Sitting of 23 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Law and Equity.
2° Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) Continuance; Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment; Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland); Ionian Islands (Marriages); Larceny Laws Consolidation Act Amendment.
3° Heritable Securities, etc., (Scotland); Game Certificates, &c; Manchester Cathedral Church; Landed Property Improvement (Ireland).

STORES, &c, FOR INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether certain Storekeepers have been lately sent out to India by the War Department on such allowances with reference to the duties to be performed that the Council of India recalled them? And whether a remonstrance was recently received from the Bombay Government against costly stores being sent from the War Department to India without requisition?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that on the 8th September, 1858, Lord Clyde asked that military storekeepers might be sent out to India from the military store department at home. The authorities assented to the application, and the storekeepers were sent out; but their allowances were considered very heavy, and therefore they were sent home. A letter was received from the Indian Office on the 19th November, 1859, in which reference was made to the issuing of stores by the War Office without the previous sanction of the Secretary of State for India. He immediately wrote to the India Office requesting to be informed what was the nature of the stores in question; and to that letter he had received no answer. He supposed, therefore, that there must be some mistake, for neither stores nor men were sent to India without the sanction of the Secretary of State for India.
  MR. BRIGHT: When was the letter sent to the India Office.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: On the 28th of November.
  MR. BRIGHT: And up to the present moment no reply has been received.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: None.
  MR. BRIGHT: I wonder what they can be doing at the India Office.

COLONELCIES OF REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MILDMAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of War, with reference to the vacant colonelcy of the Scots Greys, Whether there would be any objection in future to state in the Estimates the services in consideration of which Colonelcies of Regiments are conferred, in the same way as was done in the case of Good Service Pensions?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that before the next Estimates were framed he should take this subject into consideration; but there was a distinction which hon. Gentlemen ought to draw between the two cases. Good service pensions were given for distinct acts of service before the enemy, whereas the rule had always been that regiments should be given for length of service, not necessarily in the field, because during a lengthened peace there might be cases of officers who were willing to serve, who might be good officers, but who might have no opportunity of distinguishing themselves in actual warfare.

  DISTURBANCES IN SYRIA.—QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office a question with respect to a semi-official article which appeared in the Constitutionnel of Saturday on the subject of Syria. The article contained the following passage:—
  "There is so perfect an agreement between the national and political sentiment in the Government of the Emperor that the Resolutions which are going to be taken apropos of the affairs of Syria, had been pressed for at the same time that it was called for by the unanimous impulse of the French press. The most energetic adhesion will reply, in Europe as in France, to the noble initiative which all the world expects of the Sovereign who governs us. No one will be surprised to hear that French troops will be immediately embarked to bear succour to the Christians in the East."
  The article went on to state that the French were bound to interfere by the Treaty of 1856, and was signed by M. Grandguillot. Another paper, the Independence Beige, pointed out that the statement recently made by the noble Lord in the House of Commons must have been made in ignorance of the Resolution of the French Emperor, which, it added, must therefore have been taken without premeditation. In the Moniteur of yesterday there appeared an official article to the following purport:—
  "The propositions which the Government of the Emperor has made with the object of arrest-
  14
  ing the shedding of blood in Syria, and of protecting the Christian populations, have been accepted by the Great Powers. England, ready to cooperate with her ships, recognizes the opportunity for the mission of a corps of troops, of which France would furnish the whole or the greater part. Austria and Russia give the same opinion. The Foreign Minister of Prussia has gone to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent to take his orders. A convention should be signed to determine the character and object of the European intervention. One waits only the acquiescence of the Porte."
  He had therefore to ask the noble Lord whether the Report was correct that a reconciliation between the tribes of Lebanon had taken place; whether the Government were in possession of information that French troops had embarked or were about to embark in the south of France for service in the East; whether any intervention which might take place in Syria would be confined to the coast or be extended inland; whether the Government had consented to intervention in Syria by force of arms, and last, whether they would protest against any such intervention until the consent of the Porte had been obtained?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Without answering the assertions which the hon. and gallant Member has read from French and Belgian newspapers, I may state what has occurred with respect to this very painful subject. Some time ago, upon the receipt of an account of massacres committed by the Druses on or near the coast of Syria, an order was sent to the Admiralty that Admiral Martin should proceed thither, should put himself in communication with the Consuls, and, if necessary, in order to stay the progress of the massacres, should be authorized to land the Marines of his fleet. Subsequently, accounts of a still more dreadful character were received. We were informed of a transaction marked with peculiar features, which took place at Dehr-al-Kamar. Statements were received from various quarters, that the Pasha in command at Dehr-al-Kamar informed the Christians of the neighbourhood that he expected an attack would be made upon them by the Druses, who were encamped in the vicinity, and he therefore advised them to come into the town. When the Christians were assembled in the town, he advised them, in consequence, it is said, of a demand made by the Druses, to give up their arms. They gave up their arms, which were sent away apparently with the view of their being taken to Damascus, but were captured on the road by the Druses. The Pasha then ordered that the Chris-

  15
  tians should be confined within a building in the centre of the town. They were there confined for a considerable time, with very little food, and consequently fell into a desponding and weak condition. He then assembled them all in a court, and ordered the gates to be thrown open. The Druses entered, armed with both muskets and swords, and shot or cut down nearly the whole of these unhappy persons. Some few escaped, and reported at Beyrout what had happened. A gentleman who is well acquainted with that country and with some of the Druse chiefs, was prevailed on to go to one of those chiefs, for the purpose of endeavouring to stay the progress of these outrages. He accordingly saw the chief, who told him that he had been opposed to this attack on the Christians; that he said all he could against it, and was able to say no more; that he had no influence with the people, and that the massacres would probably continue. On returning to Beyrout this gentleman wont to the town, where the massacres had taken place. He described the streets as being strewed with dead bodies, the stench from which was horrible; the Druses were going about with their heads partially covered to protect themselves against the stench; but, at the same time plundering, laughing, and joking in the midst of this horrible scene. It seems to be the general impression among the Europeans on the coast that the Turks, for some reason or other, which I will not now discuss, had not done all they might to prevent these massacres, and had shown more sympathy with the Druses than with their unhappy victims. Soon afterwards we received accounts of a rising at Damascus, when 500 Christians were killed, including, what perhaps may not be true, the Dutch Consul, and scenes of a similar nature at other places.
  The French Ambassador came to me on Wednesday last and stated the opinion of his Government, that these massacres could not be stayed unless a body of European troops was sent to Syria. I stated that the Sultan had sent a considerable body of troops there, and that it was to be hoped that that would be sufficient to restore order. The French Ambassador replied that, seeing the apathy and indifference to preserve Christian life already shown, there was reason to fear that the Turks that might be sent to Syria would not evince sufficient energy to prevent the Christians from being massacred. He referred to the treaty of 1856 and other
  16
  provisions by which the Christian subjects of the Porte are to have their interests cared for by the European Powers, and he asked whether Her Majesty's Government would consent, in common with the other European Governments, to send a body of troops to Syria. I said I would consult with the Cabinet on the subject, promising to give the French Ambassador an answer on the same evening. The answer I gave in concurrence with the opinion of the Cabinet was, that, considering the circumstances and the accounts which were received, Her Majesty's Government could not object to European troops being sent to Syria; that we hoped to have a squadron on the coast; but that it would not be necessary to send any English troops; that perhaps Austria might send some troops, but that the force might be chiefly French. It was also stated that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that in order to regulate the proceedings, and especially the period of the stay of the troops, it was necessary to have a convention, and that, above all, the Porte should be a party to the convention. At the same time, I added that if the principle were agreed to I did not think it necessary, supposing the urgency to be so great and Christian life in jeopardy, to wait for all the details to be agreed upon, or for the signature of the document before the expedition was sent out. This answer of the Government was transmitted to Paris, and the other Powers were at the same time, or immediately afterwards, consulted; and I have been informed that certain Governments, and principally the Governments of Austria and Russia, have agreed to the proposition. The Foreign Minister of Prussia declared his concurrence, but sent the proposition to the Prince Regent, who was at Baden. Thus the European Powers appear to be agreed; but I have not yet received any account of what is the opinion of the Porte. We have thought, in these circumstances, that it was impossible for us to object that a force of European troops should be sent to Syria. Of course, the convention is not yet signed; it is still a matter of negotiation as to how its terms should be drawn, what should be the stay of the French troops in Syria, and in what manner they are to act. We were informed, I believe, on Saturday last, that a brigade of French troops was to be sent to Syria. The convention must, of course, be made with the consent of the Powers of Europe and of the Porte, The hon.

  17
  Gentleman has asked whether it is true that Syria is now pacified, and that peace has been made between the Druses and the Maronites. We have received a very short telegram from Constantinople stating that peace had been signed between the Druses and Maronites on the 10th instant, but the telegram conveys no particulars.

FORTIFICATIONS AND WORKS.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—Sir, in proposing the Resolution which I shall conclude by placing in your hands I shall ask the Committee to take a brief retrospect. It is needless to say that the Resolution I am about to propose has for its object to carry into effect to the degree and in the manner which I shall state the recommendations of the Commissioners whose Report has been laid on the table of the House, with a view to secure by fortifications the Royal dockyards, the ports of Dovor and Portland, and also to create on some central point an inland arsenal to serve as a substitute for, and as an assistance to, Woolwich. The Committee will remember that after the conclusion of the great war which ended in 1815, this country had established a virtual supremacy on the ocean, and by good fortune and the bravery and gallantry of her sailors had, during the war, swept from the seas all hostile fleets. As far as maritime power went we were then free from alarm of attack from any quarter whatsoever. The nations of Europe, moreover, had exhausted their resources, and were greatly depressed in mind and spirit by the events of the war. There was hardly a country in Europe, from the Tagus to Moscow, which had not by turns been swept over by the tide of war and conquest, excepting this fortunate country, and I may add Sweden. It was natural that the people of Europe, having been exhausted by that long-continued struggle, and having in almost every country suffered miseries and calamities which, let me say, fell more heavily upon the inhabitants of the country which is the scene of those operations than even upon the contending armies,—I say it was natural that nations in that temper of mind should fix their thoughts and desires upon a long continuance of peace. For many years, therefore, after the conclusion of peace, in 1815, those who were responsible for the conduct of affairs in this country
  18
  were content to rest upon the glories which we had gained, upon the recollection of the strength which we had displayed and upon the remembrance of the victories we had achieved, and they thought it unnecessary to call upon the people of this country for any great exertions with a view to prospective dangers, which there was no reasonable ground for expecting. The consequence was that for many years we acted as we had done during the war with respect to the defences of our dockyards and other vulnerable points, and as long as the movement of ships depended on the wind and on the chances of weather the calculation was a just one. We had then a very large fleet. No longer ago than 1848 I believe we had eighty sail of the line; and as long as naval warfare was carried on by means of sailing ships we were in a condition, by our superior skill and aptitude for the sea and for naval combat, to rest upon the strength which we then possessed afloat. The same difficulties which interposed in 1804–5 to prevent a large army drawn up on the opposite coast of the Channel from crossing over to this country continued to exist, and therefore successive Governments were justified in abstaining from any great effort for the purpose of artificial protection to our dockyards and other vulnerable points. But the introduction of steam changed this state of things. The adoption of steam as a motive power afloat totally altered the character of naval warfare, and deprived us of much of the advantages of our insular position; operations which, if not impossible, were at least extremely difficult while sailing vessels alone were employed, became comparatively easy the moment that steam was introduced; and in fact, as I remember Sir Robert Peel stating, steam had bridged the Channel, and, for the purposes of aggression, had almost made this country cease to be an island.
  Well, Sir, I will not state now—because statements are better made only in general terms, and therefore I will not mention the degree to which the absence of artificial defences rendered us at particular and at critical periods liable to very unpleasant attacks from an enemy. But in 1847, I think, in consequence of an able memorandum drawn up by Sir John Burgoyne, the Duke of Wellington wrote and published—or at least it was published—that well-known letter in which he described, with all the knowledge that belonged to a great captain, the evils which his ex-

  19
  perience led him to anticipate in the event of this country being the scene of war. He drew the attention of the country to the want of artificial defences, and implored those who were charged with the conduct of affairs to provide better means for its defence against possible attack and foreign aggression. That appeal fell upon dead ears as far as the country was concerned. Nations are slow to alter their perceptions. We were, indeed, in a position with regard to this country which may be expressed by the words stat magni no-minis umbra. But the people of England could not be brought to realize that altered condition of things. Something, though little, was, indeed, done in consequence of this appeal from one of the greatest masters of the art of war, the most learned and knowing in the science of attack and in the means of resisting it. The Government of the Earl of Derby came into power, and I must do them the justice of saying that they took a great and very important step towards placing this country in a position to defend itself by reorganizing and re-establishing the Militia. It is due to them, and more especially to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) who was then Home Secretary, and who took great pains in arranging that force, to say that they did that for which the country ought to be grateful. Before that time and since, when I was in office, I took steps with the view of arranging the artificial defences of the country upon some general system. I found that one department acted without the knowledge of another, each independently, and without adopting those combined measures which were necessary. I therefore requested the Commander-in-Chief for the time being, the Master General of the Ordnance, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Inspector General of Fortifications, and the Secretary at War to meet at my office, and we established then a system of mutual concert and co-operation which laid a foundation for very great improvement in our defences both at home and in some of our military stations abroad. Since that time this system has gone on, and it has prospered. At one time Portsmouth harbour had no defence, save a saluting battery of comparatively small guns, while Plymouth was very imperfectly defended from the sea, and Sheerness had only one gun that was serviceable. I have heard, but do not know whether it is true or not, that soon after 1844 two French steamers came into Sheerness for the ostensible pur-
  20
  pose of coaling, and the commander having sent on shore to know whether a salute would be returned, was informed that, as there was only one gun that was serviceable, they must excuse the lapse of some little interval between each fire. But though at the period I have referred to those important establishments were very imperfectly and inadequately defended, since then considerable progress has been made in all of them. I am bound to say, to the honour of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief, that those two public officers have co-operated with the utmost cordiality, without the slightest official jealousy or the interference of anything like official etiquette, for the improvement of our army and the protection of the country in a manner which entitles both to the gratitude of the nation. I say that it is mainly owing to their exertions that a far greater advance has lately been made in our artificial defences than in any similar period of time. My right hon. Friend appointed a Commission to inquire into the present state of those most important points to which I have referred. The result of the Commission is the Report which is upon the table of this House.
  Sir, the recommendations of the Commissioners, which have been confirmed after revision by a Committee of military officers, called the Defence Committee, amount to a recommendation of a total outlay of £11,000,000, in which is included £1,500,000 for armaments and floating defences. I hold that it is absolutely necessary for the safety of the country that these recommendations should substantially be carried into effect. Now, there are two modes of doing this. Yon may either vote annually such a portion of the annual income as the country would like to spend on a matter of this kind, and by so doing defer, perhaps, for eighteen or twenty years the accomplishment of these defences; or you may take that course which it will be my duty to recommend, and endeavour to complete them at the earliest possible period, without at the same time laying upon the country a larger annual burden than would he incurred if you prosecuted these works more slowly. I mean you may—by raising by terminable annuities, to run for thirty years, a sum that will be sufficient in the course of three or four years to complete these works—get within a short period the security you require; and you will not lay upon

