUES.—QUESTION.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has received any, and, if any, what communication from the Governor of the Russia Company, touching the levy of Dues by that Company?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, a communication had been received through the Board of Trade from the Governor of the Russia Company, to the effect that they would no longer levy dues on the import of goods into the United Kingdom.

THE ANNEXATION OF SAVOY WITH FRANCE.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish, Sir, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to state the nature of the communications which have passed between the Sardinian and British Governments with respect to the Cession of a portion of the Sardinian Territory to France; and, also, whether Her Majesty's Government have had occasion to communicate to the French Government the opinion entertained by other Powers on this subject; and whether, in the event of the annexation of Savoy to France being effected, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to abandon the neutrality of Switzerland, as guaranteed by Great Britain, in common with other European Powers?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, with regard to the nature of the communications which have passed between the Sardinian and British Governments, we have inquired of the, Sardinian Government whether there was any engagement or any intention to yield Savoy to France, and the answer has been generally that there was no engagement on the subject, and that Sardinia had no intention to cede Savoy to France. That is the general nature of the answer
1134
which has been given. We have not communicated to the French Government the opinion entertained by other Powers, because we have had no communications with other Powers to ascertain what their opinions may be. With regard to the last question of the hon. Baronet, "whether, in the event of the annexation of Savoy to France being effected, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to abandon the neutrality of Switzerland, as guaranteed by Great Britain, in common with other European Powers," I have to say that the Swiss Government have asked us whether, in case of such annexation, we are prepared to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland, and to provide in such a manner that the neutrality should in no way be injured, and we have always replied that we had determined to do so. It appears that the districts of Chablais and Faucigny more especially are guaranteed by the Treaty of Vienna in the same manner as Switzerland; that they are, in fact, part of the general arrangement for the guarantee of Switzerland. But it is stated, and with great truth, by the Sardinian Government, that it would hardly be an equivalent guarantee if those districts were to belong to France, instead of belonging to Sardinia, and accordingly their view is that in case of annexation those districts at least, if not further districts, should belong to Switzerland, and be guaranteed in the general guarantee of Switzerland. That appears to be a very fair proposal on the part of Sardinia. I was only afraid that with the prospect of aggrandizement Switzerland would favour annexation; at least, I was uneasy; but yesterday I received assurances from Berne that the Swiss Government wish things to remain as they are, and Savoy to remain part of the territory of Sardinia. As far as Switzerland and Sardinia are concerned, there is, I apprehend, no wish or intention that this annexation should take place.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, as the noble Lord has replied to the question of the hon. Baronet, he will, perhaps, permit me to ask him a further question on the same important subject, without which the information possessed by the House will be very incomplete. The noble Lord has informed the House that he is assured from Turin that the cession of Savoy was not contemplated by the Government of Piedmont, and would not be assented to. So far the information given by the noble Lord is satisfactory. The

1135
further question I wish to ask is, whehetr the noble Lord has been informed from Turin that a communication has been addressed to the Government of Piedmont on the part of the Emperor of the French, to the effect that if Central Italy is annexed to the Sardinian Kingdom, France cannot permit the French slopes of the Alps to remain in the possession of a Power whose position in Europe will be so materially altered by such an extension of territory.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I have received no information in the terms stated by the hon. Gentleman; but it has certainly, to my knowledge, been communicated to the Government of Turin that if the Kingdom of Sardinia were aggrandized to any very considerable extent by the annexation of Central Italy, France would think that her frontier was not secure without the annexation of at least some part of Savoy.

SARDINIA AND NAPLES.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, "Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Government of the Two Sicilies, complaining that agents of the Government of Sardinia have been trying to excite a mutiny in the Troops of the King of Naples?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, we have received no information of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, nor has the Government of the Two Sicilies made any complaint of the sort. At the same time, I should tell the noble Lord that that Government is not disinclined to make complaints. Not long ago I received a complaint that an English officer of marines, in paying a visit to a lady at Naples on her birthday, called in at a pastry cook's and bought a cake for her, which cake was said to have had on it three flags of different colours. The Government of the Two Sicilies complained of this as an attempt to excite an insurrection.

HERTFORDSHIRE MAGISTRATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the case of an agricultural labourer in Hertfordshire, who, having been pre-
  1136
  viously convicted for stealing rabbits, was said to have been sentenced by the Magistrates of that county to three years' penal servitude for stealing a few sticks from a fagot-stack; whether there is any truth in the statement; and whether, if it be true, the Home Office will consider it a proper case for interference?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the attention of the Home Office had been drawn to the matter, and a Report had been asked for from the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, which had not yet been received.

LORD ELGIN'S MISSION TO CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he rose to ask, Whether there is any truth in the Report that Lord Elgin is again to go out as a Plenipotentiary to China?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could not answer the question then. He had stated on Monday evening that when the next mail came in the Government would consider what course they should pursue, and he would take an early opportunity of stating their decision to the House.

THE FRENCH DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, although from the multifarious character of the Differential Duties in the French Tariff it was impossible he could lay them all on the table of the House, it is not in his power to lay a short statement of the Differential Duties referred to in the Third Article of the Treaty of Commerce before them?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONin reply said, that the Differential Duties referred to in the Third Article of the French Treaty were part of the Navigation Laws of France, which Were not intended to be touched by either of the contracting parties. There seemed to be some misunderstanding with respect to the Differential Duties. English ships entering French ports, and carrying the productions of the United Kingdom to France, would be subjected to no Differential Duties, which affected only the indirect trade that might hereafter spring up. In point of fact, the Differential Duties would be a protection to British trade, as it would secure it from competition on the part of American and other foreign shipping. He apprehended that he could give a satisfactory reply to the

  1137
  question by saying that a letter was written in 1855 by the Board of Trade to the Foreign Office, requesting the Foreign Office to make application to the Consuls in all the French ports to furnish the Government with the exact status quo as to those Differential Duties which differed in various ports, and the answers had since been received from the Consuls. If the noble Lord wished it, Government were prepared to lay the letters of the Board of Trade with the answers received from the Consuls, on the Table of the House, which would then be in possession of exact information of the Differential Duties affecting British shipping in all the ports of France.

MANNING THE NAVY.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he rose to move,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the recommendations of the Commissioners on Manning the Navy ought to be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government, with a view to carry out the principles of such recommendations."
  The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had publicly declared that France had the same number of ships that we had, and had extra means of manning them by having recourse to her reserves; but the English fleet could not be manned in that way. Such a declaration by a member of the Government was one of the most extraordinary declarations he had ever heard, and a great responsibility rested on the Government and on Parliament if they allowed things to remain as they were. He had often called the attention of the House to this subject, and he was glad to find that he had at last been so far listened to that we had a respectable and well-manned fleet at the present moment; but we lived in very odd times. France appeared to him, more particularly after what had passed that night, to occupy a very uncertain position with regard to Great Britain and other nations. All this might end peaceably; but as we were not sure that it would, the Government ought to take steps, let it cost what it would, to secure that we should be able to bring forward as great a naval force as France. Every man in the House, soldier, sailor, or civilian, knew perfectly well that things had taken a very different turn of late years from what they had done in former ones. No man could tell what would be the effect of the first naval action fought between France and England. We
  1138
  had great reliance on our sailors and officers, but the changes in other respects were so perfectly extraordinary, and had never yet been tried, that it was impossible for any one to tell what would be the effect of the first collision. In former days, when a British man-of-war fell in with a French man-of-war, the doom of the latter was fixed; and the same when a British fleet fell upon a French fleet. In the late war the action fought on the 1st of June by Lord Howe was a very severe action; it was fought well both by the French and ourselves. "We were conquerors; but that action was fought after the French Revolution, when the most distinguished officers had left the service, and the French ships were not manned so well as ours. That battle was gained; but no human being could tell what would be the result of the next naval action. At the first broadside a hole as large as a wheelbarrow would be made in a ship's side, and everybody knew that to prolong a contest under such circumstances would be utterly impossible. It had been repeatedly proved that nothing could resist molten iron, and that the ship so struck would be burnt. It was probable that in the first naval action which was fought, both fleets would be almost annihilated; and if, in that case, the French were able to bring forward another fleet, what would be the position of this country? It would be almost annihilated. Now the Government had stated by the mouth of one of their own officers that in the event of a reverse we were not in a position to send a second fleet to sea. It was plain from this that England did not put forward all the strength which she ought to do. A certain reserve, it was true, existed in the different ports of England; there were the Coastguard, which they had been recommended to increase to 12,000, but which had only been raised to 8,100, and the Coast Volunteers, the amount to be voted for which, but not the number of men, appeared in the Estimates. But he had heard that since 1857 or 1858 the same attention had not been paid to the drill of these volunteers as previously. Over and over again he had implored the Government to replace the block-ships by newly constructed men-of-war, and to take pains to increase the efficiency of this branch of the national defences. Last year he had brought the matter to a vote, and his Resolution was supported by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Some allowance

  1139
  was to be made at that time, for the Admiralty were then directing all their energies to the establishment of an efficient Channel fleet. Now, however, we had actually forty-eight sail of the line in the water, of which only twenty-seven were actually in commission. What was to hinder the Government from sending out a sufficient number of these, on board of which the Coast Volunteers could be draughted and in a short time trained into a high state of efficiency? No expense would be entailed by the step, for the ships were all ready in the different ports; and why the Admiralty should refuse to carry out the suggestion—unless they were actuated by the stubbornness which generally manifested itself when proposals were made by anybody else—he was at a loss to understand. Whatever was the cause, they were just in the same position as they were last year when he brought forward his Motion. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty admitted that seamen entertained great suspicion of the Board. He quite agreed with the seamen in their view. How could sailors place any confidence in that Board, when they saw the way in which affairs were administered? Some time ago the Admiralty found it necessary to call out what were called the long-pension men for temporary service; and those who had been petty officers were promised that they were to have the same ratings which they formerly held. But they were greatly disappointed to find that such was not the case, and they accordingly addressed an humble petition to the Admiralty. Sailors had exactly the same feelings as officers, and he would like to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he had retired from active service as a captain, how he would like to be sent back to do duty as a lieutenant. This was only one of many causes of dissatisfaction which he had known to exist. Another constant source of discontent was the regulations with regard to leave. Would it be believed that persons of sound sense could have issued an order, directing that whenever ships belonging to the Channel or any other squadrons came into port, and leave was given to the men, they were not to quit the port on pain of having their pay stopped as stragglers, and being otherwise punished? What were the men to do if their wives and families happened to live outside the port. This only came to his knowledge yesterday, and when he heard
  1140
  it he scarce believed it possible, after the dissatisfaction which had been manifested on board various ships, that such an order could have been issued by any Board. But he now came to the recommendations of the Manning Commission. It suggested that the number of seamen gunners should be increased; he had not heard that any such increase had taken place. The recommendation as to the improvement of; the food, clothes, and bedding, had been | carried out, and the reserve ships were in such a state that they were ready for the men to go into the moment they were commissioned. The allotments of pay, too, had been carried into effect; but what had the Admiralty been about that it had not been done sooner? He came now to the question of bounty, which was most important. He believed he had as much to do in getting the bounty for the seamen as any other man, and it was most successful in manning the fleet. The fleet was now manned; but was it prudent to reduce the bounty to £4? £10 might be too high a bounty after the fleet was manned, but certainly much more than £4 ought to be given. He now came to the important point of the reserves, and in regard to it he did not think that the Government had taken the proper steps to obtain success. They were now obliged to keep up a very large fleet. He did not mean to say that ten sail of the line was too large a force on the home station, but such a large fleet would not be necessary if they had a proper reserve. If they had a reserve of 5,000 men, giving £10 a piece to men who had served ten years, which was called the short pension, they would always have a body of men who would be as ready to be called on as if they were on board the fleet. But if they were obliged to raise 5,000 additional men on the moment for service on board the fleet, they would cost at a low estimate £250,000; whereas the reserve force of 5,000 men would not cost above £50,000. If £10 was not sufficient to get the men, they ought to increase it to £12, or to a still higher sum, so important was the object to be gained. The Commissioners recommend an increase of 5,000 marines, but that had only been carried out to the extent of 1,000. But he wished to ask of what use was it appointing a Commission if they did not carry out its recommendations? They also propose a body of 5,000 marines on short pensions; but where were they? With regard to the Royal Volunteers, the Commission put

  1141
  them down at 30,000; but it would be difficult to find out where they were, or the 10,000 Naval Coast Volunteers. That was the reserve force pointed out by the Commission, but that reserve force they had not got, and never would, He had pointed out before that it was not necessary to press men into the service, but it was necessary to get them out of the service as fast as they could. If men who had served their country ten years, or even five years, got a pension of £10 or £5, according to the length of their service, and were encouraged to go into the lie-serve, allowing three years' time there to count for two of effective service, it would contribute to the formation of an effective reserve. The Commission had decided that the Coast Volunteers should be entitled to all the advantages of Greenwich Hospital; but when the House read the Report of the Greenwich Hospital Commissioners, they would be astonished to see what "advantages" that hospital held out to seamen, and when they had seen the manner in which, from year to year, sailors' wives and children had been treated at Greenwich Hospital, they would be induced to come to the conclusion that that institution, instead of being a blessing, was almost a curse. He had laboured for years to have that Commission appointed, and he never read such horrible details as the evidence given before it exhibited in the whole course of his existence. He trusted, therefore, that the Government had some better regulation of that establishment in view, and now that he had succeeded in getting its management overhauled, it was his intention to do everything in his power to procure that reform of the Board of Admiralty itself which appeared to him to be so necessary. As an instance of the expediency of such reform, he might mention that in 1857 it had been decided by the Government of the day that seven ships of the line should be paid off—a decision which the First Lord of the Admiralty had carried into effect. The House, however, would scarcely believe that in 1859 another Board of Admiralty had found it to be its duty to entail on the country a large expenditure for the purpose of restoring to a state of efficiency those very ships in 1857 which had been paid off, and paid off too, he believed, in opposition to the opinions of—with the exception of the First Lord—nearly all the Lords of the Admiralty, who, he regretted to say, had not
  1142
  in consequence resigned their offices; but, on the contrary, had stuck to them like leeches. He had also to complain of the position in which Sir Baldwin Walker, as Surveyor of the Navy, had been placed, the fact being that he could not have given a single order in the dockyards the execution of which he could enforce. He was happy to find, however, that the Admiralty, after fifteen years' consideration, had at length effected a change in that respect, and that Sir Baldwin Walker, as Controller of the Navy, would be enabled to exercise an authority which had hitherto been denied him. He should simply say, in conclusion, that, after all that the House had heard from the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in reference to the Cession of Savoy, it was impossible to tell what consequences to the peace of Europe might six months hence ensue. We should, therefore, take care that we had a sufficient reserve of seamen to man our fleet in case any emergency should arise, and the noble Lord and the Government would, in his opinion, deserve—he would not say to be brought to the block—but, at all events, the general censure in case they neglected to render our navy as efficient as it could possibly be made.
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURseconded the Motion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should not follow the gallant Admiral who had just addressed the House through the various topics on which he had dwelt in the course of his speech. There was, however, one point to which he had alluded with respect to which he wished to make a few remarks. It was impossible to read the valuable evidence which had been given before the Commission on manning the Navy, without coming to the conclusion that great difficulty would be found in obtaining, on the breaking out of war, the number of seamen which would be required. He thought, indeed, it was manifest from that evidence, that the service of the Queen was not popular among our merchant-seamen. It had, moreover, been remarked, by more than one naval officer, that they entertained a distrust of the Admiralty. How far that opinion was warranted by the fact, it was not for him to say; but it had been so distinctly stated that it in all probability was based upon some good foundation; although he must confess he was not very strongly impressed by the idea that many of those who had given

  1143
  evidence before the Commission had themselves any very great knowledge of the feelings by which our merchant-seamen were animated in the matter. But, however that might be, some measures had been taken of late which bore not a little upon the point. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) had some years ago set up what he termed a great crimping machine, with the view of procuring men for the navy; but it had turned out that sailors did not like to be ticketed any more than did the Nonconformists. The system had gone on for a long time, to the unmitigated disgust, he believed, of every seaman connected with the merchant service, and it had ultimately fallen into abeyance. It had since, however, been employed for the purpose of getting up a naval reserve; and he should, under the circumstances, and looking to the legislation of last year, and the existing state of feeling in the merchant service, have supposed that if one thing more than another were insisted upon in connection with the subject, it would have been that the terms held out to our seamen under the system, and the conditions upon which they were to serve, should be so plainly, and in so simple a manner set forth, that any one might understand them at a glance, and that every apprehension as to a desire existing on the part of the Admiralty to entrap men into the service should be removed. He himself had in private, during the course of last Session, urged upon the noble Lord opposite (Lord Clarence Paget) the expediency of taking that course. The noble Lord, however, appeared to have fallen into the error of attempting to cook before catching the hare, he had not got the men to come forward. So indefinite were the terms offered, that if a seaman were to ask the precise nature of the engagement he was expected to enter into, no one would venture to give him an answer. They were to be called out by proclamation on an emergency; but what was the exact interpretation of an emergency? The Act of Parliament said when Her Majesty saw fit; that made them liable to be called out at any time. That could be understood. But such was not the condition stated. What was the emergency contemplated? Was it war, invasion, or the imminent danger of it? Seamen did not know what was the meaning of the term used; how, then, could they be expected to enter into the engagement? A great deal of their legislation about sea-
  1144
  men appeared to go on the idea that these men were fools. They were no such thing; they were a most suspicious class, for they generally found on shore those who tried to impose on them. But how could they expect men to bind themselves to their service, if they did not understand the nature of the contract? Then, as to time, the engagement was to be for five years, "unless otherwise provided." That "otherwise provided" might carry it on within a few days of ten years. The men naturally wanted to know whether they were going to bind themselves for five or ten years. A plain man would say at once, "I will make a bargain with you for five years." "Undoubtedly it was a much greater advantage to get men for ten years than for five years. They must recollect, however, that they wanted A.B. seamen. There was not a very great number of them. The returns produced before the Manning Commission, showed that the whole number was only 67,000; and when they took those over age they would strike off one-fifth or sixth. They must, therefore, hold out great advantages to the men, and, first of all, they must make the terms more definite. The men must know on what terms they were engaging, and for what length of time. Take the case of married men, engaged, perhaps, in the coasting trade. They held out to them that they should be drilled at home, and that was a great inducement to such that during their month's drill they should be enabled to return at night to their wives and families. But that was not promised; it was only said if the service permitted; and seamen would, therefore, be inclined to conclude that the service would not admit of it, and they would not get home of nights. There was another question on which he could not pretend to give an opinion. When a man entered he was to have a certificate that he was A.B., and that he had served as such for so long. The shipping-office people had no authority to enter him, but they were to do all the talking. Who could tell what a recruiting sergeant said? When the seaman had been talked up to a certain point he was to be handed over to another party, who did not know what had been said before, or what bargain had been made, and then he was entered. Under such a system the seaman naturally felt there was no security that he would have the same rating as in the merchant service. It was unwise, he thought, not to take all the men

  1145
  they could get to enter. They might easily have framed their resolutions so as to got rid of much of their cumbrous machinery. Seamen, above all things, hated to be confined. The whole of the rules, the noble Lord would excuse him for saying, had been framed in a spirit of mistrust of the seamen. He believed the more they trusted these men the more trustworthy they would be found to be. This not only applied to seamen but to every class. While the measure was passing through Parliament he had felt great interest in it. If it had succeeded it would have been of great importance to the country by breaking down the sort of feeling which was said to exist between the two services. With that view everything ought to be done to make the terms so clear and simple that he who runs might read, and then he hoped the men would more generally come into them. They must remember that the Queen's service held out no hope of promotion, or scarcely any hope of promotion, to men before the mast. The number of warrant officers was extremely small; that was their only hope of promotion. On the other hand, if they looked to the number of able seamen in the merchant service and the number of certificated masters and mates, they must see that the chance of promotion there for good men was not only large but certain. The apprentices and boys in the merchant service were about 23,000; the uncertificated petty officers and able seamen were not 100,000; so that there being 40,000 certified masters and mates, it was perfectly clear that every A. B. of good conduct was not only certain of promotion but sought for. They could not, therefore, expect such men to enter the Queen's service unless they not only held out sufficient inducements of a pecuniary nature, but made the terms of service short, and at all events as clear and definite as possible. The Secretary for Ireland had great merit due to him for what he had done in this matter, and if the scheme had not succeeded it was owing to the want of a proper conciliatory spirit in the terms which had been promulgated.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had ascribed the failure of the naval scheme for establishing a volunteer reserve to the terms of enrolment not being sufficiently simple had hit the right nail on the head. There was too much red tape in the proposition as originally framed. The men were at first
  1146
  to enter for five years, and at the end of that period they were required to present themselves before the shipping master to be again enrolled. Now, the great object of the seaman was to get his pension, and by the process just named his pension was in danger. Before it could really operate as an incentive to him, he must see that his prospect of gaining it was a certain one. Again, the regulation binding the men not to take long voyages ought not to be stringently enforced; because the young and active sailor, whom it was most desirable to secure, was of an enterprising disposition, and naturally wished to see remote parts of the world. Even if allowed, after joining the reserve, to go on a distant voyage, his services might be made available in foreign waters in the event of an emergency. It was to be regretted that naval officers were not very popular with merchant seamen, many of whom refused to enter the reserve because they had to be approved by those officers. It was to be regretted likewise that a widespread feeling of distrust in the Government had been created among the seafaring classes by the treatment of the continuous-service men at the close of the Crimean war. Moreover, the shipping masters did not receive adequate compensation for the duties imposed on them in connection with this scheme, and it would be well to fix definitely the scale of that remuneration. One of those persons had recently told him that he would not for £500 a year undertake to go through all the talking and encounter all the sneering that he had experienced from the men while trying to get them to enlist during the last three months. Nothing could be more important than the projected establishment of training ships in our great ports, and this was the point he rose partly to insist upon. Twelve hundred lads annually were proposed to be admitted to these ships for a twelve months' training, and the best conducted and most proficient of their number would be then selected for the navy. Nothing could be more calculated to render the Queen's service as popular as it used to be than this mode of making admission to it the reward of the better class of youths passing though the ordinary schools of the country, and thence transported to these training ships. The system would tend to assimilate the merchant service and the Royal Navy, which had remained too long insulated, and it would

