Sitting of 12 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Criminal Lunatic Asylum; Passing Tolls; Burial Grounds (Ireland).
3° Councillors of Burghs and Burgesses (Scotland).

ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION (EDINBURGH) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Annuity Tax abolished).
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he thought that power should be given to the Commissioners to recover the arrears of the tax, and he would therefore propose in line eight, after the word "imposed," to add, "and all arrears of the said tax then due shall be payable to the Commissioners hereinafter appointed, who shall have power to collect and recover the same." He did not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) was still in arrear, but he believed that he was so some time ago.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was opposed to the Amendment, inasmuch as it would have the effect of making it obligatory on the Commissioners to recover the arrears. He was of opinion that the recovery of the arrears should not be dealt with at all by the Bill, but left to the discretion of the Commissioners.
MR. BLACKsaid, it was perfectly true as had been stated that he had for a considerable time refused to pay the annuity tax, and his object in thus acting was to

323
make the condition of the clergy so uncomfortable that they would be ready to agree to any reasonable proposition which might be made for the settlement of this question. He considered the proposition made by the present measure was a very fair one, and, therefore, he should not continue to withhold the payment of the tax. He had no objection to the principle involved in the Amendment, but he believed that if they left the collection of arrears in the hands of the Commissioners, they would consider themselves bound to secure every farthing of arrears from the inhabitants of Edinburgh, which would have-the effect of continuing the irritation in regard to this question. On this ground he should oppose the Amendment.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that he thought that if the object was really to promote peace, it would be much better not to press the Amendment.
MR. MUREobserved that he was of the tame opinion.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that as the feeling of the Committee was opposed to him, he should not press the Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 (Commissioners appointed).
MR. CAIRDsaid, he objected to the composition of the Commission, which was to administer the affairs of the churches, on account of the undue preponderance given to the legal bodies. The three legal bodies of Edinburgh, who contributed only a very small proportion of the tax, ought to have only one representative instead of three. The other two representatives should he conferred on the Kirk Sessions. He should propose an Amendment by which the appointment of one Commissioner would be placed in the hands of the three legal bodies in Edinburgh, and to leave three to be appointed by the Kirk Sessions.
MR. BLACKsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that those legal bodies contributed a very small proportion of the tax, but on the whole he would be better pleased to have the Commissioners elected by the legal bodies than by the Kirk Sessions.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he held that the legal bodies, being now liable to the impost, were entitled to three representatives on account of their weight and intelligence.
MR. DUNLOPobserved that he was in favour of the Amendment.
MR. MUREsaid, he had placed a notice on the paper to amend the constitution of
324
the Commission by declaring that one of such Commissioners should be elected by the Kirk Session of the Tron Church.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was prepared to modify the clause, and to place the appointment of the Commissioners in the hands of the legal bodies, the Merchant Companies, and the Kirk Sessions. The legal bodies to appoint one, the Merchant Companies to appoint one, and three to be appointed by the Kirk Sessions, who were to be composed of all the parochial churches of Edinburgh. In that way the total number of Commissioners would be raised from ten to eleven.
Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 4.
Clause 5 (Commissioners to appoint an Agent and Secretary).
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he wished to move as an Amendment, to insert the word "property," after the word "of" in line fifteen, in order that the property in the churches should be transferred to the Commissioners as well as the administration of them. He thought it quite clear that those who ministered and maintained the churches ought to be the proprietors of them. Why should the churches remain in some anomalous way the property of the town council, to be quarrelled for hereafter, and to give the council a right of interference.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 15, after the word "of," to insert the word "property."
MR. BLACKremarked that he should oppose the Amendment. The churches were all built by the inhabitants of Edinburgh, who had laid out immense sums upon them, and it was not because they gave up their administration that they should be divested of their rights of property.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONremarked that the inhabitants would be represented in the Commission as well as in the Council.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought it advisable to allow the property of the churches to remain vested in the Corporation.
MR. MUREadmitted that the churches had been built by the inhabitants, but thought it was absurd to suppose that the Commissioners would do more to deteriorate their value than the Town Council, in whom they were at present vested.
Question put, "That the word 'property' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 78: Majority 38.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Property of the City Churches transferred from the Magistrates and Council to the Commissioners).
MR. LOCKHARTsaid, he proposed in line 34, after "respectively," to insert "with the exception of not less than one-tenth of the number which shall be reserved as free sittings for the use of the poor." His object was to secure a certain amount of accommodation for the poor.
MR. BLACKsaid, he opposed the Amendment. He thought if such a proposition were assented to the Commissioners might be prevented from raising the funds necessary under the Bill.
MR. BLACKBURNobserved that at present the seats were let by the magistrates, but their authority was much disputed. The Bill gave to the Commissioners the right of letting the seats, and it certainly ought to provide that a certain proportion should be reserved for the poor, who were unable to pay for accommodation.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that while thoroughly sympathising in the object which the hon. Member had in view, he believed it would be better attained by leaving the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners than by allotting a limited number of free seats to the poor. He might add that he was not aware that in any of the churches in Scotland there was a want of seats set apart for the poor. If, however, it were the general feeling that the Amendment was necessary he should not oppose it.
MR. LOCKHARTsaid, that as he read the clause, the Commissioners had no alternative but to let the whole of the seats.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he should at all times support any proposition for giving proper accommodation to the poor in churches.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONremarked that they ought to establish in the Bill the principle that a certain portion of the seats in the various churches should be set apart for the use of the poor as free seats.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsupported the Amendment, in order to establish the principle that a certain portion of each church should be devoted to the use of the poor.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the principle which ought to be adopted was not the distinctive allocation of so many pauper seats, but the exemption of a certain class of persons from the payment of seat-rents.
326
There was a strong feeling in Scotland against the poor being limited to a certain part of the church.
MR. BLACKsubmitted that in the churches of Edinburgh, at all events, there had never been any complaint of want of accommodation for the poor, although it was true in the church of St. Andrew there were no free sittings.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, it appeared to him that the example quoted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh was a sound reason for the adoption of the Amendment. He was desirous of extending the operation of the clause to the church of St. Andrew.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he would vindicate the rights of the poor to free sittings in the churches of Scotland as well as in those of this country.
MR. HOPEremarked, that the system of free seats worked very well in England, and also in the country districts of Scotland. There was no reason why, if it were tried, it would not also operate beneficially in the towns of Scotland.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would suggest the omission of the words "for the use of the poor."
Amendment, with this alteration, agreed to; Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 7.
Clause 8 (Commissioners to provide for the Repair of the Churches and other Expenses out of the Surplus of the Seat Rents, and to invest the Balance remaining)
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he could assert that after paying £600 a year to thirteen ministers of Edinburgh, the funds provided by the Bill would leave no margin whatever for the expenses of the Commission, and the possible, indeed dining the next year or two, almost inevitable diminution in the amount of the seat-rents. There ought also to be some provision for the two suspended parishes. He would therefore move an Amendment to the effect that the amount of annuity tax to be raised should be £5,000, instead of £4,200.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 37, to leave out the words "four thousand two hundred," and insert the words "five thousand,"—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words 'four thousand two hundred' stand part of the Clause."
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, as contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was that it was a fair

327
settlement of the question to make provision for thirteen ministers; but if the Amendment were adopted, it would entirely set aside that arrangement.
MR. MACKIEsuggested as a compromise that the sum to be raised should be £4,500.
MR. BLACKsaid, the Town Council of Edinburgh complained that £4,200 was too much, and thought £4,000 would be quite sufficient.
MR. MUREsaid, that the provision made by the Bill was wholly inadequate to secure a salary of £600 a year for each of the thirteen clergymen whose interests were affected, and at the same time to defray the expenses of the Commission. The people of Edinburgh ought not to object to raise £5,000 a year when the object for which it was raised would relieve them of a tax which at present amounted to £15,000 a year.
MR. BLACKsaid, the people of Edinburgh believed that the amount to be derived from seat-rents was considerably underrated, and that more than ample provision was made both for the clergy and for the expense of the Commission.
MR. MUREsaid, he was confident that under the present arrangement there would not be enough money to pay the salaries of the ministers for the first few years of the new system. The proposed addition to the tax was so very trifling, not a farthing in the pound, that he hoped it would be conceded.
MR. BLACKcalled in question the data upon which the hon. Member (Mr. Mure) based his calculations. He thought that any attempt to increase the amount proposed would have the effect of occasioning irritation among the people of Edinburgh.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had no doubt that, even if there were any deficiency at the first, the Established Church would find no difficulty in raising the £300 or £400, which might be required. The seat-rents might be increased, and the expenses of collection might be reduced, and the congregation might come forward to take upon themselves the expense of repairing the churches. On the other hand, the Amendment, if insisted on, would have the effect of defeating the settlement which they were on the eve of accomplishing, and which, he was sure, all parties must desire.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he thought that the Church had no right to complain of the proposed arrangement. The sum provided was already too large. Nor was there any
328
risk of the clergymen being deprived of the salaries proposed. On the contrary, he was of opinion there would be a considerable augmentation of the funds from the seat-rents.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was in favour of the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mackie)—namely, that the sum should be increased from £4,200 to £4,500.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the Church of Scotland had already made a great concession in consenting to the reduction of the number of the City clergy; but there was a point beyond which they ought not to go, and that was the point of ensuring the thirteen ministers who were retained a salary of £600 a year. He was of opinion that it was impossible, with a due regard to principle and propriety, to fix less than £4,500 as the settlement.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he would withdraw his proposition in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Mackie), so that the sum should be fixed at £4,500.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "five," instead thereof.
MR. HADFIELDdeprecated the principle of paying the clergymen £600 a year, besides providing means for the collection of the funds.
Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 58: Majority 31.
Clauses 8 and 9 were then agreed to.
Clause 10 (Assessment to be collected along with the Police Assessment).
MR. MURE MR. MURE moved, that the following Amendment be added to the Clause:—
"That the tenants or occupiers of any property liable in payment of the said increased police assessment, shall be entitled, and they are hereby authorized, in making payment of the rent of the said property, to retain from such rent the amount of such increased assessment, except in the case where the said property shall, prior to the passing of this Act, have been let for a term of years, in which case the said increased assessment shall be borne by the occupier till the expiry of the period for which the said property was let."
MR. BLACKstated, that every Act relating to this tax that had been passed distinctly provided that it should be levied on occupiers. It would be unjust to the proprietors of Edinburgh to transfer the incidence of the tax to their shoulders. He was, therefore, opposed to the proviso.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he believed that the proposed Amendment would tend to promote peace in the collection of the tax.
SIR WILLIAM DUNBARobserved, that he was of opinion that the Amendment would be an entire departure from the compromise that had been agreed to.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided—Ayes 53; Noes 85: Majority 32.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 10 to 13 inclusive; House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday, at Twelve of the clock.

ITALY.—THE SICILIAN INSURRECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to increase our Naval Forces in the Sicilian waters, in order the better to afford aid and shelter to such persons as may claim protection from the English Flag; whether it is intended to communicate to the Court of Naples the abhorrence of Her Majesty's Government of such acts as the recent bombardment of Palermo; whether it is intended to accompany such communication with a recommendation to conduct the War in future upon the rules recognized in civilized warfare; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to protest against, and, if necessary, vigorously to endeavour to avert, the interference of any non-Italian Power in the struggle now pending between the King of Naples and his subjects?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in answer to the first question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department has requested the Admiralty to station one ship of war at Marsala, one at Messina, and one at Palermo, and four ships are to be stationed in the Bay of Naples, all for the purpose of affording shelter to the British subjects who may require it. I hope that distribution will be sufficient and satisfactory. With regard to the second question, we understand that the Government of Naples has sent a diplomatic agent to Paris and London, who may very shortly—within two days—be expected to arrive here, for the purpose of making certain communications to the two Governments of France
  330
  and England. I trust the House will not for a moment doubt that in our communications to that envoy we shall express to him those feelings which Her Majesty's Government, in common with everybody in this country, entertain with regard to the barbarities which have been perpetrated at Palermo—barbarities which are really disgraceful to the present age and civilization. With regard to any expectations that such a representation may have any beneficial effect on the future conduct of the Government of Naples, I cannot venture to lead the House to entertain any very sanguine hope. That Government is far more likely to do that which happened at the sack and massacre of Perugia, where the officer who committed those atrocities received promotion at the hands of the Papal Government. It is more likely, I apprehend, that the naval and military officers who conducted the operations at Palermo, instead of reprimand and punishment, will receive tokens of reward from the Royal Government of Naples. With regard to the last question we know that the Government of Naples has applied for assistance to its foreign allies—assistance in the shape of a guarantee to the King of Naples of the possession of the Two Sicilies. Austria has peremptorily and positively refused to interfere in the affairs of Naples. We have every reason to believe that the determination of the Government of France is similar to that of Austria, and I need not say what is the feeling of the British Government upon a matter of that kind. It is the fault and fortune of Governments like those of Rome and Naples, when, by the cruelties and atrocities committed under their authority, their subjects have been driven to desperation and have revolted, that they appeal to all friendly Powers for assistance to remove the men who are the authors and instigators of the revolution. Those Governments forget that they themselves are the real and original authors and instigators of those revolutionary movements, and if their prayer were granted, and steps taken to accomplish the object they desired, unless, which is very unlikely, they were prepared to alter their own courses, the first, most effectual, and only necessary step would be their own removal.

MILITIA DESERTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether

  331
  a Militiaman absenting himself without leave does, in addition to the loss of his day's pay, necessarily forfeit a portion of his bounty; and, if such is the case, whether it may not be advisable to modify this portion of the Militia Act, so that the interference with the bounty should be left to the discretion of the Commanding Officers of the several Regiments?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the rule now was that if a militiaman absented himself during the whole time of training he forfeited his whole pay, if he were only absent for a portion, it was left to the discretion of a Board of Officers, under the sanction of the Commanding Officer, to decide whether he should forfeit the whole or a portion only. He did not think it necessary, therefore, to make the alteration of the law suggested by the noble Lord.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to introduce any measure for amending the constitution or procedure of Election Committees?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the whole subject of the hon. Gentleman's question had been considered at some length by the Committee appointed to inquire into the Corrupt Practices Act. A good deal of evidence—of very valuable evidence—was taken by them on the matter, which evidence was now on the Table of the House. The result of the deliberations of the Committee had been not to recommend any alteration in the constitution of Election Committees. Therefore he was not prepared to state on behalf of the Government that they had any intention of proposing a Bill to that effect; but it would be necessary before the end of the Session to deal with the question of renewing the Corrupt Practices Act.

COLONIAL MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Government will propose to refer to a Select Committee the subject of Colonial Military Expenditure?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that the subject had already occupied the attention of a Committee of the department, which had not been unanimous, but had
  332
  sent in two Reports, embracing both sides of the question the Government would deal with the subject without referring it to a Select Committee.

  HIGHLEIGH PREBENDAL GRAMMAR SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
  MR. FREELANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Return from the Rev. Thomas Brown, with reference to the Highleigh Prebendal School, for which an Address was ordered on the 9th day of February last, would be presented?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, in consequence of the Address to Her Majesty for a Return, a communication was addressed to Mr. Brown soon after the Address was presented, but no notice had been taken by Mr. Brown of the letter of the Secretary of State. No doubt there was an intentional omission to notice the letter, and therefore no further application had been made to the rev. Gentleman.

  MILITARY ATTACHES TO FOREIGN COURTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. O. STANLEYsaid he rose to ask, Whether it is true that Colonel Hamilton has been appointed Military Attaché to the Court of Prussia, and whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint Military Attaches to the other Courts of Europe?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The Government of France have appointed Military Attachés to the missions at almost all their Embassies at the principal Courts. The British Government have long had a Military Attaché to the Embassy at Paris, and it has also been thought expedient to appoint one at Berlin. I am not prepared to state the extent to which my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs intends to carry the system.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I should be glad to know whether the Government of France have lately appointed a Naval Attaché to their Embassy here, and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to appoint a Naval Attaché to the Embassy at Paris.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the French Government have attached a Naval Officer to the Embassy here. I do not know whether my noble Friend has decided on taking a similar step in respect to our Embassy at Paris.

  THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that in adverting to an answer given by the Secretary of State for India on the subject of the Indian Army on Friday evening, he would beg to ask, Whether the deliberations which the right hon. Baronet then spoke of were those of the old Council of India in England; and if so, whether they expressed any opinion contrary to the opinion of the Council in India as to the organization of the Local Army?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was glad that the question of the hon. Baronet had given him an opportunity of re-stating, the answer he had given to a similar question a few nights ago. It was quite true that the Report of the Commissioners upon the organization of the Indian Army had been referred to the Military Committee of the Indian Council, and their Report was among the papers laid upon the Table of the House. He had not taken the opinion of the Council of India collectively upon that Report. As he stated the other night, he had been in constant communication during the whole of the autumn, with almost every Member of the Indian Council upon the subject of the amalgamation of the Indian forces with the army of the Line, and he was well acquainted with their views. Whilst the question was pending before the Cabinet he did not think it desirable to take the opinion of the Council collectively, or to bring the subject before it in a formal shape—for two reasons. In the first place, he undoubtedly thought that he ought to remain unfettered by any discussion of the Council, in which he could hardly avoid taking a part in his discretion as a member of the Cabinet Council of the Empire, by whom the question must ultimately be determined; and, in the next place, no discussion of the Council could lead to any result, because no action could be taken upon it. It seemed to him very undesirable to bring the question before a body by whom action could not be taken, while if the decision of Her Majesty's Government had been in the other sense, no action would have been necessary. The day after the decision had been come to by Her Majesty's Government he stated it to the India Council, and proposed to them to take a formal step, which would give any of them who chose the opportunity of recording their dissent from the decision of
  334
  Her Majesty's Government. They thought at the time that it was too late for them to do so; and they declined to avail themselves of the opportunity. He was still of opinion that they might fairly and properly have done so, and he gave them the first proper opportunity in his power of dissenting from a decision of the Secretary of State in Council, to be taken by him consequent on the determination of the Government of the country. They said, at the same time, they wished it to be understood, as he knew before, that their opinions were adverse to the amalgamation. He had stated this to his colleagues in the Cabinet at the time, and he stated it to the House the other night; but in justice to the Indian Council he was glad to add that they expressed themselves perfectly ready to abide by the decision of Parliament and of Government, and that, however much they might be opposed to the measure, they would do their best to carry it out.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the various duties devolving thereon. He was not insensible to the responsibility attaching to the course which he was about to take, or the differences of opinion existing as to the constitution and duties of the Board of Admiralty. It was not his intention to make any observations which could be supposed to imply a censure upon the mode in which either the present or the past Boards of Admiralty had discharged their functions. His endeavour would be merely to show that some alteration and modification might be made with a view of strengthening the naval administration of the country. He believed that the Gentlemen composing the various Boards of Admiralty had all endeavoured, as far as circumstances permitted, to do their duty. Their term of office was so short that, as "new brooms swept clean," they would naturally endeavour to discharge their duties faithfully. It was with the system, and not the individuals, that the faults lay to which he desired to call attention. The various articles which had appeared in the newspapers of every shade of politics, adverting to the shortcomings, the miscalculations, and the enormous outlay in the Admiralty department, could not fail to

  335
  have attracted attention. Formerly, and for the many years that he had the honour of a seat in that House, the Naval Estimates, with the exception of the statements made by the Government officials, and the remarks of those naval officers who might happen to be Members of Parliament, were allowed to pass without comment. But at present the interest taken in the subject was very great. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Briscoe), the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Warre), and other hon. Members, none of them connected with the navy, had manifested great interest in the Naval Administration of the country. In fact, there existed throughout the country a desire that our Naval Administration should be as perfect as it was possible for human wisdom to render it. Whatever might have been the causes of this increased interest in the subject, whether it had been created by the events of the Russian war, by the complaints made of the transport department, by the recent shipment of a force to China, by the large and inevitably expensive repairs of our steam fleet, or by the discovery of the defective state of the gunboats—certain it was that a great desire had been awakened for inquiry into our naval system, and to remodel it in accordance with the requirements of the present day. Committees having been granted in reference to the transport service, and the construction of the gunboats, it would be unpardonable in him to occupy the time of the House on those points; but he might express his surprise that more effective supervision had not been exercised, and that if the time of the dockyard officers had been too fully occupied, the services of officers who, from their experience afloat, were good judges of materials and workmanship, had not been rendered available for this purpose. When, some short time ago, an hon. Gentleman moved for leave to introduce a Bill relating to the construction of piers and harbours, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty opposed it, on the ground that the Board was already overworked. That, he thought, was not a valid reason for the opposition. The different departments, if properly organized, could never be overworked; for the strength would be increased or diminished, as circumstances required. If the Admiralty were, nautically speaking, "undermanned," it was necessary to adapt the institution to the requirements of the country. In 1832
  336
  the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) when First Lord of the Admiralty, abolished the Navy Board. Great evils had admittedly arisen from the conflict of authority, and he did not question either the policy or the ability of the right hon. Gentleman. Affairs had gone on smoothly for a number of years, as long as there was no pressure on the department; but during the last six or eight years, when the reconstruction of the navy, and the difficulty of manning the fleet, had forced themselves upon our attention; and when the novelties which modern science had introduced into every department, entailed the necessity of increased supervision and expense, it became evident that the machinery of the Board of Admiralty must undergo extension and adaptation to the altered circumstances. It was with the object of discovering what improvements or modifications were required, and with a view of accommodating the system to the sentiments of the nation in the present day, that he brought forward this Motion. The noble Lord might say he had no right to make objections, without being able to show that what he proposed would be an improvement. If his opinions had any weight in the Committee, he thought the suggestions he should be disposed to make would be improvements of the present system. He would recommend that the First Lord of the Admiralty should be a Minister of Marine, and be placed on the same footing as the Minister of War. Of course he would have a seat in the Cabinet, and would conduct the political and diplomatic part of the business connected with that office. The Board of Admiralty should be entirely a Naval Board; he said this without any disparagement of the present civilians on it; he knew from experience that many points came before them for decision, on which decision was very difficult, without some knowledge of naval matters. He would also make it a sine qua non that the Comptroller of the Navy should have a seat at the Board of Admiralty, and be the immediate means of communication between his own department and the Board. It should be borne in mind that the largest expenditure took place in the Comptroller's department. Ships were ordered to be built, and great outlay might be incurred without the Board, as a Board, knowing any thing about it; and he ventured to say that it frequently happened that the first know-lodge which the Lords of the Admiralty obtained of a certain ship—the Algiers,

  337
  for instance, being launched, or the Princess Royal laid down on the same slips the next day—was from seeing the announcement in the newspapers a few days afterwards. That was not as it ought to be. It could not occur if the Comptroller had a seat in the Board, and laid the business of his department regularly before it. All matters relating to building ships, and their steam machinery, should be brought immediately under the notice of the Board, and all representations of the Comptroller could be directly considered by it. As the Comptroller was at present overworked, he should have under him a Board of Construction, composed of three individuals, thoroughly competent to superintend the building of ships, who might prevent an enormous expenditure on certain vessels, and their inefficiency after being lengthened and altered. As to the expenditure in that way, it would be curious to know what had been spent on the Princess Royal, which had been commanded by the noble Lord opposite, for repairs and alterations. He should like to know what had been the expenditure on that ship since the noble Lord had hauled down his pennant. The expenses of the screw fleet had been enormous, especially through straining at sea. His opinion was that although steam must of course be used when expedition was required, yet that in such cases as the voyage to Lisbon, which was, in familiar language, merely a man-of-war cruise, the ships might have gone under sail, and not have incurred the strain arising from the forcing such enormous masses through the water by means of the screw. Another cause of complaint, and which required investigation, was the building of the steam rams, which he believed would be of no more use than the old Trusty, which had just had a shot sent through her sides. He believed that the cost of these vessels, nearly £600,000, would be entirely thrown away. Having stated his views, he did not wish to trespass at any length on the time of the House; but he thought the present was a very favourable moment for considering a change of system. The noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had had experience of the House of Commons, and his calm discrimination was such, he was sure he would consider fairly any suggestion on this subject. The First Naval Lord (Admiral Dundas) was unrivalled in the list of officers in which he stood. There was the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty,
  338
  who had with so much candour, good nature, and talent conducted its business this Session, and the noble Viscount, himself the head of the Administration, had at all times shown a deep interest in the naval affairs of the country. He proposed the Committee solely with the object of improving naval administration, and not in any way as a party question. If any crisis should unfortunately occur, England would expect much of its navy; he hoped it would find every man ready to do his duty; and that every man in office had already done his duty also. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the duties devolving thereon.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the various Duties devolving thereon."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, I must give the hon. and gallant Member great credit for the tone of his observations; the spirit in which he had pointed out what he considered defects in the Administration of the Admiralty with a view to their removal was anything but unfriendly. I do not think it can be said of the present Board of Admiralty that it has been at all anxious to avoid inquiry into the various branches of the administration under their care, inasmuch as they have agreed to no less than four Committees and Commissions of Inquiry. I would remind the House that at this moment there is a Committee sitting on a very important branch of the Admiralty business—the Committee on the Piers and Harbours Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken if he supposed that the Board is averse to that Bill. The Bill is for giving facilities for the erection of piers and harbours. It is one which has many things to recommend it, for there can be no doubt that if the vast expense of preliminary inquiries into such erections could be saved, a great service would be rendered to the public. I admit that I objected to the Bill; but the objection was not to its principles, but the details. A vast amount of work has already been thrown on the Board by the construction of piers and harbours, and it would add materially to that work, and be very unadvisable to impose upon it the responsibility which now devolves on Select Committees of this House as to the construction of all the har-

  339
  bours that may be required for the whole of the United Kingdom. I think the public would object to such powers being given to the Admiralty. That was my only objection to the Bill on Piers and Harbours. There is another Committee about to sit, also on an important branch of the Admiralty business—the transport of troops. The Committee was moved for by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). From that inquiry I think much valuable information may result. There is another Committee carrying on an inquiry into the question of the gunboats. To the Motion for that Committee the Admiralty had no objections to offer, on the contrary, it thought the subject a very fair one for inquiry into by this House. All the difference of opinion between the Admiralty and the hon. Member for Sunderland was this—the Admiralty had, at the time the Motion was made, taken steps for commencing legal proceedings in reference to the gunboats, and thought till those proceedings were decided it would be unadvisable to prejudge the question by commencing an inquiry. I, for one, am glad that it has been appointed, for by its means all the parties concerned are likely to be dealt with in the best and fairest way. I have now pointed out three inquiries into business connected with the Admiralty, which are at present being prosecuted, and to the institution of no one of those inquiries has, I may add, the slightest opposition being offered by the Board. There has, moreover, been a Royal Commission appointed to investigate that vast department of the Admiralty relating to shipbuilding, to which my hon. and gallant Friend has alluded. That Commission will have a considerable amount of labour to go through in the discharge of its duties, and I need hardly say that it will receive from the Admiralty all the facilities which it is in its power to afford in their performance. I believe that great improvements may be effected as the result of the investigation, and I need scarcely assure the House that if I should be called upon to give evidence before it I shall do so with the utmost readiness and in the sincere hope that it may be productive of good. Here, then, as I have said, we have four important inquiries being prosecuted into the various branches of the Admiralty business, and that, too, with the full approbation of the Board; a fact which clearly proves that it does not shrink from the examination.
  My hon. and gallant Friend, however, is
  340
  not satisfied with what is taking place, but wishes that an inquiry into the constitution of the Admiralty itself should be instituted. Now, I would beg to remind him that an inquiry into the constitution of the War Office, and military departments is at present in progress, and that so far as I can learn from rumour there are many great authorities on the subject who would appear to be rather favourable to the assimilation of the constitution of the new office to a certain extent to that of the Admiralty. ["No, no!"] I speak merely from general rumour, but be that as it may, it is, I think, advisable to await the Report of this Committee, which has been charged with the duty of making inquiry into the management and control of the army, and from which, no doubt, many valuable hints as to both services may be gathered, before we take any step such as that which my hon. and gallant Friend seems to wish us to adopt. I may further observe that I did not gather from his remarks that he has any particular fault to find with the Admiralty beyond that which relates to the branches to which I have already alluded, so that all his subjects of complaint are already under inquiry. He would appear, indeed, to be of opinion that the navy should be governed exclusively by naval men.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE: I said I should like to see a Board composed of naval men and also a Board of Construction. I did not say that the First Lord should be a naval man.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET:—That sounds very well, and I am sure I need not say that I, as a naval man, have the highest respect for my brother officers, who, I think, would be found equal to the performance of their duties in any position in which they might be placed. I would, however, observe that the strictly naval duties of the Admiralty form but a small portion of the general business which it has to discharge. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to have overlooked the circumstance that it has a vast amount of business of a purely civil nature to perform; and, without troubling the House with any very great detail, I will endeavour to point out what are the civil duties which belong to the Admiralty, irrespective altogether of those purely naval duties, such, for instance, as the manning and disciplining the fleet. I would first mention its duties in connection with piers and harbours, and no one who has not been connected with

  341
  the Admiralty can imagine the vast amount of business arising from the necessity of dealing with all the tidal waters of the United Kingdom. Now, business of this nature nobody, I imagine, can seriously contend to be beyond the capabilities of a civilian to transact. I may add, that until lately the Admiralty had also the entire of the duties connected with packets to perform duties from which it is now, however, very advantageously, as I think, relieved. I shall next proceed to advert to its civil duties in more immediate connection with the navy. First of all we are merchants. We purchase vast masses of raw material in the shape of timber, iron, copper, coals, and a variety of other articles. [An hon. MEMBER: But you do not sell.] Yes, we also sell sometimes, as in the case of old stores, for instance. We are in addition great manufacturers in almost every trade, from the construction of great anchors to the making of the minutest nail; some of the articles which we require being manufactured by contract, and many in our dockyards. We are shipbuilders on a very extensive scale in our dockyards, and we purchase vessels built by private contract, including engines, boilers, and "all the appurtenances thereunto belonging." These are matters, I may add, each of which is under the control of a particular Lord of the Admiralty; so that my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in supposing that the shipbuilding is not under special control. The fact is, that it is under the superintendence of the First Sea Lord, who is in daily communication with the Comptroller of the Navy, and is familiar with all those details to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded. I must, however, admit that this suggestion of a Board of Construction has much in my mind to recommend it. Besides the civil functions of the Admiralty which I have enumerated, we are victuallers. We purchase an immense amount of provisions, not only for the navy but also for the army and other public departments. It is our duty to provide all the medical necessaries for the fleet as well as to supply them to all the distant stations. These are duties, as I think the House will admit, of a civil nature. In a scientific point of view we are astronomers, inasmuch as with us rests the preparation of all the scientific works for the guidance of mariners. We are hydrographers, inasmuch as we have to survey every sea all over the globe; and, finally, we are architects. It is our duty
  342
  to construct vast docks, warehouses, bar racks, hospitals — in short, buildings o every description. Now, these are functions of a civil character, and I cannot concur with my hon. and gallant Friend in the opinion that the existence of a Board composed of exclusively naval men is necessary for their efficient discharge; while from my brief experience at the Admiralty, the working of which I have watched narrowly, and which I have compared with the Ordnance Board, to which I have had the honour to belong, as well as with others, I am disposed to think, that although it is far from perfect it possesses many advantages when the system is properly worked, which they do not enjoy. There are many who, no doubt, will say they object to the system of governing the navy by a Board—to those Gentlemen I would answer that the whole of the duties, to which I have adverted, together with a vast mass of other business to which I have not referred—are so interwoven one with the other, that if the heads of the several departments did not meet daily and discuss the various measures proposed to be carried into effect, you would have one member prosecuting works of which his colleagues would have no knowledge, and thus great inconvenience might be caused.
  The Board of Admiralty has two very important principles belonging to it—one is, that it has the power of acting with suddenness and secrecy in all matters where suddenness and secrecy are required; and in all matters where deliberation or ventilation is necessary, the Board of Admiralty has equally the power of deliberating carefully on all matters which appear to call for careful deliberation. Take the military duties of the Board—no doubt I shall hear that if it were necessary to-morrow in time of war or trouble to act with promptitude, we have not the means of insuring such action at the command of the Admiralty. It is perfectly within the constitution of the Admiralty that the First Lord should order the movements of the fleet—he can take any steps he thinks requisite for the movements of the fleet. He also has in his hands a very important privilege, and when my gallant Friend means to touch the constitution of the Admiralty, I would have him to bear in mind that in the navy, from the beginning to the end, from the top to the bottom, with the exception of flag officers, and certain Board promotions for distinguished service—all promotions and ap-