  21
  the country a much heavier annual burden than that which would be incurred if you were to wait until the slow process of annual Votes brought you the money necessary to carry these works to a conclusion. My opinion is, that if these works are necessary, and I think common sense shows you they are necessary; if they are necessary, they are necessary as soon as we can get them. They are necessary for time present; and it would be folly to postpone for eighteen or twenty years the completion of defences against dangers which, I hope, may not arise; but dangers which we may contemplate as possible, and which, if possible, may be possible in the course of a comparatively short space of time.
  Now, that is a course which I know is, to a certain degree, a departure from ordinary usage; it is contrary to principle to raise money by loans for the annual expenditure of the country in time of peace. To do so for the purpose of defraying the ordinary expenses of the year, would be as spendthrift a proceeding, as for an individual to borrow money every year to pay his household expenses. We know what would be the fate of an individual who did so, and the country which did so would, no doubt, be brought into great and early embarrassment. But in private life Parliament, by recent legislation, has empowered and encouraged individuals to raise money by loans, either from the Exchequer-bill Commissioners, or from private Companies, for the purpose of effecting permanent improvements upon their landed property, spreading the repayment over a considerable period of time. Now, what is sound policy, recognized by Parliament, in the case of private individuals, cannot be unwise or inexpedient, as regards the greater and more important interests of the nation. By raising money by terminable annuities, we should prevent that loan from becoming a permanent addition to the debt of this country. I think that ought to be avoided in all cases where it is possible; and, in the present case, I am convinced it is possible.
  Now, Sir, as to the necessity of these works, I think it is impossible for any man to cast his eyes over the face of Europe, and to see and hear what is passing without being convinced that the future is not free from danger. It is difficult to say where the storm may burst; but the horizon is charged with clouds which betoken the possibility of a tempest. The Committee,
  22
  of course, knows that in the main I am speaking of our immediate neighbours across the Channel, and there is no use in disguising it. It is in no unfriendly spirit that I am speaking. No one has any right to take offence at considerations and reflections which are purely founded upon the principles of self-defence. We have, it is true, recently concluded a commercial arrangement with France. [A laugh.] These, Sir, are not matters to be treated with levity. These are not arrangements without great value; for it is well known, and proved by experience, that nations which have with each other great commercial intercourse—nations between which great mutual interests are involved in the maintenance of peace—are less likely to fall out and become antagonists, than nations between which those ties are not cemented. But, at the same time these things are not brought about at once. A great nation, which has not hitherto been much addicted to commerce, whose mind, whose feelings, and whose glories have chiefly had relation to warlike operations—such a nation cannot be expected on a sudden to become entirely free from its former habits, and at once to comprehend all the benefits and advantages that arise from peaceful and commercial relations. I hope much from this treaty; but that treaty alone would be a frail security to a great nation like this, with extensive interests, with great wealth, and whose shores are more open to attack than the land frontiers of any country; because, whereas upon a land frontier the points of attack can be pretty well guessed, and can be guarded—a country whose frontiers are the sea, is open to attack at any point to which an enemy, able to command the sea, may choose to direct his force. Therefore, I say, it would be folly to rely upon the future effects of the Commercial Treaty, when we know that we have vulnerable points which require artificial defences, and that we have the means of providing those defences. Is there nothing in the state of Europe that leads us to think that we might, by the course of events, be called upon to defend ourselves against hostile attack? We see in France an army of 600 and odd thousand men, of whom 400 and odd thousand are actually under arms, and the remainder are merely on furlough, and can be called into the ranks in a fortnight. That army is far greater than France requires for the purposes of defence. No nation in

  23
  the world would think, unprovoked, of attacking France. Nothing could be gained by it; no one could expect to dismember France, and no one would fare otherwise than ill who ventured upon an unprovoked attack upon France; and, therefore, for the defence of France we may pronounce that vast army unnecessary. I do not mean to say that that army is raised for the deliberate purpose of agression. I trust it is not, but the possession of power to aggress frequently gives the desire to do so. You cannot, you are not entitled to rely upon the forbearance of a stronger neighbour. You are bound to make your defensive means proportionate to his means of aggression.
  But, Sir, is it only on land that the arrangements of France are disproportionate to her necessities for defence? We know that the utmost exertions have been made, and still are making, to create a navy very nearly equal to our own—a navy which cannot be required for purposes of defence for France, and which, therefore, we are justified in looking upon as a possible antagonist we may have to encounter—a navy which under present arrangements would give to our neighbours the means of transporting within a very few hours a large and formidable number of troops to our coast. But, further, while on the one hand, the French navy has increased far beyond any amount that it has reached since the end of the last war, our navy has, on the other hand, from the change which has taken place from sailing ships to steam, necessarily diminished in numbers. We had at one time, as I have stated, eighty-four sail of the line, all sailing vessels; but this number has been necessarily greatly reduced. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), when he was at the head of the Admiralty, did good service in proceeding to substitute steam line-of-battle ships for sailing line-of-battle ships. I trust we are going on in the same course, and that in a short time we shall establish our navy on such a footing of superiority in numbers to that of any neighbouring Power as is absolutely necessary for our existence as a nation. I say, however, that we have no right to rely for our security on the mere forbearance of a rival Power. Our interests are spread over the whole surface of the globe. Agents in every quarter are at all times liable, through an excess of zeal or a mistaken sense of duty, to lead the nations they represent into difficulties; and no one can
  24
  answer from day to day that something may not happen in some part of the world that will lead to disagreeable communications between different Powers. With the utmost desire that such matters may be amicably adjusted, yet, if one country is greatly the strongest and another country greatly the weakest, it is very difficult for any arrangement to be made. The stronger Power naturally exacts conditions which the weaker may not be disposed to grant, and though in the case of an arbitrary Monarchy and despotic Government things might be easily arranged, yet where the weaker Power consists of a high-spirited and patriotic nation, with free institutions and with the popular feeling manifested on every public event by means of a free press, you may be quite sure that the bulk of the nation, who are not responsible for consequences, and who do not know very often the difficulties and dangers that a certain course of conduct might produce, would revolt against the concessions made by the Government; and if they were told that those concessions were rendered necessary, by the absence of the means of defence, or by the neglect of former Governments to provide for the security of the country, they would vent their indignation against those in power, and lay the seeds of future dissensions with the foreign country to which concession had been made. Thus, for the sake of peace, it is desirable that we should not live upon forbearance, but that we should be able fully and effectually to defend ourselves. When that is the case no foreign country will, without ample reason and provocation—which I trust we never shall give—disturb the state of peaceful relations that may exist with us. What, then, are the dangers to which we are exposed? They are of two kinds—I speak now only of the United Kingdom, and say nothing of the Colonies or our various foreign possessions. The danger to which we should be exposed would be that of invasion, for one or two, or I may say three purposes—either with the hope of conquest, which I think no foreign country would imagine to be possible; or, next, to get possession of the Metropolis, and there levy heavy contributions, and by overbearing the spirit and hopes of the country expect to dictate in the Capital terms of peace that would be ignominious to the country and advantageous to the invader. The third, and, as I think, much more probable attempt, would be by a sud-

  25
  den attack—by sea and by land, or by land if the sea defences were too strong—on our naval arsenals, the cradles of our navy, which is our national strength, and by destroying at the root our naval forces to lay us open afterwards to other measures of aggression which an enemy might be inclined or enabled to carry carry out. Sir, I dismiss from my mind the idea that any foreign Power would dream of conquering this country with the view of permanent possession; I do not believe it would enter the mind of any one. No doubt London might he open to attack, but London is too vast a space to be surrounded by fortifications. You cannot fortify London as has been done with Paris. London must be defended by an army in the field. There are strong natural positions between the coast and London, which, skilfully taken advantage of, might enable even a small force to repel a larger force, and successfully drive back an invasion. And there is this to be said, that whatever amount of force an enemy might land on our shores, so long as we retain the command of the sea, that force must ultimately be lost, because its communications would be cut off, its supplies rendered impossible, and, sooner or later, it would be compelled to surrender as prisoners of war. It might do great mischief; it might cause extensive destruction of life and property, and entail great misery on the country; but ultimate success of such an operation would not, I apprehend, enter the mind of any military man, nor could such an operation be regarded as one likely to be attended with permanent advantage to an enemy, except in so far as it might inflict injury on this country.
  Well, then, Sir, the operation which I apprehend is most likely to be attempted is that of lauding a considerable force for the purpose of destroying our dockyards. If your dockyards are destroyed, your navy is cut up by the roots. If any naval action were then to take place, your enemy, whatever the success of it might be, would have his dockyards, arsenals, and stores to refit and replenish, and reconstruct his navy; while, with your dockyards burned and your stores destroyed, you would have no means of refitting your navy and sending it out again to battle. If over we lose the command of the sea, what becomes of this country? Only let hon. Gentlemen consider how dependent we are for everything that constitutes national wealth—aye, and a large portion of national food, on free
  26
  communication by sea. We import about 10,000,000 quarters of corn annually, besides enormous quantities of coffee, sugar, and tea, and of cotton, which is next to corn for the support of the people, by enabling them to earn their food. Our wealth depends on the exportation of the products of our industry, which we exchange for those things that are necessary for our social position. Our exports amount to considerably more than 100 millions in value annually. Picture to yourselves for a moment such places as Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, and London, that is to say, the Thames blockaded by a hostile force. What would become of the industry and wealth of the country in such a case? The consequences which would follow the landing of any considerable hostile force upon our shores it is impossible to contemplate without fear and alarm—it would produce results which no Government and no nation by its neglect and apathy ought to render possible. Some gentlemen think that we keep up excessive peace establishments in regard to troops; but, at least, we ought to be prepared to resist whatever force can be brought against us. If London were in danger, what you would want would be to fight a battle, or two battles, or three, if you please—the first, I hope, would be sufficient—with the greatest amount of military force you could bring against the force that attacked you. But your army being limited in amount, and your military means limited, and your dockyards being points that require defence, the way to get the largest possible force to meet an enemy in the field is to make arrangements for requiring the smallest amount of military force to defend those important positions—your dockyards and arsenals. It is obvious that if large forces are required to defend your dockyards, you cannot concentrate for the defence of London that amount of force which would be necessary to meet an invading army. Therefore, it is demonstrable that fortifications for your dockyards—the effect of which will be to equalize by artificial means, for purposes of resistance, the smaller force within and the larger force without these fortifications—will be, in fact, means for the defence of London, because they will set free a large amount of force for the defence of the capital by operations in the field. There are those who say why should you confine your defences to such places as Portsmouth, Plymouth, Devonport, Pembroke, and the

  27
  like, and leave London undefended? Where are your fortifications for London? My answer to them is, that ditches and walls and bastions are not a defence for a great, vast city like London, surrounded as it is by districts as thickly populated as any of the villages in the interior. The only defence for London is an army in the field, and any means which enable you to make that army as large as your military establishments will allow are directly subservient to the defence of the capital itself. Then we are told that we ought not to confine our arrangements to our dockyards, and other such points—that there are other places of great importance—Liverpool, for instance—a port of great wealth and importance; Bristol, Newcastle, and other sea-ports. My answer to those who make this objection is that we have not neglected these outports, but that the defence of these great commercial towns need not be of the same kind and character as those required for your dockyards. These towns partake in a great degree of the nature of London. They contain vast populations, for whose supply it would be difficult to provide if they were surrounded by walled enclosures and were to stand a siege. They cover vast spaces of ground, with suburbs extending far beyond them; and fortifications, unless they stand on a space entirely free from houses, would be of no use. To defend those towns, therefore, against a force once landed, would be as difficult as to provide a similar defence for London. These towns, besides, are not likely to be attacked by an army landed for the purpose of occupying them. What Government at all skilled in military operations would think of sending a large force to attack Liverpool, even with the certainty of success? Liverpool taken, no doubt, would create a great deal of loss and injury to the district which surrounds it, but Liverpool taken would not have the same effect on the political condition of the county as London taken. It is clear, therefore, that the enemy who wanted to strike a blow would go at once to the heart of the country. He would go to London, he would not waste his time and throw away his resources by an attack on an outlying point. But we have taken measures—my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War is now pursuing them—to protect not merely Liverpool and Bristol, but several other important commercial ports, from the only kind of attack to which they are liable—the attack of small
  28
  squadrons for the purposes of mischief and for levying contributions, without any large force being landed. That protection can be given by batteries, either permanent or in the nature of earthworks, for which ample means can be provided in a different manner from that to which we resort for the dockyards. We have therefore thought it right to follow the recommendations of the Military Commissioners, and confine these proposed defensive works to the points which they have indicated.
  There are many Gentlemen who think that the sum estimated by these Commissioners is excessive for the purpose. We can only judge of these things by comparison, and if we find that other countries have spent sums corresponding in amount for similar purposes, wanting them perhaps not so urgently as we do, it may be thought that the demand now presented is not out of proportion to the object to be attained. I have inquired what other countries have done in this respect, and I will give the House the result. In the first place, however, I should say that that portion of the Estimate of the Commissioners which applies to what they call armaments and floating defences—namely, to guns and floating batteries—is an expenditure which we think should properly come out of the annual revenue. In the course of the four years which will be required for the completion of the proposed works it is to be expected that, in the ordinary course of things, the artillery for these works will be completed, and it is not necessary to include those things in the sum which I propose to raise by terminable annuities. We are of opinion that, instead of £11,000,000 odd, which make up the total Estimate of the Commissioners, £9,000,000 would be sufficient for all the purposes which we contemplate in this matter. It should be remembered that out of that there is £1,835,000 taken for the purchase of land, part of which, no doubt, will have to be covered by works, but a considerable portion of which would be available for letting in a manner to produce some sort of return annually for the money expended, That will reduce the actual sum for works to £7,165,000. But what has France done in regard to these things?—France, which is not a country so likely to be invaded, not requiring so much defence—a country whose only accessible frontier lies between Belgium on the one hand, and Switzerland on the other—because an attack upon France by the Alps is now out of the question, and an attack from Spain

  29
  through the Pyrenees is an aggression against which no Frenchman would think it necessary to provide. In the year 1841 the French Assembly voted £13,255,616 for works, of which the fortifications of Paris alone cost £5,600,000, and the works, as I am reminded by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, were not done by contract to be paid for in the usual way, but the workmen employed were soldiers, who only received their ordinary pay in that capacity, so that the works cost less than they would have done if made by hired labour. Cherbourg has cost, from first to last, £8,032,000. France now feels that the great improvement in cannon and the greater range of missiles have rendered both Cherbourg and Toulon less secure from attack from the sea than they were before. Further works, therefore, at Cherbourg are going on, which I have included in this £8,000,000, and at Toulon other works are in progress, which will cost £475,000. What have the Netherlands done? At the end of the war it was deemed right to improve and extend the works of those fortresses on the frontier of the Netherlands, now forming part of Belgium, which were likely to be attacked by an enemy coming from the west. There was spent on those works £6,409,000. There was no land to purchase, the works were already existing, they had only to be improved and extended; there was less to be done on them than we have to do in regard to the works now proposed. How have the Germans thought in regard to these matters? The fortresses of Coblentz, Ulm, and Radstadt have cost £3,022,000; Posen, Konigsberg, and another fortress not yet finished have cost £2,829,000. The works at Alessandria in Italy have cost nearly 7,000,000 francs. Russia, since 1813, has spent 7,250,000 on her fortifications, of which £2,1)00,000 belong to Cronstadt. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) can tell us how effectual those fortifications were. Other naval officers, too, can tell us of what value they were, for whereas we bombarded Sweaborg and destroyed it, none of our officers, gallant as they were and strong as were their fleets, were able to get near enough to Cronstadt to have a chance of attacking it with any success. And, Sir, Russia is not inactive now. During the whole of the last winter the most energetic means were taken still further to strengthen those works. Two thousand carts were employed all the winter in con-
  30
  veying across the ice immense masses of stone, in cases twenty-four feet square, to the extent of 14,000 cubic fathoms, sixteen tons to the fathom, so that when the thaw came they might sink and render the barrier in front of Cronstadt still stronger and more effectual to prevent approach on the north. I say, then, when we see other countries alive to the possibility of attack and laying out these sums on their defences, it really would be criminal in the people of this country if they were to neglect doing something of the same kind for the purpose of defending those most important positions on our coasts.
  I have no doubt that when these works are completed, as I trust they will be in a short space of time, they will place us in a position of comparative safety. The destinies of nations are in the hands of a higher Power, but it is the duty of man to do all that he reasonably can to deserve the support of that protecting Power. When these works are finished, we may say—
  —"Be gracious, Heaven!
  "For now laborious man has done his part."
  We shall have done everything that, humanly speaking, lies in our power to protect ourselves from invasion. If danger wore to arise, I have no doubt we should be able to muster in the field a force sufficient to resist, and successfully resist, any invader who might present himself upon our shores. We should show that the British nation are, as they always have been, capable of making any exertion that may be required of them. At the beginning of the second act of the late war we had 470,000 Volunteers. Now, we have 130,000; but, if there were any imminency of danger, there is no doubt that that number would be double, or treble, or four times greater than it is at present. We should show that we have—
  "The unconquerable will,
  "The courage never to submit or yield,
  "And what is else not to be overcome."
  But, with all that, I say that any Government who had this Report before it, who knew what our dangers and our necessities are, who knew what are the means of remedying and guarding against them, and yet should fail to call upon this House to furnish it with the requisite resources for providing those defences which are indispensable, would be betraying its duty, would be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour, and would deserve—I say it not as a mere metaphor, but in sober,