  1147
  also serve to raise the character of both. The cost of the experiment would not exceed £24 for each youth, and no motives of false economy should prevent the House from supporting a plan which would furnish the country yearly with 1,200 young seamen, who would form such a reserve as would enable us to pursue our ordinary avocations in peace and security. In proof of the value of the northern ports as naval nurseries, he might mention that in 1858, 875 seamen were entered at North Shields, and 918 at South Shields, while in the previous year as many as 1,113 were entered at the former and 1,331 at the latter. He was confident there would be no lack of efficient seamen for the Royal Navy if the Admiralty only gave them good pay, treated them with greater trust and better faith, and relieved them, as much as possible, from troublesome and unnecessary restrictions.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he found it impossible to support the Motion. It was with the deepest regret that he heard from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty the other evening that the number of men who had joined the naval reserve had fallen so far short of the number required. Everything had been done to give the scheme a fair chance; a forcible appeal had been made to the country, a liberal bounty had been offered, and yet it had turned out a complete failure. The merchant seamen would not enter into the Queen's service. As a Member of the Commission he had dissented from the report of his colleagues, and had foretold the failure of the scheme. He could not, therefore, join in the recommendation of what he had formerly condemned, but he sincerely regretted the fulfilment of his predictions. One fact brought out by the evidence laid before the Commission—and it was an essential one for the House to consider—was that, while the merchant service had been making great progress in the employment of mechanical appliances to reduce manual labour on board ship, not one step had been taken in that direction by the Admiralty for the last fifty years. He had suggested to the Admiralty, for instance, that patent trusses should be employed; but the answer he received was, that they would twist off the mast heads, an objection which he had never heard made in the American service, where trusses were largely used. By adopting mechanical appliances 800 men
  1148
  might be enabled to do the work of 1,000, and thus fewer men would be required for each ship, and a saving effected in the cost of the crew. Another thing which he thought might be done with advantage would be to decrease the number of seamen and increase that of marines. The evidence before the Commission proved that that might be done without interfering with the efficient working of the vessel; and, as a marine cost only some £32 a year, while a sailor cost £44, the sum of £12 per man might thus be saved every year. He proposed that the whole of the seaport towns should be garrisoned by marines, and that the men should be trained part of the week afloat at the great gun exercise, and part of the week ashore in military duties. They might also be exercised in the bay in boats, and they would thus be made more efficient, if required, to go to sea. In the event of hostilities the marines would be embarked on board the fleet, the line regiments would garrison the seaports, and the militia would take care of the inland towns. He believed that if this plan were adopted, it would considerably reduce the expense of the army. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty said the other night that sailors were suspicious, and would not enter the reserve for fear of being entrapped. Why had they such fears? Because for years there had been an impassable barrier between the merchant service and the Royal Navy, and it was his wish to break down that barrier. With that object in view, he had brought forward the propositions recorded in the blue-book. Commencing with the boys, he would have school or training ships common to both services. The Government should have the power of nominating one portion and the merchant shipowners the other portion of the boys to be trained in those ships, from which, according to their good conduct or their efficient training, they should be drafted into either the one or the other service. Then he would have a common seamen's fund, to which the officers in both services should contribute, and which should be distributable among the seamen of both services. He further proposed that Greenwich Hospital should be opened, not merely to seamen of the Royal Navy, but to all who had joined the reserve. Sailors in both services would then be brought up together in youth, associated together in manhood, and succoured in the same asylum in old

  1149
  age. There was another point upon which he was sorry to say he differed in to to from all his colleagues. He advocated an appeal to the officers of the merchant service to enter the proposed reserve, as well as to the men. There was a great scarcity in the Royal Navy of officers physically efficient, and he believed there was a scarcity even now of active young lieutenants. Supposing the emergency arose, which he hoped never would arise, and they had to call upon the reserve of men, what would be the use of 30,000 men, if they had them, without experienced officers? In his opinion they would be nothing more or less than a rabble. If education and social position, officers of the merchant service were the equals of naval officers, and he thought it a great oversight not to appeal to them. He was glad to find that there was a change with respect to flogging in the navy, and he believed the service would be more popular if what sailors called the black articles were expunged from the Articles of War.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion of his gallant Friend. Ear from it, and he was exceedingly glad that his gallant Friend had called the attention of the House to the question of Manning the Navy, but he hoped to be able to convince him before he sat down, that the Government were carrying out, one by one, the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. But he would first make one or two remarks upon what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) in reference to the volunteer force. It was not surprising that in all these matters there should be a great difference of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman said they tied them up too tightly, for they enrolled them for five years, and then if a war broke out, they insisted upon the men remaining another five years. Now all he could state was, that if there was not some guarantee of that sort, and if there should be a war towards the end of the term, the greater part of the men enrolled might say that they would not go to sea. His hon. Friend the member for Northumberland opposite said, why not enter the men for life? So that it would be seen that on the one hand they would be asked to enter them for life, and on the other for only five years, and then lot them go perfectly free. He would admit that this
  1150
  measure was fraught with considerable difficulty, and the observations which hon. Gentlemen made were extremely valuable. It should be recollected, however, that it was a new measure, and if the Admiralty found that it did not work well, they would be the first to tell the House so, and say that it required amendment. Some hon. Gentlemen condemned the measure, but it had only been in operation for six weeks, and it was rather too early to assume that it had failed. On the contrary, the last accounts from the north were that men were beginning to get over the extraordinary delusion that they were to be entrapped into the service and sent off to China, and he had reason to believe, from letters he had received from shipping masters, that the few words he had addressed to the House the other night had already produced a good effect. It was, therefore, to be hoped that in course of time, when the misapprehension he had alluded to was cleared away, and the matter set in its proper light before the men, the reluctance which had lately seemingly prevailed on their part to enter the service would vanish, and that there would be no cause to be dissatisfied with the measure itself on that account. But it was certainly pressing too hardly upon the measure to condemn it really before sufficient time had elapsed to enable its efficiency to be tested. As regarded the remarks of his gallant Friend the Member for Southwark, he was glad to be in a position to assure him in reference to his suggestion to place efficient ships on the Coastguard, that the Admiralty were already doing all in their power for that purpose. The Majestic, a screw line- of-battle ship, was stationed at Liverpool on the Coastguard service; and the Dauntless, a frigate, on another station. As to the complaint of the pensioners that when sent on board they did not always get the same ratings as they had had when in the service before, the Admiralty had no knowledge of such a thing. It might occasionally happen that a pensioner going on board ship might be found not so capable of discharging the duties of a petty officer as when he was before in the service, and in such cases an officer would only be discharging his duty in removing an inefficient man from the post to make room for a better. Another complaint was that the men could not get leave to go into the country, but were kept prisoners in the neighbourhood of the ship. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: At the ports.] His gallant Friend

  1151
  was wholly misinformed, for if the men wished to leave the port, and could show good reason for asking such indulgence, and were persons who could be depended on to return at the expiration of their leave, they had only to ask for a pass to enable them to go where they pleased. It was true they did not allow these men to leave the neighbourhood of the port unless they asked for a pass. Moreover, discretion was requisite as to whether the ship was or was not likely to be ordered to sea. It would be easily understood that it would be impossible to allow liberty-men to leave the neghbourhood of the port if the ship was under sailing orders.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: Whom are they to ask?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: The captain of the ship.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: Suppose he should change his mind?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: His gallant Friend next said, "Why not man the seaports with marines;" but no one knew better than he that if marines did not get their turn of sea duty, they became nothing more nor less than landsmen. He agreed entirely in the expediency of gradually increasing the number of marines, and the Admiralty were taking steps to carry out the recommendations of the Commission on that point. The late Government had taken a Vote for 2,000 extra marines, and the present Government had also added 1,000 men to the force. With regard to the training ships recommended by the Royal Commission there were two distinct schemes, one being for the education of 2,000 boys for the navy at the public expense, and another that a large number of boys should be educated on board of training ships at the mercantile ports, partly at the public, and partly at their own parents' expense, of whom a portion should be taken into the navy; the former and more important scheme would, if the House approved of the Estimates, be now carried out, and with regard to the second part of the scheme—namely, the education of the merchant boys, the Government had by no means given up that part of the scheme; but the arrangements connected with the volunteer force were really running away with so much money that they thought it better to proceed cautiously, and see how the scheme was likely to succeed on the whole. Many other recommendations of the commission, not adverted to by the gallant Admiral, the Admiralty were endeavouring to
  1152
  carry out. For instance, they were giving additional pay to gunnery lieutenants, and they were also giving a 1d. a day additional to what were called trained men—men who had passed an examination in gunnery. The Admiralty had by no means set their faces against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) with regard to the officers of merchant vessels, but they did not wish to go on too fast. First let it be seen how the men dropped in, and if that result were satisfactory it would be open for consideration in what manner advantage could be taken of the services of merchant officers. Many improvements had taken place with the view of rendering the position of men in the navy more comfortable. They now received their cooking utensils free; continuous-service men had their clothes given to them; and various points of details, such as paying the men more frequently, improvement in the system of paying allotments, badge money, outfit to petty officers on promotion to warrant officers, pensions to warrant officers, were in process of carrying out by the Admiralty. Again, the Coastguard was proposed to be increased this year by 500 men, and other matters, with which he need not trouble the House, were under consideration with a view to effect still further improvements. He hoped he had said enough to show that it had been the consistent endeavour of the Board of Admiralty to take advantage of every recommendation contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, and as far as possible to carry them into effect.
  MR. H. TAYLORsaid, he wished to remind the House that the coasting trade, which had always been regarded as the nursery of the navy, was most injuriously affected by the increase of railways and screw steamers. Half of the coal which was annually brought to London now reached the metropolis through the instrumentality of steam, either by sea or on land, and one screw steamer of 800 tons, managed by a crew of eight able seamen, was capable of carrying as much coal as eight sailing ships, which would require 70 or 80 men and boys. He believed that in the course of a few years 80 or 90 screw steamers, employing from 600 to 800 men, would fulfil all the requirements of a trade which now found employment for 800 or 900 ships, with 8,000 or 9,000 men. The general trade was becoming narrowed in the same way, as shipowners found that it was for their interests to employ steam in

  1153
  place of sailing vessels; and the result would be, that in some short time to come great difficulty would be experienced in procuring sailors in sufficient numbers for the navy. He had given the subject very serious consideration, and, as a sailor himself, he believed the Government ought to consider the propriety of establishing school ships, in which lads should be trained for the naval service.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEobserved that he had listened with great pleasure to the details given by the noble Lord respecting the extent to which the Government had carried out the recommendations of the Royal Naval Commission. But it could not be too strongly urged that the school system was the very basis and foundation of all their recommendations towards the formation of a reserve of 10,000 or 12,000 men, and that they ought not to hesitate at a trifling expenditure, when by its means they expected to procure the very best material for maintaining the future efficiency of the navy. In answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. Lindsay), he would remind the House that in men-of-war the number of men was proportioned not to the machinery or steam power, but to the guns; and if patent trusses or improved machinery of the kind were placed in such vessels, the force applied would soon pull them to pieces. They had been tried on board two vessels, and but that the yards were fortunately slung in chains, they would have been down on the top of the men's heads. He believed that if the Government steadily refused to increase the bounty, and simply established school ships, taking every possible means of giving publicity to the advantages which were offered, after a little patience things would present a very different aspect from what they did at present. There were other matters, however, which had not been touched upon by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, and one of the most important of those was the hulk accommodation. The Bellerophon, at Portsmouth, had been improved as much as was possible, but still not more than one-fifth of the ship's company could get into the galley; and, having no resource but either to go to bed or walk the decks like caged beasts, he did not think it was to be wondered at that the men seized every opportunity of getting away from such a wretched abode, and of getting their feet to a good public-house fire. Comfortable docks and barracks would go far to make
  1154
  the men behave more like Christians than they had sometimes done. In paying off a ship's company, likewise, he believed that some change might be effected with advantage. At present a ship when dismantled presented a most disheartening spectacle. The system and discipline which it had taken four or five years to build up was scattered to the winds, and he had heard captains say that the night before a crew was paid off was one of the most saddening and dispiriting possible. He believed that such a practice was unnecessary, that it was a remnant of barbarism which had clung to the service, and that its bad effects only required to be fully understood to lead to its being done away with. Some difference ought to be made, in paying off the crew, between the men who entered for continuous service and those who left probably with the intention of not returning again. The former might receive two-thirds of the pay which appeared from the paymaster's books to be due to them, and with this advance they might be permitted to visit their friends without any delay. On their return they would obtain the balance which was due to them; and if they had been unfortunate enough to fall among thieves they would have the means of regaining a respectable appearance. The Government would have a perfect right to retain a portion of the money, because no man had a right to return as a beggar to the service with which he had become connected. As to the other men who left them there need not be so much ceremony; but as to the continuous service men, he urged the Government to take his suggestion into their consideration. They were about to discuss a Motion on the subject of flogging in the navy; he believed for some of the crimes committed on board ship it would be impossible wholly to do away with flogging. But if the men were tried by courts-martial, as in the army, it would tend to familiarize the officers with the rules of evidence, and give men an idea of security; they would be satisfied that justice was done. It would not reduce the amount of flogging; on the contrary, it would rather increase it, as if tried by court-martial every man who deserved flogging would get it; at present, many who deserved it did not get it; the Admiralty were so severe on captains in the matter of punishment on board their ships, that they often forbore it from apprehension of the consequences to themselves. As to the Articles

  1155
  Of War, they were never acted on, and he did not see why they should be allowed to remain in their present obsolete form. Could not a Commission of naval officers be appointed to modify them, and bring them into accordance with the more humane notions of the present day?
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he was glad to hear the assurance from the noble Secretary to the Admiralty that the Government was desirous of carrying into effect the recommendations of the Manning Commission. The inutility of the volunteer system had been proved, and this Commission, presided over by men of great experience and intelligence, had, in their Report, recommended a naval reserve as the best means of increasing their force. But he regretted that the attempts to form this reserve had not been successful. The question was no doubt one of the most pressing importance, but it was a mistake to suppose that the harshness with which they were treated was the cause which prevented sailors from entering the navy. He believed the gradual improvement in the treatment of the seamen in ships of war, and the greater attention to their comforts, had much broken down the aversion formerly entertained; and it was rather ignorance of the present condition of men in the service that caused the difficulty in obtaining them in sufficient numbers. He rejoiced that the Admiralty had conceded pensions to the widows of warrant officers; the concession had been too long-delayed. The Report of the Commission often alluded to the compulsory system of manning the navy of France. That system gave France an advantage if any sudden increase in her naval force was required—a matter of great anxiety in the event of a disturbance of the peace between the two countries. Not possessing such a system, England could only depend on money rewards and other attractions to draw men into the naval service. Their Navy Estimates, therefore, must always stand at a high figure, and the only prospect of a reduction was in some plan of a reserve. The most reliable part of the present re-servo were the coast-guard men, who made a fine body of sailors; their conduct on board the ships they served in during the Russian war was exceedingly creditable to them. The other parts of the present reserve were not so reliable. Even the Coast Volunteer system had been a failure, for no dependence could be placed on the men coming forward in large numbers in cases
  1156
  of emergency. As to the pensions for the reserve, he disapproved them for short service; it would be better to give an equal amount in the rate of pay after four or five years' service. It was of the highest importance that every effort should be made to augment the force of continuous-service men. He quite agreed with hon. Members who had spoken of the advantages which both the merchant service and the Royal Navy would derive from the establishment of school ships. They would, in all probability, take the place of the old apprentice system. He should hail with pleasure any scheme that would unite the mercantile service with the navy, being satisfied that the naval service would be greatly the gainer. With respect to the subject of punishment, he entirely concurred in the opinion that it would be inexpedient in a Government service, such as that of the navy, to abolish the system of flogging. As a body, naval officers were desirous to abate the severity of that system as far as possible, but the power of inflicting corporal punishment must, in order to secure discipline, he maintained. He recollected an instance in which three out of a brigade of 300 or 400 men had been guilty of committing a gross outrage on a woman, which had resulted in her death, and he felt assured that the instant punishment which had followed the commission of the act had not only had a duly deterrent effect upon the rest of the men, but had been regarded by them as just and right.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him to be impossible to overrate the importance of this question. There were very few men either in or out of the House who did not desire to keep up our naval defences. Something had been done already to put them in a better state, but in the contingency of a reverse at the beginning of a naval war—an event he would not anticipate—the whole of the£l3,000,000 which the House was asked to vote for the navy would have been completely thrown away, unless a reserve of men had been formed at least equal to half those on board ships in commission. He was, therefore, glad to find that it was the intention of the Government to carry into effect the recommendations of the Manning Commission, as well as to hear from his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty that two block-ships had been removed, and their places supplied by vessels of a better class. For his own part, he should like to see the same course pursued in the case

  1157
  of all our block-ships, which he regarded as perfectly useless, and he felt assured that in order to effect that or any similar object which would place our navy on a thoroughly efficient footing the House of Commons would not hesitate to vote the necessary supplies, so that the Government had only themselves to blame if they failed to state fully and plainly to the House what it was they required. A great mistake had been made in 1857 when so many ships were paid off, but for that the Government, and not the House of Commons, were responsible. He looked upon the appointment of a man conversant with the details of the naval profession, as his noble Friend opposite (Lord C. Paget) was, to the offiec of Secretary to the Admiralty as a step in the right direction, because he could not help thinking the system of selection for that office, as well as the higher offices of the Board, of men merely for oratorical ability, was one which was extremely vicious in principle. Before long he hoped to see a thorough reconstruction of that Board. He should merely observe, in conclusion, that the exclusion of boys from particular departments of the navy who did not happen to be possessed of that proficiency in reading and writing to which others had attained seemed to him to be impolitic, for the dunces among our youth, as some persons might be disposed to call them, had frequently arms as strong as their heads were thick, and, if they were but afforded the means of learning their profession, might furnish the country with most efficient seamen.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: —I give my cordial support to the Motion now before the House, as it is of paramount importance to put forth every effort to accomplish the manning of the navy. I feel no apprehension that England will prove unequal to any emergency which may befal her. At the present moment there are in all 162,012 British, and 14,375 foreign seamen employed in the merchant service, and it would be of signal advantage to induce an adequate number of them to enter the Royal Navy. The first step in the right direction is to enlist year by year 2,000 to 4,000 boys; and I am glad to learn that measures are to be taken to provide school ships for the former number. If these vessels were despatched to the principal mercantile ports, some of the finest lads in the country—not boys from reformatories—could avail themselves of the opportunity. The greatest caution must
  1158
  be exercised in the selection of officers, they must be men like those of Her Majesty's ship Britannia, possessed of good temper, forbearance, and discretion. I had the pleasure of personally visiting Captain Harris now of that ship, when in command of Her Majesty's ship Illustrious, and after a most careful inspection of the system which he pursued, I give my most cheerful testimony to the admirable measures to a desirable end which were there amply exhibited. It is a melancholy truth much to be deplored by all right-thinking men who have the interest of the service at heart, that in it there is not sufficient encouragement held out to the A.B. The sailor is a roving creature, like the elements with which he has to battle, given to change and excitement, and he is especially averse to an engagement of five years. The case of Lieutenants, who rarely attain the promotion which they have a right to expect, is full of painful reflection. From the first hour when I entered the navy to the present time it has been impossible for me to be blind to a system of invidious patronage and baneful partiality. Let it once be an assured fact that there is only one direct and certain road to employment, promotion and honour, and that to be a thorough practical seaman every inch, to possess scientific knowledge, to devote heart and spirit to the duties of the profession, and you would exercise a magical influence and enthralling fascination. Instead of broken-hearted grey-haired men, you would inspire spirited youths to enter and continue a succession of men who uphold the honour of a service, never sinking into apathy and disgust at its injustice, but enthusiastically attached to it and exceedingly eager to earn distinction. The reward of merit is a glory to a country, to withhold it is its shame and discredit; to bestow it improperly is a cruel wrong to the deserving, a snare to those who are not so, and the betrayal of a national trust. Efficient as the navy is, secure as we are that it will ever win new lustre when put upon its trial, let only justice be shown in England to the officer and man and they will maintain her supremacy, her honour, and her existence, with the new vigour that springs from the certainty of her approval, and the affection that is quickened by its bestowal.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURremarked that there was some inconsistency in the answer given by the Secretary to the Admiralty, for while he had not offered any