  343
  pointments to ships of every description are in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty. I would ask him would you place that extraordinary power in the hands of a naval man, or would promotions then fall into the hands of the Board? I am arguing in the dark. I do not know what my gallant Friend would wish. I only tell him what is the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and how difficult it will be to alter it. I wish him to bear this in mind that, whereas in the army promotion goes by purchase, and in certain branches of it by seniority, in the navy the whole of it is by choice. Now, I maintain that if you were to put that in the hands of a naval man, you would be running a very great risk. I am far from saying or supposing that there are not many naval officers who would conduct that patronage and the business connected with it with the strictest impartiality. But I do maintain that we naval officers who have spent our lives in the service must necessarily have a great number of personal friends and followers, and, if you had for the First Lord a naval man, he would be pressed by many considerations of that nature which he is entirely clear of now. I would add—but this is my private opinion, not as Secretary to the Admiralty—I think it is of very great importance that he should be a Peer, in order to be far away from any pressure as regards Parliamentary influence. I am stating frankly my opinion in regard to these matters. A very strong opinion has been given lately in favour of Board meetings of the officers of the dockyards, by the Committee on Dockyard Economy. It was found that there was not sufficient personal communication between the officers of the dockyards, and it was recommended that they should have morning meetings at the dockyards precisely similar to Board meetings, with the view of arrangements for carrying out in common the duties of the office. If such meetings are necessary in the yards they are equally so at the Admiralty. I have now touched as far as I could on the objections which have been and may be urged to the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, having given his observations to the House, will not push this matter to a division. Taking all things into consideration, having several inquiries going on at this moment into various branches of the Admiralty, having got a very important inquiry going on as to the constitution and
  344
  government of the army, the Report of which may be of use hereafter, especially considering the time of the year at which this Motion is brought on, I am afraid I must, on the part of the Government, oppose the Motion of my gallant Friend.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I think my noble and gallant Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, has altogether misunderstood the speech and the purport of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Admiral on the other side. I must say, I never heard a more practical or more sensible statement made by any naval officer in this House than has been made by the hon. and gallant Admiral. The gallant Admiral never raised any question about altering the system of promotion by the Admiralty; he never made any suggestion that the First Lord of the Admiralty must necessarily be a naval man; he expressly, as I understood, guarded himself against any recommendation of that kind. His Motion is a very simple one; it is for a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty—as simple a Motion as could be brought forward by any man. And what is the answer of the noble Lord? He says that already, so much is the Board of Admiralty suspected by the House and the country that they have been obliged to agree to four Commissions or Committees of inquiry in regard to it. The gallant Admiral steps forward and says your constitution is not satisfactory, give us a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board, and the noble Secretary enumerates all the trades which the Board performs. That is just what the country says, the Board is "Jack of all trades and master of none." The noble Lord says, "Here are all these Commissions of Inquiry." Yes, you are not trusted; and if you are not trusted, let me ask who is to blame? The noble Lord himself has done more to discredit the Board of Admiralty in the House and the country than any other Member of the profession. Did I not hear the noble Lord in the last Parliament impeach the Admiralty for having wasted £11,000,000 in five years? and having made that statement, and having adhered to it, although he could not prove it, the noble Lord ought, of all people in the world, to have seconded the Motion of the gallant Admiral for a Committee of Inquiry. I shall support the Motion of the gallant Admiral. I think it will do a very great deal of good, and disabuse the public

  345
  mind of many accusations that have been made. Let us have the Comptroller of the Navy before that Committee; and that is the way to get at the truth of the charges. The charges made against that excellent and upright officer have never been retracted to this day. When the noble Secretary thus attempts to trail a red herring across the path of the gallant Admiral, and speaks of the Board being merchants, chemists, and sail makers, I say that is no answer to the Motion at all; it is one of the very best reasons for the inquiry. He tells us we have got four Commissions; well, I say, go a step further; we want a fifth; give us an inquiry into the fountain head of all this mischief, the Board of Admiralty itself. With regard to the present constitution of the Admiralty the noble Lord is so anxious to remove the suspicions of an unjust tampering with promotion, that he wishes to remove the First Lord altogether from the public view —he wishes to make him a sort of Japanese First Lord—never to be seen. I do not agree with that view. But the gallant Admiral has made an excellent suggestion with regard to the Comptroller; he is in a most anomalous position. He is one of the most eminent officers in the whole service, and yet he has not a seat or a voice at the Board. Then, again, the noble Lord tells us that matters of shipbuilding are discussed at the Board. If that be the case, things are greatly altered since I was at the Admiralty. At that time nothing about shipbuilding ever came before the Board. The noble Lord said the First Lord was in daily communication with the Comptroller, but all the information he derived from him is strictly private and confidential. The whole business is done in the First Lord's room, and I defy the noble Lord to produce a single instance of a Board meeting at which anything was done relating to shipbuilding. The noble Lord asks what are you going to do? He says if you take one stone out of the edifice of the Board of Admiralty, the whole will fall to pieces. I say if it cannot bear examination it ought to fall to pieces. I am surprised the noble Lord should take this line, because, if I remember, on a former occasion he used very strong language as to the necessity of inquiring into the Board of Admiralty.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—I never said anything about that.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Why, did the noble Lord not say that there had been
  346
  eleven millions sterling wasted? Then he ought to support this Motion. I know there are people at the Admiralty who are very anxious for inquiry; and unless you do reconstitute that Board in a more satisfactory form you will be always liable to have these charges made, but not substantiated, for they never have been substantiated. I am sure that one of the recommendations of the gallant Admiral—namely, giving the Comptroller a seat at the Board, would introduce a most beneficial change. The business of that officer has attained such gigantic proportions that no single person, however able, can be equal to its discharge. It is not fair to Sir Baldwin Walker that he should hold so responsible a position without having a seat at the Board, and without having further assistance. The Navy Estimates are enormous, but the country will not grudge them if they are well administered. With a view to the better working of the system I have no hesitation in supporting this Motion.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, the noble Lord had stated, as a reason for opposing the Motion, that there was a Commission already sitting in "another place," and that he had heard in the street there was some idea of that Commission issuing a Report in favour of assimilating the control over the army to the same kind of Board which now ruled over the navy. On such a decision he for one would look with the greatest dismay. He had seen with deep regret the changes that were attempted to he introduced into the administration of the army. All these so-called improvements went in the wrong direction, and he should be very sorry if the command of the army were entrusted to a body like the Board of Admiralty. He had spent much time on different naval stations, and mixed much with naval men, but he had never gathered from a single naval officer that he approved the system of management pursued under the Admiralty. The noble Lord had himself given a strong reason for granting that inquiry. The number of the duties imposed upon the Board of Admiralty far exceeded what any Board could possibly discharge. An inquiry was, therefore, needed to see whether many of those duties might not be committed to separate departments with advantage to the service and economy to the public. No man could manage the affairs of a department so well as those who were directly interested in them; and if a naval officer was at the head of the

  347
  Board he would fulfil its duties and distribute its appointments with as much justice and impartiality as any civilian, and even with less regard to family connection and more regard to professional qualifications than had been recently exhibited in some branches of the public service. He must, however, dissent from the statement that the noble Lord had at all contributed to bring discredit on the Admiralty. He should regret if the noble Lord allowed the sweets of office to seal those lips which had formerly uttered such vehement denunciations on the abuses existing in the navy; for he believed there was no man better fitted to confer honour and dignity on the gallant profession to which he belonged than was the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) has stated, I must say with a great deal of truth, that the disposition which has existed in this House of late to distrust the conduct of the Board of Admiralty may be attributed in no very inconsiderable measure to the language of my noble Friend opposite (Lord C. Paget) in the last Session of Parliament. Although the noble Lord's motives were very laudable, the part he took and the allegations and imputations he made did a great deal to excite doubts in this House with regard to the mode in which the business of the Admiralty was conducted. I have never hesitated to express my regret at the course which the noble Lord then pursued, and at the allegations which he then brought forward — allegations which he never has substantiated, and which I have always believed are incapable of being substantiated, in the shape, at all events, in which he couched them. At the same time, I think he will admit that I have never refused to do justice to the frank and agreeable tone in which he has always fulfilled his official duties in this House as Secretary to the Admiralty; and I believe he has never deserved more credit for that tone than he does to-night, when speaking under some degree of personal difficulty, from the fact that he is not only the Secretary to the Admiralty, but also a naval officer. He is entitled, therefore, to praise for the calm, urbane, and dispassionate manner in which he has met the present Motion. I refer with considerable diffidence to this subject, because my official experience as First Lord was limited to less than a year and a-half; but I must
  348
  frankly confess that my noble Friend has gone rather further in his estimate of the efficiency of the Board of Admiralty as an administrative machine than I am disposed to do. My experience impressed on my mind the conviction that theoretically the constitution of that Board might be improved. I think the suggestion of the gallant Admiral that it would be well for the Comptroller of the Navy to have a seat at the Board is an excellent one, and I doubt if it would not further improve the constitution of the Board if the Accountant General was also a member of it. Although I do not think the machinery of that Board is perfect, yet, having regard to the enormous amount of multifarious and complicated business which it has to transact, and the extreme difficulty of deciding in what shape that body ought to be constituted, I should be sorry to see such a question handed over to a Select Committee of this House, the great majority of whose members would probably be wholly inexperienced in the details of this important Department. But after the opinions that have been frequently expressed both in the last and in the present Parliament as to the necessity of some inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty I venture to suggest to the Government whether it might not be well for them to take upon themselves the consideration of that question. I am inclined to think it could be much better dealt with by the Government than by a Select Committee. But if the investigations of the Government should lead them to think that the matter ought to be further examined into, with a view of making any material changes in so complicated and important a machine, I would again suggest to them that the same course should be adopted with regard to the navy as was adopted with regard to the army, and that the inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty should be referred to a well selected Commission. I therefore hope the gallant Admiral will not press his Motion, but if he does I shall not be able to vote with him.
  Notwithstanding the experience of the gallant Admiral for a few months at the Board of Admiralty I am bound to say that he has fallen into some mistake in matters of fact. The first statement which struck me was, that the First Lord only heard of a launch from reading the newspaper. [Admiral DUNCOMBE: I said the Board, as a Board, had no previous in-

  349
  formation.] Well, if the gallant Admiral likes, that the Board only heard of the launch of a ship by reading in the newspapers of it having taken place some few days previously. With my experience, I can say that that is an entire error on the part of the gallant Admiral. While I was at the Admiralty no launch ever took place without due and ample notice being given in the most formal manner, sometimes to an extent which occurred to me was beyond the necessity of the case, and without the notice being read at the Board. But I only allude to this statement with regard to a ceremony comparatively unimportant for the purpose of noticing another statement upon a much more important subject. The gallant Admiral certainly implied, if he did not make the statement, and the statement was broadly and distinctly made by the hon. Member for Liskeard, that the question of shipbuilding is never discussed by the Board of Admiralty. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!] I am sure the right hon. Baronet who was for some time First Lord of the Admiralty, and now holds the office of Secretary of State for India, will bear me out in saying that it is no more consistent with his experience than with mine. [Sir CHARLES Wood: Hear, hear!] I do not know what rule prevailed when the hon. Member for Liskeard was at the Admiralty, or when the gallant Admiral was a member of the Board. But this I know, that while I had the honour of a seat at the Board, the Comptroller of the Navy— the Surveyor of the Navy, as he was then —attended regularly on one clay in every week and went into every matter connected with shipbuilding which he was pleased to bring before us. He came as regularly as the heads of other departments, either at a Board at Somerset House or at the Admiralty, and he communicated upon all points connected with shipbuilding, the importance of which in the transactions of the Admiralty every one must admit. The hon. Gentleman said that the Board had no cognizance of the building of ships. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!] I again say that no shipbuilding of importance, or of any extent, or of any class of vessels, was carried on without being discussed and decided upon by the Board while I had the honour of presiding over it. I state this in the most distinct manner. It appears to be a question of the difference of practice between one Board and another, rather than a question of the constitution of the
  350
  Board, and of course I can only speak of the practice during the time I had the honour to hold office. The gallant Admiral fell into a considerable error with regard to the cost of the iron-plated ships. Perhaps the decision to build one of them was one of the most important decisions to which the late Board of Admiralty came, and I am glad to see that it has been followed up by the present Board. The gallant Admiral called them rams. They were never designed or intended as rams, but are, in fact, iron-cased ships, intended to resist shot, and, notwithstanding what he says of experiments made upon them, they must be far more capable of resisting shot than an ordinary wooden-sided ship. I trust and believe that they will be a valuable addition to the navy, but as to their costing £600,000 each, as the gallant Admiral has stated, I believe I am right in saving that that is much nearer the cost of the two, if it does not exceed it. I do not think the gallant Admiral distinctly stated it, but if he implied a doubt whether I had taken upon myself to give the important order for building the ship, or whether it was done by the Board, I can only say that one of the last things I should have thought of doing would have been to give an order of such magnitude and importance without the knowledge and sanction of the Board with whom I had the honour of acting. I do not think that I need detain the House any longer. I have explained some statements which might lead to a misapprehension. I have stated the views which I entertain on the general question, and under the circumstances I am not able to vote in favour of the Motion.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, though, when he entered the House that evening, he had not made up his mind what course to take, he thought, from the statements on both sides, that he could have no doubt about voting for inquiry. It was evident there was something wrong in the administration of the navy, otherwise why should the Admiralty resist inquiry? That inquiry was needed was further shown by the able speech of the noble Lord, by which it appeared that the variety of duties to be discharged by the Board was so great, that he could not conceive how any Board, constituted like the Admiralty, could conduct all those vast and various interests with advantage to the public. There was also another important point. They were expending something like £13,000,000 on the navy, and there was

  351
  a common impression on men's minds that, with different management, £10,000,000 might be made to go as far as the £13,000,000. He believed that the question of building large ships was never brought under the attention of the Board, but was left entirely to the Comptroller of the Navy, and it was in those things that the large expenditure was incurred. The Comptroller ought, he thought, to have a seat at the Board, and all these matters should be brought regularly under their notice. The right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) had said he should not vote for the inquiry; but if the question before the House had been simply for inquiry, he would not have supported it; his difficulty was, whether the inquiry should be gone into by the Government or by a Commission. It came then to the question, should the inquiry be carried out by a Commission. To that he (Mr. Lindsay) said decidedly, no. The House and the House alone could furnish the proper tribunal to inquire into such a subject as the constitution of the Admiralty. Surely among the 654 Members of the House, there could be found fifteen Gentlemen quite as competent to inquire into that question as any outside it. With regard to the charges which had frequently been made in that House against the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget), he thought it right to say that he (Mr. Lindsay) had a certain share in the responsibility of the noble Lord's statement, for he seconded his Motion. He had a distinct recollection of what the noble Lord stated at the time. The noble Lord did not bring any charge against Sir Baldwin Walker, or indeed against any one connected with the Admiralty. He stated that on going over the expenditure for a certain number of years, he observed that there were about five millions of money the mode of expenditure of which he could not see from the accounts laid before the House. His charge really referred to the imperfect form of keeping the accounts. His allegation was that they were so kept that it was impossible to trace how that five millions of money in the course of some eleven years had been expended. He felt bound to say this much in justification of the noble Lord, who had, immediately that he came into office, taken in hand the improvement of the accounts; and he had laid upon the table of the House a Return with which the House had never been favoured before, and by which they would be able in future to trace in what manner the money had been expended. Upon the general
  352
  question, he (Mr. Lindsay) had nothing more to add, except that he trusted the Admiralty would, upon consideration, not oppose the Motion, considering the temperate spirit in which it had been brought forward.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, the question before the House was of vital importance, and ought to be settled at once. Therefore, he thought the House were much indebted to his hon. and gallant Friend for having brought it before them, although he did not agree with him in every detail. He concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend in thinking that there was no reason for attaching blame to any particular Board of Admiralty, or for the introduction of anything like party spirit in discussing a Motion of this kind—nay, further, he would admit that if they were to have a civilian at the head of the department, they could not have a better man than the Duke of Somerset; while as regarded his noble Friend opposite, he should think his retirement from the office he now held a national misfortune. His hon. and gallant Friend complained that the result of the present constitution of the Board was a wasteful expenditure of money. He (Mr. Bentinck) admitted that to a certain extent, but he felt that there was a much greater evil—a want of efficiency in the service; and he had always contended that so long as there were civilians at the head of the Board of Admiralty, the whole system must be imperfect, nor could they depend on that rapidity and certainty of action which was necessary to meet great and sudden emergencies. It was not to be expected that men who undertook a particular branch of business for the first time would understand it thoroughly; and there was this disadvantage attending the system, that the moment the person appointed became competent, he was, in all probability, by some freak of the House of Commons, turned out of office, and a fresh man, as ignorant as he was at first, brought in. Thus it was that one of our most important public departments was left to the management of men who were no doubt adepts in political warfare, but very tyros and schoolboys in the business of governing the navy. The gunboats had been alluded to, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood) whether the order for hauling them up at Haslar, and leaving them there for a long time dry and unexamined, had not emanated from him? He had heard the naval