  31
  solemn earnest—would deserve the penalties of impeachment. And I cannot believe that any House of Commons to which this proposal is made would do otherwise than respond to the feeling of the country by adopting it. I am quite sure that any House of Commons which should have that appeal made to it, and should turn a deaf ear to it, would lose irretrievably and for ever the confidence and good opinion of the nation.
  Sir, I now beg to submit the Resolution with which I shall conclude, namely—
  "That it is the opinion of this Committee that towards providing for the Construction of Works for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dovor and Portland, and for the creation of a Central Arsenal, a sum not exceeding £2,000,000"—which is the sum we propose to take for the present year—
  "be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom; and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years, and that such Annuities shall be charged upon, and be payable out of, the said Consolidated Fund."
  Sir, the course we propose is this—We do not ask the House to vote at once the £9,000,000 which we think will be requisite for the completion of these works. The works will necessarily be spread over three or four years. We think that £2,000,000 are as much as can advantageously be spent between the present time and this time twelve months. We therefore limit our present demand to that amount, reserving it to ourselves, if we should be in office, or to those who may succeed us, to apply annually to Parliament for such other portions of the £9,000,000 as may be found necessary in each successive year. There will be laid before Parliament each year an account of the application of the money so voted. I propose to bring in a Bill which will, in fact, be an Appropriation Act for this purpose, by which the money thus raised shall be paid into a separate account kept distinct from the ordinary revenue of the country, and which shall be strictly applicable to these purposes and no other. An annual account shall be laid before Parliament for each instalment. I do not now pretend to say the exact amount of annual interest at which these £9,000,000 of terminable annuities may be raised. That will depend on the state and circumstances of the market. But it happens that there are terminable annuities which were raised for a period of forty-four years in 1823, and which will therefore expire
  32
  in 1867, involving an annual payment of £580,000. Well, it is quite clear, whatever may be the rate of interest at which these terminable annuities may be disposed of, that the aggregate charge for the whole £9,000,000 will fall far short of the £580,000 which will drop in 1867; so that the only additional charge beyond that now incurred which will arise from this measure will be limited to the interval between the present time and the year 1867. In 1867 these other terminable annuities will drop in, and from that period to the end of the thirty years for which these new annuities will run, only a portion of that £580,000 will remain as a charge upon the public. I think that the course we have proposed will, on the one hand, provide adequately for the defence of these various important positions, and, on the other, will involve as small an annual charge on the country as it is possible to impose. The £2,000,000 which we ask at first will be applied more or less to all the different places which are pointed out in the Report of the Commissioners. It is obvious that that sum will not be sufficient for undertaking all the works so recommended; but as those works cannot all be undertaken at once, we think the £2,000,000 will suffice for our present purpose. There will be laid before Parliament a schedule to show in what proportions the £2,000,000 will be divided among these different places. Sir, I hope the Committee, notwithstanding the caveat of the hon. Member for Birmingham, will be disposed to agree to the Resolution tonight. There will be ample opportunity, on the Resolution being reported, and on leave being obtained to bring in the Bill, and in Committee for discussing the whole matter at length. The Session is far advanced, and it is essential that Parliamentary authority should be given to the proposal without any delay that can reasonably be avoided. At the same time we have no wish to deprive hon. Members, or the House at large, of all those proper opportunities for discussion which are naturally demanded upon a measure the importance of which we are far from seeking to underrate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is the opinion of this Committee that, towards providing for the Construction of Works for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dovor and Portland, and for the creation of a Central Arsenal, a sum, not exceeding two million pounds, be charged

  33
  upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall be charged upon and be payable out of the said Consolidated Fund."
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he wished to say a few words on the latter part of the Resolution, and the mode of raising the money. If it were thought desirable to raise it in the most economical way, the House would certainly not resort to terminable annuities. The holders of those securities had so often suffered, that no capitalist would now lend money on them without taking a largo margin indeed for the risk to which he was exposed. A large allowance would be insisted on not only for the continuance of the present income tax, but also for the possible increase of that impost. It would be impossible to borrow money in the way proposed by the Government without losing a sum of from 5 to 10 per cent on the total amount of money they were to receive. By adhering to terminable annuities, he did not think it would be any exaggeration to say that out of the whole £12,000,000, they would throw away £1,000,000. The noble Lord had referred, by way of analogy, to the practice of landowners charging their estates for the improvement of their lands; and he wished to call the attention of the House to the difference that existed between that ease and the course proposed by the Government. The landowners did not borrow their money on terminable annuities; they made provision for repayment of the loan, capital, and interest in a given term of years. If the House was prepared to follow that course, let them propose to pay back the sum in yearly instalments. Landlords who borrowed money to improve their estates did not adopt the form of terminable annuities; but that of loans repayable in a certain term of years, capital and interest. Why should the noble Lord not resort to the more productive medium of Consols? He was aware of the answer he would receive—that it was desirable to throw the burden on the present generation, and for that purpose the noble Lord proposed that the sum should be repaid in thirty years. Well, that might he an excellent plan; but what did it imply? It implied this—that they could not trust the House of Commons to provide the funds for repayment year by year. And what security for the repayment of the loan would be obtained by borrowing it through
  34
  the medium of terminable annuities? What were they told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing forward his Budget? That we had £2,000,000 of Long Annuities falling in. But what were we called upon to do now? To borrow £2,000,000 more. Therefore, what was the virtue of such a mode of borrowing? We could never repay our debts if we were in a position to be obliged to borrow again. The only mode of repaying debts was by their repayment out of surplus revenue, which we could only obtain by economy in the management of our expenditure. It came to this—if the House doubted that its successors would have the good sense and intelligence to repay the loan out of surplus revenue, let them accept the proposition of the noble Lord; but if they were of his opinion, that it was useless to fetter themselves by engagements of this kind, which they could not force themselves to keep, let them not borrow the money in a manner which would, upon the whole amount, add many hundred thousand pounds to the cost of these works.
  MR. BRIGHT: I shall not go into the point to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, nor to that which is a thousand times more important—the proposition of the noble Lord; but I will undertake to say that, during the seventeen years that I have sat in this House, a question of this character, of this magnitude, and involving the expenditure of such enormous sums of money, has never before been brought forward without notice, and the House been asked to adopt it the same evening. The noble Viscount speaks of £9,000,000 or £12,000,000; but it is impossible for any one who has read that Report, and knows what we all do of public works, not to come to the conclusion that in all probability there will be an expenditure of double that amount. I believe that as sure as you commence those works, instead of spending £12,000,000, you will spend £24,000,000; and, without reference to the principle of the matter at all, I am not at all prepared to give my sanction to a Resolution like that, which has never been placed upon the table of the House which we heard for the first time from the lips of the noble Lord at the conclusion of his speech, and which involves the House and the country in so enormous an expenditure. I will not go into the question as to whether or not it is necessary that anything of this kind should be done. In the name of the House I protest against its being entrapped, if I may use such a term,

  35
  or invited, or cajoled into agreement to a Resolution of this kind without notice. I shall not even say what I think of the tone and manner of the speech of the noble Lord. He will hear of them on another occasion, no doubt. I shall content myself with moving that you, Sir, report Progress and ask leave to sit again; and I beg to state that I shall divide the House upon that question, that if there are Gentlemen in the House who will support me, and the Resolution is pressed to-night, the Committee will have the pleasure of dividing a good many times before it is agreed to.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I think it is but fair that the Committee should be in possession of some of the details of the plan as it is proposed to be carried into effect by the Government, before they are called upon to vote for the Resolution which has been proposed by the noble Viscount. It is difficult, in discussing so large a scheme, to make oneself intelligible to the House, but I will endeavour to point out what are the portions of the scheme to which the Government attaches the greatest importance, and which they propose to take first, partly because of their importance, and partly because there is, for obvious reasons, great facility in commencing them. I observe that many hon. Members have in their hands the Report upon which the recommendations of the Government have been founded, and if they will follow me I will explain as shortly and as clearly as I can what are the works which we propose to take first. The whole sum which the Government asked to be voted this year, and to be raised by terminable annuities, is, in round numbers, £2,000,000; but that is not the whole sum which they intend to spend within the year if the House should sanction their proposal. There is upon the Estimates which nave not yet been laid before Parliament, except a lump sum for fortifications in the ordinary Army Estimates, a sum of about £450,000, which is to he devoted to carrying on some of the very works which are included in this general proposition. The Commissioners, it will be observed, give two distinct sets of Estimates, one for the completion of works now in progress, and the other for the erection of Works not yet begun. If you add the £450,000 charged for works in progress in the ordinary Army Estimates, you will find that the sum proposed to be expended in the year will amount to about £2,500,000.
  36
  Now, Sir, I suppose there can be no doubt about this, that of all the places to be defended Portsmouth is the most important. All I believe are agreed about that. Therefore, we propose to deal almost entirely with the sea defences at Portsmouth, and to commence the works covering a great part of the land faces. Now, I have heard it said that the defence of Portsmouth ought to be by a fleet. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Hear, hear!] The gallant officer has said that, but I think that I shall have him on my side if he reflects what is the main object of a fleet, and what is the main object of a dockyard. You want your fleet to be constantly moving about, and if once you are induced to defend Portsmouth by a fleet at Spit-head you have lost that fleet. You are then endeavouring to do the work of permanent fortifications with perishable materials such as ships. Those ships are invaluable because they have the power of moving to whatever point requires immediate defence, but if you condemn them to be the fortifications by which your dockyard is to be defended you cannot move them, and lose that which constitutes their chief value. What is the object of a dockyard except to make a fleet? But if the object of a fleet is to defend a dockyard, it would be cheaper and better to have neither one nor the other. You must defend that which makes the fleet by something other than the fleet which is made by it. You must be able to send your fleet at a moment's notice to act hostilely against the enemy; but in order to do that, you must have something left behind which shall not be moveable, which shall be permanent, and be capable of defending these dockyards. I am going to say one thing upon this subject which it is necessary that I should say, because I anticipate the objections which will be raised to-night. I know it has been stated, and especially with regard to Portsmouth, that there are in the evidence the opinions of naval men pointing out the weakness of its present defences and showing how it might be attacked, and it has been asked how can the Government take the responsibility of showing up the weakness of these defences when information may by that means be communicated to our enemies? Well, Sir, in a constitutional Government we must risk a great deal. If the House of Commons i3 to deal, as I hope it will deal, in a generous and patriotic spirit with this question, you must take it into your confidence. You

  37
  cannot use reserve; you cannot say to this House, "We call upon you to spend largo sums, but we will not show any justification. You must take it upon trust. We will not tell you how the money is to be expended; it is a question of confidence in the discretion of the Government." The House of Commons would rightfully say, "Lay before us the materials upon which you formed your judgment, in order to enable us to form one for ourselves." In this country you must deal with Parliament in that spirit at whatever risk; and it would be an immense risk, if you had a doubt about the success of the measure. But I have no doubt as to the success of the measure. I do not care about showing up the weak places, if I know that you will assist the Government to make them strong. That is the proper way in which to meet this difficulty; a difficulty upon which we had to decide, but in regard to which I believe that we have decided rightly, because I am confident that the country will be disposed to forward the efforts of the Government to put the dockyards in a state of security. At Portsmouth we propose to proceed first with the sea defences, and the landing places in the Isle of Wight, which, after all, is the breakwater of Portsmouth harbour. we propose to take three out of the five points proposed for defence at Spithead. I will not quote from the evidence; but hon. Gentlemen who have read the Report, must have seen that naval men tell us that the anchorage of Spithead is not a safe one. Steam has come in there again, and would enable a hostile navy to make a rapid invasion upon that anchorage. Spithead is a harbour not only for ships of war, which can defend themselves, but also for merchant vessels taking refuge either from bad weather, or from an enemy in the Channel. We take these three works out of the five which have been proposed, because about them no doubts have been expressed. As to the work upon the Spit, I believe that some doubts have been entertained. It has been said that it would be a buoy to lead ships in. For my own part, I do not attach much importance to that objection. There are buoys which are very unattractive to hostile ships. Vessels do not like to come near great tiers of guns, and at night there would be no lights in these works. The marks by which a hostile fleet could attack Portsmouth at night, would be the lights in Portsmouth and Gosport, and not any in the towers
  38
  upon those shoals, which in themselves would not be visible. We propose, also, to complete the works at Gosport, which are now very much advanced, and to go on with the defences to the northward, taking not the whole number of forts upon the plan, but five instead of eight. We propose to finish other works at Portsmouth, and that will be all that will be done this year at that place. The cost of the works at Portsmouth, when completed, will be £1,920,000, including the purchase of land. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: This year?] No; for the completion of the works. The sum to be spent this year will be about £540,000.
  At Plymouth we propose to take the sea defences,—that is, the work behind the breakwater, and the work upon Staddon Point, and the three works to the northeast, defending it from any force which might advance from Torbay. All the works, when finished, will cost £1,200,000, of which we shall this year spend something like £300,000.
  At Pembroke it is proposed simply to have some works at the landing places in the neighbourhood, and to erect a work on the north, which will stand upon an eminence, and arrest the progress of any enemy who may advance from that side. Those works, when completed, will cost about £220,000, of which we propose to spend this year about £130,000.
  I think no Gentleman will deny that whatever is to be done for strengthening the Thames, ought to be done at once. We propose, therefore, to take £180,000, of which we shall this year probably not be able to lay out more than £40,000, or £50,000. The same applies to Chatham and the Medway. At Dovor it is proposed simply to hasten the existing works, and to commence a work on ground above which commands the castle; and the same course is to be pursued at Portland. It has been proposed by the Commissioners to make a large purchase of land at the latter place; under the impression that, some time or other, there will be a naval establishment there. The Government, however, do not intend to carry that proposition into effect; because it would be impossible to defend from bombardment from the seaward any works in the nature of an arsenal or a dockyard which might be erected at Portland. We wish Portland to be made perfectly safe as an anchorage, but we do not contemplate making a large naval establishment there. Portland would