  1159
  opposition to the Motion, he seemed to intimate that the Government would not pledge themselves at once to carry out the recommendations of the Manning Commission. He thought the Government ought at once to pledge themselves to bring in a Bill if necessary to carry out those recommendations with a view of meeting the present exigency, and of providing a constant supply for the navy in the future. One of the chief recommendations was relative to the establishment of school-ships, and Captain Engledue and Captain Vincent, among others, had both given the clearest testimony as to the importance of that recommendation, stating that the merchant service would hail the establishment of these training ships with delight, believing that the class of apprentices would thereby be improved. Only last night he had been present at a meeting at Southampton, called for the purpose of memorializing the Government to place one of these training schoolships in Southampton Water. There was a very general expression of opinion in favour of that proposal; and if Government grudged the expense, if they would only find the ship and half the cost, the other portion, he believed, would readily be subscribed at the port and throughout the county of Hampshire. Captain Sullivan estimated the expense of one of these ships for one year at £4,000, including extras, such as £100 for a chaplain; the Commission had recommended that there should be ten or twelve of them; the whole expense, therefore, of establishing these schoolships, and carrying out this great national experiment, would be £48,000. The plan which Captain Sullivan proposed, was to take boys of twelve or thirteen years of age for a year, then to apprentice them to the merchant service; at the end of their five years to let them serve for two years in a vessel of the Royal Navy, and then to bind themselves to enter at any time into the Royal Naval Volunteers, so as to be called on at any time when war menaced. There was one other recommendation he should like to refer to. Captain Sullivan pointed out the fact of about 10,000 situations at the command of the Treasury, and other public departments of the Government. Those situations were invariably given to those who had extraordinary political influence with the Government. There could be no doubt, however, that there were many of those situations, such as tide-waiters, landing waiters, for which well deserving-
  1160
  seamen were qualified, and which he (Mr. Digby Seymour) thought ought to he given in reference to a scale of merit, instead of being placed at the service of gentlemen who had given, or promised to give, their political support and influence to the Government for the time being. He protested against such a system. The new field of rewards after long years of valuable services thus opened would, with the other arrangements, go far to popularize the Royal Navy. Give that force the opportunity of an introduction not only to the Coastguard service, to Greenwich Hospital, to pensions from the State,'—but add to those anticipated advantages those offices to which he had referred—offices that would best fulfil the purposes for which they existed if they were appropriated as the rewards of honest merit in the naval forces of the country.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, in reply, he assured the noble Lord that he had made no mistake. The order given at Portsmouth was clear and distinct, that if a man passed certain limits he was to be taken up as a straggler. Was the British sailor, he asked, to be reduced to that in the present day? Why, even in the war time, he was never obliged to go and point out to his officer beforehand the exact spot where he wanted to go, and then only at his peril stray a hair's breadth beyond it. For the life of him he could not tell how such a nefarious system could have ever been conceived by the Admiralty—a system which was now producing the greatest discontent at Portsmouth, and which could not be too quickly abolished. The practice of refitting a vessel when she arrived in port was an absurd waste of public money When ships came home their crews should be at once discharged into other vessels ready to receive them, where they would be found to do their duty just as well. He concurred with his hon. Friend who had just spoken, in the propriety of distributing the offices within the patronage of the Government to such men as had served their country well, and who were fitted for those situations. He had been assured that it was not intended to "cushion" his present Motion. To test the sincerity of the Government, he begged to ask whether they intended to remove the "beastly" block-ships, and substitute efficient vessels for them? It would depend upon the answer he received to that question whether or not he should divide the House.
  Resolved, —
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the recommendations of the Commissioners on Manning the Navy ought to be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government, with a view to carry out the principles of such recommendations."

FLOGGING (ARMY AND NAVY).

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. W. WILLIAMS, in rising to call the attention of the House to flogging in the Army and Navy, said the system was most injurious to those services because it prevented respectable men from joining them. Upon their soldiers and sailors the country depended for fame, for honour and for security, and yet under the existing practice our soldiers and sailors were liable, for trivial offences, to receive worse treatment than that given to convicted criminals and felons. By the present law no culprit could be flogged in the public streets except one who had actually threatened the life of the Queen. Yet our soldiers and sailors were placed on the same degraded level as that execrable miscreant; and even one quarter of the cruelty to which they might be subjected with impunity would, if only inflicted on a horse or an ass bring the perpetrators of such brutality within the penalties of imprisonment and hard labour. It was said by many officers that the abolition of flogging would lead to a total subversion of discipline. But the hon. and gallant General (Sir He Lacy Evans), whose opinion on such a subject was most valuable, declared some years ago, when examined before a Commission, that he believed the system of Hogging in the army to be totally useless, and most injurious in its effect, by preventing respectable persons from enlisting. The officers who opposed the abolition of this punishment were influenced just as the Judges and Recorders were influenced when it was proposed to humanize our criminal code. "If," they said, "you do away with the penalty of death for a vast number of offences, the country will be overwhelmed with crime." Yet the result had been a diminution instead of an increase of crime throughout the land. The same result in his opinion would follow, if flogging were abolished in the army and navy. Within his recollection the maximum number of lashes inflicted in the army was 1,000. This number was reduced to 300, and after a soldier had been flogged to death at Hounslow barracks the Duke of Wellington, much to his cre-
  1162
  dit, reduced it still further to fifty lashes, without in the least impairing the discipline of the army. It was not often that descriptions of this punishment appeared in the newspapers, but whenever they did they excited the greatest disgust in the public mind. A short time ago two soldiers were flogged at Woolwich, and this was a description of the scene taken from the highest source:—
  "The first man, named Green, lore his punishment, as stated by an eye-witness, 'like a true soldier;' but the second, named Davis, a young recruit, protested his innocence of the crime of desertion, bellowed and screamed for mercy, and supplicated Colonel Talbot and the medical officer, and others who were present, to have compassion on him, or he should die. His back was covered with a mass of large, red, inflamed boils, which bled profusely at every stroke, and reddened the ground under his feet, upon which the cat was ordered to be withheld for a few moments, when, finding that the punishment was not at an end, he gave vent to exclamations for mercy, and partly succeeded in delivering himself by force from the straps which bound him to the halyards. The punishment was again ordered to be continued, when, at every succeeding stroke, his cries and exclamations were most lamentable, insomuch that officers and men swooned away at the sickening spectacle, and had to he carried into the open air. One officer and upwards of twenty non-commissioned officers and men long in the service closed their eyes, lest they too should become unnerved, and be subject to the reproach and ridicule of their comrades."
  It was a disgrace to our Christianity and our civilization that such disgusting-exhibitions should be allowed. Soldiers who were flogged suffered severely in constitution. Some years ago Mr. Wakley stated that, in his opinion, and that of the medical profession, when a man of nervous temperament was flogged, some fatal disease, probably consumption, was almost invariably produced. They were obliged to abolish flogging for the Sepoys, and yet they treated in this cruel and inhuman manner men who were equal to a dozen Sepoys. The Duke of Cambridge, much to his honour and credit, had recently issued regulations in restraint of flogging; but he (Mr. Williams) did not anticipate much effect from them, and he hoped his Royal Highness would abolish flogging altogether. If the system were now gradually falling into disuse, there might be some encouragement for those who opposed it; but a recent Return; seemed to show that it was extending. In 1847 only forty-two men were flogged in the whole army, the number of lashes being 2,200; in 1852 forty-five men were flogged, the number of lashes being 2,250;

  1163
  but in 1858 the number of men flogged was 218, and of lashes inflicted 9,338. He now turned to the navy. The punishment in the army was mercy itself compared with that in the navy. The cat was heavier in the navy; it was wielded in a different manner, and it was admitted that fifty lashes in the navy were equivalent to 150 in the army. The maximum punishment was the flogging round the fleet, from which he believed a man rarely recovered; and it was a common saying that it would be far less cruel to string up the criminal at the yardarm at once. He (Mr. Williams) was sorry to say that flogging had also of late increased in the navy. In 1852 the number of men punished was 578, and they received 17,570 lashes; whereas in 1858, 997 men received 32,420 lashes. In the army the flogging was inflicted to a certain extent in an open manner, for, though in some cases the barracks might be closed, still the news spread to the whole neighbourhood around, and this circumstance operated as a check on the punishment in the army. In the navy, however, the flogging was kept quite close. If a stranger not belonging to the navy happened to be aboard ship when flogging was about to be inflicted he was ordered ashore, so that he could not be a witness to the punishment. In 1858 there were inflicted in the army 23,000 fewer lashes than in the navy. The present Admiralty had followed the example of the Duke of Cambridge with respect to regulations as to flogging, and he trusted that some effect would be experienced in the diminution of the punishment, if it was not, as he trusted it would be, abolished altogether. It appeared to him most extraordinary and unaccountable that the greatest number of punishments in the navy was inflicted for drunkenness. It seemed a marvel to him how men could get drunk on board ship, where there was no beershop or grogshop. He was told that this result was accomplished by one man selling his grog to another, and then the extra quantity got in the head and made the man drunk. It only required ordinary common sense either in the officers or the Admiralty to put a stop to that practice. If a man did not wish to drink his grog, let him be paid the full value of it instead; but let him be punished if he received it and then sold it to another. In the navy a certain number of sailors messed together, with a sort of head man over them—at least such used to be the case—
  1164
  and it would put an end to the system of drunkenness if that head man had authority to prevent the grog being drunk by any but the person to whom it was served. Then more than half of the flogging in the navy would cease. A dreadful case had occurred within the last three months. A sailor had been found guilty by a court-martial of insubordination approaching to mutiny, his offence consisting in having, when in a state of drunkenness, put his head out of the porthole of the ship to which he belonged, and called out, "Lads, do what they did on board the Liffey, and roll shot about." He had also done something to the boatswain. Such was his crime, and for it he was ordered to receive fifty lashes. Now, if he had been sober when he had made use of the words imputed to him, there could be no doubt that he would have deserved punishment; but it was clear that the poor creature was drunk at the time. The scene which occurred at the punishment was described in a local print of very moderate politics, the Plymouth Journal, which slated that when the boatswain, who had been insulted by the culprit, was seen preparing to give him the first dozen lashes, the excitement of the dockyard labourers was intense; and the affair ended in a fight between them and the authorities of the Casar, to which the man belonged. It had been stated that the first American frigate which took one of our frigates of larger force in the late war was manned almost entirely by English deserters, all of whom had been flogged; and that these men all the time loved their country as much as ever, but that they had been so disgusted by the barbarities of the service, that there were no lengths to which they were not prepared to go in order to show their hatred of the system. The principal offences for which sailors were flogged were drunkenness, absence without leave, insubordination, dirtiness, neglect of duty, telling untruths, theft, smoking at a man's post, fighting, &c. Was it right that a brave fellow should have his back flayed and his flesh torn from his bones for such offences? Why, it was one of the greatest qualities a seaman could possess to be always ready for a fight. Was it to be endured that men to whom the country owed so much of its greatness should be subjected to such treatment because old gentlemen with high naval titles had no ideas but such as were

  1165
  in vogue fifty years ago, when their ships were manned by means of the press-gang? He was persuaded that flogging was the cause why such difficulty was found in manning the navy, and that if it were abolished, they would have the choice of the best men in the merchant service. For several years past he had moved for a series of returns relating to this subject, and he now proposed to add to them a new feature, which was the name of the captain of each ship in which men were flogged. He would tell the House why he did this. For two years the noble and gallant Officer (Lord C. Paget) had commanded in the Princess Royal. Notwithstanding the high state of discipline and efficiency to which he brought the crew, he had never flogged a man. Well, he was succeeded by a captain who flogged 53
  of his men, on whom he inflicted no fewer than 2,700 lashes. Having stated that fact in the House, he (Mr. Williams) received a letter from a gallant Admiral assuring him that he must have made some mistake, for no man had a higher character for humanity than Captain Baillie, who was then commanding the ship. Accordingly, he (Mr. Williams) made further inquiries, and at length he ascertained that the captain who had flogged 53 men was one who came between the noble Lord and Captain Baillie. To prevent mistakes of that kind, which might be very prejudicial to the characters of meritorious officers, he (Mr. Williams) should propose the addition he had named. Men were sometimes ordered to be flogged for drunkenness by officers who themselves were guilty of the same offence. This year more than £500,000 had been expended in bounties, and it was stated that the Government had obtained 10,000 men, it did not appear that more than 1,500 of them were able seamen. Let them only abolish flogging and he had no doubt that they would get without difficulty as many of the sort they wanted as they pleased. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the following Returns:—
  "Return of the number of men flogged in the Army and Militia in the year 1859, specifying the offence, the regiments, the place of station, the time, the sentence, and the number of lashes inflicted on each man (in continuation of Parliamentary paper, No. 519, of Session 1858); also, Return of the number of persons flogged in the Navy in the year 1859, specifying the name of the ships and of the commanding officers, the offence, the sentence, and the number of lashes inflicted on each person, stating whether by order of Court Martial or the Commanding
  1166
  Officer (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 41, of Session 1, 1859)."
  MR. BRISTOW, in seconding the Motion, said, that both the War Office and the Admiralty had recently issued excellent regulations on the subject, but he wished to see flogging altogether abolished. It was a cruel punishment and formed one of the most prominent anomalies which existed between our civil and our military jurisprudence. The ordinary tribunals of the country inflicted the same penalty for the same offence, whoever the culprit might be but in the army and navy there was one law for officers and another for men. If at a time like the present, when they were endeavouring to make the army and navy efficient, and, if possible, to popularize them —if at such a time the returns quoted by his hon. Friend be true, he would ask was that the means to obtain the increased number of men asked for, for both services? Another paradox in the system was this—What was there in the character of an Englishman so degraded that this punishment must be inflicted upon him, while there was no such thing as flogging in the French army? He remembered last year asking a French officer, who had held a distinguished position in the Crimea, if there was any flogging in the French army, and that officer's reply was, "Neither the French men nor the French soldiers are brutes." The time was come when this punishment, degrading alike to the person who ordered it, the person who administered it, and the person who received it, should be entirely done away with.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the hon. Member for Lambeth whether he had ascertained the truth of the statements he had made to the House? [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Yes.] He recollected as far back as 1855 or 1856 the hon. Member made a most serious charge against the commanding officer and the officers of the 26th Regiment. But the hon. Member made the statement in so clumsy a manner that he (Colonel North) had no hesitation in getting up and denying it from beginning to end. The following day he (Colonel North) had received a letter from the commanding officer of the 26th, stating that every word of the statement was incorrect. On the present occasion the hon. Gentleman had made use of the name of Colonel Talbot, of the Artillery, who commanded the parade on the occasion referred to, and he (Colonel

  1167
  North) wished to ask the hon. Gentleman if he had taken the trouble to ascertain whether it was in the power of Colonel Talbot to remit a single one of the lashes? Why, possibly, he had no more power to do so than the hon. Member for Lambeth himself. Under these circumstances it was perfectly intolerable that a person should get up and brand an officer with cruelty and discreditable conduct without first ascertaining whether that officer had power to remit the sentence or not. The only person who had power, under ordinary circumstances, to remit the punishment in the absence of the officer who had confirmed the sentence was the surgeon of the regiment. A more painful duty could not devolve on any officer than to be obliged to superintend a punishment parade; but he should have a mean opinion of one who shirked the duty if it fell to his lot. The hon. Member had year after year complained of flogging in the army and navy. If the hon. Member, or any other civilian who joined in his complaints, could devise a punishment which, while it was, severe, would keep the soldier only a short time away from his duty, he would be hailed with the greatest gratitude by the whole army and navy. What was wanted was a punishment that would not throw extra duty on the well-behaved soldier. He had known many men who did not care for being three months in confinement; and while they were there, who was doing their work? Why, the good soldier, who ought to be protected by the officers instead of having the duties of his disorderly comrades thrust upon him in addition to his own. The hon. Seconder of the Motion had stated that in the Trench army there was no flogging. Did he inquire how crimes were punished in that army? If he had done so he would have found that where we flog the French shoot. Would the English public like a man to be shot for knocking down a non-commissioned officer? Do not then talk about our treating men as brutes, when the French shot where we flogged. In Berlin soldiers were punished by being placed in a room six feet by four, with a series of re-entering angles, so that it was impossible for him to stand. The punishment was, in fact, so severe, that they were obliged to take the culprits into the guardhouse at night. But would that be tolerated in England? The officers of the army and navy had to curb the natural passions of men. A civilian might get as drunk as he liked for a 5s. fine; but
  1168
  what would be the state of the navy and army if drunkenness were allowed in those services? Discipline must be maintained in the army, drunkenness checked, and orderly behaviour enforced; if it were not, the hon. Member for Lambeth would be one of the first to complain.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth in regard to the flogging at Woolwich. He thought it was not enough to condemn military men for flogging men for slight offences, but this House ought also to bear its share of the blame for having given them authority to do so.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had no objection to the Returns desired by the hon. Member, provided he would leave out the names of the officers who were obliged to inflict corporal punishment. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Oh, no‡] As his hon. and gallant Friend had stated, it was one of the most painful duties that officers could perform to superintend the infliction of that dreadful corporal punishment. But, as the service was at present constituted, it was one that, he was bound to say, could not be immediately and wholly abolished. During the past year the heads of the two services had endeavoured, by introducing a system of classification, to lessen gradually this disgraceful punishment, and it was a proof of the anxiety of the officers to prevent flogging as much as possible, that out of the whole Channel Fleet only three per cent of the men had been put into the second class—that is to say, the class which was liable to corporal punishment without the sentence of a court-martial. His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth had of late been in the habit of quoting him as an officer who did not flog. He could assure his hon. Friend that he was not the man to shrink from flogging if he thought it absolutely necessary. He had had the good fortune to have very excellent officers with him, and likewise very good crews, and had consequently been able to get rid of much of it in his ships. But he must positively state that the hon. Member for Lambeth was very much mistaken if he supposed that he (Lord C. Paget) should not flog a man to-morrow if he thought it absolutely necessary. His hon. Friend had quoted returns of the entries of seamen into the navy. He said Ave could not get good seamen; that out of the recent entries there was only a very small proportion of able seamen. He wished to correct his

  1169
  hon. Friend. They had entered within the last year upwards of 10,000 seamen; and out of that number there were upwards of 4,000 able seamen, showing that more than a third were ablebodied. He could not give a better proof to him than this, that we had the pick of the best seamen of the country. And to show that the navy was not in so unfortunate a condition as had been represented, he might state that out of the whole fleet there was only three per cent of desertions. This was most satisfactory, and showed that the fleet was not so unpopular at this moment as was asserted. He had stated to the hon. Member for Lambeth last year that the present articles of Avar were not at all in accordance with the feelings of the age, and that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to improve the naval code and discipline; and if the hon. Member would have patience he would see a Bill shortly introduced to that end. It would deal with all the matters that had been referred to by the hon, Member; and he hoped would prove satisfactory to the House. He trusted the hon. Member would consent to leave out the names of the officers, whose misfortune, and not whose fault, it had been that they had been compelled to inflict corporal punishment on any of their men.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North) had spoken of the Motion in somewhat of an angry tone; but it appeared to him a wise and good thing to bring it forward. It was not directed in a spirit of animosity against the officers of the army and navy, who were acting under necessity. Those who, with himself and the hon. Member for Lambeth, held that the punishment of flogging should be done away with wished an inquiry into the matter. He was old enough to recollect when hanging was the universal punishment in England, and when nothing else could be done with a culprit. No classes of persons were so bent upon hanging as the Judges. And when they were told that certain philosophers and philanthropists were persuaded that men could be kept in the path of duty without hanging, they held up their hands and turned up their eyes at so preposterous an idea. But they had seen that those learned persons were utterly mistaken. In the same way the authorities of the army and navy might not he infallible. All that was asked was to inquire whether the certainty of other punishments would
  1170
  not have the same effect. It was not only the bad effect on the culprit, but the bad effect on those who stood round, and on the society in which it was perpetrated; and he, therefore, asked whether it was not the duty of persons in authority seriously to inquire whether they could not do away with this dire and degrading punishment? The noble Lord said he was about to bring in a Bill for a reform of the penal code of the navy, and he (Mr. Roebuck) trusted that in the reformed code there would be found a clause for the abolition of the lash. He was sorry to sec the noble Lord shake his head in negation of that hope, but he would tell him that unless there was a diminution of these dreadful punishments, his reform would be no reform at all; because he was sure no man after being flogged was an equal man to what he was before, and he would never believe that a soldier or sailor was the same man in the defence of his country and the honour of his flag after being degraded before his fellows by this dire punishment. They were told that it was absolutely requisite to flog boys at school; and there were people now so obtuse as to believe that their children were improved by being flogged. He was quite sure that the infliction of flogging in our public and other schools was one of the most mischievous things which could be done to any body of children, and that, if it were abolished in schools, it would not continue in the army and navy. To tell him that they could not guide a child without flogging was like saying there were no other means of making a good soldier. The noble Lord said it had been his good fortune to command ships in which there were officers and crews among whom it was unnecessary to inflict this punishment. It was the officer, his conduct, and his manner of guiding the men which determined the conduct of the men, and wherever they found a ship or a regiment where flogging was rife they might be sure the colonel or captain was unworthy of command. A great soldier, who, unfortunately, had lately departed, told him that flogging in an army before the enemy in the field was a thing to leave in the hands of the commanding officer; but he added, "Depend upon it that a good commanding officer will seldom have to inflict that punishment." It was the irascible, ignorant, incapable man who resorted to flogging, and in his impotence to govern inflicted pain on the bodies of those over whose minds he could obtain no