  353
  men of the Board disclaim any responsibility as to that order, which had cost the country £70,000, and its only effect had been to increase the progress of the dry rot in the vessels, which had been germinated by the green state of the wood of which they were built. If it was true that the right hon. Baronet was the author of that absurd scheme, that was in itself a strong argument against having a civilian at the head of the Board. His noble and gallant Friend had said that the duties of the Admiralty were in many respects of a civil character, as merchants, shipbuilders, chemists, &c.; but he (Mr. Bentinck) did not see why naval men could not qualify themselves to deal with such matters as well as the civilians who were appointed under the present system, and who, as far as he had ever heard, were not selected because of their practical knowledge and experience in such pursuits, but from motives of a very different kind. The fact that there were four different Inquiries going on already was no answer to the present Motion. Those Commissions and Committees to which his noble and gallant Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) had called attention, did not go to the root of the evil, which was the constitution of the Board and even if they did, the Board of Admiralty, after all, might not adopt the recommendation of the Commission. The only object in appointing a civilian to the Board of Admiralty was to give the Minister of the day the means of appointing an important Member of the House of Commons to a place. The noble Lord advocated the appointment of a civilian to the head of the Admiralty because he said a naval man would be prejudiced. Now, there were two grounds on which a naval man was better qualified than a civilian to select officers for promotion. In the first place, he would necessarily have better opportunities of being acquainted with the professional merits of those who sought promotion; and in the second, he would be less fettered by those political ties which attached to a civilian, who owed his appointment to distinguished ability in the party conflicts in that House. He quite agreed that if the First Lord was to continue to be a civilian he should be a peer, as that would to some extent get rid of the influence of the House of Commons in the direction of the patronage of the navy, which would always, while it prevailed, be applied more with regard to political than professional objects. He concurred in the praise
  354
  which had been awarded to the present Secretary for the Admiralty, who, he fully admitted, had done his best since his accession to office to remedy the evils he found existing; and if he had been unable to remedy them effectually, that was only an additional proof that there was something wrong in the constitution of the Board. He considered the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir John Pakington) —that the Inquiry should be conducted by a Commission appointed by the Government instead of by an independent Committee— was much about the same as if the prisoners awaiting their trial at an assize were to propose that they should be tried by a Commission selected by their own body. Those who sat on the front benches on both sides looked upon the patronage of these public departments as the political prizes to which they in turn succeeded, and were not disposed willingly to give them up, and, therefore, this suggestion of the right hon. Baronet had been made; but until the House of Commons took up the matter with a strong hand and determined to act for itself, they could not hope for the application of any efficient remedy.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he wished to congratulate the gallant Admiral on having brought forward this question, and to express a hope that his efforts would be attended with more success than those which he himself had made on the same subject. He would not follow the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty through what he would call the rubbish which he had spoken about Lords of the Admiralty being architects, shipbuilders, masons, painters, and members of every other trade; but would confine himself to offering a word or two on the military duties of the First Lord. From the time that he entered the service a general complaint—whether right or wrong—had been always made against the Admiralty, and a general distrust of their administration was felt throughout the country. Since 1850 there had been been constant changes at the Board. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) was followed by the Duke of Northumberland; the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) his successor, was replaced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood); then the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) succeeded to office, and now they had the Duke of Somerset, How was it possible

  355
  to maintain the efficiency of a service on which the safety of the country depended, or to carry out any regular system where the First Lord was so often changed, and where the Board of Admiralty changed nearly as often as himself? Then, who were the Lords of the Admiralty chosen from? It was not necessary that they should be men of talent; it was only requisite that they should have a seat in the House, be well-connected, and friendly to the Minister of the day, and they were morally certain of enjoying a place at the Admiralty. A Board thus constituted, and with a civilian at its head, could know nothing either of the discipline of the navy or of the character of officers and seamen; how, then, could it give satisfaction to the country at large? Formerly all the patronage of the navy centred in the First Lord. In order to prevent this power from being abused, Parliament, having the good of the service at heart, limited the rule of promotion to one in three. But these were all grasped by the First Lord. All the appointments of the present Admiralty had been to officers who had held several and successive commands. One officer, to the perfect astonishment of the whole service, had been passed over by different Governments sixteen or seventeen times, ever since the period of the Burmese war, in which he performed his duty to the great satisfaction of the country and of the Board of Admiralty itself. He had just been passed over again for an officer who was his senior, but who had only recently struck his flag from a previous command. He was not the only one who had been passed over. There were a great many others who had not been employed. He did not find any fault with those who had been employed; they were all good officers, but how was it possible for the others, who never stood any chance of hoisting their flag in time of peace, to be efficient in case war were to break out. There was another thing he had to complain of, and that was the manner in which orders were given by the Admiralty, often contradicting each other. As an illustration of this, he might state that when in command of the Channel fleet he was ordered by the Admiralty to remove the guns from the upper deck of the St. Vincent. He did so, and immediately he received another order to put them back again. Again, when the Albion was under trial, he received an order to send her home without delay; it was done, and then came
  356
  out a letter stating that their Lordships regretted that the Albion had not been thoroughly tried. Legally, all orders ought to be signed by two Lords, but the Secretary of the Admiralty had stated to-night what he never heard before,—that the First Lord himself could issue an order if signed by the Secretary. The six Lords worked in separate rooms, dividing the business of the different departments between them. They met in the board-room at twelve o'clock for general business. This sounded well enough in theory; but it was not good in practice. A Lord of the Admiralty, after doing his business at the Board, went down to Somerset House, where a whole heap of papers was placed before him. It was impossible for him to read them, and he signed them as fast as possible, so that in fact the actual duty was performed by the department. Officers in command were often in a difficulty, in consequence of having three masters. When he was in command of the Baltic fleet, he received orders from two Lords of the Admiralty, and from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. When he sailed he had orders from the Admiralty to proceed to Wingoe Sound, and wait there for further instructions. When he arrived there he was informed the ice in the Baltic was breaking up; but he had orders not to enter the Baltic. The Earl of Clarendon, however, had had the same information, and sent him out a letter which showed his judgment. It was an order to proceed, as the ice was disappearing, to a position that would prevent the Russian fleet from entering the North Sea. The orders from the Admiralty and the Secretary of State were exactly opposed to each other; but he had no hesitation about them. The Earl of Clarendon's order quite agreed with his own information, and he immediately passed through the Belt and got up to Copenhagen. He believed he did quite right; and he thought the country owed a great deal to the Earl of Clarendon; had he (Sir Charles Napier) followed the orders of the Admiralty, a northern confederacy might have been established by Russia in the Baltic. But by the next packet came despatches from the Admiralty, stating that "My Lords" were astonished at what he had done, as he had acted without the concurrence of the Board. The next packet had brought him out a letter from the First Lord of the Admiralty, which, as it had reference to public affairs and contained no secret, he

  357
  supposed he might read to the House. However, on reflection, he thought it better not to read it; but it was quite clear that if the Russian fleet had got into the North Sea he could not plead the orders of the Admiralty as an excuse, for the Board would have immediately turned round on him and asked why he had not conformed to the instructions of the Secretary of State, which he had, as it happened, been wise enough to follow. The next complaint which he had to urge against the Admiralty, as at present constituted, was that it had never struck out any efficient plan for manning the navy, which it might have done if it had only set zealously about carrying into effect the recommendation of the Royal Commission, while those, he contended, who read the Report which had recently been published in reference to Greenwich Hospital, must be, as he himself was, perfectly astonished at the manner in which that establishment was managed, and at the want of attention in the case of the widows and orphans of the men by which the action of the Board had for as cries of years been marked. Now, he had often heard it stated in that House by First Lords of the Admiralty that the Board as a body decided on all the matters of importance which came under the control of the department, but the fact nevertheless was, that when the First Lord did not want to take the opinion of the Board on any particular point, he retired with the Senior Naval Lord, or such other member of the Board as he pleased, into his room, and there came to the conclusion which he deemed to be most expedient. In corroboration of that view he might relate a story which was well known at the Admiralty, although it might not be in that House. It was said that when the Government of the day desired to supersede Lord Hood in his command, because he complained that the fleet was badly managed, Lord Spencer had gone down to the Admiralty and placed a minute on the table of the board-room directing that Lord Hood should be superseded. He then turned round to the senior Lord, and asked him to sign the order, but the request was declined. The second member of the Board who was asked also refused, and Lord Spencer thereupon threw the order down to the bottom of the table to the Civil Lord, observing, that if it were not signed at once the Admiralty would exist no longer. The result had been that Lord Hood, one of the best officers of which the
  358
  country could boast, had been superseded in his command. Now if the Board of Admiralty was to be continued, it was, he contended, most desirable that the Comptroller of the Navy and the Acountant-General should be among its members. He might add that as matters were at present arranged, the mode of inspecting the fleet was extremely unsatisfactory. Two members of the Board might go down perhaps to Portsmouth or elsewhere for that purpose dressed in private clothes, but they carried no weight with them under those circumstances, and produced no impression on the men. Now, in the case of the army —which, if military gentlemen wished it to be placed under the same sort of superintendence as the navy, all he could say was, God forgive them—whenever there was a display of want of discipline, the Commander-in-Chief sent down the Adjutant-General to Plymouth or Aldershot, or any other place in which a mutiny might have occurred, and that officer made his inspection in uniform, turned out the regiment, and instituted the strictest investigation into the whole affair; while, if that were not sufficient, the Commander-in-Chief prosecuted the inquiry in person. Then there were in the army inspectors of infantry, who made frequent visits to the several stations, while there was no Adjutant-General or no inspector in connection with the Board of Admiralty to examine into the causes of a mutiny, if it arose on board a vessel or to ascertain the state of discipline of the men. There was a simple remedy. There were the sinecure offices of Vice-Admiral and Rear-Admiral in the gift of the Prime Minister. If, in future, the Prime Minister would constitute the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty Vice-Admiral of Great Britain, and the second Lord the Rear-Admiral of Great Britain, and attach the Comptroller of the Navy and the Accountant-General to the Board, a great improvement would be effected; but instead of the First Lord, he would have a Minister of Marine, and let each Lord of the Admiralty have his own distinct duties to perform, for which he should be held responsible. The Comptroller of the Navy had nothing to do with timber, and knew no more about the quantity in store than he himself did; nor had he any authority to send for the storekeeper to inquire about it. He believed there was not more than two years' stock of timber in the yards and was that a state of things that ought to exist? The whole of the store

  359
  department should be under the control of this officer. He would say nothing of the statements made by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. It was quite true that he did not accuse or complain of Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker, but it was said there was a loss of £5,000,000 in the course of eleven years—it had not been properly accounted for. Sir Baldwin Walker was called on to state whether this was true or false. He went into the whole concern. He answered every statement article by article, and proved that during those eleven years every accusation was inaccurate. There was only a sum of £4,000 or £5,000 expended for some other purpose than had been intended. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the stain remained on Sir Baldwin Walker and the Accountant-General, who were supposed to know about it. He thought that unjust, and had given the Secretary of the Admiralty the opportunity of stating in the House that, after examining the statement of Sir Baldwin Walker, the whole had been regularly accounted for; but until the matter was investigated by the Commission sitting on the dockyards the stain would remain. With regard to the gunboats, they were a shame and a disgrace to this country. It had been said that the Board of Admiralty were perfectly aware when orders were given to build them that they were to he built of green timber, for no other was to be found in the yards, but the contract was that they should be built of sound timber. An investigation was now going on into the whole matter, and no doubt the truth would come out. Another fault had been committed by the Admiralty, and it was a grievous one. They had a fine fleet after the Russian war. A great part was paid off, but there remained seven, eight, or ten sail of the line, which, however, were paid off, and the men sent adrift. The consequence was they had never been able to recruit the navy since, or get a fresh supply of proper petty officers. There had been no economy whatever in that, for the saving of pay was more than counterbalanced by the expense of putting the ships again into commission. He implored the House to grant this Committee of Inquiry. If the Admiralty were well conducted, a Committee to examine all the departments would produce a, most satisfactory result. If the Admiralty thought themselves guilty, of course they would not submit to inquiry. But he trusted the House would make a thorough and searching investigation.
  MR. WARREsaid, he had come to the conclusion, not without the most anxious consideration, that it would not be advisable to press the Motion to a division. Enough, however, had been elicited to lead to this result, that out of the discussion must come—it might be a little sooner or it might be a little later—very valuable results to the public service. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had admitted that the Board might be improved in its construction; and this admission would not be thrown away. The iron-plated vessels were, it was true, untried, and little could therefore be said in their defence. But if other powers were making vast and costly experiments, experiments only though they were, in the construction of vessels of a novel description, but which perhaps would prove to be exceedingly formidable in a state of warfare, was it not our duty to proceed pari passu with them in such experiments? Some small experiments had been made of a similar kind in the Russian war; but the Russian artillery was not considered powerful enough to render the trials conclusive. Since that time artillery had been invented of extreme power, and the trial of their strength in warfare might not be a far distant event. We ought, then, to be prepared. He trusted, however, that the gallant officer would not press his Motion to a division.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he concurred in the hope that had been expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought that the discussion would exercise a very beneficial effect on the Admiralty, and as there were four Committees sitting already it would be practically impossible to go into a full investigation of the question this Session. If the gallant Admiral would content himself for the present with the discussion which had taken place, and re-introduce his Motion at the beginning of the next Session, he (Sir James Elphinstone) would be happy to assist him to the extent of his power in an endeavour to obtain an investigation into the abuses which he was afraid existed in the Board of Admiralty. What he principally objected to in the Admiralty was, its entirely political complexion. The discontent which this cause produced in the navy was deep and well founded. Favoured individuals rose from one rank to another, and were qualified by continual employment for flags, while officers of the highest professional attain-