  39
  be open to the same objection as Sheerness, and would be constantly exposed to be bombarded from the sea without any power of resistance. The only other works which I have to mention are those at Cork, where there is a magnificent harbour, and where we propose to erect works which will ultimately cost £120,000; of which about £20,000 will be expended in the present year. We believe the works at Cork will put that harbour in a good state of defence. I know not whether the Committee now clearly understand what are the works which the Government intend to commence at once; but I may say generally that they are the sea defences everywhere, partially the land defences at Plymouth and Chatham, and nearly the whole of the land defences at Portsmouth. Those are the works which will be commenced in the present year, and which will ultimately, when completed, involve us in an expenditure of nearly £5,000,000.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) says he knows what public works are, and he will be much surprised if we get out of these under £24,000,000, instead of £12,000,000. The Government have excluded from their proposals the cost of everything which is perishable. It would not be honest to saddle posterity, even in the limited form of terminable annuities, with a charge for that which perishes soon after it is created. Armaments are perishable. Your cannon become useless and unserviceable after a few years. Floating batteries, which are proposed as one means of defence, and which are popular with many gentlemen, would cost more than solid defences, because they are like ships, which live only about thirty years. At the end of that time, having cost an enormous amount for repairs in the meanwhile, they would have to be rebuilt. There is a further disadvantage connected with floating batteries. At present we know little as to the way of making them invulnerable by iron coating, and if it should turn out that a floating battery was not invulnerable one unfortunate shot might send the whole concern to the bottom—men, guns, and all. The Committee will see that there is an immense risk attached to floating batteries, which does not apply to solid defences. All the works we propose will be of a lasting and permanent character. The estimates, moreover, have been framed studiously and on purpose upon the largest possible scale.
  We have taken a very large sum for the
  40
  purchase of land, and I intend to introduce a Bill which will give us a power that, under the Defences Act, the Secretary of State does not possess. It will enable us, where we want land as a rayon around a work, not to purchase the fee-simple, but to buy up the building rights, paying the difference of value between agricultural and building land. There will be considerable advantage in that provision. It will prevent us from purchasing more land than is absolutely necessary for our purpose, and, as most of the places where the contemplated works are to be erected are Parliamentary boroughs, it is neither wise nor wholesome that Government should become large landed proprietors within them. Public opinion, moreover, is subject to sudden changes. We recollect the time when there were no apprehensions of war, and when, in consequence of the economical notions which prevailed, land of immense value to the national defence was sold. The Committee will understand that it would be much less lucrative to sell a right of building upon land than the land itself, and therefore we shall not be exposed to one very obvious temptation. As I have said, the estimates are very large, because our defences ought to be made as perfect as possible; but still the Government, as they were bound to do, have exercised a discretion, especially on the land side, as to whether or not, looking at the probabilities of attack, the whole of the works recommended by the Commissioners are absolutely necessary. The consequence has been that where there has been a doubt between engineer officers as to whether additional works are wanted or not at any given place we have decided in favour of the negative view. Hence I have little doubt that the estimates we have framed will be found more than sufficient to meet the expenses of the proposed works, and at the conclusion of the business we may discover that we have spent less money on the defences than was originally contemplated.
  Let me say a few words upon a question which has been very much discussed—the defence of London. It has been asked while you are doing so much for the dockyards and arsenal why do not you do something for the defence of London. Undoubtedly that is a very popular view. But how is that defence to be accomplished? A writer of great ability, and an eminent military authority, in a popular periodical has proposed to defend London by six forts

  41
  placed apart at distances of something like seven or ten miles. What military commander, bent upon entering London, would stop because he knows be has got two small forts, one on either side of him, each five miles off? Such a defence would not, I imagine, shake his resolution to make a raid upon London. But it is proposed that the forts in question should be built for fabulously small sums. The land, for example, is to be got for £200 an acre. I know something about the purchase of land in the immediate suburbs of London, and I say you would be more likely to pay from £2,000 to £5,000 an acre. Moreover, the very places you would select for your forts are just the sites which, from their height and picturesque character, are the best suited for villas and expensive gardens, and which consequently bring the highest price. The none around London is far more valuable than that around any other town in the world. Each fort would require to be surrounded by a clear space; in fact, you would have to make a kind of desert round London, and the land would have to be purchased at a cost so enormous as to render the completion of the scheme impossible. Talk of locking up men! That is the objection taken to the plans of the Commissioners. I am not certain whether it is a sound one. The plans have been modified, and a less force of men will be required than that contemplated by the Commissioners. We have to consider the relative expense of men and works. When works are cheaper let us take works; when men are cheaper let us take men. It so happens we are strongest in raw levies. Raw levies cannot be manœuvred in the field, but they may make a brilliant and successful defence behind works. The most untutored nations in the world—the Turks for instance—fight stoutly behind works, but they will not stand in the field. So your irregulars and raw levies should be used to defend your arsenals and dockyards.
  But it is said that there is no necessity for solid and permanent fortifications. Napoleon, however, used to say that it was dangerous to trust to earthworks which are to be got up on a sudden, unless there is a strong force behind them. It has been stated that Sebastopol is an instance of a successful defence made by earthworks hastily erected. But those earthworks were not erected on a sudden. We were never able to force the sea defences, regular fortifications, which were eminently successful, and we gave the
  42
  enemy three weeks or a month to make their land defences. That is a peculiarity in the case, and I believe that if Sebastopol had been defended by permanent works on the south side, to which we went because they were strong fortifications on the north, it never would have been attacked at all. Such a step would have been looked on as impossible. Napoleon observed that a provincial militia was a force to defend strong places. Keep your good troops in the field, he said, and place your militia in works where they are as good as the best soldiers in the world. That is my belief, and for the very reasons why it is cheaper, better, and more secure to defend your dockyards by permanent works, I think it would be impolitic to adopt the same course in the case of London.
  I am sure the more the Committee reflects on the proposals of the Government and examines the plans of the Commissioners, the more it will be satisfied that we have taken a wise and politic course. It was an argument prominently put forward in Mr. Pitt's time, though I do not expect to hear it repeated now, that you cannot trust the Crown with the possession of places so strong, because they might be used as positions of aggression against the people. I do not think that any man in his senses would think of using such an argument in the present day. It had, however, a great effect formerly, and Mr. Pitt's plan to fortify Portsmouth and other places was defeated. It has been since said that this was a fortunate circumstance, because otherwise a considerable expense would have been incurred and we should have had to make other works over again. That, however, is not so, for Mr. Pitt's plans showed great foresight and judgment, and a great many of them are being executed at present. Though you are now compelled to extend your fortifications further, owing to the longer range of guns, and to defend yourselves by detached forts, instead of continuous lines, yet it is always an advantage when you have detached forts to have an inner line to fall back upon. It is highly important that those places where the means of your power are produced should have every appliance which skill and art could produce to make them secure. I will not delay the Committee longer, but I cannot sit down without expressing my earnest hope that they will consider this question to be, as it really is, a national question. Last year, when my gallant predecessor moved the Army Estimates, I was

  43
  struck by an observation of his to the effect that the House should make up its mind what to do with those fortifications, and not go on peddling with small sums year by year; but that if the fortifications were necessary they ought to be completed at once, and if not they ought to be abandoned. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman repeated the observation on another occasion on the question being mooted by the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) when I had the privilege of taking part in the discussion. I had already made a proposal to the Government on the subject; but I thought it necessary to be strengthened by the report of men eminent in science, and I believe that thereby we have found the means of making an enormous improvement in the security of this country. I have laboured at the matter with great anxiety, and I confess I should despair of this country if I thought the people would hesitate to make the sacrifice we ask. Of course, a large expense is to be incurred, and to be defrayed not in the cheapest way—by means of terminable securities. It is said that the money may be had more cheaply and easily by means of Consols. No doubt; but is it not important to show that we are not imposing a burden on posterity and making no effort ourselves, and that this is an exceptional and extraordinary proceeding? This country, looking at these questions with an anxious mind, is determined that the kingdom shall be put into such a state of security, that nothing less but enormous preparation, attended necessarily with due notice, should be able to produce a force that could make an impression of a permanent nature upon it. If these works are put into a thorough state of defence you may rest on your pillow in the confidence that Portsmouth or Plymouth, if attacked, will be able to defend itself, and you may then concentrate all your energies upon the defence of London, if you think it likely to he attacked. Portsmouth, Portsdown, Dovor, and Chatham are really the great outworks of London, and you are not neglecting London or the navy when you are doing these things. I am sure that the Government have no wish to force this proposition in a hurry through the House, and if hon. Gentlemen wish for time to consider, it will not be denied them. I hope they will give the subject the most earnest attention, confident that the Government will not he deserted by the generosity and patriotism of the Parliament and the people.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, in his opinion the great principle to be laid down with respect to the national defences was that, so far as human foresight and means could provide, the Government of the day should be responsible for their sufficiency. When he said that he did not mean a mere nominal responsibility, which as they saw was but too often placed on the Government for their acts. No punishment could he too great for that Ministry who, by neglecting the construction of needful works, allowed such a misfortune to occur as that of the Metropolis falling into the hands of an enemy. He thought that that House and the country had a right, in return for the large sums of money they had willingly voted, to expect that the nation should be placed in a state of defence, and made secure against the danger of any attack. The country would be willing to see any money voted to secure that object, and in throwing the responsibility on the Government he could not, for one, refuse to grant them the means to provide for the protection of the country. He did not think it wise for individual Members of Parliament to take upon themselves, however competent to form an opinion, to criticise these plans, or to quote military authorities who did the same thing. Let the Committee remember that such persons were not responsible, and that the plans under consideration were proposed by men responsible for the advice they gave. It was this responsibility that he wished to insist upon, not only for the plans themselves, but for the construction of the works to he carried out. The fault of the military administration of this country had been that when a great error was committed it was not possible to place one's hand on the responsible person. Now, he hoped with respect to these large works, for which the House was called upon to vote so great an expenditure, that, at all events, there would be some person responsible to the House for seeing that this large sum was spent to the best advantage. He observed from a paper placed in the hands of hon. Members that day that the Defence Committee expressed themselves entirely in favour of the views of the Royal Commission; but they said, further, that, either with or without fortifications, there must he a great addition to the regular army. The total of Her Majesty's forces, including 15,000 of the local European forces in India, was 245,000 men. If, then, the largest number of

  45
  troops which it was reckoned could be required in India were maintained there—namely, 80,000—the average number required in the Colonies and our military stations abroad being 40,000, that would leave a body of 125,000 regular troops in this country. To these must be added 17,000 pensioners who were available for garrison duty, as well as that portion of the army of India who must always be in depot here. This would leave us 150,000 regular troops, and, after making all deductions, we should be able at short notice to bring into the field 80,000 regular troops, including the finest artillery in the world, and, he believed, the finest cavalry. This was exclusive of the Militia, and of the magnificent auxiliary army which had been recently created, and which, on an emergency, might be increased to hundreds of thousands. If all these resources were properly organized, there would be no reason for the least alarm. But the safety of the country depended materially on the organization of our army of reserve, and he confessed that he was not satisfied that the proposed plan for reorganizing the Militia would render them as efficient as they ought to be. No doubt they would be made as efficient as it was possible for any men to be who received only twenty-eight days' drill in the year; but in his opinion the army of reserve ought to consist entirely of regularly drilled soldiers. Depend upon it if their services were required there would be no time for preparation. There would not be six months' notice of any war. It would be a word and a blow, or very probably the blow would fall without the word; and under those circumstances he was afraid that the training of the Militia would be found insufficient. That, however, was a subject on which he should have future opportunities of speaking. He would only now say that those who sat on the benches around him saw no reason for postponing this Vote, and thought the Committee might very well come to an immediate decision.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: The very able and concise statement of the noble Lord opens such new, and, to my mind, such alarming considerations, that it is impossible to suppose, after that speech, that we can have the same friendly relations with France which existed at the beginning of the Session. Sir, I do not think the House ought to legislate on a sudden. I expressly guard myself from saying that I do not approve parts of the noble Lord's
  46
  plan. At the same time I can conceive nothing more detrimental to the character and the weight of this House than to legislate under the pressure of a sudden panic, which I conceive we should be doing if we at once rush to a vote on this question. How stands the case? My hon. Friend (Mr. Bright), with whose general views on this subject I do not agree, has said that during the time he has been in Parliament he has never known such a course taken. I challenge any hon. Gentleman to say whether, since this was a House of Commons, any Minister of the Crown has ever come forward suddenly with a Resolution which had not been upon the table before, and asked for an immediate vote upon that Resolution. I do hope, from a few observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) at the conclusion of his speech, that the Government do not intend to press us for a vote to-night. He said he was sure that the more the House reflected on this statement, the more wise and politic they would consider the proposed plan to be. If that be so, why should not the right hon. Gentleman postpone the vote and give us some little breathing time? I do not say that I shall not support the right hon. Gentleman. All I ask is that we may not expose ourselves somewhat to the sneers of foreign nations, as well as to the distrust of our own constituents, by immediately rushing to a precipitate vote. What is it we are about to do? It is true that to-night we are only asked to spend £2,000,000; but does not every one feel that this is only the beginning of an enormous addition to our expenditure? The noble Lord has very well laid down his plans, but has altogether kept out of sight the troops for which we shall be asked. I believe Cannock Chase, also, is not included in the Vote. ["Yes!"] Well, I will throw Cannock Chase in; but I say we shall not be consulting our own dignity as a deliberative assembly if to-night we agree to a Resolution which we have never seen or heard of before. It seems now that the blue-book was known to the Government as early as the 7th of February. Since then we have had a Budget brought forward, in which most material financial changes were introduced, the Ministry knowing at that time that this call of £11,580,000 would be made. They were perfectly aware of all this, and yet on the 23rd of July the House is called upon, for the first time, not indeed to take their proposals into consideration, but to

  47
  give without notice an immediate vote; and we have hon. Gentlemen getting up under the influence of a panic. The delay of this Resolution for three or four days cannot be of the slightest possible moment. The fortifications are to occupy four years, and I think it will not be becoming the House of Commons to decide so hastily. I do not wish to be placed in a position hostile to the Government on this question. On the contrary, I hope to be able to give them my support; my only object is to press for the postponement of the Resolution. I will only add one word with regard to the publication of the Report of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman the War Secretary has said that in a constitutional Government you are obliged to make these matters public. To that doctrine I cannot assent. I believe in all warlike operations that the one essential thing is secrecy. If we are to publish our weak points to all the world, we invite all the world to attack us. When the Duke of Wellington formed the mighty lines of Torres Vedras, an operation which occupied more than ten months, Massena was not a bit aware of them, nor was their existence known to any persons in the English army, except the members of the confidential staff. That is a sufficient answer to those who defend the publication of the blue-book. Those lines at Torres Vedras saved the liberties of the world, because if Spain and Portugal had fallen at that time, the whole world would have been in the grasp of the first Napoleon. I look upon the publication of this Report as most mischievous. However, that is done and cannot be undone; but with regard to the Resolution, I do hope the noble Lord will not to-night call upon us to vote upon it.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the argument of my hon. Friend (Mr. Bernal Osborne) is rather at variance with the course which he suggests. He finds fault with the Government for having given in too much detail the reasons why they propose the Vote, and at the same time he objects to the Vote being taken to-night because, he says, the, Committee have not had sufficient time to examine into those details. Now, if there was any force in the argument of my hon. Friend, he ought to be prepared to vote the money on terms of general confidence in the Government, upon our declaration that we think such a sum is necessary for the defence of the country, and without calling upon us to say why we think it necessary. I there-
  48
  fore claim the vote of my hon. Friend on his own argument. It is really not fair to say that we are calling upon the House of Commons to act on a sudden panic. This Report has been for some time before the House. It gives all the details, and those who have read it are just as wise on the subject now as they will be this day week. Then, again, my hon. Friend says that after my statement this evening it is hopeless to expect the continuance of any friendly relations with France. Why, the only foundation for friendship between equals is perfect frankness; and, so far from the fair statement of what we intend to do for our own defence being the ground for bad relations between us and France, I say that not only the statement made tonight, but the works which are to follow that statement, are the only foundation for real and substantial friendship with France. I am quite sure that if we press this question to a division it will be carried by a large majority; but I am far from wishing to call upon hon. Members for a decision which they are not immediately prepared to come to. I concur entirely with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) in thinking that the more the House reflects on the matter, the more completely they will come round to our proposal, and that they will be more ready to assent to it this day week than they are now. I am prepared, therefore, to yield to the request which has been made, and to move, Sir, that you report Progress now, and that the debate be resumed this day week.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he rejoiced that the Government had at last determined to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners. It was impossible to forget that in 1847 the Duke of Wellington warned the country of the necessity of preparation. He was certain that the country would respond to the appeal of the noble Lord.
  MR. DISRAELI: I do not intend to trouble the Committee upon the particular question before us. I will only say that as to the mode in which this money is to be raised I confess I have great doubts of the wisdom of the plan, and I should like to have heard the opinion of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon that point. But what I want to ask is, now that this change has taken place in the business, can the noble Lord fix a day when the new paper duty will be taken?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is