  1171
  influence. He said that its infliction was not only a disgrace to the British army, but clearly pointed out the incompetency of the officers who encouraged it in practice.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that he heartily concurred in the observations of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House. Indeed, he had placed a notice on the Paper of his intention to move a Substantive Resolution, to the effect: "That the punishment of flogging in the Army and Navy is impolitic, and ought to be abolished." But it would hardly be convenient to have two debates in the same Session on the same subject, and therefore he trusted the division on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth would be taken as an expression of the opinion of the House. Having given the subject great attention and thought, he was persuaded that it would be sound policy on the part of the authorities to altogether abolish the use of the lash. He only regretted that the question had not been mooted by some naval or military officer, which would have weighed more with the country. But there was no doubt that a large number of naval and military officers were anxious for the abolition of flogging; and, on the other hand, they need not be discouraged at meeting with a most determined opposition on the part of the military authorities; for it was impossible not to remember that scarcely one reform in the management of the army had sprung from the military authorities themselves, until it had been thrust upon them from without. To whom, for instance, did we owe a reduction in the number of lashes from 1,000 to 50? To whom did we owe the introduction of regimental libraries and reading-rooms? To whom did we owe the Enfield rifle itself? To whom did we owe the sanitary measures, which, however, had still to be carried out? To whom did we owe the abolition of the stock and the tight dresses of our soldiers? We owed all these reforms, whether already carried out, or about to be carried out, not to the military authorities, but to the press and public opinion of this country. He did not think, then, that civilians need be very much terrified by their own rashness, if they ventured to press still further reforms upon those who seemed to need so much spurring. When the new orders were issued from the Horse Guards and the Admiralty last autumn, he thought the matter was put upon a perfectly satisfactory
  1172
  footing; but prolonged inquiry and investigation had made him feel that the reform adopted by the authorities, though an undoubted improvement, yet would be far, indeed, from abolishing this mode of punishment, or getting rid of the serious evils which it engendered. He saw that by those orders, there were still, as regarded the army, no less than ten offences, five of them being infractions of discipline, the first commission of which would degrade the offender into the second class; and, once there, he would be liable to corporal punishment for that or for any other of those ten offences. In the navy every man, whether in the first class or in the second, would still be liable to be flogged. The main difference made by the new orders would be this—that while the men in the first class could only be flogged after a trial by a court martial, those in the second could be flogged at the will and pleasure of the captain for any one of eight offences. The only wonder to him was, that these restrictions should not have been adopted long ago, without waiting for an outburst of public opinion. It seemed to him almost incredible that our countrymen should hitherto have been liable to this terrible punishment for a first offence, at the caprice of a naval captain; knowing, as they did, how natural it was for the tempers of seafaring men to be quickened by the excitement and vexation incident to their profession. While we maintained a naval and military force of little less than 300,000 men, there would inevitably be a large amount of theft, and frequent cases of intoxication on duty, and so forth; and for any second or subsequent offence, there would still be inflicted corporal punishment. If flogging was to be maintained, then undoubtedly the limits imposed by the new orders were most just and reasonable. But when it was alleged by the advocates of the lash that these just and reasonable restrictions would virtually put an end to flogging, he wished to know how, in that case, they defended the great excess of flogging which there had been in former years. If the moment they adopted a just and reasonable system flogging vanished, was not the inevitable inference that the flogging hitherto had been unjust and unreasonable? There could be no more severe condemnation of the use of the lash hitherto. However, as far as they went, every one must approve these restrictions; but he thought no mere restrictions would suffice, and that not only common humanity, but

  1173
  common sense, demanded the total abolition of the cat-o'-nine tails. It was to the common sense rather than to the humanity of the House, that he wished to appeal that night. And now let the House note this—that the distinctions drawn by the new orders, excellent in themselves, would have no effect whatever in getting rid of the obvious and extreme impolicy of this punishment in this respect, that it degraded the army and navy in the eyes of the working class of this country. He could hardly believe that the military authorities were aware how strong the feeling was in the working class, that if a man goes for a soldier or a sailor, he may become liable to a flogging, and how powerfully that feeling operated in repelling the working men from the service of the Queen. They were for ever hearing of the difficulty of obtaining recruits. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of War, told them last year it was no good to vote a larger number of men, because they might vote them, but the Government could not get them. An immense bounty was offered to any man who would enter our army or navy. We kept up the militia at immense and vast expense, mainly on the ground that it helped to feed the regular army with men. We had had a Commission during the last autumn to inquire into the best mode of manning the navy; but the noble Lord who had just spoken, had told them the other night that the result appeared to be that the navy cannot be manned. He had spoken of the difficulty of filling the naval reserve, and stated that the men were afraid of being kidnapped into the service. But there was not a shipowner who could not obtain hands to man his ship for any part of the world. There was not a scavenger, there was not a chimney-sweep in any town of the United Kingdom, who could not obtain all the help he needed. But there was one employment which the working men despised, there was one employer from whose service they shrunk, and that service was the service of the Queen. Now, to serve Her Majesty, to defend their country, to share in the pomp and glory of war, ought to be an honourable and a popular employment. On the contrary, it was regarded with aversion by the better portion of the working class. Any decent working man looked upon it as a calamity if his son went soldiering. No doubt there were other reasons, just because there were other stupidities in the treatment of the soldier; but the main
  1174
  reason was the consciousness that possibly some day he might become liable to have this degrading punishment inflicted upon him. And he must say that this feeling had been justified by the facts of the case, and especially as regards the navy. Why, in the last three years, on n average, no less than 1,160 men have undergone this punishment, and the average number of lashes had been 37,586. And, although the seaman might perhaps be under such a captain as that of the Agamemnon, who contrived to keep order among 807 men without a lash; or of the Royal George, who, out of 879 men, had flogged but one; on the other hand, he might be under the captain of the Lyra, who flogged sixteen men out of seventy-eight; or of the Swallow, who flogged eight men out of only forty-five. We might be sure of this, that the new orders would do absolutely nothing to dispel the feeling he had referred to, so long as flogging was allowed at all. Let the advocates of the lash distinctly prove that it was necessary—that without it order and discipline could not be preserved—and then he admitted that this incidental evil, serious though it be, must be put up with for the sake of the still greater good. But it did seem to him that the impolicy in this respect of the use of the lash was so great that nothing could justify its maintenance except such a clear and proved necessity. The same conclusion which was forced upon them by the
  impolicy of corporal punishment was forced upon them no less by its inhumanity. The plain truth was, that flogging was a punishment of so barbarous a character that ere long it must be inevitably sent by the feelings of a Christian and humane country to the same limbo to which had been consigned those ancient instruments of torture, and those horrid penalties for treason, which used to be defended upon the very same ground as the lash is now. He thought we ought to know what it was we were talking about. He might disgust, perhaps he would even horrify the feelings of the House, but if there was anything in the world that he despised, it was that squeamish humanity which shrunk from hearing of suffering, while it would not move a finger to remove it. He should, therefore, take the liberty to read a description of this mode of punishment, written by a sufferer himself. He might premise that not only did the cat-o'-nine-tails spread out and actually inflict nine separate blows, unless—to

  1175
  quote the words of one of his informants —unless they became clotted together by the blood—but each tail was two or three times the thickness of ordinary whipcord, and each tail had several hard knots tied upon it. At any rate, so terrible was the effect, that he remembered that a relative of his, writing to him soon after he joined the army an account of a flogging he witnessed, said that numbers of the men in the ranks actually fainted away with horror at the sight they were compelled to witness, and he had since heard that that was no uncommon occurrence. The description he wished to read was from the autobiography of Mr. Somerville, formerly a private in the Scotch Greys, who had been sentenced to receive 200 lashes. After describing how nooses were placed round his wrists and his ancles, he went on to say:—
  "The sergeant-major, who stood behind with a book and pencil to count each lash, gave the command, 'Farrier Simpson you will do your duty.' The manner of doing that duty is to swing the cat twice round the head, give a stroke, draw the tails of the cat through the fingers of the left hand, to rid them of slush, flesh, or blood; again swing the instrument twice round the head slowly, and so forth. Simpson took the cat, as ordered, at least, I believe so; I did not see him, but I felt an astounding sensation between the shoulders, which went to the toenails in one direction, my finger nails in another, and stung me to the heart as if a knife had gone through my body. The sergeant-major called in a loud voice, 'One.' I felt it would be kind of Simpson not to strike me on the same place again. He came on a second time, a few inches lower, and then I thought the former stroke was sweet and agreeable compared with this one. When the third fell I felt my flesh quiver in every nerve, from the scalp of my head to my toenails. The time between each stroke seemed so long as to be agonizing, and yet the next came too soon. It was lower down, and felt to be the severest. At' 25 'the serjeant-major said' Halt." Simpson stood back, and a young trumpeter took his cat and began. He gave me some dreadful cuts about the ribs, first on one side and then on the other. Some one bade him hit higher, I do not know whom. He then gave them upon the blistered and swollen places, where Simpson had been practising."
  He went on to describe the increasing torments caused by the descent of the lash as his back became more and more and more mangled; and at length, he said,—
  "I felt as if I could yield and beg forgiveness, but the next moment the coward thought was rebuked within me, and banished."
  After a hundred lashes had been inflicted, he was taken down. And mark this, that these atrocious cruelties were inflicted by sentence of court martial, the sole charge against Somerville being, that he had refused to remount a furious horse when
  1176
  ordered to do so by the riding-master, though he had reason to suspect that he was really punished on political grounds. He must, however, remind the House that this flogging was much less terrible than many, because it was inflicted in warm weather. In cold weather it is said to be a still more fearful punishment. He had in his hand an account of the flogging of a poor fellow who afterwards shot himself. That flogging took place on a bitter cold morning, "when," the writer says,
  "The mere exposure of a man's naked body was of itself a severe punishment. When the victim was tied, or rather hung up, by the hands, his back, from the effect of previous floggings and the intense cold, looked quite black and blue. On the first lash, the blood spirted out some yards, and after he had received fifty, his back, from the neck to the waist, was one stream of blood."
  He could scarcely imagine that any one would deny that such a punishment as the one described was, as he said before, a barbarous punishment. He would refrain from expressing his feeling that it was a disgrace to this country; that it was a disgrace to the officers who ordered it; that it was a disgrace and a degradation to that body of men upon any one of whom it might some day be inflicted. He could not hope that those who heard him would go with him so far as that, but of this he was confident, that every hon. Gentleman present, even if he did not look upon it with horror, yet at least would regard it with regret. He was not so absurd as to imagine that they, the enemies of the lash, had a monopoly of humanity. He was quite sure that every one would feel as much as he did, that to strip a man half naked, tie him up by his hands and legs, and then lash him with a whip till the skin was torn off his shoulders, and the blood streamed down, was a punishment at once so degrading and so terrible, that it could only be justified by a real and strong necessity. Assuredly they should all rejoice in resolving that the lash should never again descend upon a British soldier, provided only that its abolition would not be followed by that relaxation of discipline which would, he owned, be fatal to the well-being of the army and navy. But if so, it was obvious that the onus probandi lies not on the opponents of the lash, but on its advocates. They might fairly claim from them clear, full, and conclusive proof that the lash was essential; that its use was a real necessity; that without it order and discipline could not be maintained. The a priori assump-

  1177
  tion in the mind of any right-thinking man must be against the use of such torture: prove its necessity, and they would hold their peace; show that without it those services must fall into disorder or demoralisation, and they would say no more; but if they failed to do so, if they could not—and he thought it would be seen that they could not prove anything of the kind—then, he said, no more was needed; the case for the lash fell to the ground. The fact that flogging was not necessary—that we could do as well without as with it—that its abolition needed not be followed by any relaxation of discipline or order, was demonstrated, not by mere theoretical reasoning, but by actual experience of the most striking kind. He supposed that no one would doubt that of all the Continental armies the French army was the one most distinguished for its discipline, as well as for its valour; in fact that, except our own, it was the most powerful military instrument in the world. But in the French army, in war, as well as in peace, the lash was unknown. Again, it was acknowledged by military authorities, that no army displays more perfect order and good conduct in campaigning, as well as in quarters, than the army of Prussia. He knew that on one occasion the Duke of Wellington was asked which Continental army he would rather command, and his reply was, the Prussian, and expressly because it was so peculiarly manageable. But in the Prussian army the lash was unknown. Again, he found in accounts of the Peninsular war it was incidentally mentioned that the German Legion showed remarkably good order and discipline; on the other hand, he found that it went through the Peninsular war without the use of the lash. To his mind the force of these examples was overwhelming. They offered a demonstration from which no escape was possible; that the highest order and the highest discipline could be kept up without the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails; in other words, tried by the test by which it must stand or fall—the lash stood condemned. What rendered this conclusion still more emphatic was, that in the armies of Austria and of Russia the use of the lash was incessant and terrible; and he doubted whether the result, as seen in the last few years, could be deemed altogether satisfactory. Turn from the Continent to England itself, and they were taught the very same lesson. Thirty years ago, flogging went on in the
  1178
  British army to an extent which he could not have formed an idea of if he had not investigated the subject—to an extent which, in his opinion, was scandalous and wicked. At length the country interfered, and imposed a limit on the use of the lash. The military authorities then, as probably now, declared that it would be impossible to maintain discipline. Public opinion compelled them to impose that limit, and what was the result? So far from the army having deteriorated in character, he found it the universal opinion that it never stood higher in character than it did at the present moment. The same with regard to our navy. There had been an immense reduction, and again, he asked, what was the result? Why, in those old times—those good old times—as the advocates of the lash must think them, we had two general mutinies of whole fleets besides a number of terrible mutinies on board single ships; whereas in our own time mutiny was unknown. To be sure, he might be reminded of the case of the Princess Royal. But it certainly was a most remarkable coincidence (if a mere coincidence it be) that only last Session the attention of the House was called to the atrocious amount of flogging that had taken place on board the Princess Royal under Captain Giffard. It was certainly remarkable that the same ship which had. been made notorious by a mutiny, had a short time before been made notorious for the 2,100 odd lashes which had been inflicted on the crew in a single year. Now it was impossible to imagine how these facts could be got over, except, indeed, by the discreditable allegation that our army and navy contained a larger proportion of scoundrels than those of other lands. For his part, he thought that the system was radically wrong if they retained in the Queen's service a single known scoundrel. He held that those services would never stand on a sound footing till it was thought a privilege by any working man to get into them, and a sufficient penalty for any infraction of discipline to be driven from them; but waiving that, he should like to ask those who assert, as he had often heard naval and military men assert, in talking this question over with them, that there were a number of blackguards in every ship and every regiment who could only be kept under by the lash. He should like to ask them this question:—"How came it that last year there were sixty-seven regiments?—how came it that last year there were forty-

  1179
  three ships, containing nearly 6,000 men, whose commanding officers practically repudiated the use of the lash?" Could they want a stronger demonstration of the fact that the lash was not necessary, when they found it flung aside as useless in so great a proportion of regiments and of ships of war? He challenged those who would be against him that night to invalidate these facts; but, if not, to admit his conclusion—the conclusion that the lash could not be supported on the plea of its necessity. But now was it surprising to find that abstinence from a degrading and brutal punishment had not been followed by more crime, but by less crime, not by worse order and worse discipline, but by better order and by higher discipline? Why, every one who had looked into the subject of the treatment of criminals must be aware that the very same lesson which experience teaches so decisively with regard to the cat had been taught again, again, and again, with regard to all punishments of that violent and degrading kind. It had been the great blunder which shortsighted rulers in every age had made, and which had been attended with invariable failure, to suppose that it was by fierce and appalling punishments that crime is best prevented. He should have supposed that of all the dead dogmas in the world, no dogma had been so effectually disposed of. He knew not what truth in social science had been established by a larger induction of facts than the truth that it was not by cruel punishments, but that it was by those punishments which carry with them the public feeling, that men are best kept in subjection. In short, that it was the first essential of wise government that it should be gentle as well as just—not treating even criminals as brutes, but as men—not crushing and trampling under foot those who break its laws, but even in its penalties acknowledging the reverence that is due to every human being. At first sight of course it was natural to imagine men would shrink most from an offence which would involve some fearful penalty, and that was so when the penalty did not go beyond public opinion; but the moment the penalty begins to shock the feelings of humanity it ceased to be as effectual as a milder punishment in the suppression of crime, and for this plain reason, that then public opinion passed over from the law and from those who administer the law to the side of the criminal; he is looked upon as harshly
  1180
  used, and even those who might be interested in detecting and exposing his crime, and all others as well, take a kind of merit to themselves in concealing the crime and sheltering the crime; not only so, but the hearts of the authorities are apt to be touched. In the case of flogging, it was a common occurrence, when the man was tied up to receive his punishment, for the commanding officer to relent and let him off; with that he was far from quarrelling; but the effect of all this was to prevent that certainty of punishment which, as every one knew, was the true preventive of crime. He might seem to speak too theoretically, but the House must remember that upon this theoretical principle was based that great revolution in our criminal law which Romilly and Mackintosh advocated, and which Sir Robert Peel carried into effect. That vast reform in our criminal law which swept 231 offences from the category of capital crimes was advocated and carried out expressly upon that principle, that crime is best prevented by punishments that are in unison with the humane feelings of society. All he wanted was, that the principle which permeates our civil criminal code should no longer be repudiated from our military code, just as if human nature were changed by wearing a uniform. In another respect he had found in his researches into this subject very strong reasons for believing that not only is flogging less effectual in the maintenance of order than a less savage punishment would have been, but, it was actually itself chargeable with producing no small amount of crime, and on this ground, that in nine cases out of ten, the man who had been flogged feels himself so utterly disgraced and degraded by it in his own eyes and in those of his comrades, that thenceforward he makes no effort to gain a good character. His self-esteem was destroyed, and no one was so likely to rush into the commission of acts of drunken violence and other infractions of discipline, as the man who had undergone this punishment. He would only add one word as to the last refuge of the advocates of the lash—the doctrine that it should be maintained, even if not necessary, because it was so convenient a punishment. No doubt a flogging was soon over. But after all the man was disabled, often for many days—sometimes even for weeks, as in the case of a man flogged last autumn at "Woolwich. Moreover, it involved a punishment parade, at which the regiment, or

  1181
  the ship's company have to be present, to their great loss of time and inconvenience, so that it had not much of that poor merit of convenience. But more than this, he would never allow that a punishment was really and truly convenient, which offends public opinion; which repels men from the Queen's service; which ruins the man on whom it is inflicted; which is not more effectual than a milder punishment would be; and which, finally, in its cruel and brutal character, was contrary to the spirit of our mild and merciful religion.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: It seems to me that in this discussion we are not proceeding according to any very logical or philosophical method; and I am not sure that we have not been confounding one kind of punishment with all punishment whatever. We have, living in the midst of us, a caste—men cut off to a great extent from the communications and from the sympathies which exist in civil life; and if this be the case to some extent in all armies, it is certainly so in a much greater degree in England, where the armed class passes the greater part of its existence abroad, and the ties which connect its members with the ordinary avocations of civil life are broken at a very early period. In this country, moreover, we have a great jealousy of the military power. In other nations the military element overrides the civil in a striking manner. It does so in Austria, perhaps more than anywhere in the world; it does so in Prussia, and in France likewise in no slight degree. But in those countries how do they obtain their army? It is, after all, an average specimen of the ordinary civil classes from which it is drawn. By means of the conscription they drew into the ranks the respectable and steady, the wild and lawless, just as they come, and in the game proportions which exist in civil life. We do nothing of the kind. We have no conscription. The steady and the industriously-disposed know nothing of the army, they do not enter it. Those we get are the young, the heedless, the thoughtless, the wild. (Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear‡) Yes, Sir, and you surely would not remedy that defect by having recourse to compulsory service? Well, having got this population together, you have to adapt them to military organization, and for that purpose you must exercise over them a strong authority. 'Now, there justly exists in this country, and I trust there always will exist, the greatest jealousy of the
  1182
  military power. If there be any case of military outrage—if it be even a common assault committed by a man in a red coat—you have much more animadversion, jealousy, and alarm than if it were committed by a civilian. It is necessary, therefore, by some means to compensate for this, and to exercise over a body of men more difficult than any other to control a stronger power than exists over civilians. Now observe I am not an advocate for corporal punishment as it has been carried on. But the stories we have heard on this subject are not of yesterday, but are derived from a period when punishment was inflicted with such brutal ferocity that the public mind was justly disgusted, and the public feeling has outlived these punishments. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) has treated this question in a philosophic spirit, and has argued the whole question of corporal punishment. I do not, however, agree with him in what he has said with regard to the punishment of boys. It was the Spartan system of discipline, and as in this country, when mature we take strong exercise, are used to strong labour, drink strong wine, so in youth we want strong repressive discipline. Our English nature is a strong nature and a turbulent nature, and in all ages and among all classes has required a stronger code than nations of a quieter and more pliable disposition. It has been stated that Sir William Napier was against flogging, but he thought it necessary in war. I cannot allude to Sir William Napier without taking this opportunity of expressing my regret for the loss of the last of that band of heroes of all of whom, save perhaps one, he was the most distinguished by pen and sword, and who so illustrated the great name he bore. Sir W. Napier had a bias against authority from the generosity of his nature, and a bias against what he considered the prejudices of his day; and yet he recognized the necessity of this punishment in war, because war, after all, is a moment when men are devils let loose, and when they require the strongest effort of authority to repress and keep them within the limits of order and obedience. But how do you treat civilians in this respect? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) says you have here a punishment which you do not inflict upon civilians. Is that so? I applied to the Home Office for information on the state and practice of the law on this subject. I do not say that it is wrong to