  361
  ments remained in the lower grades of the service without any prospect of promotion. The system was quite different in the army, where if a man stuck to his profession, he eventually obtained promotion. The late Sir Henry Havelock was placed in almost a hopeless position in India. He had no means to purchase promotion; but he stuck to his duties, and advancement came at last. Nothing of the kind occurred in the navy. Again, it was a grave question whether the functions of the Admiralty ought not to be curtailed. The jurisdiction which it possessed over the tidal waters of the empire was not always exercised for the public good. The ships, too, which it constructed, were not built with a due regard to the stowage of dead weight; and their designs were not thrown open, as they ought to be, to the examination of those best qualified to judge of naval architecture. Almost the same remarks applied to their steam machinery. Steam machinery had risen to its present position in a few years; but it was introduced by officers not so well skilled in the science as they ought to have been. Then as to the wood department of the navy, he believed that we had only sufficient seasoned timber for two years' consumption; but the Admiralty seemed to look upon this state of things with a great degree of complacency. They had the teak forests of Burmah at their command, as well as a variety of other timber fitted for shipbuilding; but they took no steps to make these sources of supply available. The quantity of seasoned timber in the market at any one time was always very limited, and it was as difficult to procure more the moment they wanted it, unless they had laid in a large store beforehand, as it was to lay their hands upon 10,000 able seamen in any emergency. He thought they ought to have in store a supply which would be sufficient for at least ten years. What would be said of a gentleman who laid in only one year's store of claret in his cellars? The Comptroller of the Navy was the most important man in the Admiralty; and yet he had no seat at the Board, and it was said had no voice whatever in the construction of ships. So, the surveying department was not provided with proper vessels for the work to be done; and the management of the transport department ought to be taken away from the Admiralty. The House knew nothing more of the interior economy of the Admiralty than it did of the inside of the mosque at Mecca. There
  362
  would be great difficulty in placing a naval man at the head of the Board as long as the political element remained attached to it. With four inquiries relative to the Admiralty, however, going on, he thought the most prudent course would be for his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, with the understanding that next Session an inquiry should take place.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it is perfectly true that there is nothing connected with the naval service which does not depend upon the constitution of the Admiralty. Yet I cannot see how a great portion of the observations which have been made to-night can very much tend to enlighten the House upon that subject, and I very much doubt whether a Committee of fifteen Members of the House would be likely to form a sound opinion as to how the Board ought to be constituted. I think that, if inquiry is necessary, a Commission is far better than Committee; but I believe that those who have successively occupied the post of First Lord must know better than any other persons what defects exist, and what measures will most conduce to the efficient working of the system. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk has repeated a statement which he has made on more than one occasion—that the naval Lords were not consulted by me about the gunboats and about hauling them up at Haslar. With regard to the gunboats themselves, I do not recollect any statement being made to us that the contractors were not in possession of seasoned timber. My noble Friend says that one small builder represented that he had not sufficient, but no general representation to the same effect was made by the large builders. Nevertheless, if that had been the case, I should still have ordered the gunboats to be built of the best timber which the country could afford. It was indispensably necessary that the gunboats should be built within a limited time. I should not have hesitated a moment to authorize their construction of the best timber which could be procured; but I do not believe that any general representation was made by the contractors, with the exception which my noble Friend has mentioned, that they could not furnish timber adequately seasoned. My noble Friend has said truly that what the Admiralty complained of more particularly was the defective bolts, which was clearly a fraud upon the Admiralty, and what is worse, a crime of the gravest character, as it might

  363
  have perilled the lives of the men who were placed in the gunboats. Let those who find so much fault with the building in the Government yards remember that these gunboats, turned out in such a state as they were, came from the private yards of the first shipbuilders in the kingdom. The hon. Member for Norfolk asked whether I consulted the naval Lords as to hauling up the boats at Haslar. I have stated before, not only that I did so, but that it was perfectly impossible orders could have been given for the purpose without consulting the Board. It involved expense, and it must therefore necessarily be done at a Board and by a Board order. I have not taken notice of assertions rashly made, without cognizance of the facts, but in this case not only I did not, but I could not give the order without the sanction of the Board. I did consult the Board, and they entirely concurred in the expediency of trying the experiment. Then we are told that hauling them up took away all chance of their lasting, and that if they had been left afloat there would have been no dry rot. But the first boats which showed symptoms of dry rot were two in the Mediterranean, which were never taken out of the water, and in which the dry rot appeared long before it appeared in those which were hauled up at Haslar. It is notorious that a vessel left on the stocks will last an indefinite time. There may he a difference if she has once been in the water, but as it was exceedingly desirable to clear Portsmouth Harbour, I was led, in concurrence with the Board, to try the experiment, and to direct sheds to be built, where a certain number of these gunboats might be drawn up. The experiment of hauling up had been tried, and succeeded with some yachts, which were habitually drawn up at Cowes, and there was no reason to anticipate any different result. It was also intended to take out some streaks of timber to let the air through, so that they might be the better preserved. The shipwright officer objected to take out the streaks of wood, and before any decision was arrived at, I was succeeded by the right hon. Baronet opposite. These are the reasons why that course was taken with the entire and full concurrence of the naval Lords of the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the First Lord takes the responsibility which is imputed to him without consultation with the members of the Board. The hon. Gentleman talks of promotions by the
  364
  First Lord. No doubt, he is personally responsible, but I can say most solemnly, that I never made one promotion or appointment without consultation, and the complete concurrence of the Board. I had to administer the Admiralty in time of war, and it is no doubt a much easier task to make appointments in time of war than in time of peace. I do not, therefore, claim any credit for myself which I am not ready to give to others who have filled the same office; but I declare on my honour as a gentleman that I never made a promotion or appointment in my life from any motive or belief other than that the recipient was as fit a man as could be found for the purpose, and I never made an appointment without the full concurrence of the Board. I say distinctly that there is an advantage, generally speaking, in having a civilian at the head of the Admiralty. I do not say that there are not many naval men perfectly fit and competent to take the post, but I entirely concur with my noble Friend, and I was glad to hear him say it, that naval men have necessarily friends or followers in the navy, and are apt to look with more favour on those whom they have seen and with whom they have served than upon others. It is quite natural and right that they should do so. The advantage of having a civilian at the head of the Admiralty is that he is able to hold the scales equally and upon the whole, as far as the navy at large is concerned, to make appointments more fairly than a naval man, who is liable to have his judgment warped by his feelings. A good deal has been said about matters not being brought before the Board. I am sorry to entirely differ from my hon. Friend who was Secretary to the Admiralty at the time I was First Lord. He may not have been present when questions of ship-building were discussed, and I quite agree that it is not a very convenient or easy mode of doing business to have very long discussions at the Board on matters of detail. The details were generally settled by the Surveyor of the Navy. The naval Lord who superintended that department was very frequently in communication with me, "in my room" if the hon. Member pleases, but no matter of importance could be settled without its being brought before the Board. The lines of every ship were not only brought before the Board but invariably approved and signed by two Lords and the Secretary. It was the same, the

  365
  right hon. Baronet says, in his time, and I suppose in every First Lord's time, because all orders must issue from the Board. I think a great deal of misapprehension exists as to what fell from my noble Friend as to the necessity of giving an entirely naval charactor to the Board. I think it is of great advantage that there should be many naval Lords at the Board. But my noble Friend stated truly that a large proportion of business required no naval knowledge at all. A man of business and sense is just as qualified to buy beef and butter and to judge of the quality of clothing as if he had been to sea, and I remember at one Board at which I presided I kept an account of the naval matters considered, the result of which was that I found that nineteen out of twenty cases might just as well be decided by a civilian. Of course, cœteris paribus, it is of advantage also to have naval knowledge. Of the five junior Lords four are naval Lords, and looking to the amount of civil business it does not seem desirable to insist that the whole character of the Board should be exclusively naval. I do not think a Committee of the House the most convenient mode of investigating the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and allow me to add that the multiplication of those Committees and Commissions does very seriously interfere with the business of the department. If members of departments, their officers and clerks, already pass too much time in examinations before these four or five Committees or Commissions on naval subjects, it is, I think, a very good reason against appointing another Committee. The necessity of attending all these Committees is a serious interruption to public business. As to the Controller of the Navy and the Accountant General having seats at the Board, you may depend upon it if these officials had to attend daily at the Board for three or four hours a day, it would be perfectly impossible for them to discharge their special duties. Add another naval Lord or lay Lord to the Board to attend to such business, to the accounts and such things, if you like, though I do not think it is at all necessary; but if you turn your executive officers into deliberative officers you will seriously interfere with the discharge of their duties. The person who is responsible for the discharge of the duties of First Lord is more interested in having an efficient Board than any one else possibly can be, and, with all respect to this House, I do not think that fifteen gentlemen selected
  366
  out of it, without experience, can be half so fit to conduct an inquiry into the best mode of forming the Board as those who have had long experience of its working. I was five years Secretary of the Admiralty, and three, First Lord—I have been at the Treasury, at the Board of Control, and am now at the India Office, and I can conscientiously say that the transaction of business at the Admiralty is more rapid and satisfactory than at any other Board of which I have had experience.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division, but if it were he should be compelled to vote against it. If for no other reason he should be compelled to do so because he observed those who were most disposed to comment on the shortcomings of the Admiralty while out of office were often obliged to recant when they got into office. He entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman as to the manner in which the business of the Admiralty was conducted, and also as to the inexpediency of requiring the Comptroller General and the Accountant General to attend the sittings of the Board. It might often happen that they would have to decide on matters which were entirely foreign to their departments, and on which they were, perhaps, not so well fitted to judge as those who now disposed of them. No doubt it would be an advantage to the Board if some of its members enjoyed a longer tenure of office, for the continual changes of the naval officers who sat at the Board was a great evil. So far as his experience went, it was by no means the rule to select the junior members of the Board solely with a reference to their political opinions, with the exception, perhaps, of a certain number, whose presence in the House was desirable, and whose absence had occasionally been felt as a great disadvantage. The strongest reason for granting a Committee of this kind would be that it would dispel many misapprehensions which were afloat with regard to the Board, arising entirely from ignorance. He was astonished to hear hon. Gentlemen recommend that the patronage of the Admiralty should be assimilated to that of the Horse Guards. Why, the cry in the House a little while ago was that the patronage of the Horse Guards should be assimilated to that of the Admiralty and exercised on the principle of selection. He trusted that the gallant Admiral would rest satisfied with the expression of opinion he had elicited from the House and withdraw his Motion.
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, there was a strong impression in the navy that a political bias had long existed at the Admiralty which was adverse to the efficient administration of the service, and the interests of the most deserving officers. The Admiralty was a ministry of five or six members, without individual responsibility, and liable to continual changes. In Prance the various Admiralty departments constituted a collective body, responsible to the Minister of Marine, who himself was solely responsible to the State for all acts done. Such matters as the organization of the fleet, the Works Department, provisioning of the fleet, and the selection of officers for promotion or employment were all considered by a Committee, on whose Report the Minister as a rule acted, though of course he had the right of overruling it if he thought fit; and the result of this system of administration was very satisfactory to the officers. He was bound to say in candour that he agreed with those who argued that it was preferable to have a distinguished civilian at the head of the Admiralty, but still it was most important that under him a naval opinion should have greater weight and be brought more to bear on matters connected with the navy than was now supposed to be the case. In this direction some inquiry might be very advantageous. He was not altogether disposed to admit that it was necessary that the Naval Lords should be in Parliament, and he could easily conceive that many officers, whose knowledge and experience would be most useful at the Board, would object to going there under the condition of being turned at the same time into political characters. He had great pleasure in bearing testimony, from his own experience, to the able and honest manner in which successive Boards of Admiralty had discharged their important and difficult duties. Where the state of business rendered it advisable, it might be well that the Comptroller of the Navy should attend the meetings of the Board; but otherwise he would be satisfied with its present constitution. He trusted that the discussion which had taken place might have the effect of enlightening the public mind with regard to naval affairs, and perhaps it might ultimately lead to the appointment of some such Committee as was desired. If the unfavourable impression of Admiralty political influence which prevailed in the service could be removed, a great object would have been achieved, and
  368
  the effect would be to add to the zeal and gallantry of the members of the profession.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE, in reply, said he could truthfully assert that nobody could have been more desirous than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, when holding the post of First Lord of the Admiralty, to consult the interests of the service or to promote deserving officers. As a proof that he was not actuated in his selections by any political bias, he might state that on one occasion he had asked him to recommend a flag officer for a command. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty admitted that he spoke very much in the dark, and the forms of the House had not permitted him to show him the way to the light; but in introducing this Motion he had never suggested either that the First Lord should not be a civilian, or that promotions should be taken out of his hands and placed in those of the Board for he knew that on most, if not on all occasions, the Board was consulted. It was merely on the supposition that the number of Lords of the Admiralty would not be increased that he had advocated the addition of the Comptroller of the Navy to the Board. He did not deny that points of detail, such as the noble Lord had referred to, might very well be managed by civilians; but it was a singular thing that for thirteen or fourteen years Sir Alexander Milne, now the commander on the West India station, was continued in office under different Administrations from the success with which he had conducted that department. It would ill become him to detain the House by insisting on a division, and as it was impossible that any practical result could follow in the present state of public business from the appointment of a Committee, he should withdraw his Motion, on the distinct understanding that he was to be allowed to renew it at an early period next Session. It only remained for him to disclaim all intention of injuring in any way the naval administration of this country.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.

  EUROPEAN FORCES—INDIA—LEAVE.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I rise, pursuant to the notice I have given, to move for leave to introduce a Bill repealing the powers possessed by the Secretary of State for India to raise men in this country for the local service of Her Majesty in India.

  369
  The Bill I propose to introduce contains only one simple clause for this purpose; and I have adopted this mode of bringing the question before the House, in order to test its opinion on the principle of the measure, without encumbering it with any details that might distract attention from the main question. In the execution of the measure a great number of details will have to be carefully considered. Indeed, if the House refers to papers now on the table, it will find among them a letter addressed to me from one of the ablest officers now serving in the Indian army, suggesting the necessity of appointing a Commission or Committee of experienced officers, to go into the numerous and minute details that will arise when the measure is brought into practical operation. I will therefore state generally the principle of the plan that I think must be adopted, and avoid entering into a statement of the details. I adopt this course also for another reason:—I stated earlier in the evening that the Council of India did not concur with the plan. But they have stated fairly and frankly, that if the decision of the House confirmed that of Her Majesty's Government, they would faithfully endeavour to carry that determination into effect. I did not think it fair to ask the Council of India to prepare any plan, or consider any plan, till that decision had been come to; but I shall be most anxious to have the benefit of their advice on the details of any plan for carrying out the determination of Government and of Parliament. I think there can be no great difficulty in carrying a plan with this object into execution. Even among the papers on the table of the House there are no less than three detailed plans of the kind. Two of them are drawn up by officers of the Indian army, and one by an officer of the Queen's forces, now serving in India, Sir William Mansfield. I have received a fourth detailed plan, also drawn up by an officer of the Indian army; and in principle all these four plans are much the same; if they differ it is on points of detail. They, therefore, show a general concurrence of independent authorities, all intimately acquainted with the subject with which they deal.
  Before going farther, I will state what the military forces in India have hitherto been. It is generally known that the India Company had in India three large armies —those of the three Presidencies, Bengal, Madras, and Bombay. Each of these consisted of Native regiments, comprising artil-
  370
  lery, infantry, and cavalry. The Company have had besides these, from the earliest times, a number of European troops—the Company's troops, they were called—raised in Europe. They consisted of artillery and infantry. There have been also in India, for many years back, a considerable number of Queen's troops, which comprised only infantry and cavalry. The European infantry was therefore common to the Line and the local forces; the European cavalry was exclusively that of the Queen's army; the artillery was exclusively the Company's. Before the breaking out of the mutiny the Native armies amounted to near 250,000; but I need not refer further to them, I will confine myself to the Europeans. Without going very far back, I may state that in 1830, the Company's European forces consisted of artillery, and one regiment of infantry, in each Presidency. About 1840 a second, and in 1854 a third, European regiment was added in each Presidency. During the mutiny three regiments of infantry and five of cavalry were added in Bengal, but the infantry was not trained, and the cavalry regiments hardly formed. After the Sepoy mutiny, discontent arose in the local army, and a large proportion of it obtained their discharge. The Queen's troops in India have for many years been in the proportion of about two to one of the Company's European troops. In 1820 the Queen's troops were 20,000, those of the Company 10,000; in 1839 Queen's 17,000, Company's 8,500; and in 1852 the Queen's troops were 28,000 to 14,000 of the Company; but during the mutiny the number of the Queen's troops was about 90,000, to 24,000 of the Company's European force. This number was the maximum which the Company's force ever reached; but they were not all fit for service. After the discontent manifested by the Company's local troops, about 11,000 of them took their discharge; and this force was reduced to about 12,000 men. Now, the only question on which I wish to take the opinion of the House is this,—whether we shall continue to maintain a separate European force for local service in India, or whether all the European troops in India shall form part of the Queen's general army. I must say that this question is one on which I long entertained the most serious doubts. I stated last Session that we were prepared to maintain to a certain extent a local army in India; and it is only in consequence of events that have taken place since, and