  49
  not here, and, therefore, I cannot say when the paper duty will come on. The Indian Army Amalgamation Bill is fixed for Thursday, and Friday is a private night. I must make one or two remarks upon the mode in which it is proposed to raise this money. In the first place, although my noble Friend stated that the plan contemplated ultimately an expenditure not exceeding £9,000,000, all we pledged the House in this year is to consent to raise £2,000,000on terminable annuities. There is no doubt an equal sum might be borrowed on Consols at a somewhat less annual charge. Terminable annuities are not the most saleable stock. In general, assurance companies alone deal extensively in them, and the public will not take them except at a higher rate, although not a considerably higher rate than Consols. But let the Committee consider the alternative. If we had proposed to raise this money by creating an amount of Three per Cent Consols or Exchequer bonds or bills, it is certain that it would form an addition to the permanent debt of the country, and that the public would not consent to raise the funds for extinguishing that debt in the present generation. The Committee will remember that an attempt was made during the last war to create a charge on the Consolidated Fund for the gradual extinction of a certain debt in Consols, but that Act had not been in existence three years when the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not say without necessity—came down and proposed the repeal of that Act. Even this year it is proposed to renew a debt of a million in Exchequer bonds, and there is no reasonable prospect, unless you compel this House by the term of the contract to repay a portion of the principal periodically, that the money will ever be repaid. The advantage of terminable annuities is this,—although it costs you something more when you borrow in that form, yet the excess of charge is not considerable; you make it necessary that a portion of the principal should be repaid every year, together with the interest. The essence of terminable annuities is that on the repayment principal and interest are confounded. That mode of compelling the public to repay the principal of the debt seems to me to be well suited to the present occasion, when we are departing from the ordinary course of defraying the current service of the year by contracting a loan. Although I admit that terminable
  50
  annuities are not the most economical mode of contracting a loan, yet that plan seems to me to have an advantage in compelling the Government which contracts the loan to specify in the contract, which cannot be broken without a violation of national faith, that a certain portion of the principal shall be repaid each year, and I should be glad to see a considerable portion of our national debt converted into terminable annuities.
  MR. DISRAELI: I am sorry again to trouble the Committee upon the same subject, but it appears to me that, at this period of the Session, the House has a right to expect something more definite than the statement we have already heard of when the paper duty will come on. Can the noble Lord tell us when will be the next Supply night, and will the paper duty be taken then?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot state with certainty now. I will state tomorrow.
  MR. BRIGHT: I wish to ask when the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India intends to make his statement respecting the finances of India. I understand there is a deficit of £7,000,000, and therefore it is probable that a loan will have to be contracted. That is a question which should not be deferred until the last day of the Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In the absence of my right hon. Friend I cannot give an answer, but the day when my right hon. Friend will bring on his Indian Budget must depend upon the other business. I will state to-morrow what will be done.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOremarked, that he thought terminable annuities an extravagant and wasteful mode of raising money. Terminable annuities had been a sort of sinking fund, for while they had been paying those annuities they had created Consols, They paid money on the one hand and increased the debt on the other.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had acceded to the request of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He had little confidence in bricks and mortar for keeping this country safe from foreign aggression. We had had some experience in this matter. An enormous sum had been expended in the creation of extensive works for the defence of the Channel Islands on the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington; but the late Mr. Stephenson, after a cruise round those

  51
  islands, said every shilling that had been spent was thrown away. He had more confidence in the spirit of the country and the volunteer system, which he thought might be rendered much more effective by giving facilities to the working classes to join in it, than he had in fortifications. The improvements in gunnery had already rendered the fortifications at Portsmouth useless, and it might therefore easily happen that, after we had expended large sums on our national defences, we might find that our money had been thrown away, and that we had the work to do over again.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it appeared to him that there was a little discrepancy between the statements of the noble Lord opposite and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War. The noble Lord said that £7,000,000 would be wanted for the fortifications, and the right hon. Gentleman said that about£5,000,000 would be required.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that what his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert) stated was, that the works to be commenced this year would only pledge the House to an expenditure of £5,000,000.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there was a Vote for fortifications in the Army Estimates to the amount of £600,000, of which £200,000 had been already voted. He wished to know whether they were to take that Vote in the lump or in detail, as was the practice on former occasions. The noble Lord said that something less than £500,000 a year Would be necessary to provide for the terminable annuities. How, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) asked, was that sum to be provided?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Vote in the Army Estimates for fortifications would be sufficient to cover the sum necessary for the terminable annuities for the year.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, it appeared to him to be an extraordinary fact that when a question was under consideration which belonged more particularly to one department of the Government the Minister in charge of that department should be unfortunately absent. The noble Lord's Resolution, if agreed to, would pledge the House to the expenditure of a very large sum of money. On such an occasion he thought it most extraordinary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be absent. He doubted not there were some excellent reasons for the
  52
  right hon. Gentleman's absence, but it seemed to him to be a fact not very respectful to the House or the country. He wished to point out to the Government the propriety of not dealing in a niggardly spirit with those from whom land was purchased for the construction of fortifications. It should be borne in mind that taking a portion of land for such purposes very often destroyed a great deal more for building purposes.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESobjected to that important question being discussed in a desultory and unsatisfactory manner. As the subject was one of the greatest consequence to this country and to its standing in Europe, it should be discussed in a serious manner, and after the Committee had had ample time to consider it.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, he wished to point out the importance of converting steamboats at Liverpool into gunboats, for defensive purposes.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again on Monday.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to move, as an Amendment, the following Resolution,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the state of the Ecclesiastical Law in England and Ireland, and of the courts in which it is administered, and especially the Act commonly called the Clergy Discipline Act, require to be amended and reformed, and that it is incumbent on the Government to direct a measure to be prepared for that purpose."
  When in the early part of the Session he brought in a Bill to allay these dreadful disturbances which had taken place in one of the parishes of the Metropolis, he received a notice from the vestry of St. George's-in-the-East, to the effect that no remedy would be applicable while the Ecclesiastical Courts remained as they were. These Courts were still between 200 and 300 in number, 56 of them being Diocesan Courts. Every offence against ecclesiastical law was commenced in one of those courts, in which the Bishop himself did not sit, but the Chancellor or Vicar General, whose duty it was to advise the Bishop. A large proportion of those Judges were clergymen,

  53
  but were possessed of the most slender legal attainments, and on the authority of Lord Cranworth he might say that in nine cases out of ten the rev. gentlemen were not properly qualified for their office. When the Bill of the noble Viscount's Government was introduced in 1856 great jealousy was evinced on the part of the Bishops at the increased powers proposed to be given to the Chancellors; but the object of the Bill was only to increase the authority of those functionaries and restore them to their ancient importance. It was proposed to reduce their number to six, and to pay them, not by fees, but by salaries of sufficient importance to attract to the office Judges of an ability calculated to bring the ecclesiastical law of the country into a creditable position. The present Chancellors were in most cases relatives of the Bishops; but considering the important duties they had to perform they ought to be Government and not episcopal appointments. The whole state of the ecclesiastical law was in great confusion, and those gentlemen might be well employed in reducing it to a system. In every one of the courts there was a separate registrar and staff of officers, some of whom received most lucrative allowances. In 1850 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the whole subject—that Committee was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and it was ascertained in the course of their inquiries that two ladies had held the office of registrar. In 90 cases the duties of the office were discharged by deputies, and in 17 cases minors had been appointed registrars. The registrar of Norwich was the Rev. E. Bathurst, who was appointed at the age of ten, in June, 1825, and his income was £1,427 8s. 2d. per annum. The registrar of London was the Rev. R. Watson appointed at the age of eight, on the 20th of July, 1776, and receiving £495 a year. The registrar of Winchester, Mr. Brown-low North, was appointed in December, 1817, at the age of seven, in reversion, and of fifteen when he came in possession of his office; his income was £860. The registrar of Llandaff was also appointed at the age of five years. The amount annually levied on the public by these courts was £49,215 in England and Wales alone, many of the fees being illegal and some of them quite contrary to the canonical law. The gross revenue of the Prerogative Court in the year ending the 30th of March, 1848, was £30,832, of which £3,900 was paid
  54
  to the Judge, and £8,500 to the registrar, who did nothing whatever for the money; the duties of this office being discharged by deputies who received separate salaries. Frequently there was no regular table of fees, and they were levied according to custom simply and the pleasure of the Judge. It might be expected that for the handsome incomes these gentlemen drew the records of their several courts would be well kept, but the Returns showed that the contrary was the case. He would refer the House on this point to the appendix of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioners in 1832, which contained the latest official information on the subject; and he believed that the case was not now materially altered. According to that Report the records were in many cases kept in private houses; in scarcely any instance was the building fire-proof; in some it was damp; and in some the documents were exposed to the ravages of mice. But how were the fees levied? No less than £29,500 was derived in the shape of fees on marriage licences, and were a direct tax on the laity. The fees varied very much in amount, from £1 2s. in the diocese of Norwich to £2 12 s. 1d. in the diocese of Worcester. That was a grievance which the Government themselves had recognized, and the remedy for which they had proposed from year to year. It could not be said by the clergy that this was altogether a matter which related to them, because as he had shown one-half of the money which went to support the courts and the officers attached to them was derived from a tax levied upon the laity. The mode of procedure which was adopted in these courts was very defective, and differed from that of all other courts. It was a remnant of the antiquated system of ecclesiastical procedure by libel and allegation, and involved processes the very names of which were not known to the greater number of the members of the legal profession. There was no trial by jury, and practice in the courts was confined to a select few. It was a close monopoly, and the system pursued was as disgraceful as that of the Palace Courts, which were swept away some time ago by the breath of public opinion. The delay was frightful, and as an instance he might refer to the case of Mr. Craig, which lasted four years, when the Judicial Committee decided there was no ground for the action, and Mr. Craig was dismissed on paying his costs. Again, the notorious case of the Rev. Bryan

  55
  King and St. George's-in-the-East reflected the utmost discredit on the ecclesiastical law and ecclesiastical tribunals of this country. The Rev. Bryan King declared that those Eucharistical vestments, which had engendered such unhappy disputes in his parish, were used in 50 or 60 other churches, and their adoption was still extending. The case of St. Barnabus Church was another illustration of the existing law. The proceedings were instituted in January, 1855, and, although prosecuted with diligence, it was only in March, 1857, that the judgment of the Privy Council was pronounced. The highest ecclesiastical authorities were dissatisfied with the state of these courts. What was the opinion of the Bishop of Cork with reference to this subject in a pamphlet which he had lately published? That rev. Prelate stated that, in his opinion, the present state of the ecclesiastical law and Ecclesiastical Courts tended greatly to afford shelter to grave delinquents, and to prevent the effectual punishment of immorality and the expulsion of irreligion. The report of the Upper House of Convocation stated that the present state of the law touching the discipline of the clergy was unsatisfactory and needed Amendment, and that the great delays which attended proceedings in those courts frequently amounted to a denial of justice. That took place in the year 1853. But the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts was a measure which had been more or less contemplated ever since the Reformation. The veteran statesman, Lord Radnor, when Lord Folkestone, had taken the initiative of late years in the reform of these Courts. Even Lord Stowell himself, though a strong Tory, had taken steps for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts. In 1832, a Commission was appointed, consisting of most distinguished men, the result of whose labours was the Church Discipline Act of 1840. That Act was so total a failure that its machinery had literally never been used. In 1847, the Bishops made an attempt to amend or alter it, but without success. The Bishops, he feared, had too much prelatic pride, and wished too much for increased power, to undertake the necessary ecclesiastical reforms. He objected to the Church Discipline Act of 1840, that no suit could be originated under it without the Bishop's sanction, and that he complained of as a gross encroachment on the rights of the laity. As the law at present stood, although the Bishop might himself declare that idolatry was preached
  56
  in the church of St. Barnabas, no layman could initiate proceedings in respect of it. The Government when they introduced the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill, in 1854, wore taunted for not having dealt with the other branches of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They, therefore, brought in a Bill in 1855, and showed it to the Bishops, by whom it was disapproved. A Bill almost precisely similar was prepared by the present Attorney General, and introduced by Lord Cran-worth, in the House of Lords, in 1856; but again the Bishops, who had tried their own hands at legislation and failed, hindered what the Government proposed. The Bill of 1856 had for its objects to constitute one appellate tribunal for the Church of England and Ireland, India, and the Colonies; to establish central registries in London and Dublin for the custody of ecclesiastical instruments; to reduce the number of above fifty ecclesiastical Judges to four; and to provide an uniform and expeditious procedure; in short, as was stated by Mr. Stephens, who drew the Bill for the present Attorney General, it was intended to make justice in the Ecclesiastical Courts as cheap and quick as in the County Courts of the country. The real objection the Bishops had to that Bill of 1856 was, that it deprived them of their patronage; but the professed objection was that it would give too much power to the Archbishop and to the Crown upon appeals. The Bishop of Exeter led the opposition to it, and, although Amendments were offered to meet their views, the Bishops refused to allow the Bill to be read a second time. It was rejected by a majority of nine; eighteen English Bishops voted against it. The Irish Bishops, however, formed a noble exception to this. They unanimously supported it, and addressed a statement to Lord Palmerston, urging the necessity which existed for such a measure of ecclesiastical reform. At their request, a Bill for Ireland was introduced by the Earl of Derby's Government in 1859. It passed the House of Lords, and two readings in the House of Commons; but was stopped by the dissolution of Parliament. At last the present Government introduced a measure, mutilated and imperfect; but still a faint copy of what the Earl of Derby endeavoured to carry out far more effectually last year. Now, the Church Discipline Act of 1840 had failed to work satisfactorily, because no proper machinery was provided, no class of assessors, specially devoted to ecclesiastical law, no control