  1183
  flog civilians and right to flog soldiers; only when we are told that we have a different punishment for civilians and soldiers I think it right to tell you how you treat civilians. I have here a list of Acts of Parliament inflicting the punishment of flogging for certain offences. There is the 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 28, S. 8. Perhaps you will say that is rather ancient. There are the 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 29, and the 9th Geo. IV, c. 31. There is also the 5 & 6 Viet., c. 51, for the punishment of outrages against the Queen. There is, I think another Act, which was passed after the destruction of a vase in the British Museum, and which imposes the punishment of flogging for the wilful destruction of works of art. I think, too, I remember a very strong pressure being put upon my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), when he was Home Secretary, to introduce flogging for brutal assaults on wives. After all, then, this is not a punishment unknown to civilians, or peculiar to military life. The results may be stated generally that, as the law now stands, for a great majority of felonies not capital, male prisoners, convicted by a jury, whatever may be their age, are liable to be publicly as well as privately whipped not more than three times for the offence committed. It may be said that these laws are obsolete, and are not put in practice. But I asked what was the number of floggings inflicted upon civilians in the course of the year. I find in England and Wales that the number of males sentenced to be whipped by Courts of Assize or Quarter Sessions in the year 1858, was 83. The hon. Gentleman may say that these were mostly boys. That is quite true, but it is also true that these offenders of twenty years and above, were 22 in number. I have also a return of the number of males sentenced to be whipped on summary convictions by justices in the year 1858. The number was not less than 502, of which 472 were under the Juvenile Offenders Act. The rest were not so, and the offences were under Wilful Damage Acts, Vagrant Acts, Railway Acts, and for other offences. I do not say this is right, but it is the fact; and you have, therefore, no right to argue that a severe, exceptional, and intolerable punishment is inflicted upon soldiers which is not inflicted on civilians. I say that with an army composed in the peculiar manner I have described, it is necessary to have more summary, severe, and deterring punish-
  1184
  ments than among other classes. I have described the class of men with which you are compelled to recruit your army under a system of voluntary enlistment. You trust them necessarily with deadly weapons. But what is the effect of the system of military discipline on those subject to it? They are more disciplined, and, therefore, more dangerous when they act' together than civilians. I have received a letter which I will read to the House, omitting the date and place for reasons which will be obvious as I read. The writer, who is a magistrate at the head of the police in an important town, says:—
  "I beg leave to suggest to you that in Parliamentary debates and other public discussions, a very important topic in reference to the army has never been properly noticed. It has only been considered as a military institution costing a great sum, and performing great services; but there is no doubt that the army has done much for society as a reformatory institution, and I am convinced that an inquiry in the police departments of the empire would produce results equally extraordinary and satisfactory. I believe that —is one of the principal recruiting districts, and although we constantly see loose, idle, drunken, and dishonest characters coming before us for military attestation we scarcely ever find them, after a period of service, relapsing into their former habits. The county and city of —regiments of militia, at their first embodiment, almost emptied —of the description of persons to which I allude."
  If the colonels of these regiments were present, it might be painful to them if I mentioned the name for them to know the materials of which they have had to make soldiers. The writer goes on to say:—
  "On their return after the peace I saw scarcely one of them who had not been greatly reformed, and there are many of them now pursuing an industrious and creditable course. I hope, sir, that you will not consider this note an intrusion, and that you will allow me to assure you that I address you from a motive of public utility."
  That is a reflection which has often occurred to me. First, as to the materials of which our army is composed; and secondly, the results that the discipline, of which corporal punishment is a portion, but a very small portion, produces. I have not taken an active part in the establishment of reformatories. For children and boys a little older they may, no doubt, do good. With regard to adult criminals, although I am not disposed to go so far as the gentleman who said he would walk sixteen miles to see a reformed convict, I do not believe in the reformation of adults unless they can be withdrawn from the scene of their temptations. I have seen in our own walks of life persons of bad character and

  1185
  disposition, and I have never seen any one of them reform that I can recollect. That this system of discipline has succeeded in improving the materials of which your army is composed cannot be denied. Last year the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Williams) alluded to the increased amount of corporal punishment disclosed by these Returns. I do not deny that the increase has been greater than it ought to have been. The hon. Gentleman to my mind, however, has not put the case quite fairly. He says there were so many floggings in. 1847, and so many in 1858. It should be recollected that the army is very nearly double what it was at the former period, but still the percentage has also greatly increased, and in a very alarming manner. I have inquired into the cause of this increase. If you trace a period when you make great efforts to increase the army, you will find that many of the recruits are such as are described by this magistrate—idle, drunken, and dissolute—and you will have at such periods a great deal of crime and insubordination, and, consequently, a great deal of punishment. It is at the same time satisfactory in one respect to find that the great crime for which this punishment is inflicted is that of desertion. One effect of the increased bounty given last year was to lead to a good deal of desertion for re-enlistment in other regiments. Inconsequence of this, corporal punishment had been applied, and it had proved a check. Now let me say a word on a case that has been alluded to in this debate—the case of Somerville. He was a man of great ability and talent; he wrote remarkably well, and in after life raised himself to a good social position. He was not however degraded by having undergone that punishment, for, as I have said, in after life he raised himself to a good social position, and lived, I am told, to think that within limits corporal punishment is necessary in the army. Let me say a word of the recent case at Woolwich. I think it was a bad one, but in the description of that case there was very considerable exaggeration. Writers for the press must paint vividly, in order to produce an effect at a distance; it is the prevailing fault of our modern literature. The case, however, excited some discussion and comment, the Commander-in-Chief was not in England at the time; he arrived two days aferwards. I immediately called his attention to it. The Duke of Cambridge at once ordered
  1186
  an inquiry into the case, and the result was that the officers conducting the punishment were severely reprimanded in public. Another result of the inquiry was the issuing of the general order that has been before referred to. I think we shall find that the amelioration of military law, with regard to the punishment of military offences, has always followed at a certain interval the amelioration of the law with respect to the punishment of crimes committed by civilians, and I think it ought so to follow that improvement; for in the army an extraordinary degree of discipline must necessarily be maintained. Now, the general order of November last, specifies the military offences for which the soldier was previously liable to corporal punishment; they were, "absence from parade, drunkenness, riotous conduct, absence without leave from tatoo, preferring frivolous complaints, disrespect to noncommissioned officers, striking a comrade, absence without leave, as defined by the 51st Article of War, escaping from confinement, insubordination, making away with necessaries, falsely imputing improper conduct to a superior, and sleeping on post, depending on the circumstances and nature of the service. "By the late general order a man cannot now be flogged for any of these crimes. The respectable, well-conducted, and steady soldier—and there are thousands such in the army—may now feel, as he ought to feel, a complete immunity from corporal punishment, except for aggravated mutiny, which, by any and every means, must be repressed. But well-conducted men ought to feel confident of an immunity from a degrading punishment, and by this order they have that security. A soldier cannot be flogged, unless by previous misconduct and the commission of grave offences he has placed himself in a second class, and so made himself liable to it. But even when reduced to this second class, he cannot be flogged for these specified offences, merely because he is in this class. The offences for which a man, reduced to the second class, is liable to corporal punishment are: desertion, mutinous conduct, aggravated cases of insubordination and violence, drunkenness on duty or on the line of march, embezzling public money, stealing from a comrade, designedly maiming, repeated acts of making away with necessaries, arms, & c, and other disgraceful acts, showing vicious propensities. After being reduced to the second class, a man,

  1187
  on repeating these last offences, is liable to be flogged. Yet even when thus reduced "uninterrupted good conduct for a year will again restore the soldier from the second to the first class, as proving a desire for reformation and amendment." The general order further says:—
  "Though thus classified, it does not follow that all men under the second class are to be condemned to corporal punishment. Each case is to be decided upon its own merits, and corporal punishment as much avoided as possible; but a man who by misconduct has placed himself in the second class is liable thereafter to corporal punishment, whereas the man in the first class is not liable to such punishment, except in the case of aggravated mutinous conduct, when severity must at once be resorted to to repress more serious mischief resulting from such conduct. His Royal Highness trusts that the above classification will greatly simplify to the officers of the army the method of dealing with crime: will deter the evil-disposed from committing offences, justly subjecting them to severe punishment, which, though necessary to maintain discipline, should be restricted as much as possible; and will give confidence to the good soldier by securing to him, on entering Her Majesty's service, an immunity from degrading punishment, which immunity it will be in his power to preserve to the day when his engagement shall expire."
  Now, that is a just and humane order, an order that does credit to the Commander-in-Chief. The hon. Member (Mr. Buxton) says, in these matters we must not trust to military men, because everything that has been done for the mitigation of military punishments has originated with civilians, not with officers of the army. There is a certain degree of truth in that; yet it happens that in this case it was the Duke of Wellington who reduced the infliction of corporal punishment to fifty lashes. And, in justice to a deceased friend of mine—the late Lord Hardinge—I must contradict, as I have often contradicted in this House, the assertion that every improvement in the army has proceeded from civilians, and not from military men. So far from public opinion having forced the Minie rifle upon Lord Hardinge, it is a fact that Lord Hardinge's own efforts led to its introduction into the army. He was far a-head of the public in this respect. As regards the Motion, the hon. Member may, as far as I am concerned, have the Return he asks for. I am anxious the public should know what the exact state of the army is with regard to military punishments. It is very difficult to say what is the degree of severity of any punishment. All punishments are painful. We have heard harrowing descriptions of floggings; but in the novel of Never Too Late to
  1188
  Mend you may read a description of solitary imprisonment infinitely more terrible than the descriptions of the infliction of corporal punishment. What would be severe to one man would not be so severe to another; the degree of severity must depend very much on the peculiar nature or constitution of the individual on whom punishment is inflicted. That applies even more to the mind than the body. I know that the Commander-in-Chief is as much alive as any man to the necessity of resorting to other modes of punishment than flogging; he is most sincere and earnest in his intention; and I hope the House and the country will be willing to leave the question in hands so well able to deal with it without shaking the discipline of the army.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought the cause of humanity was indebted to the hon. Member for Lambeth for bringing forward this question, and the House must feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his speech. In it he had alluded to the punishments inflicted for civilian crime, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman could hardly point to a single instance in the last ten years of any Judge ordering an adult to be flogged, though the punishment was occasionally inflicted on boys who had been previously convicted. He had also alluded to its infliction for any attack on the person of the Sovereign, or the destruction of public property; but it was for the purpose of making those offences infamous by a degrading penalty. On the other hand, it was still retained in the army for many offences which in civil life would not be considered very serious. With regard to desertion he believed that flogging was the great cause of that offence. In the case in which a man died at Hounslow after the punishment an action for libel was brought by the colonel of the regiment, and it was proved on the trial that six men fainted on the ground during the infliction; and of those six men four afterwards deserted. The only effect of the present system was to prevent men from enlisting, and to cause others frequently to desert from the service. If his hon. Friend wont to a division he would support him, but he thought it unjust that men of honour and probity should be invidiously held up to public reprobation for discharging what was only their duty, and therefore he hoped that his. hon. Friend would not insist on that part of his Motion which would have this injurious effect.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that as a naval officer he could not omit expressing his opinion on the subject before the House. He was the first naval officer in that House who pointed out the horrible barbarity of our articles of war, and insisted on a change, especially as regarded the navy. He had always held that it was illegal to inflict punishment by flogging on a man, except after trial by a court-martial, and he was the first who succeeded in putting an end to flogging round the fleet. But the question was, whether it was possible altogether to abolish corporal punishment? He did not see how it was possible to preserve discipline in a ship where there were hundreds of men without having the power to inflict flogging. How, for example, could they punish men who, when the ship was caught in a squall, were found below, when they should have been on watch on deck? And how without flogging would they put down mutiny? He hated corporal punishment. He believed it was worse for the man who inflicted it than for the man who bore the punishment. Still he believed it to be occasionally necessary, but he would have it inflicted only after trial by court-martial; and he would have it provided that the captain should never be present at the punishment, as he, having the power to remit the sentence, was regarded by the men as a brute when he looked on and did not do so. He hoped the Admiralty would before this Session was over prepare a new system of naval discipline, and that they would provide some description of punishment which would have the effect of checking the practice of breaking leave, so common among the men. At present no captain could depend upon his men coming back at the time specified when leave was given to them, and this was so subversive of discipline that it ought to be vigorously checked.
  CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNONsaid, he was very loth to continue the debate, but he hoped the House would excuse a few practical observations from a practical man on this subject. Those who belonged to the service were very glad when gentlemen not connected with it let in a little daylight upon subjects of this kind; but he wished to impress upon the House that those who belonged to the service were not naturally cruel men—that they were quite as humane as others—and that they would be exceedingly happy if some other description of punishment than flogging
  1190
  could be found to keep in order the description of men who to a great extent composed the army and navy. He need hardly inform the House that those who went to sea or who followed the drum were not the best part of the community, but were men who hung loosely on society, and those men into whose hands arms were put had to be controlled by necessary discipline. The fear and dread of punishment made soldiers good, just as it did civilians. The soldier was a very different man, when once he became a soldier, from any other person. He (Captain L. Vernon) had seen a man shot in the West Indies for doing that for which any hon. Member of that House who was a magistrate would have fined a civilian only 10 s. in this country. But why was the man in question so dealt with? Because, the regiment to which he belonged being in a state approaching to mutiny, he struck the adjutant in the presence of his colonel. After the execution had taken place, General Sir Lionel Smith, the officer in command, assembled the regiment and addressed them. The General was an old man, and he (Captain L. Vernon) remembered what he said on the occasion as if it were but yesterday. Addressing the troops, he said, —"It is a hard thing for an old man like myself to send such a young man as that so soon out of the world; but, although I am an old man, I am not an old woman, and so long as Her Majesty intrusts me with the command of one of her regiments, I will insist on the maintenance of discipline." What happened in another regiment? A regiment, composed of the sweepings of our gaols, was hurried away to Sierra Leone. It had not been long there until it fell to pieces; for the men mutinied and killed half their officers. All that was the effect of want of discipline. The punishments in other services were much more severe than in ours. He did not want a recourse to severe punishments, but he wished to see discipline maintained, for without that our army would not be worth sixpence.
  MR. WYLDsaid, there were numbers of young men belonging to respectable families in all parts of the country, too poor to enter any of the professions, who would gladly avail themselves of employment in the army and navy but for the circumstance that a degrading system of punishment obtained in both services. It was a strange anomaly that, while the men in the army and navy were now being

  1191
  supplied with libraries and other facilities for education, the degrading punishment of the lash was still resorted to. He felt confident, if that punishment were abolished, that neither of the services would lack recruits from the best portions of the middle and working classes.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, he would join earnestly in the appeal which had been made to the hon. Member for Lambeth to omit from the latter portion of his Motion, relating to the navy, the names of the commanding officers. The settlement of the question of flogging must depend on the power and progress of public opinion; but that public opinion would be weakened and retarded if an attempt were made to concentrate it on individuals instead of directing it against the system itself. If the hon. Member, however, should refuse to comply, he should, though reluctantly, vote against the Motion.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had been entirely misinformed in the statement he had made relative to him (Mr. Williams). As to the request of the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) that he should leave out the names of the commanding officers, he (Mr. Williams) held that the Return would be of no value without them.
  Address for Return relative to flogging in the Army and Militia agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Persons flogged in the Navy in the year 1859, specifying the name of the ships, and of the commanding officers, the offence, the sentence, and the number of lashes inflicted on each person, stating whether by order of Court Martial or the Commanding Officer (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 41, of Session 1, 1859)."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would now move, by way of Amendment, that the names of the commanding officers be omitted.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "and of the commanding officers."
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 46, Noes 124; Majority 78,

  List of the AYES.

  Adam, W. P.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Alcock, T.

  Baines, E.

  Angerstein, W.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Arnott, Sir J.

  Black, A.

  1192

  Buxton, C.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Caird, J.

  Morris, D.

  Coningham, W.

  Noble, J. W.

  Crossley, F.

  Norris, J. T.

  Dalglish, R.

  Pease, H.

  Davey, R.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Rothschild, Baron L. do

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Roupell, W.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Salt, Titus

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Scholefield, W.

  Greene, J.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Gurney, S.

  Sturt, N.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Sullivan, M.

  Jackson, W.

  Sykes, Col. W. H.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Lawson, W.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Locke, John

  Wyld, J.

  MacEvoy, E.

  Maguire, J. F.

  TELLERS.

  Martin, J.

  Williams, W.

  Mellor, J.

  Bristow, A. R.

  List of the NOES.

  Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G. F.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Antrobus, E.

  Holland, E.

  Atherton, W.

  Hope, G. W.

  Bagwell, J.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Baring, A. H.

  Ingham, R.

  Baring, T.

  Ingram, H.

  Baring, T. G.

  James, E.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Jermyn, Earl

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Kendall, N.

  Bond, J. W. M'G.

  Kennard, R. W.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Kingscote, Col.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Lacon, Sir E.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Laing, S.

  Bruce, Major C.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Buller, J. W.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Burke, Sir T. J.

  Locke, Joseph

  Byng, hon. G.

  Longfield, R.

  Calthorpe. hn. F. H. W. G.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Lyall, G.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Castlerosse, Visct.

  Lysley, W. J.

  Cave, S.

  Mackie, J.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Matheson, A.

  Clinton, Lord R.

  Merry, J.

  Clive, G.

  Mildmay, H. F.

  Collier, R. P.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Collins, T.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Nicol, W.

  Davie, Col. F.

  North, Col.

  Dawson, R. P.

  Northcote, Sir S. H.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  O'Brien, P.

  Dunkellin, Lord

  Onslow, G.

  Esmonde, J.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Evans, T. W.

  Palmerston, Visct.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Parker, Major W.

  Fortescue, C. S.

  Peel, Sir R.

  Freeland, H. W.

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  Card, R. S.

  Powys, P. L.

  Gavin, Major

  Pritchard, J.

  Gordon, C. W.

  Pugh, D., (Carmarthen

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Puller, C. W. G.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Quinn, P.

  Gurdon, B.

  Ricardo, O.

  Hanbury, R.

  Ridley, G.

  Hankey, T.

  Robertson, D.

  Henley, Lord

  Salomons, Mr. A.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Salt, Thomas

  Herbert, rt. hon. S.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  1193

  Seymour, Sir M.

  Walter, J.

  Sibthorp, Major

  Warre, J. A.

  Smyth, Col.

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Somes, J.

  Way, A. E.

  Stirling, W.

  Wemyss, J. H. E,

  Steuart, A.

  Western, S.

  Stuart, Col.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  Tempest, Lord A. V.

  Whitbread, S.

  Turner, J. A.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Vandeleur, Col.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Vansittart, W.

  Wyndham, hon. H.

  Vernon, L. V.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  TELLERS.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Brand, hon. H. B.