  371
  longer and more careful consideration, that my Colleagues and myself have arrived at the conclusion that it is not expedient to continue that separate local force. I wish to state, before I go further, what the chain of circumstances and arguments were by which we arrived at this conclusion,— not only to relieve ourselves from the appearance of inconsistency, but because the same arguments may weigh with others, and tend to induce the same conclusions.
  When India was governed by the Company this question was not brought to my notice. The only military question connected with India which I had to decide was the addition of one regiment to the local force, which I assented to with the concurrence of Lord Hardinge; and the substitution of irregular for regular cavalry, which was under discussion with Lord Dalhousie, when I quitted the Board of Control. When my noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) introduced his Bill for transferring the government of India to the Crown, I was asked whether the disposal of the Indian army would not be an insuperable obstacle to the change. I answered him that, though it would be a difficulty, it formed no insuperable obstacle, as I thought the Native regiments might be officered by officers from the Queen's troops, placing them on an unattached list for Staff appointments. Before this question could be brought to a decision the matter was taken out of our bands by a change of Government. When in last June I was appointed to the office which I now have the honour to hold, I found that my noble Friend who preceded me had decided on maintaining a local army in India to the extent of two-fifths of the minimum European force in that country, and I am not ashamed to confess that I was extremely unwilling to disturb the decision in this respect at which my noble Friend had arrived. I well knew the single-mindedness with which he formed his conclusions on all subjects connected with India which came under his notice, and that he had carefully considered this particular question. I felt, therefore, the strongest anxiety to carry his views into effect. I may, however, remind the House that at that time the mutiny of the European troops in India had been only recently reported in this country, and that its more grave features had not been brought to our knowledge. It was under these circumstances that I made the announcement in August last to which I have referred, and I was not a little stir-
  372
  prised to bear on that occasion the strong opinion expressed by the gallant Officer opposite (General Peel) against this course as I had understood that Lord Derby's Government had concurred in it. I then, as appears from the papers which have been laid before the House, submitted to a member of the Council of India, who came over to this country charged with the views of Lord Canning on the subject, and who certainly is one of the ablest advocates of the maintenance of a local army, the determination at which my noble friend who preceded me in office had arrived on the subject. I stated to Colonel Durand that that determination was to keep up the local army to the extent of two-fifths of the minimum European force in India. Now, it is desirable, as the House will not fail to perceive, that the amount of the local army should not be a varying, but a fixed amount, because any variation in the amount of force would be more easily made in the Queen's troops serving in India, who may be moved to any part of the world according as their services might be required. The force in India was then upwards of 90,000. I was, however, in hopes— though my hopes were not perhaps quite so sanguine on the point as those which others entertained—that the European force in India might be diminished to an, extent which I do not at present deem expedient. I took the numbers which General Hancock in his Report suggested should be 60,000 men, and I asked Colonel Durand, assuming that to be the minimum number required for India, how he would dispose of 24,000, two-fifths of that number. As will be seen by his letter, which is amongst the papers on the table of the House, he said that it must be a mistake to take that number as two-fifths of all the force, and that any such arrangement should have excluded the artillery and engineers, and concluded by observing that there was no alternative between the adoption of Lord Canning's proposal, supported in the main by the Report of the Military Committee of the Indian Council, and a new Act, leaving it to the wisdom of Parliament, which would then assume the responsibility to devise whatever it might deem expedient. Now, Lord Canning's proposal was that there should be an army of 80,000 Europeans, two-thirds of which should be a local force. The Military Committee of the Council of India concurred substantially in that view, fixing the total at 78,000 instead of 80,000, so that I

  373
  looked upon Lord Canning's proposal as being supported by the Report of the Military Committee. The local force, therefore, in accordance with the opinions of its principal advocates, ought not to amount to less than two-thirds of whatever number of European troops we maintained in India, whether that number were 40,000, the two-thirds of 60,000, or 53,000 some odd hundreds, the two-thirds of 80,000. It was also contended that a small local force would not occupy that equality of position as compared with troops of the Line which everybody seemed to regard as indispensable. The amount of local force to be maintained on the determination of my noble predecessor satisfied nobody. These views, I confess, took me somewhat by surprise, and tended very much to shake my confidence in the propriety of the determination which I had announced to the House. While the question was pending a succession of letters, extracts from which are on the table of the House, arrived from India, pointing out how much more grave and serious the conduct of the European troops who had mutinied was than had been supposed in the first instance. The mutiny began to assume the appearance not of being the work of young men who had just gone out to India, but of an organized combination among their older comrades, and this new aspect of affairs as represented by Lord Clyde and Sir William Mansfield, furnished ground for serious consideration.
  In dealing with this subject, moreover, the question of expense had always presented one of the greatest difficulties. I myself was under the impression that the additional expense of Queen's troops would be very much greater than that of a local force. This, however, was a point with respect to which it was not easy to procure any impartial opinion, those who took opposite sides with respect to it being disposed to regard their own facts and figures as the only accurate data. I referred to the Registrar General under these circumstances, and he suggested a civilian not likely to be biassed by military views in order fairly to investigate the question. The Report of this gentleman has been laid upon the table, and the result is that the additional expense of maintaining Queen's troops is found to be much less than the Indian authorities supposed. Later in the course of the autumn, we received accounts of the number of men who took their discharge from the Indian army, and that in
  374
  consequence that army was reduced from upwards of 24,000 to 12,000. The question, therefore, which we then had to consider was not whether we should maintain the Indian army, such as it was, but whether we should raise a new army—not to the extent of 24,000 men, for that number would not be satisfactory to the advocates of a local army—but to the extent of at least 40,000. It seems to me that after what has been reiterated by the advocates for maintaining a local army, we may dismiss altogether from our notice the proposal for maintaining a small local army in India, which is a course which everybody who pays regard to the efficiency of such a force seems to condemn. That was the question which we had to consider last June or July, but such is not the case at the present moment. Circumstances have altered within the ten or eleven months, and we are not therefore open to the charge of inconsistency, if we have now apparently come to a different decision from that at which we some time ago arrived. A small local army would be inefficient, a large one seemed to us to be dangerous, and we therefore came to the only possible conclusion, that a local army ought not to be maintained.
  I have made this brief statement in order that the House may see the reasons by which our policy has been guided, and I shall now proceed to state more fully the grounds on which our decision is based. In doing so I think I may avail myself at the outset of an admission which was made in the discussion on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me to the effect that à priori the argument is now in favour of our having only one army in India. During the period of the existence of the Company's government, there were many reasons which might be advanced in support of the maintenance of a Company's army. It was many years ago contended that it was necessary the army should belong to the governing power of the country, although even then many high authorities differed on the subject. Since, however, the transfer of power from the Company to the Queen has taken place, I think the force of argument lies entirely the other way. I dismiss altogether, for the reasons I have stated, the idea of a small local force. No person of authority advocates that there should be only one army in India, and that a local army. The question is between a large local army

  375
  as well as troops of the Line, or only troops of the Line maintained in India. I would ask, in the first place, whether it is desirable to raise in the same country, and from the same class, two bodies of men for the same purpose, but ruled by different authorities and guided by different forms of military discipline. That is the first question which I call upon the advocates of the maintenance of a local army to answer in the affirmative, and if they cannot do so upon any reasonable grounds, then I contend the à priori argument is against the view which they take. If, then, they are not able to substantiate their view in this respect, they must either show that the local reasons are so strongly in favour of a double army as to overbalance the general disadvantages connected with such a system, or that it is impossible with justice to put an end to the existing army as it stands.
  Now, I am prepared to admit that much ought to be conceded to the wishes of the Indian army, and that its interests ought to be carefully protected in dealing with this question. I should feel very differently if it were proposed simply to put an end to the Indian army; but the proposal is that they should be united to and form part of the Imperial army. I admit fully that nothing can be prouder than the recollections of the old Indian regiments of the three Presidencies; but we propose that they should form part of an army not less glorious than themselves, and on whose standards are emblazoned many of the battles from which they derive their own renown. Seringapatam and Delhi are not only on the standards of the Indian army, but on many of the standards of the English army. The victors of Arcot and Plassey would be associated with those of the Peninsula and Waterloo. What are the wishes and feelings of many of the Indian officers on this subject? I admit that the older officers are generally for the maintenance of the Indian army, but the greater part of the younger officers are in favour of amalgamation. Among the papers you will see statements to that effect. I would beg to call attention to the letters on the subject of Lord Elphinstone contained in these papers, because they contain the most reasonable and well-considered views on the whole question, without any prejudice of any kind. What does Lord Elphinstone say? I was constantly in communication with him on this subject, and in a letter to me Lord Elphinstone says:—
  376
  "With regard to the local army, I think that people in this country, with the exception of a few of the senior officers, are fast coming round to the view which I have always taken of the subject. If the local army has no exclusive privileges and advantages, it must of necessity sink into a secondary and inferior force. This conviction is now forcing itself upon the more intelligent of the local officers. They see that in amalgamation with the British army lies their only chance of continuing upon a footing of equality, or, perhaps, I should rather say, of maintaining the superior status which they have hitherto enjoyed."
  The same observations are made by a very able and well known Indian officer in this country. I asked him "What do the officers in the Indian army think of amalgamation?" He said, "Every officer above the rank of a major is for the continuance of the local army; of those under that rank nine-tenths are for amalgamation." It is not unnatural that the older officers should he attached to the proud recollections of the service with which they were connected and, on the other hand, it is also natural that the younger and more active officers should be glad to have the chance of service in connection with their brothers in arms elsewhere than in India; and why should we damp that spirit from which the efficiency of our future army in India is to be derived?
  I must now, Sir, perform what is certainly the most painful part of my duty to-night, which is to call the attention of the House to some of the extracts of the letters on the table, which I must say appear to me to furnish the strongest grounds for the course we are about to take. It would be exceedingly unbecoming in me, a civilian, to venture to give an opinion on the efficiency, or discipline, or conduct of a regiment or of an army; but those most competent to form such opinions have given them. Their opinions have influenced us, and I think they ought to influence this House. I shall give no opinion of my own; I shall simply read extracts from the letters which are before the House, containing the views of persons well acquainted with the circumstances, well acquainted with the facts, well able to form an opinion, and which will, I have no doubt, have great weight with this House. Of the gallantry, bravery, and endurance of the Indian army no one has ever expressed a doubt; but there does seem to be, I confess, a most unanimous concurrent testimony of all officers of the Queen's troops that the discipline of the Indian army is not what it ought to be. To a considerable extent this has been admitted by their own officers.

  377
  I do not mean by discipline being well set up, or smartness on parade; but I mean what has been so well expressed by Sir John Lawrence when be said:—
  "While I admit that the tone and interior economy of a Royal regiment may on the average be somewhat superior to that of a local regiment, the difference is not so marked as may be supposed."
  [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear!"] All I seek to establish by that extract is that the interior economy of a Royal regiment is superior to that of a local regiment. But I was anxious to quote the words which so well express what I mean by the short expression of discipline. It may be said that the Queen's officers are partial witnesses; but when I find them saying that the discipline of a Queen's regiment remaining long in India deteriorates to a considerable extent, they may be admitted to be just to both services. What does that prove? It proves that there is some cause acting upon both local and English regiments to deteriorate the discipline of troops remaining long in in India, and it is not difficult to assign a reason. I use the word discipline as the shortest. I mean by it the interior economy of a regiment and the relation subsisting between its officers and men. I believe it has been generally observed that a local colonial corps which cannot come under the general supervision of the higher military authorities is apt to degenerate, more especially if they serve in a climate where exertion and energy are not likely to carry them on for a very long time, unless under the stimulus of war. Officers, after tea or fifteen years in India, are not so active and energetic as they might have been in a cool climate, or had they been in India for a shorter period. Sir James Outram, an experienced Indian officer, speaks of a Queen's regiment, after ten or fifteen years in India, being in the same state as a Company's regiment; and he speaks of the system of the Indian army being such that it is a wonder there is any discipline at all. That discipline in that army is sadly deficient, we have the direct testimony of Lord Elphinstone again. He speaks both of the system of Native and European forces. He says:—
  "The same system, resulting in the total want of all influence over their men in the regimental officers, has led to both. The organization of the late Bengal army was as faulty as its discipline was lax."
  There can not be a more impartial witness
  378
  on this subject than Lord Clyde. He has served in India for a great part of his career, as well as in all parts of the world, and is a most competent authority on military matters. What does Lord Clyde say?—
  "It is clear from what we have now seen that it is absolutely necessary not to trust to local corps, and that we can alone put faith in a discipline which is constantly renovated by return to England, and the presence of officers with their regiments who look on them as their homes."
  In a letter to the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Clyde says:—
  "As your Royal Highness knows, I have always been strongly of the opinion that it is impossible, as shown by practice and experience, to maintain discipline in a local corps, such as we expect in one of Her Majesty's regiments, but it did not occur to me that the loyalty of local corps might suffer."
  Sir Hugh Rose, not a martinet soldier, goes at great length into the question, I will only read one paragraph; but the whole letter turns on the same point:—
  "Nobody has mixed more with Indian officers than I have. I have never had a shadow of a difference with them because I was a Queen's officer and they were Company's or Indian officers. I know the state of their feeling. They admit to me that the disorganization and undiscipline of the Bengal army, and in a lesser degree of the Indian army in general, were the causes of the mutinies. They admit, especially since the mutinous conduct of the European Indian army in the discharge question, that amalgamation is necessary for the bettor discipline of the Indian army."
  Such is the opinion of these high authorities. I am quite aware that there is much to palliate the conduct of the younger soldiers. But it is not true that the mutiny was confined to the younger soldiers. We thought at first that this had been so, but what says Lord Clyde upon the point?
  "I beg leave again to draw your Royal High ness's attention to the fact of the passive participation of the non-commissioned officers and so called good men of the Bengal Artillery in the evil intentions of the younger and bolder men who were so near the commission of the worst crime."
  Again he says:—
  "Even in the old regiments the men have not confidence in their officers. And further in my mind I must accuse the old soldiers of the Bengal Artillery of having been the prime movers and ringleaders in all this bad business."
  It is perfectly obvious from his letters that, while Lord Clyde did not attach much importance to the outbreak of the recently enlisted soldiers, the deepest possible impression was produced on his mind by the disaffection of the veterans of the Bengal