  57
  over the diocesan registries or regularity of procedure. The Bill of 1856 would have supplied all those defects. As the law now stood, there were in some cases three or four different Courts of final appeal. If a clerk were refused institution to a benefice, he might proceed in the Ecclesiastical Court, with an appeal to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, although some point of doctrine might be involved in the case. Or the patron, whether the Crown or a layman, might proceed against the Bishop under a writ of quare impedit in the Court of Queen's Bench, with an appeal to the House of Lords. In such a case as that of the Rev. Mr. Gorham, involving the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, there might he three conflicting decisions by the three final Courts of appeal. But under the Bill of 1856, which the Government ought to have allowed the Attorney General to bring in again this year, a single Court of appeal was provided. Now, he (Mr. Danby Seymour) had proved that the Ecclesiastical Courts were too numerous and inefficient. Their supposed administration of justice was a mere satire on law and common sense. Their patronage had been abused; their fees were illegal and exorbitant, yet these Courts could not support themselves but by an unjust exaction from the laity for marriage licences. Their procedure was barbarous and obsolete; they were injurious to the interests of the Church and of morality. A case, then, for reform had been made out. There were two courses open to the Government:—they might either reform the Courts according to the Bill of 1856, or abolish them altogether, fusing them in the general administration of justice. It was the latter course he should like to see adopted. The testamentary and matrimonial jurisdiction had been taken from these Courts, and he did not see why they might not be also deprived of their other business. If the Bill of the Attorney General was necessary in 1856, it was much more so now. The only opposition to it in either House would have been by the bench of Bishops. If the Government were not afraid of their opposition in 1856, he wished to know why the present Session was to be allowed to pass without a Bill being brought in for their correction. At all events, he trusted that the Government would give a pledge that a Bill for the purpose would be brought in at the commencement of the next Session.
  LORD FERMOYseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the state of the Ecclesiastical Law in England and Ireland, and of the Courts in which it is administered, and especially the Act commonly called the Clergy Discipline Act, require to be amended and Reformed; and that it is incumbent on the Government to direct Measures to be prepared for that purpose.'"
  —instead thereof.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had invited the attention of the House to this subject under unfavourable circumstances. The House was very thin, and the Motion was made as an Amendment upon the Motion for going into a Committee of Supply; though it was quite obvious that the House was very much behind the usual time for the consideration of these Votes. The hon. and learned Member asked the Government to give a distinct pledge that they would bring in a Bill on the subject the first thing in the next Parliament; but what would be the value of such a pledge, since it was impossible at the present moment to foresee what subjects would demand the earliest attention of Parliament? He could, however, assure the hon. Member that it was from no indifference to the importance of the subject that he abstained from giving such a pledge. He, therefore, trusted the hon. and learned Member would leave the Government to choose their own time for dealing with the question.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that although he did not approve of the great change by way of a remedy which the hon. and learned Member for Poole had proposed, he thought that the House was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the great research he had displayed in bringing the subject under their consideration. The evils, arising from the lapsed condition of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and indeed of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church of England were such as urgently called for some measure of a remedial character. He had himself suffered from the complete collapse of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and he knew many other persons in the midland counties to whom the state of those Courts had been productive of an utter denial of justice. The expenses entailed upon Bishops, if they proceeded regularly with the trial of ecclesiastical offences in the regular Courts would be so enormous that they were fairly excusable for availing themselves of the powers vested in them by the Church

  59
  Discipline Act, and thus refusing to proceed to preliminary inquiries, which would only manifest their impotence. Many officers of the Ecclesiastical Courts were utterly incompetent to discharge the duties which the law imposed upon them. He did not want completely to break up the ecclesiastical judicial system of the country'; he wished to retain the authority of the Bishops, but to secure to them the advantage of the service of competent assessors and of a competent bar, and such compensation for their expenses, as would render procedure not ruinous to them. But immediate action, he repeated, was eminently needed in the matter. Under the existing state of things many of the laity were becoming alienated from the Church, and the Bishops were accused of a most arbitrary denial of justice, while the real fact was that it would be literally ruin to them to act in many cases, now that their incomes had been so enormously reduced.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, that it was not the fault of the hon. and learned Member that his statement was made at so late a period of the Session; for he had experienced the difficulty which all hon. Members unconnected with the Government felt of finding an opportunity to submit questions to the consideration of the House. So far from his learned Friend having acted unreasonably in bringing forward this question, he did not know any subject of a more practical character, or one to which it was more desirable that the attention of the Government should be given. The Government of the Earl of Derby, as well as that now sitting on the Treasury benches, was pledged to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking the measure which had been introduced for Ireland a weak and mutilated Bill, and that it would be much better to deal with the question in both countries simultaneously. What was required was that in the Ecclesiastical Courts justice should be administered as speedily and cheaply as in the County Courts, and he respectfully asked for an intimation on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Government that a Bill, framed with this object, would be introduced early next Session.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he hoped the Government would persevere with the measure they had introduced, which would be a useful and important measure for Ireland.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that as an Episcopalian, he regretted the scandals which sometimes occurred, and which were irremediable, from the fact that no power existed in any authority to punish the delinquents. He hoped that legislation would promptly take place.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"
  Put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee; Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £44,595, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into those Estimates whether they had yet agreed to any Report?
  LORD HARRY VANE,as Chairman of the Committee, stated that a short Report, referring to the subject generally, had been drawn up. It did not, however, enter into those details which the hon. Member, no doubt, was desirous of obtaining.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, they wanted a more careful expenditure upon these Royal Palaces. Upon those Palaces occupied by Her Majesty, the expenditure appeared to him to be very large, but he did not wish to dwell upon that point. What he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to were these Palaces not occupied by Her Majesty. There was Kensington Palace, for which there was a Vote of £16,000, and he was not aware that any member of the Royal family occupied that Palace. Then there was £6,803 for Hampton Court, and, as that was only occupied by the ladies of those who had served their country, he did not think the public ought to be annually called upon to pay for that accommodation. He had visited Hampton Court lately, and he considered that it would be a place well adapted for the training of Volunteers, and, for shooting, the best to be found in the neighbourhood of London. He suggested that the grounds there should be converted into rifle practice grounds for Volunteers. He also found a sum of £924 for Bushey, and £1,402 for Frogmore,

  61
  and he should like to have some explanation who it was that occupied those houses.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHregretted that the Report of the Civil Service Committee had not been presented to the House before these Estimates were brought on, and thought it would have been more convenient if the Secretary to the Treasury, before proposing them, had made a general statement as to the whole civil expenditure of the country. The Civil Service Estimates had been increasing in amount every year for a long time, and he attributed that circumstance to their being submitted to the Committee at a late period of the Session, when hon. Members were worn out and anxious to get rid of their duties as fast as possible, and likewise to the Treasury not exercising a due control over those Estimates. He would, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced to £40,000.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that if he had not made a lengthened statement in bringing forward those Estimates, it was from no disrespect to the Committee; but because, having made such a statement on a former occasion, experience showed that to mix up a multitude of questions together which had no connection with one another in a single speech, was an inconvenient course to adopt. The questions arising on the Civil Service Estimates could only be discussed separately, vote by vote; and any attempt to discuss them, when mixed up together, was only a waste of time. But those Estimates, which for the last ten years had increased at the average rate of £200,000 per annnm, showed now a decrease of £345,000 upon the corresponding expenditure of last year. That fact probably formed the best speech he could make upon the subject. With regard to the time at which the Civil Service Estimates should be brought forward, the House had never shown any readiness to go into them at an early period of the year, while large questions like the Budget were before it. The only effect of the hon. Member's proposal would be that Votes on account would have to be brought forward at an early period of the Session. Moreover, it was an inappropriate moment to urge an alteration of this kind, when the whole question of the Civil Service accounts and the mode of audit would come under the attention of the Government during the recess. The present system of account and audit was confessedly unsatisfactory, and ought
  62
  to be revised. Independently of other objections, therefore, he thought it was premature to call upon the Committee to pledge themselves by a vote of this kind.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Truro, (Mr. A. Smith), that the Estimates were delayed far too long in the Session. The House was kept, night after night, listening to the quarrels between the Government and their supporters, and the Estimates were delayed till independent Members had left town.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, that with reference to the item of £850 "for glazing, cleaning, and preserving pictures and cartoons," he would suggest that the cartoons should be brought to London; for being now protected by glass, they would not suffer from the effects of the London atmosphere.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he did not think the explanations of the hon. Secretary to the Treasury were at all satisfactory. They had been entertained this Session with a flashy Budget in February, which had been picked to pieces before July, and had that night been altogether given up by the First Lord of the Treasury. They would have been much better employed in discussing the details of the Estimates; and he hoped that in a future Session the House would insist on their being brought forward at a proper time. It was a complete mockery to go into the Estimates at a time when hon. Members were leaving, or were preparing to leave town, and when Government could always command a majority. If that was to be the normal system adopted, the House of Commons would virtually abdicate their functions as the guardians of the public purse.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he observed there was a surplus in hand, from an unexpended Vote of last year, to the extent of £14,000. He wished to know whether that would be added to the Vote now proposed.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the sum of £14,000 was in the Exchequer, but had nothing to do with the Estimate; and so able a statistician as the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to confound an estimate with a balance.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the Committee had not only to deal with the estimate but with the balance. He should press his Motion for a reduction of the Vote to £40,000.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISrepeated that the £14,000 balance from the expenditure of last year had nothing to do with the present Estimate, and was neither a reduction upon, nor an addition to, the Estimate. It was not available in aid of the Estimate, and stood wholly independent of it. With regard to bringing on the Miscellaneous Estimates before Easter, the question was very fully considered by the Committee on Public Moneys two Sessions ago, and the Committee saw, as everybody must see, that they were not likely to do more than vote the Army and Navy Estimates before Easter. The Committee proposed that, in order to apply to the Civil Service Estimates the rule which extended to the Army and Navy Estimates, that they should be brought to a close each year, and the balances turned over, there should be a Vote on account. It was the best contrivance which the Committee could suggest. It never entered into their heads that the Civil Service Estimates could be voted before Easter; and he was sure, if hon. Members considered it, they would see it was a most improbable contingency, and one upon which they were not entitled to speculate.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, that no one supposed that the Civil Service Estimates would be voted before Easter; but they ought to be laid on the table at an early period, and the Budget, as a rule, ought to be brought forward after the Estimates. Having formed a Commercial Treaty, the Government was obliged to bring forward the Budget this year, at a very early period, and perhaps it would have been impossible, after the consideration of the Estimates, to deal with a Budget of this ambitious character. This was an exceptional year, but the Committee over which he had the honour to preside, were of opinion that the Estimates should precede the Budget. It was not the practice, but it would be of advantage if there were an enumeration of the unexpended balances of each Vote, so as to enable hon. Members to judge completely of the expenditure.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know whether there was any method by which the Committee could find out the application of the balances, for until that was done they would have no just or correct notion of the country's accounts. Was it the intention of the Government to lay any information on that matter on the table?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in the Army and Navy Votes the excess of one might be transferred to the deficiency of another, with the consent of the Treasury. But that was not the case in the Civil Service Votes. The Treasury had no power to transfer the excess in one Vote to make up the deficiency in another, but the money voted for each Vote might be carried on from one year to the next. They were balances in the Exchequer, and had nothing to do with the amount which the House authorized the Government to expend. Supposing a balance of £10,000 on a particular Vote last year remained, and £40,000 were voted this year, the Treasury would have a credit of £50,000, but not be entitled to expend more than £40,000. The £10,000 would be merely a balance standing to the account of the Treasury. It was a mere question of account. It did not influence the power of the Government to expend money, and had nothing whatever to do with Votes in Committee of Supply.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought that the whole system required consideration, and that it would be much better if in the Civil Service Estimates they were to follow the recommendation of the Committee on Public Moneys, and adopt a system somewhat similar to that which was pursued in the Army and Navy Estimates. The difficulty was that money would be wanted before the Votes were passed. The remedy suggested was to vote money on account before Easter, which would enable the Government to effect a very desirable reform. The hon. Member for Truro proposed to cut down the Vote, which was not too large for the year, in order to compel the Government to come at the beginning of next year for a Vote on account. He did not think that a Vote on account was desirable. It might be so far desirable if they were going to have the great reform which he hoped they soon would have. If the Civil Service Estimates were to be put on the same footing as the Army and Navy Estimates, then, he said, let them have Votes on account; but, as nothing was more inconvenient or tended more to withdraw Estimates from the consideration of Parliament than voting money on account, and as the Amendment of the hon. Member would only have that effect without giving them the better system, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in dividing the Committee.
  MR. CORRYsaid, it was stated by one of the witnesses from the Treasury who was examined before the Public Moneys Committee that the reason why the Estimates were not laid on the table of the House very early in the Session was that they might be able to provide for any unforeseen expenditure; but the proper mode to meet that expenditure was to bring in Supplemental Estimates.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, that the Vote on account recommended by the Public Moneys Committee, would enable them to effect a very great and important improvement by putting the Civil Service Estimates on precisely the same footing as the Army and Navy Estimates, the unexpected balances of which were paid again to the Treasury at the end of the financial year. He thought the Government were to blame for having done so little towards carrying out the recommendations of the Public Moneys Committee. At present the Committee were voting in the dark. They were asked to vote £44,000, when perhaps only £30,000 would be expended. Still he could not think that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would effect its object.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not believe that the Public Moneys Committee recommended anything like a system of taking Votes on account. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that, although £14,000 remained from last year's Vote and £44,000 was now asked for, yet the Government would only be authorized to expend the latter sum. If that were the case, the Estimates were framed in an extraordinary manner; for he found on page 24 an item of the sum to be voted for new works in 1860–1, exclusive of the balance of the last Vote unexpended. That implied that the sum unexpended last year would be used this year. There was another item of £229,000 for the maintenance of prisoners in county gaols and lunatic asylums, but a note was appended stating that only £159,000 would be required to be voted, the balance being made up from the sum remaining unexpended from last year. Surely that must mean that balances from last year would be used this year.
  MR. COWPERsaid, one reason for the discrepancy was that the money was always voted to be expended between the 31st of March in one year and the 31st of March in the next, but it did not always happen that the money was spent within that period, and they only got their Esti-
  66
  mates, as the hon. Member for Truro complained, in the month of July. That, however, was not the fault of the Government; but it was owing to this, that the hours of the day were not sufficient to get through the work which was to be done. The money was taken for the year beginning the 1st of April, but they were now late in July; but though it ought to have been spent in the beginning of the year, it could only be spent now. The sum of which this £14,000 was called the balance, was to some extent spent up to the 31st of March, 1860, and probably the balance had been spent between the 31st of March and this day of July.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Pontefract was the same that occurred to his mind. He would remark that money expended in the financial year began from the 31st of March, and not from the time at which it was voted.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not surprised at the apparent difficulty there was in understanding [the difference between Votes in Supply and Votes in Ways and Means, but the answer was simple. The balances in the Exchequer had no tiling to do with the authority to expend, which was founded on a Vote in Supply. If a Vote for one year was £40,000 a credit would be raised to the Exchequer to that amount. If only £30,000 was expended, there would remain £10,000, which the Exchequer was authorized to carry on to the account of the same Vote in succeeding years. Supposing that in the following year again £40,000 was voted; the Exchequer would then have £50,000 to apply; but they would not be authorized to expend more than £40,000. Their authority to expend was limited by the Vote of the House. The Treasury might make a saving of the £10,000 and pay it into the Exchequer, or they might carry it on to the next year; but the fact of there being an undrawn balance would not authorize them to exceed the Vote.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know how the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman could be reconciled with the fact that in Vote 47, where the total Estimate was £229,000, the sum to be voted was only £159,000, there being "a sufficient balance to meet the rest of the charge."
  MR. BLACKBURNpointed out that it was expressly stated in the Estimates that the Vote of £160,000, with the balances