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that in rising to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present state of appointments to the Civil Service, with a view to ascertain if greater facilities could not be afforded to properly qualified persons, he felt the Motion was a very important one, but at that late hour he would not do more than call the attention of the House and the Government to its main issues. The present state of the Civil Service examinations was felt to be unsatisfactory, and in some respects they were now in a worse position than they were before the examinations were instituted. Before that system was introduced there were general complaints against the mode in which their patronage was exercised by the Government in respect to appointments in the Civil Service, and the annoyance which every Member of the House suffered from the system. The House of Commons had on two separate occasions laid down the principle that in all cases admissions to that service should be decided by the result of a competitive examination. That principle he believed was one but very partially carried out, for in almost every case of admission there was only one candidate examined. It was with a view of remedying that state of things, and of affording young men who possessed good abilities, but who could command no patronage, a legitimate means of gratifying their ambition, that he made the present Motion; and he trusted to get together a body of gentlemen who would carry out the principle of throwing open the Civil Service to free and unlimited competition, as he believed that nothing would give so great a stimulus to education
  1194
  throughout the country as the recognition of such a principle.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the present mode of nominating and examining Candidates for junor appointments in the Civil Service, with a view to ascertaining whether greater facility may not be afforded for the admission of properly qualified persons."
  MR. STEUARTsaid, he wished to second the Motion, because he had been twice prevented, by unavoidable circumstances, from asking a question of the Government on this very subject. He believed the answer he would have elicited would have rendered this Motion unnecessary; but he thought this was a proper step, though he was not without hope that the answer of the Government to this Motion would render even this step unnecessary.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, the question was one that well deserved the attention of the House. The manner in which the Civil Service examinations were conducted was, in his opinion, generally complained of by the country, and he should therefore support the Motion. He had no doubt that the Committee, if appointed, would arrive at a principle by which the right men would be appointed to situations.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that in resisting the Motion he hoped it would be understood that the Government did so upon the ground that they did not think the time had yet arrived when an inquiry of this kind could be entered upon with any hope of a satisfactory result. The hon. Gentleman had very fairly stated the object of his Motion, which was in effect to throw the appointments in the Civil Service open to unlimited competition, but he (Mr. Laing) thought it would be premature to appoint a Committee before sufficient experience of the working of the system of competition had been obtained. It would be opening a most difficult question, and one that could only be usefully dealt with by proceeding experimentally, and by cautiously feeling their way. The only practical instance which they yet had of the complete working of competitive examination in the Civil Service was in China, and that was hardly a test by which the merits of the system could be fully judged. He admitted there were many arguments in favour of a perfect competitive system; and, were the abolition of patronage on the part of the Government, which was a real annoyance to many of its members, the only question to be considered, there would

  1195
  be no difficulty. The day had long gone by when the existence of a Government could depend on the distribution of its patronage. But there were more important considerations involved. One of the characteristics of Englishmen which distinguished them from foreigners was that they were more enterprising and self-relying, and less inclined to seek public appointments than the same class of persons abroad; and it was a question what would be the effect upon the national character caused by the élite of our youth being led to look forward at an early period of life for admission into snug situations in the Customs or Excise with fixed salaries, rather than trusting to their own energies for success in the world. That was one of the important considerations which made it necessary to proceed cautiously, and to be guided by the results of experience. That experience they had not yet had, and the whole question was unsettled. The system of competitive examinations was only at the commencement; the Civil Service Commission had only just extended its operations, and it was the opinion of the Commissioners —Sir J. Lefevre and Sir E. Ryan, to whom the country was much indebted for their valuable services—that the time had not yet arrived to judge of the results of the system. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the statement he had made, and would not press his Motion upon the present occasion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that it would be better to postpone the Motion for the present. He thought, however, that the result of an inquiry by a Committee would result in a more complete examination of the whole subject, and a more complete digest of all questions relating to appointments in the Civil Service, and a modified form of unlimited competition. There were three points connected with the improvement of the Civil Service. One was the adoption of a good mode of selecting candidates, another was the distribution of employment among candidates according to capacity, and thirdly a proper system of promotion in the various offices. The experience at present gained did not lead him to think that all those requisites had been combined, and to throw open the whole service without establishing a distinct character for each class would lead to the result that men who were fit for one
  1196
  class would offer themselves for another. If the established departments were thrown open to supplementary clerks, they would find that young men would enter as supplementary clerks, who, from their education and position in society, would look forward to rising to the highest posts in the service. That had been the case at present. Young men had obtained appointments as supplementary clerks who really looked forward for other employment. The whole subject required consideration, but he would advise his hon. Friend, after the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, not to press his Motion at present.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) would not be induced by the bland, seductive suggestion of the Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw his Motion. There was a marvellous similarity between the answer given by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) to-night and that given by the present Home Secretary in April, 1856, when a similar Motion was made, but, although four years had since elapsed, nothing had been done. The Motion did not seek to bring about a precipitate change, but simply proposed to inquire into the mode of working of the present system, which, in his opinion, was highly unsatisfactory, and whether it was the proper time to take away the scraps of patronage which the Treasury now possessed. The competitive system had been tried in the Indian service, and no injury had resulted from it. He would say, let the test of the candidates be what it might, they should throw open competition to the world. He had been urged by a person named Donovan, whom he knew well as a respectable man with a large family, to procure for one of his sons a nomination to compete for a vacancy in a public office, but he had found it as difficult to get this young man's named placed on the list of competitors as it formerly would have been to procure the appointment itself. He had been eight years a Member of that House, and never asked a favour; he was therefore independent of both sides. On the occasion to which he referred he had been put off in a shuffling manner; but he clearly saw that if he had made the application a matter of personal obligation, implying that he himself would be found pliable as opportunity offered, no difficulty would have occurred. That, however, would not suit him, and he was obliged to recommend the applicant to a more

  1197
  regular supporter of the Government. Such a system, he maintained, was alike degrading to the Government and to independent Members of that House, as well as most prejudicial to the public service. The fact was that the Secretary of the Treasury watched this patronage in peculiar times and emergencies, and if his hon. Friend did not divide the House on this Question, he would not do justice to his convictions.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the question evidently raised by this Motion and the speech now made is not a question to be submitted to a Committee, but a question of principle, which, in the first instance, ought to be left to the discretion of the Government; and if that discretion be not exercised in accordance with the opinion of this House, it will then be for the House to express its own opinion. The object of the Motion, as I understand it, is not to inquire whether the system of examination for the Civil Service is properly conducted—not to examine whether the Commissioners charged with the execution of this duty perform it in a manner satisfactory to the public; but the question which it raises is, whether we should adopt as a general principle that anybody who pleases is to come and write his name down in an office, saying he claims to be examined for the next vacancy in it, or whether that system in principle is to continue under which the heads of the different offices are responsible for selecting proper persons subject to examination for the vacancies that may arise. I differ entirety, as at present informed, and as far as my judgment goes, from the hon. Gentleman who spoke last; and my opinion is, that the present system is most consistent with the public interest—namely, that those who are at the heads of the different departments should make a selection of the young men who are to be examined—by competition, I admit—for the vacancies that may from time to time arise. I shall be told that is because the Government desire to retain the patronage which office gives them. I concur with my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Laing) in the opinion that so far as patronage has to be considered with the view of maintaining a Government, it is next to valueless. Governments must stand on the general opinion which this House may entertain of their merits, and any Government that fancies it can rest in security on gaining one hon. Member or
  1198
  another by petty appointments to clerkships in different departments of the public service will be destined, within a very short period, to fall to the ground. It is not on that ground at all that I object to this Motion, but it is, in the first place, because I do not think that in a country like this it is desirable that all the young men intending to provide for themselves in future life should turn themselves entirely to getting employment from the Government. I think such a system would have a tendency to lower the feelings of the rising generation. That is the case, I know, in some countries abroad, where every man considers that his only chance in life is to obtain employment under the Government. I think such a system tends to break down the independent spirit which ought to prevail among the youth of the country. And the inconvenience would be obvious, because, while every young man would write his name down, or get his friends to write his name down, with a view to examination for any vacancy that might occur, a very small portion only would succeed; those who did not succeed would be disappointed; and, not having turned their thoughts to a more independent mode of action, would be thrown out of employment in which they might have gained creditable and honourable support and distinction. Then, again, the inconvenience suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir S. Northcote) would arise. The administration of this country is divided into a great number of departments. The young men who think their habits and attainments calculated to fit them for a particular department would be writing their names down for a department which, after all, would not be the one for which they were best qualified, and you would get good men as candidates for an inferior department, and inferior men as candidates for a superior department. My opinion is, therefore, different from that of the hon. Member opposite. I do not think it would be for the advantage of the country generally that the present system should be changed. In the inferior departments, at all events, the discretion should not be taken from the heads of departments of selecting those whom they think fit to appoint for competition. I do not mean to say that there may not be some of the higher departments in which, perhaps, the other principle might be employed, but the case of the Indian service is totally different from the Civil Service at home,

  1199
  which is more divided into different departments, while in the Indian service they all work in one stream, and are afterwards distributed to higher departments, according to the wants of the service. I quite concur in the principle that the system of examination—I should say competitive examination, is very much calculated for the public service, and has been productive of very great advantage. It may be true, as I have often heard it alleged, that, in consequence of the tendency which always must prevail in a system of examination to put the standard higher and higher, a certain number of young men have been rejected who would have been very good clerks; but the public gain this advantage, that no young man is appointed who is not perfectly fit for the situation he obtains. I quite agree that the standard examination is not so advantageous as the competitive examination, because the tendency of the standard examination generally is to sink down to a minimum, whereas the tendency of the competitive examination is to raise itself up to the maximum. It has been objected, I know, that some of the questions put by the Commissioners to young men who are candidates for situations at the bottom of an office, involve attainments quite unnecessary for the duties they would have to perform. That is true, but the answer given by the Commissioners is also satisfactory. They say we have three or four young men to be examined for public employment. If the examination merely went to this point—what was necessary to qualify the young men for the duties they would have immediately to perform —there would be a great difficulty in determining the comparative ability and merit of the different candidates; but it would be necessary to add to those questions, that would satisfy the mind that they were fit for the duties immediately required, others of a higher class, in order to see which of the young men has the greatest range of information, and which was most likely to be fit for the higher duties to which he might soon be expected to rise. Consequently, much of the criticism one hears in private quarters, and sees sometimes in the public papers, on those questions being put falls to the ground when you consider that the object is to sift from a certain number of young men, those most competent by natural ability and acquired information, not to fit them only for the lower duties they will be called on
  1200
  immediately to discharge, but also for the higher duties which they may soon be called to fulfil. It may be very fitting and satisfactory to the House at some future period, perhaps next year, to appoint a Committee to ascertain whether the system of examination is or is not conducted in a manner best calculated for the interests of the public service, and so far as I am concerned, I should have no objection to the appointment of such a Committee. But it is due to these Commissioners, who have performed this useful service to the public, to say that I believe they have conducted these examinations on a principle well calculated to secure the good of the public service. I am quite sure that they would feel nothing but satisfaction in a Committee being at a future but no distant time appointed by this House to inquire into the course they have pursued, and I am satisfied, as far as my information goes, that the result of that inquiry would be satisfactory to the public, and honourable to the Commissioners by whom the system has been conducted.
  MR. ROEBUCK: The noble Lord mistakes the object of this Motion. It is not to ascertain whether the existing mode of examination for the Civil Service is a good one or a bad one, but to ascertain what that existing mode really is. When we know what it is that actually takes place it will be time enough to inquire whether it be good or bad. I do not understand then why we should wait till another year. "We can learn what we really want to know now just as well as a twelvemonth hence. The noble Lord is, therefore, rather precipitate in arguing about the consequences before they happen. I have no doubt that when the world authoritatively knows the facts of the case, it will be seen that this so-called competitive examination and doing away with patronage is all a pretence. That is what I want to fix upon the system. This House has already determined that there shall be an open competitive examination; but your mode of carrying out its resolution is illusory. There is no free competition." When we have this conclusively established before a Committee, we may hope to see a pressure put upon this House that will cause an alteration of the system. At present this is the manner in which it works:—Suppose A. B., one of my constituents, comes to me and says, "I have a son whom I want to compete for a situation in the Home

  1201
  Office. Do you think you can get his name put down for me?" I answer, "I have no doubt that I shall be able to do so." I go to the Home Office, and because I am a Member of Parliament I get what I ask for. But that is not open competition. Suppose that man was not one of my constituents; suppose he was a person of no importance in the borough or county in which he lived, and yet had a large family of children, one of whom wished to compete for a public appointment; if he did not know a Member of Parliament or some one of influence, why he would have no more chance of admission to this competition than I now have of competing for the seat of the Great Mogul. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury used a very curious argument. He says this proposal would cause the attention of all the enterprising young men in England to be directed to official positions; that it would, in fact, draw the best minds of the community to such stations. So the result to which his argument brings us is that we now have second-rate men in office, and I quite believe him. What we want by open competition is to have first-rate men in office. By a competitive system we have obtained first-rate men for India. And what harm can possibly arise from this inquiry? The hon. Gentleman says the subject is not ripe for inquiry. What‡ is it not ripe for ascertaining what the present practice is?—for, remember, that is the real question before us. We wish, in fact, to lay bare what you now do, that the world may know what your system of competition is, which I denounce here as an absolute sham, covered up under a stale pretence.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he presumed the Motion was made in the expectation that the Committee might recommend some other system of nominating candidates than that which now existed. The noble Lord, however, seemed to imagine there was no medium between the present mode and throwing the Treasury doors open to every young man between sixteen and twenty-five who demanded to be examined. The latter plan would be quite impracticable. Some test, whether in the form of a preliminary examination, a schoolmaster's certificate, or otherwise, would surely be required. These, however, were precisely the points that needed investigation, and he thought the labours of the Committee would be exceedingly useful, whether it sat this year or the next. The noble
  1202
  Lord seemed to entertain great fear of the mischief that would follow from an immediate inquiry; but he (Mr. Clay) did not, and therefore he should support the Motion.
  COLONEL SYKESsuggested that the system of competition practised in the various departments of the Indian service might be very advantageously applied to the admission of civil appointments in England. The standard of examination for Indian appointments was very high, and it obviated the inconvenience of too great a number of candidates. The object of all these competitive examinations was to enable those who came successfully out of them to obtain advancement in life. He should support the Motion.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he trusted the hon. Member would divide the House upon his Motion. He had been applied to a few years ago to aid the son of a Yorkshire magistrate in procuring an appointment. He was bandied about from one person to another, and was told that the Treasury nomination-list was full. He was afterwards informed that he might get the young man's name placed upon the right hon. Member for Wells's private list, but, of course, he heard nothing more on the matter. It was a gross injustice that the influence of a great person should be necessary to secure that chance of competing for the service of his country which was the birth-right of every free born Englishman.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he thought if the best men were engaged for the public service by open competitive examination it would be necessary to pay them higher salaries, and thus the expenses of the civil service would be much increased. Railway companies and private firms remunerated their ablest servants at a liberal rate. It would be better for the country and more convenient for the Members of that House if the public patronage were taken out of the hands of Members of Parliament.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid that his object was inquiry, and in accordance with what appeared to be the general wish, he should carry his Motion to a division.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman's only object was, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), to ascertain what the present system of examination really was [Several hon. MEMBERS: The system of nomination]—he should have no objection to the Motion,

  1203
  provided the object stated were more minutely defined.
  Question put, and agreed to.

RECREATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he had waived that part of his Motion on this subject which involved any allusion to the Lord's-day, and to the Resolution in its altered shape he believed that no opposition would be raised. His object was to obtain for the people the advantages of the expense already incurred in reference to such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery. If these places were open at stated hours on week-day evenings, as was the case now at Kensington, working men would be won from other pursuits highly injurious to their morals, and great benefit would result to the community. He should not, however, enter upon the general question, but would simply move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether it is in the power of Parliament to provide, or of this House to recommend, further facilities for promoting the healthful recreation and improvement of the people, by placing Institutions supported by general taxation, within reach of the largest section of the Taxpayers, at hours on week-days when, by the ordinary custom of trade, such persons are free from toil."
  SIR CHARLES DOUGLASseconded the Motion.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was glad the hon. Baronet had thought fit, in deference to the general feeling of the House, to modify his Motion on this subject. As it now stood, he (Mr. Kinnaird) should have great pleasure in co-operating with the hon. Member in any measure calculated to place the means of healthful and innocent recreation within the reach of the working classes, and so to benefit the whole community.
  MR. R. HANBURYsaid, he also wished to express his satisfaction at the course which the hon. Baronet had pursued in reference to the Motion. He would at the same time suggest that the early payment of wages by employers would greatly facilitate the efforts of our artisan population, and others to enjoy the advantages now sought for on their behalf.
  Motion agreed to; Select Committee appointed.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LOCKE KING MR. LOCKE KING moved for leave to bring in a Bill to further secure the liberty of religious worship. As the law now stood any number of members in the Church of England could meet in a private house for the celebration of religious worship, according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, except the most important of all—namely, the clergymen; and the object of the Bill was to remove that exception. If encouraged by the House he was ready to extend the operation of the Bill to include any locality whatever, but that point he proposed to settle in Committee.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he wished to inquire whether this Bill, dealing with religious worship, ought not to have been introduced, in the first instance, in a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. SPEAKERreplied in the negative.
  Leave given.
  Bill for further securing the liberty of Religious Worship ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE KING and Mr. HORSFALL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

TREATIES OF GUARANTEE.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  MR. KINGLAKE MR. KINGLAKE moved an Address, praying that in completion of the papers called "Treaties of Guarantee," there might be laid before that House extracts of the treaties by which Her Majesty was engaged to maintain in force any stipulations concerning the frontiers of France. The reason for his Motion was that the gentleman who had drawn up the previous return had omitted to insert those treaties by which England bound herself that certain States should be kept separate from other States. He thought that the return for which he had moved would tend to remove acrimony from the discussions between this country and France as to the annexation of Savoy, because it would show the Emperor that this country was not acting upon any whimsical idea or invidious feeling, but in conformity with solemn treaties. It would be right for him to give the House an idea of the papers which it would be necessary to produce. The definitive treaty between France and each of the other allied Powers, signed at Paris in 1815; the treaty of alliance and friendship between England and Austria,

  1205
  and a similar treaty between England and Russia, and England and Prussia.
  MR. KINNAIRDseconded the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address "that there be laid before this House, in completion of the Papers called 'Treaties of Guarantee,' Extracts of the Treaties by which Her Majesty is engaged to maintain in force any stipulations concerning the Frontiers of Franco."
  The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath.—The Earl of Yarborough.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Light Weight Racing.

LIGHT WEIGHT RACING BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had to ask their Lordships to give a first reading to a

  1103
  Bill for regulating the weights carried by racehorses. The ridiculously light weights now carried in some cases led to gambling practices on the turf, and were, he believed, exceedingly prejudicial to the breed of horses. At one time Parliament imposed restrictions on the weights allowed to be run at races; and although that Act had been repealed, the evil now prevailed to such an extent, that, although it might not be possible to remedy it altogether, something ought to be done. Every one, he thought, would admit that if a horse could not carry seven stone he could be of no use except to swell the crowd of horses in a race, and could not answer any legitimate purpose of racing. He proposed to enact by his Bill, that after the 1st January, 1861, no horse should start for any racing prize carrying less than seven stone, under penalty of forfeiture of the horse and £200. The penalty was made recoverable by any person whatever in the superior courts, and the person suing should be entitled to one moiety of the penalty, the other moiety being applicable to a weight for age race over the same course on which the illegal race had been run. The offender was also to pay double costs. He would not at present name a day for the second reading, in order that persons interested might have sufficient time for considering the matter.
  Bill to prevent the entering or running Horses carrying very light weights for any Plate or Money, presented, and read la.

ALTERATIONS IN THE PRAYER BOOK.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he wished to make a statement with respect to a matter which was discussed by their Lordships on Monday last. On that evening he moved for the Return of a copy of the Memorial presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the year 1851, from certain clergymen of the English Church, praying for alterations in the burial service, and for his Grace's reply thereto. He was told in answer by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack that it was not within the competence of their Lordships' House to order such a Return, the Memorial in question being a private document. He (Lord Ebury) then stated that he believed there were precedents for the Motion he had made, but could not at the moment remember them, and consented to withdraw his Motion. He was better acquainted with the pro-
  1104
  ceedings of the other House of Parliament than with those of their Lordships, and he found that there the precedents were altogether in his favour. In 1854, for example, Mr. Heywood moved for an Address to the Crown for a copy of the alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, proposed by the Commissioners appointed in 1789, which was in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, On that occasion the Motion was resisted by Mr. Goulburn; but the House of Commons overruled the objections, and the Return asked for by Mr. Heywood was ordered by the House. Again, so recently as yesterday, a Motion was made in the other House for a copy of the correspondence which had taken place between the Bishop of London and the rector of St. George's-in-the-East, and though an objection was taken to the Motion, it was nevertheless agreed to by the House. According to the precedents in "another place," therefore, he was perfectly justified in making the Motion he did. His object was to make the paper for which he moved the foundation of a Motion before their Lordships, and he still thought it was competent for them to order the production of the paper.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhad no doubt that his noble Friend was animated by the most laudable intentions in the Motion he made the other night, and that he believed he was following a regular course in doing so. He (the Lord Chancellor) had, nevertheless, felt it to be his duty to draw their Lordships' attention to the subject, and to submit whether it would not be an anomalous thing for them to order that the Paper moved for should be produced. It was the unanimous opinion of all present that it was not competent for their Lordships to do so, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) pointed out in forcible language the difficulties and inconveniences of such a course. There were two modes by which his noble Friend could have moved for the production of the Papers in question. He could have done so by moving a direct Order of the House; but it was evident that their Lordships could not have enforced such an Order, or he might have proposed an Address to the Crown to order the Paper to be laid on the table; but neither would the Crown have had any power to enforce its production. There was no power either with their lordships or the Crown to compel the Archbishop of Canterbury to produce a particular book or memorial from his library. His

  1105
  noble Friend pointed to precedents in the other House of Parliament for such a proceeding. But precedents were not law. It was possible that such things might have been done per incuriam, but he could not believe that they were warranted by the rules of the House, and were certainly not safe models for imitation. If that was so, a Member of the other House of Parliament might obtain an order to compel his noble Friend to produce any book in his library which he might wish to lay on the table of the House. There was not the slightest necessity for the Memorial which his noble Friend moved for being laid on their Lordships' table, as a reference to it would have equally answered his purpose. Nobody, he presumed, doubted the existence of such a document.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he could not consent that their Lordships should follow the example which his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) told them had been set in "another place." He considered that by doing so they would lower themselves, not only in their own estimation, but in the eyes of the world, to a level to which that House had never yet sunk. His noble Friend said that the other House of Parliament had agreed to an Address to the Crown to cause the Archbishop of Canterbury to produce a book that was in his library. But the Crown could no more order the production of such a document than could the Houses of Parliament. No doubt as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said, such was the course which had been taken; and there was another which might have been taken—namely, to proceed without an Address to the Crown, and send the Serjeant-at-Arms to the Archbishop of Canterbury to call on him to deliver up the book. Then, if the book was not given up, the Serjeant-at-Arms might follow a course resembling that taken by certain persons, not clothed with high authority, but possessed of physical force, who, meeting a man on the highway, produced, not a mace, but another instrument, probably more effectual than the sight of the awful mace, and ordered him to deliver up his purse, with an intimation that if the order was not complied with that instrument, and not entreaty, would be used for the purpose of enforcing it. He would not believe that the House of Commons could be so forgetful of the first principles of justice as to resort to that course; nor could he believe that they would address the Crown to do what was
  1106
  an illegal act; for the Crown had no more power than the Serjeant-at-Arms to call on the Archbishop of Canterbury to bring a book out of his library. Were it to be so far forgetful of its duty as to attempt to compel him to do so, the officers of the Crown who put this order in force would be subjected to the heaviest penalties.
  LORD EBURYreplied, that if their Lordships thought the precedent of the House of Commons in this respect was a bad one, he had not another word to say; but he had thought it right to direct their attention to it.