  379
  army. He thought, in fact, that a just appreciation of the state of that army as it was disclosed during the summer, particularly in its older soldiers, was perfectly fatal to the maintenance of a local European corps. A much more serious subject of reflection, however, presents itself in connection with what then took place —namely, the power of combination possessed by an army permanently located in India with a separate interest from the rest of the Queen's troops. All history tells us of the danger that may result from a large body of men with arms in their hands having such a separate interest and a power of combining together; for that the combination which took place on the occasion to which I have referred was extensive and perfect is abundantly clear. I do not insist upon this with the view of dilating on the faults of the men who took part in the movement; but I do wish strongly to impress it upon the House as a warning for the future. And here I will read only one paragraph from Sir William Mansfield's letter:—
  "I have observed in The Times and some Parliamentary speeches which arrived by the last mail a disposition to slur over and make little of the misconduct in the local European army in this country. I venture to impress on you the gravity and danger of the crisis which we have tided over, and that it was impossible to exceed in completeness and wickedness the combination which threatened us in May last. Such was the feeling throughout the Bengal Artillerymen that, though the old soldiers and non-commissioned officers were too wary to commit themselves to overt crime, not one of them in any part of the country came forward to warn their officers of what was impending; their combination and conspiracy in this respect being more thorough than that of the Sepoys themselves in 1857."
  That suggests matter for very serious consideration, and the view which may be taken of it is forcibly expressed in a further extract from Lord Clyde's letter, which says:—
  "Whatever may now be done, the recollection of this strike or mutiny will never die out in the Indian local army. It will very possibly affect Her Majesty's army also in a minor degree; but in the former—namely, the Indian local army—it will live for ever, and be a precedent to which the minds of the men will always revert when they are dissatisfied whith their work or the regulations affecting them. I am, therefore, irresistibly led to the conclusion that henceforth it will be dangerous to the State to maintain a European local army. …. I feel I should be wanting in my duty were I to remain silent, now that the strongest conviction has arisen in my mind that from henceforth we should have no local Europeans whatever."
  380
  Now, be it remembered that Sir William Mansfield was originally in favour of the maintenance of a local European army. He had stated that opinion very decidedly, but the result of what occurred on this unhappy occasion entirely converted him to the opposite view. This is explained at length in the correspondence, but, as I do not want to trouble the House with more quotations than are fairly due to the importance of the subject, I will read only one more extract penned by him. He says:—
  "I reiterate that the experience of the last six months forbids us to entertain the idea of a local European army of any size, if we value the existence of the empire,"
  Sir Charles Trevelyan, who has taken the greatest possible interest in all military matters, says:—
  "The Royal army is one which, under all the various contingencies to which an empire like ours in India is subject, is more to be depended upon for loyalty to the mother country."
  As I said before, I do not wish to dwell on these circumstances with a view to exaggerate the misconduct of the men, but I think we should be wanting to ourselves if we did not take warning by what has happened, and did not adopt such measures as human foresight can suggest to prevent the recurrence of such combinations among our troops to demand from the State whatever they might claim as their right. What took place on that occasion ought, as General Mansfield expresses it, to be to us like "the handwriting on the wall," and ought to induce us to use all the precautions in our power against the possibility of its repetition. Now, Sir, I take it to be as clearly demonstrable as anything can be, that the danger of combination is far less in a moveable force which is constantly changing its situation, which is stationed in India at one time, in some other part of our dominions at another time, and which at regular intervals renovates itself by a return to its native country, than in a force permanently located in India. In the Queen's army, if discontent appears in a regiment it may be moved away almost in the ordinary course of duty, but if it appears in part of a force permanently stationed in the country, it may soon spread, may leaven the whole mass and imperil the stability of your empire. The conclusion, therefore, at which we have arrived from the correspondence is that, for the sake both of military efficiency and political

  381
  safety, the army of India ought to be one and the same with the Queen's.
  I certainly was a little struck at finding that in the Military Committee of the Indian Council it was urged that the misconduct of the local troops was a powerful reason for maintaining a mixed European force. I was not only astonished, but sorry to see such an argument used. One more dangerous and fatal could hardly have been advanced. That there are, and would continue to be, jealousies between the two I corps I think no man can doubt who reads this correspondence. I have heard that the Queen's officers complain that, having to servo in India, and to go through the same hardships as the local army, they were excluded from the rewards which it enjoys while, on the other hand, the Indian officers complain, and perhaps not unnaturally either, that they should be shouldered out of the monopoly of good things which they have hitherto possessed, Those jealousies are strongly stated both in Sir James Outram's Minute, and by Lord Clyde. Lord Elphinstone also mentions these jealousies, the differences which exist between the two forces being, in his opinion, one of the strongest grounds for their amalgamation. Out of these differences arises the double Staff. It is also impossible to select on all occasions the fittest man for a particular post, because he must be taken from the one corps, and not from the other. Lord Elphinstone points out, as clearly and conclusively as words can do, that nothing but making the two forces one can put an end to these feelings, which at present prejudice the interests of Her Majesty's service. He says:—
  "There is but one way of setting the question at rest for ever, and that is, amalgamation. If it is not done at once, in the meantime mutual jealousies will go on increasing, and the difficulty of the inevitable final step will be increased."
  Let us consider for a moment what is the real value of this argument for maintaining the distinction between the two services. It is that the safety of our Indian Empire depends on our being able to use one half of our European troops against the other! Heaven help us if we are driven to rely upon such a resource of safety as that! The argument seems to me utterly untenable, and if we are to trust to it it would be far better that we should quit India to-morrow. We have had that argument used on a former occasion in connection with a previous state of discontent that existed in the Madras army. Sir John
  382
  Malcolm, from whom I take the liberty of quoting a very short extract, thus deals with it. Speaking of the Indian army, he says:—
  "They should be put upon a footing which would make them have an honourable pride in the service to which they belong. This they never can have (such is the nature of military feeling) while they consider themselves one shade even below another army with which they are constantly associated. There is, perhaps, no other efficient remedy for this great evil than the adoption of a measure by which the whole of that army which Great Britain employs in India should be consolidated into one. The distinctions which now exist are pregnant with every mischief to our rule. They are the source of constant irritation, and are calculated to produce an opposition of feeling among those whose complete union is the pillar of strength on which Great Britain must depend for the safety of her possessions in India. It has been suggested that such divisions might be useful, as they maintained a salutary check; but this limited and unwise suggestion can never merit a moment's attention. It is founded on a distrust of ourselves, which is quite incompatible with the permanent preservation of our Eastern possessions."
  I think I could not in words express more clearly my own feelings and opinions on this subject.
  These are the grounds on which we have come to the conclusion, that both our military efficiency and political safety in India, require the amalgamation of the European forces in India. I should not, however, fully discharge my task if I did not advert to the main arguments of those who advocate separate armies for India. The first argument, which has been put forward in two or three papers which are before the House, refers to the danger which must ensue to India if there should be any power in the Home Government of withdrawing troops from India to England. I think that argument is without foundation. It must be for the Central Government to decide where the wants of the empire are greatest, and where the strength of the empire ought to be concentrated. During the Crimean war it might be necessary that the forces of the country should be concentrated in Europe. During the China war they were properly diverted from that country for the defence of our Indian Empire. If the Home Government are not to be trusted with the decision and the discretion of saying where the forces of the empire ought to be stationed, they are not fit to hold the position of rulers. The risk is said to be in withdrawing such a force as will endanger the safety of India, and we are told that the safety of India was endangered by

  383
  the troops that were kept from India in consequence of the Crimean war. Now I have ascertained that the force in India in 1857 was less than the force in 1854 by 1,600 men only. But what remedy against this danger is provided by the advocates of a local force? Their proposal is that one-third of the force should be Queen's troops, as to whom the Government are to have absolute power of withdrawal. Take the proportion of 40,000 and 20,000 which has been proposed. The Government at home are to have the power of withdrawing 20,000 men, and we are told that the withdrawal a force of 1,600 will endanger the safety of our Indian Empire. The argument is perfectly absurd, even if the Government are not to be trusted with the power of looking to the general safety of the empire.
  The next argument is that the power of the Governor General will be destroyed by the removal of the local European army. I am at a loss to see how this position is proved. There is in one of the papers a long enumeration of duties in reference to the army said to be discharged by the Governor General, but which it seems to me to be impossible for the Governor General to perform, and which would be far better discharged by the Adjutant General or the Quartermaster General. The Governor General ought to have, locally and temporally, the whole power that the Government at home possess, and surely with this power it cannot be said that his authority or position are impaired.
  The next argument is the greater expense of the Queen's service. I confess that on the first consideration of the matter, I thought the excess of expense of the Queen's troops much greater than, upon investigation, it appears to be. Depend upon it, also, the most efficient force will be the cheapest in the end; and I do not think we ought to be deterred by the greater expense of the plan proposed, if, on other accounts, we think it good. From the calculations which he made, Mr. Hammack states that if the whole of the existing local force were converted into Queen's troops, the increased cost would be about £114,000 a year. If we assume the whole European force at 80,000, the substitution of local troops, to the extent of two-fifths, as proposed by Lord Stanley, would make a saving of about £184,000. A saving of under £200,000 would, however, as I think, be a very trifling consideration, in an expenditure of at least £14,000,000, if it
  384
  is to be weighed against considerations of safety or efficiency. I believe that the expenditure may be very much reduced by changes in the system of depôts, reliefs, and the double staff; and I confess I think there is no proof that the change proposed would ultimately entail an increased expense of £200,000.
  It is further objected that the whole expenditure for India would depend upon the will of the authorities at home. No expense, however, can be incurred for India, except by the consent of the Secretary of State and the Council for India; and that is as complete a check as can be devised for the control of the expenditure. The question of expense turns mainly on the comparative health and efficiency of troops permanently stationed in India, and of troops frequently relieved. The returns certainly at first sight seem to show that the health of the Indian troops is the best. Mr. Hammack, however, considers the returns very imperfect; and the conclusion is certainly at variance with well known facts and opinions. Returns contained in Mr. Hammack's Report show that the health of civilians deteriorates according to length of residence in India. Mr. Martin, the highest medical authority in the Indian service, says that length of residence in India, so far from conferring any advantage on the English constitution in the way of acclimatization, surely and gradually leads to physical degradation. The general assumption is that English regiments, on landing, have so much sickness that they rapidly lose their men. This is not, however, borne out by the facts. Lord Elphinstone says:
  "Last year there was a considerable excess in the average both of sickness and mortality in the Company's army, though the great majority of the Queen's troops had only just arrived."
  Mr. Hammack, in summing up the arguments, comes to the conclusion that the most beneficial results will follow from the practice of more frequent reliefs. It is perfectly well known that men come home invalided from India, who are quite competent to serve in a temperate climate. Men who are young and able-bodied, because they can no longer serve in India, are placed upon the pension list; so that the dead weight of the Indian army is greater than that of any army in the world. Men come home invalided after a short service in India, who, under a system of reliefs, might serve many years in this country, whereby the Indian exchequer might be relieved from the payment of their pen-

  385
  sions for many years before they now come upon it. I do not think, therefore, that the arguments against abolishing the local force, drawn from even the possibility of a slight increase of cost, ought to have such weight as to induce us to pause.
  I come now, however, to a consideration which led me to doubt for a considerable time as to the course which was best to be taken. I mean the argument that, if the local European force is amalgamated with the Queen's troops, we shall not be able to obtain that supply of officers for service in India, which the wants of that country imperatively require. If I thought it impossible to provide a suitable supply of officers I should hesitate in the course I am now taking. Before entering particularly into this subject, however, I wish to make one or two observations. The House must remember that the union of the local with the European army, does not necessarily imply any change in the mode of officering the Native array. I think it ought, but it does not necessarily follow that it should. It has been the custom never to remove an officer from a Native regiment till he has reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel; and it is quite possible, therefore, that the Native army should continue to be officered as it now is. I do not think that is the way it should be officered. I only wish to point out to the House, that if there were no other means of providing officers for the Indian service, there would be no difficulty in continuing the present system of officering the Native army, and selecting from those corps officers for Staff employment. Indeed, for some time to come the regular regiments in Bengal, and the armies of Bombay and Madras, must probably be maintained very much on their present footing.
  Another observation I wish to make is one suggested by an old Indian of great experience—that of late years there has taken place a great change in the character of Indian officers. They are not so entirely devoted to India as their scene of service as they formerly were, when they used to go on leave only to the Cape of Good Hope and return to India again; a practice which led the officer to regard India very much as his home. The more rapid and easy communication with England now enables officers to come home instead of going, as heretofore, only to the Cape; and this circumstance has tended very much to diminish the difference between the officers of the local army and
  386
  those of the Line. The former are not so exclusively Indian as they once were.
  But what are the services for which these officers are required? They are principally on what is called Staff employment, and that in India has a very large significance. It includes diplomatic service, employment as collectors, magistrates, and judges, service in the Commissariat and Ordnance departments, in the Pay Office and in public works and, indeed, in every conceivable mode of employment. So far as the civil service is concerned, I think the supply from the army is a very valuable one; but the efficiency of the army is impaired by the removal of officers from their regiments. So far as the civil service is concerned it would be better to provide for it in some other way than to ruin the army. But even as applicable to all Staff employment the present system is by universal admission the worst that could be adopted for the army. The officers are taken from their regiments and employed in the discharge of civil duties, perhaps for many years, and then return to the command of their regiments when they have ceased to have any practical knowledge of military matters. I will only trouble the House with one quotation from the opinions of both Queen's and Indian officers on this subject, though they all concur in condemning it. Sir Patrick Grant says:—
  "The efficiency of regiments, in my opinion, is most injuriously affected by the number of officers taken from corps for Staff employment. Either regiments are drained of their best and most deserving officers, or patronage is not dispensed with reference to superior merit. … European officers now fix their whole thoughts on devising means of getting away to Staff and other detached employment; anything rather than regimental duty is the universal feeling. The consequences of this craving are utter indifference, not to say positive dislike, towards their men, and the engendering of a reckless, discontented disposition, which is, I doubt not, communicated to the soldiers."
  I need read no more to prove the vice of the present practice. Whether the local army be maintained or not it is indispensably necessary to put an end to this system, and provide officers for the civil service in some way which would not impair the efficiency of the regiments, This may, I think, be most conveniently effected by the formation of a staff corps, from which officers could be chosen for such employment.
  There is another point on which I wish to state my opinion. I have arrived at the conviction that the whole of the Native army should be under what is called the

  387
  irregular system—a term which Joes not, however, mean what the words seem to imply, for the regiment would be under the most careful superintendence and exact military regulations. Lord Elphinstone, Sir John Lawrence, and other distinguished Indian authorities are of opinion that the Native army, cavalry, and infantry, should be placed on the irregular system. The Commission on the organization and the Military Committee of the Indian Council have recommended that all the Native cavalry, and part of the infantry should be so formed. In point of fact this is now the case as to the greater part of the army in Bengal, and the whole of the forces going to China are organized on the irregular system. Lord Elphinstone says:—
  "The best regiments in Bengal were the irregular cavalry, and the same holds good throughout India. I would apply this system to the whole Native army, infantry as well as cavalry."
  Sir Henry Frere, after recommending it strongly, proceeds as follows:—
  "The essential difference between the two bodies is not the being subject to—or exempt from rule generally. Both are subject to rules of their own, and the difference is in the nature of the rule, which is often stricter and more imperative in the irregular than in the regular corps; but the unwritten rules of common sense applied according to the judgment of a single selected officer, to which the so-called irregular is subject, appears to me much better adapted for the government of Native troops than written rules intended to ensure uniformity of system and conformity to the English army, which have lately governed the regular Indian army; therefore, I would advocate the general adoption of the former system."
  Under this system I believe that the discipline is more effective than it otherwise would be, and it affords the opportunity of employing Natives of a higher description in your army than can be found in any other mode of service. There is another advantage to be especially looked at in the present state of Indian finance, and that is, that it is cheaper. Then comes the question, how is the unattached Staff Corps to which I have referred to he formed? Sir John Lawrence, Brigadier Chamberlain, and Colonel Edwardes in their Paper on the Indian Army, suggest a mode of doing so by the formation of colleges in India, and a certain amount of training. I will only quote the concluding paragraph relating to the subject. "By such a system a well selected, highly trained, and efficient Staff would be secured for the irregular regiments." Other modes have been suggested, but in whatever way this
  388
  may be done the selection should be made from young men in regiments in India. Whatever Indian appointments there are they should be eligible for them, and the Native troops should be officered from that corps. It is obviously a matter of indifference whether they are taken from a local force and also Line, or from the Line only, the selection in either case resting with the Indian Government. Then comes the next question—is it likely that the Line will furnish an adequate supply of those officers? Lord Canning, in a Minute which I have laid upon the table to-night, expresses a strong opinion that they will not. His opinion, however, is contrary to that of many others well able to judge on such a point. The arguments against our expectations of getting a sufficient supply of officers from the Line are founded on a state of things in which those officers have not been in a position to obtain those appointments. It is only recently that Staff appointments have been thrown open to officers in the Queen's service, and therefore it is not fair to argue that young men will not in future be found to do that which hitherto they have not had any opportunity of doing. Upon this point Sir Charles Trevelyan says—
  "But if, instead of this, an Indian career were opened to Line officers, and it were arranged that a certain period of regimental service in India, with a certain proficiency in military science and the Native languages, would qualify for transfer to the local Staff corps, young men would crowd into the Line regiments serving in India in order to push their fortunes in that country."
  Sir Patrick Grant says the same—
  "Under this system the European officers would look upon their regiments as their homes; to be attached to a Native corps would be considered one of the prizes of the service; and the permanent association between officers and men that must ensue would, more than anything, tend to restore the old feeling of mutual respect and attachment which, in the early days of British power in India, united the Native soldier and his European officers."
  Lord Elphinstone takes a similar view. He says—
  "I am convinced that it would be a wholesome stimulus to exertion; and that, in the room of one young officer of merit withdrawn from his regiment for the Indian Staff list you would have two or three qualifying themselves, not only for selection to this list, but for the active duties of their profession."
  He goes on to say—
  "If the question of local or Line troops turns upon whether the Line can supply a sufficient