  67
  unissued of last year's Vote, would be "sufficient for the service of the year 1860–1." The right hon. Gentleman must therefore be mistaken.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend had not been quite accurately understood. What he intended to convey was that under no circumstances could the total amount voted by Parliament be exceeded by any authority of the Treasury. That was to say, that if £60,000 had been voted last year for certain services, and if only £50,000 had been spent, the £10,000 which remained over might be expended in a future year. In the present instance, £44,000 was the estimate of expenditure from the 1st of April, 1860, to the 31st of March, 1861; but there might be expended in addition to that amount the sum of £14,000, which from various circumstances remained over from the Vote of last year. That was the great question raised by the Committee on Public Moneys. He was sorry if any hon. Member was under the impression that the Government had overlooked the importance of the Report of that Committee. The only reason why no steps were taken in regard to it was the illness during the whole of the recess of Mr. Anderson, the officer of the Treasury to whom any Government in office must practically look for the revision of the department which had to take charge of this business. The difficulty of carrying out the recommendation of the Committee was not in the slightest degree one of principle, for on that they were generally agreed. There was, however, considerable practical difficulty in deciding whether the appropriated accounts should be prepared by the Audit Office, the Exchequer, or some other independent office, by each department for itself, or by one central office at the Treasury, exercising a general supervision. On the whole, the opinion appeared to be that it would be better for the public service that the work should be done at the Treasury. It was the intention of the Government to carry out the minor reforms recommended by the Committee which sat this Session—such as the publication of the amount of unexpended balances along with each Vote, and the production of the Estimates at an earlier period of the year. The Government were also generally favourable to the principle of the more important reform recommended by the Committee on Public Moneys; and they intended to take it up during: the recess, with the assistance Of Mr. Anderson, with ail 'anxious desire,
  68
  if possible, to give effect to it. After these assurances he trusted the Committee would not pass what would be practically a Vote for only ten and a half instead of twelve months, for the purpose of compelling the Government to bring forward the Estimates early in the year, when, perhaps, very important business might await consideration, and when Votes on account might have to be resorted to.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. A. Smith) would not press for a division after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works for some explanation as to the items of £2,400 for improving the entrance and approaches to the chapel at Buckingham Palace, and £1,802 for the Royal Mews, Pimlico.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the first item was absolutely necessary, on account of the very tortuous and inconvenient character of the present approach, which was not originally intended for that purpose. On one occasion when the chapel was used, the Queen of Hanover had a fall coming down the steps, and was very nearly seriously injured. The other items included nothing out of the ordinary course.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHexplained, that the object of his Motion was simply to reduce the balance in hand, and he felt it his duty to divide the Committee.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that the amount in any case unexpended should be stated next year and deducted from the ensuing Vote. It was most important to know the exact expenditure on each item for every year.
  Motion made, and Question,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Maintenance and Repair of the Royal Palaces, to the 31st day of March, 1861,"
  Put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £119,529, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings: for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSdrew attention to the vast increase in the Vote of this year, which he said was as much as £20,812, and unless some very satisfactory explanation was given of that very large increase,

  69
  he should certainly move its reduction. He complained that the Civil Service Estimates were now between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000, whereas, a few years ago, they were not much above £2,000,000. He objected to the large expenditure which was incurred in renting a house for the Copyhold Commission, and another at Whitehall for the Ecclesiastical Commission, at a rent of £680 a year and £685 for furniture.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he had been in hopes that his hon. Friend would have highly approved of this Vote, which, when compared with the Vote of last year, showed a decrease of £3,211, With regard to the houses provided for the Copyhold Commission and the Ecclesiastical Commission, the rents were not above the fair market value of those houses.
  MR. MILDMAYsaid, he rose to move that the Vote be reduced by £1,200, being the sum put down for the erection of a building for the reception of the funeral car of the late Duke of Wellington. His first reason for objecting to the Vote—without intending any disrespect to the illustrious man for whom the car had been prepared—was that it was much too large a sum for any building of the kind; and his second was that the funeral car was not worth any building at all. At the time of the funeral the design of the car was generally reprobated, and the impression was that it would have been in better taste to convey the Duke's body to the grave on a gun carriage than on such a car. He did not know who designed it, but he hoped he was not an Englishman. The most appropriate place for it would be the Chamber of Horrors. It looked like a locomotive, and if a boiler were put inside and a chimney on the top, it would answer admirably to convey funeral trains to the Necropolis Cemetery.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not like to hear questions of taste discussed in that House, as he never found that any two hon. Gentlemen agreed in opinion. He would not give any opinion on the artistic merits of the car, but it was used on a memorable and national occasion, it had since been viewed with interest by thousands of persons, and it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government if, when it became necessary to remove it, they did not provide some place for its reception. The Government proposed to place it in a building in Chelsea Hospital, which was on many grounds a
  70
  fitting place, and he, for one, should not oppose the Vote.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he wished to remind the hon. Member who had impeached the design of the Wellington car, that it was the work of the young men in the School of Design—our own school of art. He could not help thinking that the proposed outlay was a very proper use of public money.
  MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble Lord opposite, every hon. Member was entitled to declare his opinion upon a matter of that kind. He rose not for the purpose of expressing an opinion upon the particular sort of vehicle; his objection was not to the design, but to the Vote, which he considered was altogether a folly—and he was surprised that any Government should have brought forward such a scheme for a new establishment. They would have to warm and light it, and keep somebody to look after it, and wash and clean it. They would have the South Kensington Musem over again—and he should raise his voice against this beginning of another scheme. It might appear invidious for an hon. Member to rise to say a word against anything connected with the memory of their great hero, but nevertheless he thought the time was come when, as a body of practical men, they should well consider those matters. He called upon the House to reject that part of the Vote.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he rose to bring another matter forward.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, according to the rules of the House, whenever an objection was made to a Vote the debate upon that question must be proceeded with and the matter determined.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the car had been used on a very solemn and memorable occasion, and, although the criticisms passed upon it might be correct, there was no one object in London more sought after or more visited than this car. The interest it excited was not owing to any peculiar beauty it possessed, but because it was associated with the memory of the great man whose mortal remains it had conveyed to their last resting-place. The car had been kept under cover in the courtyard of Marlborough house. It was now necessary to remove it, and the question arose what was to become of the car. He had thought it right to provide a place where it might, be safely and permanently deposited, but he

  71
  had never contemplated forming an establishment such as had been described by the hon. Member for Honiton, or paying people to watch it. All that he designed was to provide a safe resting-place for the car, where it might be accessible to those who desired to see it. Chelsea Hospital was considered a suitable place for this purpose. He believed that the public would not like to see the car broken up.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw this Vote. This was not a question of taste, but of arithmetic—namely, whether the public should be taxed in a sum of £1,200 for perpetuating an affair which every one agreed, so far from commemorating the memory of the late Duke of Wellington, was about as ugly as the statue on the arch opposite Apsley House.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsuggested whether it would not be possible to transfer the car to the Tower of London, of which the Duke had so long been the Constable.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he should be sorry that this car should not be placed in a proper situation, but there was one thing he should still more deeply regret—that any proceeding of that House should be at all wanting in respect to the memory of the Duke of Wellington. As he perceived that the feeling of the House was adverse to the Vote he would withdraw it. He trusted some other place would be found for the car, where it would not be a source of expense.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he regarded the car as an unworthy monument of the Duke.
  Motion made, and Question,—
  "That the item of £1,200, for the erection of a Building in the Grounds of Chelsea Hospital for the reception of the Wellington Car, at present located in a temporary building in the Courtyard of Marlborough House, he omitted from the proposed Vote,"
  Put, and agreed to.
  Original Question, as amended, again proposed,—
  "That, a sum, not exceeding £118,329, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved the omission of the item of £680 for the rent of offices for the Ecclesiastical Commission.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought that the expediency of contributing from
  72
  the Consolidated Fund would be better discussed on a future Vote, when that contribution would come more fully before the Committee. With regard to this particular item, the Government had considered the subject this Session, and at first were disposed to put an end to that contribution, but it appeared that by an Act of Parliament there was a certain sum for the expenses of the Church Building Act which the public undertook to defray out of the Consolidated Fund. The Commission for carrying out that Act had been abolished, and its duties transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission. This contribution was no more than had been undertaken by the Church Building Act, and he hoped therefore the Committee would not object to the item.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Member seemed to think that the revenue administered by the Ecclesiastical Commission belonged to the State. It belonged, in fact, to the Church, and the State, for purposes of its own, had taken hold of it to manipulate it in accordance with certain views of its own. There was no reason, therefore, why the public should not contribute to the expense of managing this property.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that when the Church Building Act Commission was first established, there was a guaranteed contribution of somewhere about £10,000 for the purpose of carrying it out. After a time its duties were transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. At that time about £3,600 was taken annually in the Votes for the Ecclesiastical Commission, but in consequence of what passed in that House that sum was removed from the Votes. The Vote under discussion, therefore, was only carrying out so much of the guaranteed expenses of carrying out the Church Building Act as was necessary to defray the rent of a house for the purposes of the Act, and, properly speaking, there was no greater justification for taking away this contribution from the Commission than for disallowing the expenses of any other Commission which had been established for the public benefit.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, this was a matter which did not affect the public, but the Church, and the Church only. These Commissioners had now a balance of pretty nearly £80,000 in their hands, and under those circumstances he could not see why the people should be taxed for an expense which ought to be borne by the Church.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the item of £680, for the rent of No. 11. Whitehall Place, for the Office of the Ecclesiastical Commission, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 179: Majority 118.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEasked why rent was still paid for houses occupied as Stationery-offices in Great Newport Street and Gate Street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, although a new Stationery-office had been built at the expense of the nation.
  MR. JACKSONcomplained of the enormous sum asked annually for the rent and repair of the various buildings for public offices, and inquired of the First Commissioner of Works whether the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Buildings was to be carried out.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, the Government were spending the interest on a million of money yearly in the hire and repair of houses for public buildings—a system which called for alteration.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that a great part of these rents were for houses which belonged to the Woods and Forests, and of which the country formerly had the use rent-free. He did not understand why the public should now be called upon to pay rent for them and keep them in repair.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know from the First Commissioner of Works whether this Vote was not really £20,000 in excess of the corresponding Vote of last year. Such appeared to be the obvious inference from a comparison of the totals for the two years.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, whether the item of £4,100 for Chelsea Hospital was for the erection of new buildings or merely for repairs? He also wished to know if it was intended that the plans for the new Foreign Office were to be deposited in the Library of the House for the inspection of hon. Members?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that there was an actual decrease upon this Vote for the present year. The drawings of Mr. Scott would be presented as soon as they were in a state for the consideration of the House, which would probably be before the end of this week.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, Whether the House of Commons would have both designs—the Gothic and the Italian—before them at the same time?
  MR. COWPERstated that the Gothic
  74
  designs which were exhibited Inst year would be again exhibited at the same time. He added, with regard to the general question, that it was no doubt inconvenient that the public offices should be distributed in private houses, but he had at the present moment nothing to propose with regard to their accommodation.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESregretted that the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle had not received a more satisfactory answer. The most extraordinary places were now rented at an expense of £36,000 per annum for the transaction of the Government business. To find them you had to go from the Old Jewry to Newport Market, from Newport Market to Kennington Common, and from Kennington Common to Duke Street, Westminster. The most extraordinary item was "Middle Scotland Yard, at the rear of Whitehall Place, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's stables, £50." Perhaps the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, who appeared to be performing the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this occasion, would state what public business was transacted in those stables. This was an illustration of the absurd manner in which the Government now conducted business, because they had not courage to propose some scheme for the erection of proper public offices.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, the very fact of there being 87 public offices scattered over the Metropolis, showed the necessity of devising some more eligible system by which those various deportments might be more conveniently centralized.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that these houses were still occupied, and therefore the rents had to be paid. The charge for Chelsea Hospital referred only to ordinary repairs.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSreminded the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone that a scheme for new public offices was proposed, but was withdrawn on account of its great expense. The delay in the erection of the Foreign Office had arisen from an objection to the design proposed, which was taken on the ground of taste, by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It was, therefore, not fair to blame the present First Commissioner of Works for the want of public offices.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know why the rent of £700 was charged for the new Stationery Office. The Museum of Practical Geology in Jerniyn Street, too, was, he always understood, a public

  75
  building, yet they were paying a yearly rent of £1,000.
  MR. COWPERobserved, that they had to pay the ground-rent of the Museum of Practical Geology, and also the rent of the house next to it, which was used for the service of the Museum. They had also to pay rent for several of the houses in Prince's Street, Westminster, in connection with the Stationery Office.
  MR. EDWIN JAMBSsaid, as a matter of curiosity he must again inquire what was meant by the item of "Middle Scotland Yard (rear of Whitehall Place), Chancellor of the Exchequer's stables." Then, again, there was a suspicious item of £56 1s. for Manley Cottage, Kennington Common, what was that?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that for many years, ever since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's house had been appropriated as an official residence, a stable in Great Scotland Yard had been attached to it. He presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman did not object to an official residence having a stable attached to it. He did not know the history of Maniey Cottage, but he knew the rent stated was paid for it.
  Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £23,000, be grant ed to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought there was great room for economical reform in this department. The evidence given before the Committee on the Kensington Museum abundantly proved this. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for what had been done; but the matter still required great attention.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he found there had of late years been a constantly growing increase in the Vote, and he thought the time had come for reducing it. The whole of the Vote of last year had not been expended, and under those circumstances be moved that the present Vote be diminished by a sum of £12,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding£10,100, be grant ed to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various j Public Departments, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSmoved that the Chairman should then report Progress. The
  76
  Vote was one of considerable importance, and ought, he thought, to be made the subject of future consideration.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth would allow them to deal at once with the Vote. In reply to a statement made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith), he had to inform the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that all that portion of the Vote of last year which had not been expended had been returned to the Exchequer, and was not available for the same service in the present year.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, as there appeared to be a difference of opinion amongst the Ministers as to the way in which the balances were disposed of, it would be most desirable that the Chairman should report progress, to give them an opportunity of agreeing upon the explanation that should be given. He wished to have a clear explanation of what was done with the balances.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the money voted for the military and naval departments must be expended within the year, but the balances which arose under the Civil Service Estimates were applicable in future years for the services for which the Votes were originally taken. At the expiration of a certain term of years, however, whatever remained unexpended was returned to the Exchequer.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Truro would divide the Committee. Indeed, if there was a balance of £27,000, the Vote should be omitted altogether.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid the increase in the Vote arose from the fact that a good deal new furniture was required for the science and arts departments. Twenty years ago there were comparatively few picture galleries and scientific collections. Nothing could exceed the care with which Mr. Austin had represented this particular item.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he believed that Mr. Austin wanted the support of the House to enable him to enforce economy.
  MR. LAINGsaid, the only effect of reducing the Vote, as proposed, would be to derange all comparison of the item from year to year.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"
  Put, and negatived.
  Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 162: Majority 118.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Trustees may apply Portion of Grants towards Buildings and Repairs).
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask whether the Secretary for Ireland would object to insert a proviso relieving the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland from the obligation of superintending the repairs of the College? It was not proposed to renew the annual Votes of that House for repairs; and as there were trustees and visitors of the College there ought, therefore, to be no necessity for interposing this superintendence of the Board of Works, which merely served, by dividing, to annul all responsibility.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Bill made arrangements for the trustees to make the repairs with the sanction of the Commissioners of the Treasury. After the passing of the Bill it would be optional with them to request the Commissioners of public works to do it or employ an architect of their own.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. Why should not the Board of Works be relieved from the duty of attending to the superintendence of these repairs, a task for the performance of which they had hitherto proved incompetent?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had no objection to relieve them if the Committee thought it was of importance to do so.
  MR. BUTTsaid, by the Act passed in 1846 the Board of Works were to be Commissioners for the repair of the College of Maynooth. Parliament gave a pledge in that year that an annual Vote should be given for the repairs.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commissioners of Public Works to advance Money on Security of Portion of Grant applied towards Buildings and Repairs).
  MR. SPOONERobjected, that if that clause were passed money would be borrowed to be repaid in twenty-two years, the effect of which would be to prevent Parliamentary supervision of the College during that period of time. He objected to any further application of the public money to the College, and should divide the House on the Vote.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) gave the right interpretation of the clause.
  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 43: Majority 64. Clause agreed to.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he had to acquaint the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair that Sir George Bowyer was in the lobby with the "Noes," and was permitted by the messenger to go into the lobby with the "Ayes" after the Question had been put and the doors locked.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The only question is whether there has been any discrepancy between the voice and the vote. I do not understand the hon. Member to say that the Gentleman to whom he refers gave his voice one way and his vote the other. If so, that is a discrepancy which can be redressed by the Committee; but the circumstance to which the hon. Member refers is not an irregularity that can be noticed.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clook.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Party Emblems (Ireland); Highways (South Wales); Prisons (Scotland; Herring Fisheries (Scotland); Railways Act (Ireland) (1851) Amendment.
2a Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention; Oxford University (No. 2.)
3a Criminal Lunatic Asylum; Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment; Enclosure (No. 2.)
Royal Assent.—Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment; Law of Property; Inland Bonding; Fisheries (Scotland); Railway Cheap Trains, &c; Phœnix Park; Tenison's Charity; Local Government Supplemental; Councillors of Burghs and Burgesses (Scotland); Indemnity; Local Taxation Returns; Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1858.