TREATY OF COMMERCE WITH FRANCE.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, pursuant to notice, moved for copies of any correspondence, in addition to that already presented to Parliament, that might have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the British Plenipotentiaries in Paris as to the negotiation of the Treaty of Commerce with France. The noble Lord said that it was not his intention on the present occasion to provoke a discussion of the general merits of the Commercial Treaty with France which had recently been signed at Paris, nor to enter upon the question of its bearings on our financial and commercial policy. These were matters which would, no doubt, be fully discussed next week in that other assembly on whose decision the fate of commercial treaties and financial projects might be said to depend, and he had no desire to anticipate their deliberations. The object which he had now in view was, simply to endeavour to obtain from the Government some explanation of that which appeared to him a very important provision of the treaty, to which, however, he could find no reference in the correspondence respecting the negotiations which had been laid before Parliament, and to which, if his memory served him right, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no allusion in the course of his speech on Friday last, though with respect to many other matters he entered into very detailed explanations. The provision to which he referred was to be found in the 11th Article of the Treaty, which ran as follows:—
  "The two high contracting Powers engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exportation."
  It would hardly, he thought be con-

  1107
  tended, though the provision was nominally binding upon both Powers, that there was much reciprocity in this stipulation. Nor in the course of the Correspondence respecting the Treaty could he find the remotest allusion to such an engagement on the part either of the French or the English Government. In that correspondence the subject of the coal trade was twice adverted to. In Lord Cowley's despatch to Lord John Russell, dated the 23rd of December, 1859, he stated that Count Walewski had informed him on the 22nd of December that he had had a conversation with Mr. Cobden which might lead to very important results; that, among other arrangements, the French Government might be disposed to admit British coal imported overland "at the same rate of duties as Belgian coal—seaborne coal to be subjected to the present duty for five years, when they would be assimilated to coal introduced overland." Lord John Russell, in his reply, dated the 17th of January, 1860, speaking of his desire that some of the commodities not now prohibited by the French tariff should be selected for early reduction, went on to say:—
  "An allusion is, indeed, made by Count Walewski to British coal; but such is the market for that commodity, both in this country and abroad, that no public interest would be excited upon the question whether the duty charged on it in France is to be high or low, or whether the remission is to be immediate or postponed. Indeed, there still remains more or less of a disposition, which formerly was strong, to view the export of coal with jealousy, or even to subject it to fiscal restriction."
  Lord John Russell then proceeded to state what reductions in the tariff Her Majesty's Government was prepared to make in favour of French goods, and to intimate what relaxations in the French Tariff he expected in return. On the 31st of January the Treaty was received at the Foreign Office, and Lord John Russell wrote on the same day to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden, to convey to them Her Majesty's approval of the able and judieious manner in which the negotiations had been carried to a successful issue, and to intimate that the ratification of the Treaty would be sent to Lord Cowley as soon as it was ready. But not once in the correspondence —neither in the original proposal of Count Walewski, nor in the more fully developed proposal of Lord John Russell—nor in the despatch conveying Her Majesty's approval—was the engagement contained in the 11th Article of the
  1108
  Treaty even hinted at. It would really seem as if no equivalent whatever had been asked for in return for this concession on the part of England—as if it had been contemptuously thrown into the bargain as something too insignificant to be thought worth mentioning. Now, no one would plead that this was a matter of reciprocity; for though it was true that the engagement was equally binding on both countries, no one could expect that England would ever import coal from France. He did not wish to lay much stress upon the circumstance that so long as this Treaty should continue in force we should be cut off from one source of revenue of which we might otherwise have availed ourselves, though there were high authorities in political economy who were in favour of an export duty on coal. The question had another and, as it seemed to him, a much more serious aspect. No one, he thought, would deny that the matter had strong political bearings. He took for granted, what he believed was now universally admitted, that the issue of the next struggle which might take place upon the seas would be decided by steam. We in England, at least, were so satisfied of this that we had ceased to build any other vessels than steamships for purposes of war, and we had, at great expense, converted many of our sailing vessels into steamers. All other maritime nations were, he believed, imitating our example more or less rapidly. But from this state of things, it would follow, as a matter of course, that, other things being equal, that nation would have a great advantage in naval warfare, which, having itself coal in great abundance, and of good quality, was able to cut off supplies of coal suitable for steamers from countries with whom it might be at war. Now, we were at present in this position. It so happened that we had not only more extensive coalfields than any other nation in Europe, but that there was to be found in great abundance within these islands a kind of coal, commonly known by the name of steam-coal, better adapted for steam navigation than that which was possessed by any other European nation. Owing to its greater density, its bulk in proportion to its weight was very small, compared with the other kinds of coal, so that a much greater number of tons could be stowed away in the hold of a ship. At the same time a given weight of this description of coal would generate a much greater quan-

  1109
  tity of heat than other descriptions of coal. It was asserted that the advantage in this respect was as much as 44 per cent in favour of steam-coal. In a word, it was the most highly concentrated kind of fuel which had yet been discovered. Its admirable qualities were now, he believed, fully recognized by all those who were connected with the administration of the British Navy. It had been carefully tested by experiments conducted on board the ships of war of the French Navy; and the result of those experiments had been clearly to establish the superiority of the steam-coal of South Wales over any coal which had yet been discovered in France. And neither in Belgium nor in Germany was there any ground for supposing that any considerable quantity of steam-coal was to be found; while the small quantity of steam-coal extracted from the mines of those countries was not equal in quality to the produce of the English coal-fields. Under present conditions we had it in our power, if so minded, to cut off, or, at all events, greatly to restrict the supply to foreign countries of a material which might be said to be indispensable for purposes of maritime warfare. That could be done without in any way raising unpleasant questions as to matters of international law. Our right to prohibit the export of coal, was not and could not be a matter of dispute: it was a mere question of internal regulation, with which foreign Powers had nothing to do. We had the control in our hands. That control, if this provision of the Treaty took effect, we were about to abandon. He thought the inconveniences which might follow were too obvious to make it necessary for him to dwell on them at much length; but he would cite one or two instances by way of illustration. He would suppose during the ten years that this Treaty was to be in force, that France should come into collision with some other Power, England remaining neutral. He would suppose that, so far as France was concerned, England disapproved entirely of the war; that her sympathies were enlisted on the other side, though she did not think it necessary to take on herself the part of a belligerent. He would suppose, further, that the operations in which the French forces were engaged, depended, to a great degree, on the equipment of their steamers; and that a material element of success was the capability of those steamers to remain at sea under steam for a considerable time
  1110
  without being obliged to return to port to coal. That, it was obvious, must
  depend to a great degree on the quality of the coal with which they were supplied. That would be a case in which, by this provision, we should be bound to furnish to France any quantity of that warlike material which was most required for the success of her operations against a friendly Power with whom we sympathized. Suppose, again, that this country were engaged in war with some maritime Power, or with a combination of maritime Powers, France preserving her neutrality. Under the provisions of this Treaty we were bound to allow French traders to export our coals, whatever might be their ultimate destination. Coals might be freely exported to the ports of the Power with which we were at war, or to the nearest convenient neutral port, if the enemy's ports were too strictly blockaded. He would cite only one instance more. With most of the European Powers we had commercial treaties; and in almost all those Treaties there was inserted what was called a "most favoured nation" clause. Under those Treaties we wore bound to afford to other nations the same commercial advantages as we gave to France. Suppose circumstances should arise which should lead to serious misunderstandings between England, on the one side, and several of the great European Powers on the other, and that there was reason to apprehend a coalition on the part of those Powers against England-Such coalitions there had been, such coalitions there might be again. But under this provision we should be bound, up to the very moment when war should be declared, to allow every one of those States to export from this country, and to accumulate in their own dockyards, coal to be supplied to steamers which were to be employed, it might be, in endeavouring to effect a descent upon our own shores. It might be that, under such circumstances, and in consequence of the difficulty in which this provision had placed them, the Government of the day might be compelled to take upon itself, as the Governments of this country had sometimes done in days gone by, the tremendous responsibility of precipitating the conflict, and of striking the first blow before the preparations of the combined Powers should be completed. But in that case the responsibility would in reality rest, not upon those who might be compelled to take it, but upon the head of that Government which, by assenting to

  1111
  this inconsiderate and ill-advised concession, would have rendered such a step necessary. The people of England, if he knew anything of their temper, were above all things jealous, and justly jealous, of proceedings on the part of their Government which might tend in any manner to impair the maritime superiority of their country over other nations. And how could they be otherwise? It was not long since the Prime Minister told them,—for, though the words were spoken to a deputation, yet the words of a Prime Minister of England went forth throughout the land, and not through this land only, but through Europe and to the ends of the earth,—that the very existence of this country depended upon the maintenance of her superiority at sea. If we gave effect to this treaty, and to this provision, let them beware that there arose not ere long a cry in England that this treaty must be torn up and scattered to the winds, because its provisions were incompatible with the security of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that great speech the other night, in which he unfolded his commercial policy, and surpassed even all his former efforts, had expressed a hope that this Treaty might tend to knit together in bonds of amity those two great and high-spirited nations whose conflicts had often shaken the world. So far, at least, as this provision was concerned, he (the Earl of Airlie) could see in. it nothing but the fruitful source of mutual jealousies, of distrust, of dissensions, it might be of enmity and war; and it was in the interest of peace, as much as for any other cause, and because he wished from his heart to see a good understanding between Prance and England established and maintained—because he wished to see an alliance, not of the Government only, but of the nations, that he deprecated this provision. He did entreat the Government that they would use their influence with the Government of Prance to induce them to allow this article to be revised. Surely, it could be no part of the design of the French Government, under the guise of a Commercial Treaty, to introduce—to smuggle in as it were—a provision which at no distant period might preclude the Government of England from taking steps which they might consider necessary for the security of the country; and, if such a project really had entered into the mind of the Government of Prance, it was not possible that
  1112
  Her Majesty's Government could desire to assist them in carrying it into effect. But if it should appear that difficulties were likely to arise which would render it impossible for the two Governments to agree to revise this provision of the Treaty, then he hoped that Parliament would take that step which was expressly recognized by the terms of the Treaty itself, and that it would, at all events, postpone the consideration of the Treaty until a satisfactory arrangement had been arrived at with regard to this provision. It was probably quite unnecessary for him to state that in the step he had taken and in the observations he had made to-night he had not been prompted by any spirit of hostility towards the Government. On the contrary, he thought he had acted a very friendly part towards them in taking an early opportunity of pointing out to them that the provision which he had been discussing was open, not only in his opinion, but in the opinion of many of their habitual supporters, to the very gravest objections, and in affording them an opportunity of giving explanations and of producing papers which might throw a light upon the subject. He was anxious to know, and, no doubt, the House and the country were also anxious to know, when this proposal was first made and by whom it was broached, when the Foreign Secretary was informed of it, whether it was submitted to the Cabinet, whether any instructions on the subject were transmitted to Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden, whether any communications were received from them on this subject by Lord John Russell, what was the nature of those communications, and whether Lord Cowley and Mr. Cobden were entirely agreed upon this point. Lord Cowley did not seem to have been much consulted respecting this Treaty. In his first despatch to Lord John Russell his Lordship said—
  "If Her Majesty's Government decide upon pursuing this negotiation, it cannot be intrusted to better hands than those of Mr. Cobden. The merit of whatever may be effected will rest solely with him, and it is but fair that he should have the satisfaction of putting his name to the final arrangement."
  Again, in his letter of January 23, he said —
  "The way had been so completely cleared by Mr. Oobden's previous active exertions, that the task which I have had to perform has been comparatively light."
  That task must certainly have been very light indeed, and the negotiation even

  1113
  seemed to have proceeded a considerable length before Lord Cowley had any official information on the subject. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence (in addition to that already presented to Parliament) which may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries in Paris respecting the Negotiation of the Treaty of Commerce with France."
  LORD WODEHOUSEhad no objection to furnish copies of or extracts from the correspondence referred to, though he did not know that they would afford the information which the noble Earl seemed to desire. His noble Friend said that Lord Cowley had apparently been very little consulted, and that the Treaty had really been negotiated by Mr. Cobden. Now, nobody had the slightest desire to conceal that. The Treaty was negotiated principally by Mr. Cobden, and he (Lord Wodehouse) did not think that public confidence in it would be diminished by a knowledge of this fact. With respect to the 11th Article of the Treaty, he did not understand his noble Friend to object to the engagement that no export duty should be levied on coal; but to the stipulation that Her Majesty's Government should not prohibit the exportation of coal from Great Britain. Now, on this point his noble Friend had failed to take into consideration the 19th Article, or "favoured nation clause," in which the two high contracting Powers engaged "not to enforce one against the other any prohibition of importation or exportation which shall not at the same time be applicable to all other nations." This stipulation would prevent Her Majesty from prohibiting the export to France of any article which was not also prohibited from being exported to any other country. That was a provision, therefore, which any Government would be very loth to adopt, because prohibition, if made at all, must be general. The stipulation was one which it was very important to bear in mind when considering the operation of the special provision contained in the 11th Article, and it seemed to him to afford an answer to one portion of the noble Earl's speech. The noble Earl's principal objection to this provision arose from the inconvenience or the danger which might be incurred if the English Government were unable to prohibit the export of coal to France in case of war or intended war. Such a prohi-
  1114
  bition, he said, would entail a heavy responsibility upon the Government, and would be regarded as a first step towards hostilities. But the prohibition would be just as serious whether any such article were contained in the treaty or not. If war were apprehended with France, and it was necessary to forbid the exportation of coal, it would matter very little whether such a treaty had been concluded or not; the angry feelings which would be aroused by any such prohibition would be the same in either case; and the breaking of a commercial treaty would not add to the inconveniences of war. The noble Earl argued as though we ought to reserve all our steam-coal for our own navy; but this we could only do as regarded all other nations as well as France. He (Lord Wodehouse) thought, therefore, that exaggerated apprehensions had been expressed as to the effect of a provision which merely recorded the intentions of Her Majesty's Government not to prohibit the exportation of an article of the greatest importance to the manufacturers and to the trade of France.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that the present conversation raised, in fact, the question of the whole Treaty, which he considered a very one-sided affair—wholly on the side of France. As far as regarded political considerations and the future, he would not deny that when the time arrived that the export duties and the import duties of the two countries should be placed on the footing on which they would probably be placed some years hence, very great advantages might be derived from the Treaty; but when we gave away by Treaty—by solemn Treaty—to a neighbouring country, and bound ourselves hand and foot not to retract the engagement, whether we liked it or not, until a very critical moment should arrive—important resources of the State, the Government ought not to be surprised if the jealousy of the people was excited. He looked on coals as the great power which this country possessed for aggression or defence, and he protested against that portion of the Treaty which, in words so specific and remarkable, withdrew from us the power of retracting at any time the exportation of that most important element in warfare. To say that the engagement was reciprocal was to place silk against coals—an utter absurdity. There was no equality in this, at all events. This very power of prohibition on both sides operating in this unequal manner, was an evidence of

  1115
  what is stated at the outset, that the Treaty was altogether a one-sided one. Supposing that some unfortunate circumstance should arise, and that with regard to the "most favoured nation" clause, we quarrelled with Russia, and stopped our trade in coal with her, our trade in that article would still be continued with France; and supposing that France should be a neutral Power, the trade in coal between France and Russia would offer so important a source of revenue to France that she would be anxious to pursue it to any extent, and we should be obliged, at the risk of grievous offence to France, to continue the coal trade virtually to our enemy, owing to being pledged not to prohibit the exportation under any circumstances. To tie ourselves to such an engagement in such a manner that we could never retract, was a mode of proceeding he could not understand.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he thought the noble Earl had very much exaggerated the importance of this matter, for he did not believe that any country in Europe would be prevented from going to war by the want of English coal. Did their lordships believe that if France wished to go to war with England want of coal would prevent her? Certainly he did not. In the expenses of a war, the additional amount to be paid for coal would be insignificant. The advantage to France of the free exportation of English coals consisted in its lessening the expense of French manufactures, by keeping down the price at her own mines. If the French were to set up manufactures, it would be only on the guarantee of getting coals at a reasonable price. If they found the price of coals suddenly raised against them, they could not compete with our manufacturers; they could not do this without cheap steam power. Supplying the French with coal was putting them on a level, and enabling them to compete with our manufacturers; if they had not coal they could not compete. But the question of coal was only one of the points which made the noble Earl object to the Treaty. He objected to it from beginning to end. He said, "We give everything to France, and we get nothing in return." He (the Duke of Somerset) considered this Treaty a measure valuable as the commencement of a new era for trade. It was the foundation of a new system of intercourse between England and France and all the countries of Europe, and he believed that hereafter it
  1116
  would produce amicable relations in place of the warlike preparations which were now, unfortunately, so visible throughout Europe. He believed that this Treaty would be found, if carried out for a year or two, most advantageous to this country. To withdraw from the Treaty the provision against retracting the prohibition of the importation of coal would excite the jealousy of the manufacturers of France, and induce them to suspect that we were actuated, not by a desire for mutual prosperity, but for our own selfish ends. Supposing a French manufactory started, and the English, acting under a presumed commercial policy, checked the exportation of British coals, what would be the result? The French must carry on their works with high-priced French coals, or give them up. It was not a question of war and peace. let war arise; and, as between belligerents, all treaties ceased to operate. If we wanted to toll the French they might compete with us in manufacturing skill, one thing was requisite, and that was an assurance that they should be secure of getting coal at a certain price. What was the argument of the French on this subject? They said the prosperity of France really required that they should exclude English coals, and for this reason: English coal had done them mischief; it had come in and prevented the French from developing their own mineral resources; if this coal had not come in, the French would have opened up the coal fields of France. Coal was now brought in cheap, and they did not sufficiently develope their own resources, and if war came suddenly upon them they would be unable to compete with England. It would take them some time, they maintained, before they could open their own coal pits, so as to replace the quantity that would be withdrawn by the stoppage of the English supply. Now, this was the French mode of arguing this point. But it appeared to him (the Duke of Somerset) that the view taken in that House to-night by the noble Earl relative to retaining the power to stop the exportation of coals, would be in every respect a great mistake. If we did prohibit the exportation of coals, it would necessarily excite so strong a feeling as to be almost tantamount to a declaration of war.
  EARL GREYagreed with the noble Duke that the objection taken by the noble Earl really involved an objection to the whole treaty, and on that very

  1117
  ground he concurred with the noble Earl. He did not wish to impose any restriction on the export of coal. The county with which he was connected' was deeply interested in that export, and when in the other House he took an active part in the opposition to the duty on the export of coal proposed by Sir Robert Peel, which though it did not succeed at the time, succeeded shortly after, for the duty lasted only a year or two. He also trusted that circumstances might never arise to make it the interest of this country to prohibit the export of coal; but still they could not say what might be the state of things in future years, and therefore he objected to deprive the Government and Parliament of the power, should circumstances require it, of putting a stop to the export of coal. He agreed, however, with the noble Duke that the objection extended much farther—it extended to the whole system of making-commercial regulations, which ought to be settled according to our own domestic interests, a matter of stipulation with foreign countries. He did not object in themselves to most of the changes provided for by the commercial treaty. He had no wish to continue any protection in favour of the British silk manufacturer, of the colonial wine-grower, of the home watchmaker, or of any one trade affected by the treaty. All those protections were bad, and should be got rid of as soon as possible. He might doubt, indeed, whether, looking at the present state of the country and the condition of our finances, the duty upon wine was one which ought to have been selected for reduction. He was con-finned in that doubt by a very high authority, because he found, in his instructions to Mr. Cobden and Lord Cowley, Lord John Russell himself expressly stating that there were other duties which would have a prior claim upon the attention of our Government, were it not for what we were to get in return. In a subsequent part of the same despatch, Lord John stated that, looking at the different nature and the much higher value of French as compared with British brandy, and having regard to the interests of the Exchequer, the Government thought that 10 s. would be a proper duty for French brandy. But the duty now proposed was one of 8s. 2d. only. A duty which was nominally equal might not be really so, and when articles differed much in intrinsic value, the same duty would bear upon them with an unequal pressure. British brandy was much
  1118
  cheaper and less valuable than French brandy, and to put the same duty upon both might, in point of fact, be tantamount to imposing a differential duty against our own producer. Such, so lately as the 17th of January, was the opinion of the Government. He was inclined to adhere to it still. We should, perhaps, learn from the correspondence which had been moved for, what were the reasons which had induced the Government to alter their opinion. But that, was not his main objection to the treaty. He objected to making commercial questions a matter of stipulation with foreign countries. A commercial treaty debarred Parliament from dealing with financial questions as it ought to do, according to its own unbiassed judgment, unfettered by any foregone conclusion between this country and France, but with reference only to our own domestic interests. It was, he thought, an infringement of the power and rights of Parliament. It was, moreover, a return to the old vicious principle of making commercial regulations a matter of bargain with foreign countries, which we knew from experience led to the adoption of a narrow and restrictive commercial policy. We knew that so long as we made our own admissions of foreign produce contingent upon the mode in which foreign countries dealt with our produce, no progress was made in relieving Europe from the evils of a restrictive system. We knew, on (he other hand, that when we ceased to trouble ourselves with the conduct of foreign nations and regulated our import duties simply according to our own interests, commercial freedom made great progress, not only in this country, but throughout the whole of Europe. Yet now we were returning to the old pernicious system. We were going to reduce certain duties upon French produce, not for the sake of the advantage which we might derive directly from their reduction, but for the sake of certain other concessions which France was to make with regard to British produce. What would be the effect of such a policy? The immediate tendency would be to confirm the French people in all those prejudices which now held firm possession of their minds; to make them believe that the impending change in the system of protection which had so long existed among them was to take place for the benefit, not of French, but of British industry; to lead them to look to the gain they might obtain