  PRIVATE BILLS AND BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTIONS OF 1816.
  LORD BROUGHAM presented petitions from various Courts of the Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society, and from the Bury District of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of the Manchester Unity Friendly Society, who represented an im-
  2
  mense number of Friendly Societies all over the country, and who complained of a clause in the Friendly Societies Act of 1858, wholly altering the constitution of Friendly Societies in the most important particular of winding up and the distribution of their funds. The clause in question was never mentioned in the House of Commons, and no notice was taken of the subject till the Bill reached their Lordships' House. The Bill was reported without Amendments, and on the Report an Amendment of a most extraordinary character was added to it. By the Consolidated Act of 1855 great care was taken of the whole matter of winding up and dissolving, and the 13th section, to which the petitioners referred, required that no Friendly Society should be dissolved without the consent of five-sixths of the members. It laid down the manner in which the vote should be taken most minutely, detailing the regulations for the purpose of preventing surprise or fraud. Even where the consent of five-sixths was obtained to the dissolution and winding up the appropriation of the funds was restricted to the purposes of the society—evidently a most just, a most fit, an absolutely necessary condition. But what did the clause in the Act of 1858 provide? Why,

  3
  that only one-fourth of the members of a society might present a memorandum to any actuary who had been five years connected with an Insurance Company, who was then to consider the subject, and, if he chose, was to wind up and dissolve, it was expressly said, without any regard to the requirements of the 13th section of the Act of 1855; so that members who had paid only two years and six months or three years might have the funds distributed among them in equal proportions with those who had paid twenty or twenty-five years. He really thought there must have been some mistake in the petition until he looked into the Act of 1855, and compared it with that of 1858; when he also found thia—that, no doubt the clause objected to was moved regularly as an Amendment on the Report on the 27th of July, 1858. On the 29th of that same month the Bill was read a third time and passed. The consent of the Commons being obtained on the 2nd of August it became law. He wished the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) who made a most important statement the other evening relative to the business of the House, had been present in order that he might hear how many Bills passed that day. No fewer than forty-nine Bills were passed on the 2nd of August, and the space given to the Commons and Lords for considering this entire revolution in the state of Friendly Societies was the interval between the 27th and 29th of July, when the Bill passed the third reading. He thought he could not do better than call the attention of his noble Friend on the woolsack to this case. He was anxious to contribute as far as lay in his power to the promotion of that great object, the facilitating of the business of the two Houses of Parliament; and with that view he could, he thought, make no better proposition than that their Lordships should assent to the twenty-four Resolutions, which, after considerable discussion, had in 1846 been brought forward on the subject, being printed and circulated.
  THE EARL OF DONOUUHMOREsaid, he recollected that the clause in question was discussed by their Lordships in 1858, and the objections then taken to it having been answered and overruled, the clause was agreed to as part of the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEobserved, that the Resolutions to which the noble and learned Lord referred related to the passing of private Bills, and therefore had no bearing upon the measure to which his remarks
  4
  were especially directed, that being a public Bill.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was aware that the proposition which he had made had nothing to do with the point to which he had more immediately risen to address himself. In making it he had in view the discussion which had taken place on Thursday last, and the fact that the great mass of private Bills which came before Parliament tended to obstruct the progress of public business.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that if the noble and learned Lord desired to move that the Resolutions of 1846 be reprinted and circulated he should give notice of his intention to do so.
  The Resolutions (Private Bills and Business of the House) moved and Ordered to be printed on the 4th May, 1846; To be reprinted.

NEWSPAPERS, &c, BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, which had come up from the Commons, said that it dealt only with the 39 Geo. III., c. 79, the 60 Geo. III., c. 9, and the I Will. IV., c. 73. It did not interfere with or alter the Acts which required that newspapers should be registered at Somerset House, and that the name of the printer should appear to each publication. It repealed a part of the first-mentioned Act, of 1799, by which debates were prohibited in houses without a previous licence, and by which printers, type-founders, and printing-pressmakers were compelled to obtain certificates from the clerk of the peace before they proceeded to carry on business. The second Act to which he had referred was one of the celebrated Six Acts passed in 1819, which brought such odium on the Government as being encroachments on the ancient freedom of the country; by its provisions securities were, for the first time, exacted from publishers. By the third Act, which was passed in 1830, the securities which were by the Act of 1819 required from publishers were to some extent modified. But, although such statutes might be defended in times of revolutionary agitation, they had now outlived the fears and passions by which they were created, and, as the stamp laws had been abrogated, these securities had been practically nullified.

  5
  The only question raised by the Bill was, consequently, whether those enactments should not be altogether abrogated. The Bill had received the unanimous approval of the other House, and he therefore trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD CHELMSFORDreminded the noble Lord that the Bill had passed the other House on more than one occasion with scarcely any discussion upon its merits. It was originally introduced into the House of Commons by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) in March, 1859, and his hon. and learned Friend the then Solicitor General (Sir Hugh Cairns) stated that there were some portions of it to which objections might be taken. The Bill was read a second time without the least discussion, and went into Committee; but was ultimately withdrawn in consequence of the approaching dissolution. After the new Parliament met, it was again introduced, and having been read a third time on the 19th of July, 1859, it came up to their Lordships on the 21st, but was dropped in consequence of the termination of the Session. The Bill was re-introduced at the commencement of the present Session, scarcely a word being 3aid about it, and there could have been little discussion subsequently, for it came up to their Lordships' House as early as the 7th of February; but from that day until now it had lain on their table without any noble Lord thinking it his duty to move the second reading. Under those circumstances it was necessary to look carefully to the Bill in order to see what provisions it repealed. It proposed to repeal the sections from 15 to 33 of the 39 George III. These sections might be divided into two distinct classes. First, sections from 15 to 22, which were directed against houses and places where meetings were held for the purpose of debates and lectures, and which enacted that if money were taken for the admission of persons such houses and places must be licensed by a magistrate. There was also a rather curious provision to the effect that houses licensed for the sale of ale, beer, wines, and spirituous liquors should be considered as places licensed for the purpose of reading books, newspapers, pamphlets, and other publications. Those provisions were made at a time of public danger, when stringent measures were required to prevent seditious meetings; but as all such danger had happily passed away,
  6
  he saw no objection whatever to their repeal. But sections 22 to 33 were of a different character. They required that a printer or typefounder should give notice to the clerk of the peace of his intention to commence business. That notice was sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and afterwards the certificate to carry on business was issued by the clerk of the peace, without which any such printer or typefounder was liable to a penalty. To show how little attention had been paid in the preparation of this Bill, it proposed to repeal provisions in the 39th George III. which were already repealed by the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 12, but a printer was still required to put his name to all papers which he printed. There was another very important clause in the 39th of George III. between the 22nd and 33rd sections, which empowered all persons to seize any one distributing or posting bills to which no printer's name was attached, and to take him before a magistrate, in order that the magistrate might hear and determine the case; From his experience at the bar he knew that it was very common for libellers to employ persons to distribute their libels without a printer's name, and it would be impossible to detest them if the persons so distributing the papers could not be at once taken before a magistrate and required to state by whom they were employed. He therefore strongly objected to that clause being repealed. He had also a decided objection to the proposed repeal of the 6Oth Geo. III. c. 9, which referred entirely to newspapers, and contained a clause of great importance, requiring printers and publishers, before publishing a newspaper, to enter into recognizances by which they were to be bound in a certain sum to be answerable for any fine or penalty which they might incur in the event of their being convicted for a blasphemous or seditious libel. He considered this a very important clause, and he should be sorry to see it repealed. The same Act contained a clause empowering a Judge, when a person was brought before him to give bail for a blasphemous or seditious libel, to make it a condition of the recognizance that the party should be of good behaviour during the terms of his recognizance. These were provisions that he did not desire to see repealed. Under a subsequent Act, the whole of which it was proposed to repeal, except the first section, there was a clause connected wit the 60th of George III, which provided

  7
  that where a person had obtained damages against the publisher of a newspaper for libel, and was unable to obtain satisfaction against his goods and chattels, he could apply to the Court of Exchequer, and the Court might direct that the recognizances might be used for the purposes of satisfying the damages that had been awarded. The present Bill, however, proposed to repeal that clause. A Bill that repealed so many important provisions of the 39th of George III, the whole of the 60th of George III, and the whole of the 11th of George IV. and 1st of William IV., except the first clause, deserved the careful consideration of their Lordships. As there were certain clauses of the 39th George III. that ought to be repealed, it would perhaps be desirable to read the Bill a second time. Perhaps it would be desirable, however, in Committee to confine the Bill to the repeal of these clauses in the 39th George III., and to omit the other provisions of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORtrusted their Lordships would not hesitate to give the Bill a second reading. It proposed to repeal enactments that were a dead letter and discreditable to the age. How far their Lordships would carry out these repeals was a matter for consideration. As to those enactments that were obsolete it would be as well that they should be repealed. Under these circumstances, he trusted they would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and they could then deal with the details in Committee.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the Bill proposed to repeal certain enactments without stating what the effect of such repeal would be. Had their Lordships the least notion what they were asked to do by this Bill! He ventured to say they had not. Their Lordships were therefore indebted to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) for going through the provisions of the Bill so carefully, and giving them all the information they possessed upon the subject. This Bill came up to their Lordships' House more than four months ago, but until that afternoon when the Bill was put down for a second reading, he had not looked into the Acts of Parliament proposed to be repealed. The conviction he had arrived at was that the repeal of many of these enactments would be most impolitic and injurious. There was for example, nothing more reasonable than that persons publishing newspapers should give security that they
  8
  would not be guilty of private malice. He had declined to take charge of this Bill, because, as a general rule, he objected to the introduction of any measure which did not bear on its face an intimation of its object and effect. In certain cases, that might perhaps be dispensed with, as in a Bill to repeal all the statutes which were consolidated in a general Act, or a vast mass of practically obsolete enactments. But in the attempt to make legislation simple—a very desirable object in itself—they must take care they did not expose themselves to the old charge—Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio. Except to any one who took the trouble to refer to the statute-book, the present measure was quite unintelligible.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEhoped that, if the second reading was agreed to the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee, so as to make its provisions clearer than they were at present.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREconsidered that if the Bill was altered in Committee they would have to recite all the provisions that were repealed, and that would involve not only the alteration of the entire Bill, but its title also. Under the circumstances he thought it would be better to withdraw the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no doubt the noble Lord who had moved the second reading would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but he hoped he would not withdraw it. It was of great importance that a number of these enactments should be repealed, and as the House of Commons had twice sent up a Bill with that object, it would scarcely be respectful to that House to dismiss the present Bill in a summary manner. When only a single clause was to he repealed it might be very well to recite it in the preamble, but there would be a great deal of difficulty and inconvenience in doing so where whole Acts were concerned.
  LORD WYNFORDobserved that as there was no urgent necessity for the Bill it had better be withdrawn in order to be amended.
  EARL GRANVILLEconsidered that while it would be hard to insist on a withdrawal of the Bill, it would not be expedient to accumulate Committees. Now that they had heard the objections, some in substance and others in form, probably the most satisfactory course would be to read the Bill a second time, and perhaps

  9
  with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack the Bill might be rendered useful.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he was the first person requested to take charge of the Bill in their Lordships' House. On examination, however, he found that it gave no information as to the nature of the Acts to be repealed, and he, therefore, declined to adopt it. He was not disposed to oppose the second reading, but hoped the noble Lord would afterwards omit those provisions to which objection had been taken.
  LORD REDESDALEpointed out that as the short title of the Bill was only "Newspapers, &c," all that could be left, if they struck out the clauses relating to newspapers, would be "&c, Bill." If the noble Lord thought he could make anything of the Bill under the circumstances, it might be read a second time and committed pro formâ.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, it appeared that the Bill had gone from one noble Lord to another before any one could be got to take charge of it. He had himself referred to the statute-book to ascertain what were the enactments to be repealed, and he was of opinion that it would be imprudent to repeal some of those which were of a penal character. He thought the noble Lord had better withdraw the Bill, and introduce it in an amended form next Session.
  LORD STRATHEDENsaid, it was impossible for him consistently with the usages of Parliament, or the duty he owed to the measure, to withdraw the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, which would not preclude its reference to a Select Committee, or its ultimate rejection. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had stated, with greater confidence than accuracy, that this Bill had passed the other House with no consideration, and he was justified in opposing a respectful contradiction to this by referring the noble Lord to the Debates of 1859. In that Session the measure was fully discussed, and a distinct understanding was arrived at, and one of the assenting parties was the Solicitor General. It was incorrect, then, to say that in the other House of Parliament this Bill had received no consideration, and under the circumstances, he asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time upon the understanding that by so doing they should not be committed to any particular provisions in it,
  10
  leaving the details to be considered in Committee.
  LORD CHELMSFORDhad hoped his noble Friend would have given a pledge that he would alter the Bill in Committee as he had suggested; but as he declined to do so he had no alternative but to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day month.
  Amendment moved. To leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Month.")
  On question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 10; Not-Contents 36: Majority 26.
  Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a on this day month.

  CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

  Llanover, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  De Grey, E.

  Granville, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Stratheden, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Melville, V.

  Airlie, E.

  Sydney, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Churchill, L.

  Churston, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Denman, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Foley, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Portman, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Romney, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Eversley, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Wodehouse, L.

  Wynford, L.

  MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he thought certain alterations were necessary in Clause 2. The principal object of the Bill was to afford protection and security to persons employed in mines, and it enacted that children under twelve years of age were not to be employed in mines;

  11
  but, then, certain exceptions were made in the case of children between ten and twelve years of age, who have certificates as to education and school attendance; and a proviso was added by which it was endeavoured to secure the continuance of the education by the employers of this infant labour; but care must be taken that these enactments did not defeat their own object. The education test applied only to children employed in mines and collieries, and as they worked only at unskilled labour, it might be fairly argued that the education test should be applied to children employed in skilled labour. The parents also were not debarred from sending their children to other kinds of unskilled labour, and therefore they would in preference send them to those kinds of labour in reference to which there was no education test. This difficulty was felt in the other House of Parliament, and Mr. Adderley brought in a Bill extending this principle of the education test to all kinds of labour; but that Bill was rejected on the Motion for the second reading by a large majority. He did not object to the educational test being applied in reference to mines, but he thought that the application of that test in the way proposed in this clause would be productive of inconvenience. He should therefore move the omission of certain words from the second part of the clause.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it was clearly desirable that children under twelve years of age should receive a certain amount of education, and that in order to make it effective it must be continuous. To secure that, it was necessary that the clause should be compulsory. He was, however, willing to modify the clause, if by so doing he could render it more practicable.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYacquiesced in the principle that they should insist upon the test that young people employed in mines should attain a certain amount of education; but he would propose that the children so employed should receive a certificate of their having made certain acquisitions in elementary knowledge, or else that they should continue to receive instruction during the time they were employed.
  Clause amended and agreed to. Further Amendments made. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.
  House adjourned, at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.