  1119
  from the admission of their produce to our markets, instead of to the direct advantage of relaxing their own commercial law. That was extremely dangerous. If the opinion of France became really in favour of commercial freedom, no doubt a sound system would speedily be established; but if it remained as at present, then he feared there was very little chance of an effectual reform. Their Lordships would observe that the advance which France made on the road of commercial freedom, as far as the Treaty was concerned, was most inconsiderable. She retained her whole system of navigation laws, and she bound herself to no duties upon our manufactured goods lower than 30 per cent in the first instance, and 25 per cent afterwards. The only articles upon which she made any material reduction were coal and iron, which she wanted in order to stimulate her manufactures. That was a very partial advance, and for the sake of such a small advantage to be gained from France we were sacrificing a great principle, and at the same time confirming all those mischievous prejudices which prevented the people of France from adopting a wiser commercial system. He could not doubt that if we had abstained from the Treaty, if we had left matters to the operation of the good sense of the French people, and of their experience of the effects of our own changes in our commercial policy, we should very soon have witnessed much larger results. Indeed, if he were not misinformed, the French Emperor had already had it represented to him by a high authority that France could no longer bear the double burden of the enormous expenditure necessary to maintain her large establishments, and of the evils arising from a multitude of restrictions upon her industry. If, instead of teaching the French people to believe that their interests were sacrificed to ours, and that the proposed changes were to be made for the benefit of England, we had allowed matters to proceed as they were, remitting all those duties with which the Government intended to deal,—always providing that such a step could be taken with advantage to our own interests and with no injury to the Exchequer—but avoiding any stipulation upon the subject, he was persuaded that we should have done far more than we were now likely to do for that commercial freedom and that intercourse between the two nations which, in common with the noble Duke, he believed
  1120
  to be of inestimable value. He regretted that we had not taken that course for another reason. A great part of the reductions which were to take place in the French tariff were not to come into operation for a very considerable period. Now, we knew from our own experience that in changing from a narrow to a more liberal system of commercial policy the period of greatest danger was at that moment when the new system had been determined upon, but not yet brought into operation. At that time we had all the apprehension and exaggerated alarm which was created by the change, and we had not experience to correct it, nor had we the corresponding benefits to neutralize those partial inconveniences which must always, in the first instance, result from a large change of commercial policy. His fear, therefore, was that till some time after 1861, when the change was to come into operation in France, there would be great pressure and distress among those interests which were going to be deprived of part of the protection which they had hitherto enjoyed; and during the whole of that interval the blame of that distress would be thrown upon this country, an angry feeling against England would be created in the minds of the French people; and he was afraid among large classes of them it might even go so far as to lead to a desire to interrupt the operation of the Treaty by a quarrel with us. He doubted much whether the effect of this Treaty during the next year and a-half might not be to drive into the ranks of the war party, which he was afraid already existed in France, some of those who were now the advocates of peace with this country. This was a serious political inconvenience, and one which ought to be well considered before any treaty was finally concluded. He was, however, told that the reason for concluding this Treaty was, that the general opinion of France was hostile to free trade, and that even the Emperor, powerful as he was, could not carry a law for the abolition of the existing protection even through such a Legislature as that of France. To his mind this was the strongest argument which could be urged against the Treaty. Much as he valued freedom of commerce, he valued political freedom still more; and desirable as he thought it that France should have the benefits of free trade, he could not think it for her advantage that those benefits should be forced upon her

  1121
  against her deliberate opinion. Nay, further, if it was true that the opinion of France was so hostile to this step, that even in such a Legislature as now existed there, the enormous power of the Emperor would be insufficient to carry a law for the relaxation of prohibitions, what wore we to think of the conduct of a foreign country which assisted the Emperor in overbearing so strong and deliberate an opinion on the part of the country, and in order to do so departed from the principles upon which it had for many years acted, and abandoned the policy which had at last been adopted by statesmen of all parties, —that of making its financial measures independent of those of foreign countries? Could we take such a course without giving just offence to every man in France who desired that his country should remain in possession of the smallest fragment of political liberty? Did he think that this treaty would cement the alliance between the two countries, none would hail it with more delight than himself; but, while admitting that such would be the effect of free trade, he denied that that would be the result of this Treaty. On the contrary, it seemed to him that its direct tendency would be to excite in France a state of irritation against this country, to postpone the period at which real freedom of trade might be established between the two nations, and to bring it to pass that for at least a year and a half, the state of things should be full of political danger.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he rose to call attention to the circumstance that, while the noble Earl who opened the discussion had confined his objection to one article of the Treaty only, the noble Earl who had just addressed the House had raised the general question of the soundness of the principles upon which the Treaty was founded. That was, he thought, hardly a convenient occasion for the discussion of so wide a question; but he could not avoid pointing out to their Lordships that those who took objection to the Article as to coal were generally influenced by a general dislike to the abstract principle upon which the Treaty was founded. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) who had just sat down was very fond of abstract principles, and when he got upon one, he generally rode it to death. He did not complain of his doing so with the principle of free trade; but he thought the noble Earl had entirely misapprehended the principle on
  1122
  which this Treaty was founded. It was not founded upon the old and exploded theory of reciprocity treaties. It was not an exclusive Treaty between England and France as regarded the articles on which it operated. There was no mention with regard to articles from other countries; but it was understood by the French Government that our operations were not to be confined to French articles, but to all articles of the same kind from whatever country they came. That was the essential difference between the old reciprocity treaties and the present. The noble Earl had not defended the abstract principle of free trade, as it had hitherto been contended for in Parliament, correctly. He (the Duke of Argyll) did not believe it had ever been laid down as an abstract principle that never, under any circumstances, ought fiscal changes to be made the subject of commercial treaties. What was contended in both Houses, and by the advocates of free trade, was that when certain changes for our own fiscal purposes were desirable, you should not wait until you could persuade other countries to give you additional benefit before you adopted such a measure; but he never heard it contended —and it would be contrary to common sense to contend—that they were not to take the one advantage in addition to the other. It was a fair principle not to withhold from our own people the advantages remission gave them, until they obtained advantages from other countries; but it was a violation of common sense to say that when they secured both they were not to do so on the abstract principles of free trade. In this instance the matter arose in the course of communications between the Governments of France and England. The French Government said: —"If you are going to make certain changes, and will do it in a certain way, we shall be able to give you a double advantage by a remission of some of our duties." To adopt the course recommended by the noble Earl, and to reject this offer from admiration of the principles of free trade, or in deference to the constitutional forms of France, would have been a great mistake in policy, and a course against the interests of England. The noble Earl said that under this Treaty the French interests affected would suffer from exaggerated alarm, and that injury would accrue from the introduction of the change. This, however, was an objection that did not really aim at the form of the Treaty, but would

  1123
  apply equally if the Emperor made the proposed changes in any other form. Despite of these apprehensions, he thought the noble Earl would admit that in the end the operation of the Treaty would be favourable to the French people, and that speedily. That the view which he took was the correct one was shown by a reference to the Resolution moved by Mr. Ricardo in the House of Commons on the 25th of April, 1843, and supported by the noble Earl, which declared—
  "That it is inexpedient that any contemplated remission of import duties should be postponed with the view of making such remission the basis of commercial negotiations with foreign countries;"
  the whole stress of the Motion being that you should not delay remissions until other countries gave you a corresponding advantage.
  EARL GREY: The whole speech was against making it a matter of negotiation at all.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My noble Friend's speech, perhaps, was.
  EARL GREY: And Mr. Ricardo's.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The speeches must be read with reference to the particular transaction which was attacked, and with reference to the Motion which was made. He did not deny in the abstract that it might be better, if it were possible, to operate in the direction of free trade, and not to delay making remissions until other countries offered you a return; but years had clapsed and there had been no sign of any relaxation of the French tariff. Would their Lordships believe that our whole export trade with France was less than that to our single colony of Victoria? Was not that a state of things which any Government would desire to remedy? His noble Friend had not drawn a fair inference from the speech of Lord John Russell, who had said that the productions to which allusion had been made were not such articles of primary necessity as to entitle them "on those grounds" to the interference of the Government. There were, however, other grounds which called for that interference. It should be remembered that every one of those duties which were to be remitted must have been abandoned under that reform of our fiscal system which was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The great object which Her Majesty's Government had had in view was to simplify our tariff and make a general reform of Customs' duties, and he maintained that
  1124
  every duty dealt with had fallen naturally in their Way. He was surprised to hear his noble Friend quote British brandy as something that ought to be protected. Why, British brandy was a counterfeit article, and his noble Friend, who was a Protectionist one moment and a Free-trader the next, contended that we ought to maintain a high duty upon French brandy as a protection against British brandy. In reference to another portion of his noble Friend's argument, he should observe that his noble Friend himself did not deny that the Emperor of the French had acted in that matter in conformity with the principles of his own constitution; and it seemed to him (the Duke of Argyll) that it would be something more than a Puritanical superstition on the part of the British Government if they were to refuse to accept that great boon to the two nations immediately interested because it was not granted in the form most suited to what his noble Friend called the political liberties of France. That was a matter which Her Majesty's Government must have left entirely to the discretion of the French Government, and it was not a point on which they were called upon directly or indirectly to express any opinion whatever. Before he sat down he wished to offer a few remarks on the subject of coal, to which a reference
  had been made by his noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie) who had commenced
  that discussion. He was bound to acknowledge that he had found, both from private conversation and from other sources, considerable fear and jealousy entertained of that portion of the Treaty by persons who looked favourably upon its general provisions. That showed the great sensitiveness—he readily admitted the just and natural sensitiveness—of the public mind in this country in reference to every question which in any way affected the maintenance of our naval power. But he trusted that the clear and able explanation which had been given by his noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord Wodehouse) would remove the misapprehensions which appeared to prevail upon that point. No one, he believed, could doubt the perfect harmlessness to this country of that article of the treaty by which we engaged to place no duty on the exportation of coal for revenue purposes. The experiment of imposing such a tax was made
  by Sir Robert Peel in the year 1842; but it had been

  1125
  found a disastrous—he might almost say discreditable—failure, and it had been abandoned by the same great Minister in the year 1845. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) was always a most strenuous opponent of that duty. He showed that it was wrong in principle, that it imposed restrictions upon trade, and that, from its vexatious interference it was a duty that could not be maintained by a British Parliament. In 1845 this export duty upon coal was repealed by Sir Robert Peel, who said:—
  "We do think it will be an important principle to establish, that with respect to exports there shall he no duty leviable. I am unwilling to make any exception to this principle, that with respect to exports no duty shall henceforth survive."—[See 3 Hansard, lxxvii., 478.]
  No one would contend that this engagement not to impose an export duty on coals for purposes of revenue was not perfectly harmless. Then, as far as that was a political question, it had already been explained by his noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that, in truth the only effect of that clause was to put France in precisely the same position to us with regard to the export of coal in which all other nations were placed, because under existing treaties we could not prohibit the export of that article to any one nation, unless we were to extend the prohibition to other nations. He apprehended that if that clause were expunged from the treaty the same effect would be produced as far as regarded the power of prohibition by the provision that extended to France the "most favoured nation" clause, which was an essential part of all commercial treaties. With regard to the case of a contemplated war, he should say he thought that discussion had shown that noble Lords were not aware of the enormous interest connected in this country with the export of coal. The fact was that the prohibition of that export would destroy one of the great branches of our trade. In the year 1842, when Sir Robert Peel imposed the export duty upon coal, the quantity which we sent abroad fell short of 1,500,000 tons; but since that duty had been abolished our export of coal amounted to little less than 7,000,000 tons, valued at £3,000,000. That was a trade with which no Government would interfere except under the pressure of some extreme political emergency and danger. It was not merely the coalowner who was interested, but an enormous amount of British shipping was engaged
  1126
  in the trade, so that under no circumstances short of life or death could the Government interfere with this great export trade. In case of war no doubt we could do anything, and we should be justified in breaking through this article of the Treaty. But unless we prohibited the export of coals to all other countries, how could we prevent the Americans, Swedes, or Danes from exporting coals from England and taking them to France? He hoped that the House and the public would sec that, except so far as this article of the treaty was open to all the abstract objections that might be taken to other portions of it, there need be no public alarm or anxiety whatever about this clause. He should say, for his part, that he looked upon it as one which was calculated to produce a very important effect, of an entirely pacific character. Coal was valuable for war, but it was much more valuable for commercial and manufacturing purposes; and he thought nothing could be more desirable than that a great interest should rise up in France, depending wholly for its prosperity on the constant supply of English coal. We should, then, establish between ourselves and the people of France, in reference to that article, relations similar to those which existed between us and the people of the United States of America with respect to cotton. He felt persuaded that the nature of our relations with the American people in regard to the supply of cotton had contributed more than any other circumstance to prevent the causes of potty irritation between the two nations from expanding into a war. He believed that if the same relations existed between us and France, the same effect would be produced; and he looked to the export of coal to France, and the introduction of French produce to this country on advantageous terms, as the grounds on which we might hope to lay the foundation of a better feeling than had hitherto existed between the people of the two countries.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that every one must be glad to witness an extension of the commercial intercourse between this country and France; but there might, nevertheless, be special reasons why he might doubt whether a Treaty such as this was the most desirable means of accomplishing that end. It was not from any doubt he entertained as to the value of the abstract doctrines of political economy that he saw objections to this Commercial Treaty, but because he was

  1127
  opposed to those doctrines being in any way bound up with Commercial Treaties. He objected to Commercial Treaties for the same reason that Sir Robert Peel did—because they unnecessarily and often mischievously tied up our hands in the regulation of our own fiscal system. By the Treaty now under consideration we entered into engagements, not with France only, but with the whole world, for a period of ten years, and during that time our hands would be completely bound. The arrangement proceeded upon the principle that duties should be abolished on all articles of foreign produce, except on a few great articles of consumption, which were retained for the sake of revenue; and then to make good the deficiency we were to have recourse to an income tax, a tax specially obnoxious to the people of this country; and which all Chancellors of the Exchequer had hitherto deemed it impossible to retain in its present shape, if it was to become a permanent impost. There were two articles in the Treaty involving matters of great importance to which he would briefly refer. The first article was that in which France declared that, over and above certain duties which were named, she maintained her right to levy such differential duties as she pleased on foreign shipping entering into French ports. He should like to see the entire correspondence that had taken place, in order that the course pursued by the negotiators on this point might be ascertained; for he could not but believe that great exertions must have been made by them to obtain something for us in regard to this matter, seeing that we ourselves had surrendered everything. The other article to which he referred was, that by which we bound ourselves not to impose an export duty on coal conveyed to the ports of France, or under any circumstances to prohibit its exportation. Now, what was coal? It was a great element, no doubt, in manufacturing industry; but in time of war it was a munition of war quite as much as any other article universally acknowledged to be such, and which was contraband of war. Some doubt might have existed on this subject previously to the Russian war; but since that time it had become an evident fact that the whole naval marine of any country must depend on the article of coal. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had spoken of the importance of creating a manufacturing interest in France, which should be absolutely
  1128
  dependent upon England for a supply of coal. But the people of France were under no necessity of coming to this country to obtain coal for manufacturing purposes. The coal of Belgium was equal to our own for manufactures, and they could obtain it there, as well as in their own country; but for the purposes of war, English coal was superior to that of Belgium, or any other country. By this Treaty we should secure to France the right of obtaining coal from this country, whenever she might contemplate any hostile movement, either against ourselves or others; for their Lordships would observe that France had reserved to herself the right to resort to our shores at all time and under all circumstances for coals. He would suppose that we were likely to go to war with Russia, a country which had no coal of her own, and which, therefore, had to depend for her supplies on foreign countries. We might, in such a case, wish to prohibit the exportation of coal, and say that we would allow no coal to be taken from our shores to the Baltic; but France might step in and say she had a right under this Treaty to take our coal where she pleased; and so we might have French ships coming to Swansea, and taking away cargoes of our best Welsh coal for the use of Russia, which by the engagements of this Treaty we should be unable to prevent. Persons of the highest authority, and in whose opinions he had great confidence, agreed with him in thinking that in the article of coal, at least, there should be an exception to the rule adopted in this Treaty, and this was a matter which he would take the liberty of pressing upon the serious attention of the Government. The Treaty was not to be considered as finally concluded till it received the sanction of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government would lose no time in re-opening the negotiations with the Emperor of the French, who was himself the real negotiator, and that they would endeavour to obtain the omission of this article of the Treaty before it was further proceeded with in Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was clear that within the next ten years no Government would attempt to impose a restrictive duty on coals, which, while it would bring in a very small revenue indeed, would have a disastrous effect in restricting an enormous trade which was now carried on, besides giving rise to attempts

  1129
  to evade the Custom-house regulations. The noble Lord who had just sat down and all who went before him, had carefully avoided the arguments used by his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty. His noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs clearly pointed out that, whereas there were "favoured nation clauses" in our treaties with most countries, that we should not impose prohibitions on any article going into those countries unless we extended the same prohibitions to all other countries in the world, we could not therefore prohibit coal going to France unless we did so to all the world besides. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) said under this Treaty we could not prevent France carrying the coal she got from this country to Russia. He was surprised that it had not occurred to his noble Friend, who was so much mixed up in the late war with Russia, that we never issued any proclamation at all during the war with regard to coal itself, but that with regard to other articles contraband of war we did issue a proclamation to all countries north of Dantzic; and those countries would doubtless have complained of that if they had not felt that the belligerent rights of nations overrode all the stipulations of commercial treaties. Even if his noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie) was right in putting the immense value he did on English coal, did he believe that a rich country like France would ever be found at the beginning of a war without an adequate supply of coal? The instant peace was broken between two nations, all the obligations of a treaty of commerce were thrown to the winds. Besides, the noble Earl was under a misapprehension when he supposed France had no coal of her own. France obtained coal from Belgium; and, in addition to that, a commission of scientific men in France, who had been directed to institute inquiries on the subject, had reported that if France chose to make the necessary efforts she might obtain a supply of coal, both of the richer and poorer qualities, sufficient for her consumption within her own territories. He was convinced the more the question was considered the more clear it would be, and the more of a bug-bear would the opposition appear which was now made to that part of the Treaty, which was intended to facilitate the export of coal to France. He
  1130
  did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any remarks on the general policy of the Treaty; but he might read an extract from a speech made by Sir Robert Peel, in the House of Commons on the 11th March, 1842. Sir Robert Peel said:—
  "We have opened communications with Spain for the purpose of forming a commercial treaty with that country, strongly urging on that country the policy of encouraging international commerce. As to this treaty, I can say nothing more at present than that the proposition was favourably received by the Spanish Government. We have, further, negotiations pending with Sardinia and with Naples; we have commercial treaties arranging with some of the South American States; we have, moreover, intimated to France our earnest desire to resume negotiations for the completion of a commercial treaty, founded on principles, as I believe, of reciprocal benefit, and having a tendency to strengthen the ties of amity and friendly feeling between the countries."—[8 Hansard, lxi., 452.]
  When he (Earl Granville) found that commercial treaties with France, though they had been sometimes negotiated on false principles, had been concluded by Pitt, Huskisson, and Peel, and that the latest attempt had been made by Richard Cob-den, he did feel some confidence that even to err with them was, in some respects, more satisfactory than to be right with his noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie).
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in reply, contended that the Treaty did not put France on the same footing as the other European Powers were before it was concluded. The engagement with regard to France was absolute. There was nothing said in it about our not prohibiting the export of coal to France without our prohibiting it to all the world besides. He denied that he had ever said that as a matter of general policy it was desirable to prohibit the exportation of coal. What he had said was that it was not desirable to enter into engagements which, in cases of emergency might be found extremely inconvenient. He apprehended that we had as good a right to impose export duties as other countries had to impose prohibitions on imports. The noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty said we could not prevent war by prohibiting the export of coals. What he (the Earl of Airlie) had said was, that the coal found in this country, being in great part so superior to all other kinds for purposes of steam navigation, if we could restrict its importation into France, we should, in the event of hostilities becoming probable, be able to

  1131
  place ourselves in a bettor position than we should be under the Treaty. He should wait with great anxiety for the papers on this subject, and he hoped they would have a greater effect in removing his objections than the speeches he had heard on the part of the Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.