  389
  number of officers, qualified for the various duties now taken by the officers of the Indian army, I have no doubt that the decision will be in favour of the Line. Wherever an opening has been made for officers of the Line, they have eagerly prepared themselves, by studying the Native languages, to compete with the Company's officers."
  He further says—
  "I have just received an answer to an inquiry I made as to the number of officers in the Queen's Regiment here (the 31st), who are studying Hindostani. I find that, besides one officer who is in England, and who is said to be a very good Hindostani scholar, three of those present with the regiment have passed the examination in the vernacular, and two more have lately begun to study. This in a regiment which has hardly been a year in the country, and with hardly any inducements to officers to take the trouble of acquiring a new language."
  Sir William Mansfield says—
  "We should have one homogeneous service, which would present a much wider field of selection for the instruments of Indian civil and military administration than we had under the old system, and I believe that the fear that we should lose our means of preserving to India a class of gentlemen properly educated for it, would be found to be a vain and futile one."
  Colonel Norman in the same sense says—
  "It would be found, I am persuaded, that a list of this description would be composed of good, hard-working officers; and that the evil anticipated by some, that we should not have a body of officers who had made up their minds to serve in India, would never be felt. On the contrary, I believe the Staff would be better supplied than at present."
  What I contemplate then is that we should have a body of officers so raised, so trained, and so employed by the Indian Government rising in rank after a certain number of years' service, and devoted to an Indian career. That is the ultimate state of things which I hope to arrive at, but which cannot be attained for some years, as the existing Indian officers have prior claim to service on the Staff. The officers of the late Bengal army are to a great extent at present so employed, and it is only as vacancies occur that openings for officers of the Line will present themselves. This interval will afford ample time to ascertain whether or not the officers of the Line will furnish a sufficient number of candidates. If the supply from that source should not be adequate, there will be ample time for us to take other means for procuring the requisite supply of officers. This employment on the Staff is the answer to the fears which have been expressed, that there is any intention to break faith with the Indian officers. Those
  390
  fears are unfounded, as such an idea has never been entertained. It would be most unjust, most ungenerous, and most unwise to break faith with those officers. Let me show how our measures would affect different classes of officers. Take the case of an European regiment in the Company's service. All the existing officers of that regiment will rise by regimental seniority until they arrive at the usual period of rising by general seniority. All the new officers in that regiment will come in as Queen's officers, available for general service. Every soldier in that regiment has entered for ten years, and at the end of that time will be entered for general service, as will all men who are raised for them henceforward. If the regiment remains in India for ten years, the probability is that few officers and none of the men will have any claim to be continued on Indian allowances. After about that time the regiment will be available for general service. With regard to these regiments, we propose to try whether a system which is much advocated by many Gentlemen in this House will be successful or not. We do not propose to introduce the system of purchase there. An officer entering will rise by seniority to the rank of captain, and thence to the grades of major and lieutenant-colonel, partly by selection and partly by seniority. I do not myself entertain that objection to the purchase system which is felt by some, but I will not enter into the subject now. The real difficulty, however, as regards Indian officers does not occur in European regiments or in the amalgamation of the European troops. The difficulty arises from the number of officers of the Native army whose regiments have been disbanded. There were seventy-four regiments of regular Native infantry in the Bengal army, but only fifteen now remain. No one will propose to create anew the Bengal army as it existed before the mutiny. These officers can not claim it as a right that the Indian army should be maintained on its former footing and to its former extent in order that their pay and privileges should be preserved to them unchanged. Nor can they claim that an European army should be formed with a sole view to their employment. The arrangement which we propose, as it seems to me, violates no right to which they can lay legitimate claim, and it is just the course proposed by Sir Patrick Grant in reference to the Madras army, when he suggested the reduction of twelve regiments. There will

  391
  be no difficulty in forming a Staff corps and officering the irregular regiments from this corps. A check has been given to retirements from the uncertainty which has prevailed. I think measures should be taken to encourage it in the elder officers, and if some facility be offered to that end, I believe it will lead to the retirement of many, and that ultimately we are more likely to want officers than to have more than we need. Then I have heard that a great many officers would be glad to change their positions for a similar rank in the Line. Every officer of the Indian army will, if he chooses, have the power of exchanging into the Line, and will be eligible for command in any part of the world. Thus the general plan will be, that the European regiments will form part of the Queen's army, the existing officers retaining their positions, rising by seniority, as they do now; that officers will enter them for general service, rising by seniority to the rank of captain, and afterwards by selection to the rank of major and lieutenant-colonel; that the existing officers of the Indian army will be employed either as they are now in the regular regiments, or in various situations on the Staff; and that ultimately vacancies in the Staff corps will be filled up by candidates selected from the Queen's general army. That is an outline of the scheme for the organization of the Indian army. But I wish to place before the House the alternative, which is a matter for serious consideration. We are called upon to maintain a local army of at least 40,000 men. The number of local troops at this moment I will assume to be about 15,000. The question, therefore, is not one of maintaining an existing establishment, but of raising at least 25,000 men in addition, and of training them in this country for service in India. Now, how is that to be done? Lord Canning's last Minute proposes twenty-four additional regiments for Bengal alone. It is admitted that new regiments cannot and ought not to be formed in India. That experiment has been tried, and failed. We must then form, drill, and train in this country for the service of Bengal alone twenty-four European regiments. What will the advocates of economy say to this? In the meantime we are to maintain the same number of Queen's troops in India. And then, when these new and raw troops are trained and drilled, I suppose the old experienced soldiers of the Line regiments, which we have kept in India for the time, are to be
  392
  disbanded. I ask the House seriously to consider this question. If we adopt the views I have stated we shall he put to the expense, trouble, and delay of raising these men, and of training them in England for a certain number of years, paying out of the Indian revenue for the double force of Queen's troops now forming part of the garrison of India, and the force trained in this country which is to form the future garrison. I do not think that anybody will entertain such a project on the score either of economy or efficiency. If we are to calculate on two-thirds of 80,000 men, I should have to add some 15,000 men more. The Indian officers of Native regiments, avowedly incapable of forming European troops, would have to be brought home to officer them, and Queen's officers be borrowed to train both officers and men. I entreat hon. Gentlemen to consider what such a proceeding would entail upon this country and upon India. I must say that I do not think that when this proposal is seriously considered, it can be entertained by the House. Hitherto I have said nothing as to the authorities on one side or the other, but I must beg the House not to be led away by the notion that this is a mere question between Indian and English authorities. The highest Indian authorities are extraordinarily divided on the point. Lord Ellenborough, who has paid great attention to it, is strongly in favour of an Indian army. Lord Elphinstone, who has had more experience in India than almost anybody, who has been Governor of two Presidencies, whose conduct throughout the whole of the Indian mutiny has met with universal approbation, and who has shown himself most competent to deal with Indian questions, is in favour of the amalgamation. Lord Canning has sent home a strong Minute against amalgamation. Sir Charles Trevelyan, who, with all his faults, knows a great deal about India, and has paid great attention to all military questions there, expresses an equally strong opinion the other way. There are no two men who are better acquainted with India than Sir George Clerk and Sir John Lawrence, and they express directly opposite opinions. Sir Archdale Wilson, the conqueror of Delhi, goes one way; Sir James Outram, the conqueror of Lucknow, goes the other way. Sir Robert Vivian is strongly in favour of a local army; Sir Patrick Grant, the Commander in Chief at Madras, is in favour of amalgamation. Going back to the past, we find that Sir

  393
  Thomas Munro was favourable to a local army, while Sir John Malcolm was against it. Mountstuart Elphinstone was in favour of a local army; Sir Charles Metcalfe thought there ought to be one army only. I have quoted half-a-dozen authorities on each side, and of the most eminent modern statesmen and soldiers, differing completely on this subject. I must maintain, therefore, that the arguments I have endeavoured to lay before the House are not overborne by the overpowering weight of Indian officers. Lord Cornwallis was strongly in favour of one army, and that in the time of the Company's rule. He could not carry out his views, the India Company being too strong for him, and overpowering the opinion of one of the most experienced of our statesmen and soldiers. I was surprised the other day to hear the Duke of Wellington quoted as an authority for a Native army. Now, in 1812, Lord Melville wrote to the Duke of Wellington, then in Spain, and asked his opinion on this subject. I need not state how great was his experience of Indian matters, and how entirely he was influenced by the sole consideration of the good of his country. The Duke of Wellington wrote to Lord Melville, in answer, to this effect:—
  "I will not miss this opportunity of stating to you my opinion,—first, that the European army in the East Indies ought to be the King's; secondly, that the three armies (that is, the armies of the three Presidencies) ought to continue separate and distinct; thirdly, that the Native army ought to be the Company's, if the Company should continue to be the Sovereign of the territory; .…. fifthly, it is my opinion that all authority, civil and military, must be vested by the law in the Governor in Council. The law must recognize no other authority in the State. The Company may, and ought to, instruct the Governor in Council—first, to leave all matters of discipline solely and exclusively to the Commander-in-Chief, and to interfere in them in no manner, excepting when the safety of the State should require it; secondly, that all recommendations to military appointments, such as the Staff officers of the army to commissions, promotions in the army of persons—civil or military—to fill the departments of the army, and the inferior commands, should be made by the Commander-in-chief to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council should be obliged to record his reasons for dissent. Thirdly, the recommendations to superior commands, such as divisions of the army, should be with the Commander-in-chief when the holders of these commands exercise no civil authority or political function; and that, in the case of a nomination to a higher command being vested exclusively in the Governor in Council, without the recommendation of the Commander-in-chief, the Governor should be directed to consult with the Commander-in-chief in making the selection. It would be
  394
  very desirable to leave a latitude by law to the Governor in Council to promote officers for meritorious services, at the recommendation of the Commander-in-chief, out of the usual regular routine, as well as to pass over officers guilty of misconduct. This might be done by giving the Governor in Council the power to promote such officers, by brevet in the first instance, who should succeed to the first vacancies in the rank to which they should have been promoted in the regiment to which they should belong."
  I have read the whole of that opinion, and it will be observed that the three main conditions which, in the Duke of Wellington's opinion, should be carried into effect are, that the European army in India should be the Queen's, that the armies of the three Presidencies should be distinct, and that the supreme authority of the Governor General should be recognized.
  These are the essential parts of the scheme which I propose. I must deny also that this is exclusively an Indian question, and I maintain that both on Indian and on Imperial grounds the course which ought to be pursued is that upon which the Government has resolved. It is quite true that the mutiny of the Sepoys is over, and that tranquillity is restored; but I confess that there are still many grounds for solicitude. The confidence of all classes which once prevailed is shaken, and, what is still more alarming, I am afraid that there is considerable estrangement between the races. Therefore it is essential, in the first place, to put on a footing which cannot be shaken our military superiority. The rebellion was put down by the unparalleled constancy and bravery of our fellow countrymen, both in the Civil and Military Service, and of the European forces, and we have vindicated and established our superiority; but I bold that it must be maintained so complete and so evident that none shall question the efficiency of our arms. I am far from meaning that we should not endeavour to make use of every means of conciliation. We are bound to show the Natives that we are their friends and benefactors, and that they would lose by a change. I believe that such a course of proceeding is essential to the maintenance of our power in India. I am anxious not to place everything upon mere force, or upon the authority of the Government, but to depend mainly upon measures of improvement and upon the influence of reason. Still, to be able to act in this way the Natives of India must feel, and we must feel, that we are not to be shaken in our military

  395
  supremacy. The Englishman must feel that he is so safe that he has nothing to fear, for fear and jealousy are always cruel. The Natives must feel that it is useless to plot and conspire against us. Thus and thus alone, after what has happened, can we place ourselves in such a position that we may be enabled to extend those blessings to India which I believe it is our destiny to confer. But I believe also that we must pursue this course not only for Indian, but also for Imperial reasons; for any evil which falls on India must he felt severely in this country. In the last mutiny how much English blood was shed, and what a great strain India became upon the resources of England! It is upon England in case of emergency that the pressure must come; therefore, it is only fair, right, and just that we should put our army in India in a state of the greatest possible discipline and efficiency, and constitute it in such a manner as to prevent, as far as human foresight can do so, the possibility of the occurrence of a calamity far more alarming than a Sepoy mutiny. I hope the House will concur in the plan which is now proposed by the Government, and I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of the 22 and 23 Vict., c. 27, as enables the Secretary of State for India to raise men for Her Majesty's local European forces in India.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of the twenty-second and twenty-third Victoria, chapter twenty-seven, as enables the Secretary of State for India to raise men for Her Majesty's Local European Forces in India."
  MR. DANBY SEYMOUR MR. DANBY SEYMOUR moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday, 21st June.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Masters and Operatives.
2a Highland Roads and Bridges.
3a Petitions of Right; Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction; Malicious Injuries to Property Act Amendment.

DILAPIDATION OF GLEBE HOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, seeing the Archbishop of Canterbury in his place, was anxious to inquire of that most rev. Prelate, Whether he could afford any information as to the Dilapidation of Glebe Houses Bill, and whether there was any intention of proceeding with it in the present Session?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that the subject had been brought under the consideration of Convocation, but he was afraid that at this period of the Session there was little hope of any legislation taking place upon the subject.

LIGHT WEIGHT RACING BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY presented a petition from the Stewards of the Jockey Club on behalf of a General Meeting of the Club against the Bill, and said that he would make no observations on the subject till after his noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) had given his reasons for the second reading of the measure.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said he would in the first place allude to the petition which had just been presented against it by the noble Earl. He believed that in the first draught of the petition laid before the Jockey Club, a great many reasons were urged against the Bill; but it was thought more prudent by those present at the meeting that all reasons should be omitted; and accordingly the petition as now presented to their Lordships only expressed the opinion of the Club that all regulations respecting racing were better entrusted to their authority, and that the passing of the Bill would have a prejudicial effect—though they did not inform the House in what way the Bill would have a prejudicial effect, He had given
  296
  notice on Friday last that, in consequence of representations made to him by trainers, he meant to reduce the minimum weight in his Bill from 7 stone to 6 stone. What then could be the objection of the Jockey Club to the measure? It could not be to its principle, which was that there should be a minimum weight prescribed for handicaps—for one of the stewards had announced that it was his intention to propose a higher minimum than had been hitherto adopted in such races. The only objection of the Jockey Club, therefore must be, that the Bill interfered with their authority in these matters. This raised the question whether they ought to repose confidence in the Jockey Club in respect to this point. Had that body acted so as to induce the public to trust to them for this reform? That the minimum should be raised would be admitted, he thought, even by those who might see it their duty to speak against the Bill. Then, how long was the present system to be allowed to go on without any steps being taken by the Jockey Club in that direction? Shortly after he had brought in the present Bill, one of those gentlemen who had signed the petition declared, through the public journals, that, he meant to propose that the weight should be raised to 5 stone. After some discussion had taken place in the newspapers, it was announced that that gentleman and another distinguished member of the Club intended to propose a minimum of 5 stone 10 pounds. Ever since he had raised the question he had declared that if the Jockey Club would take it up seriously, he would not go on with the Bill. But nothing had been done by them. Several meetings of the Jockey Club had taken place since; yet, notwithstanding the declaration of the steward to whom he had referred, not only had nothing been done, but all their proceedings had been in opposition to the present Bill. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that under these circumstances he could not do otherwise than proceed with the Bill. He desired at the same time to inform the House that the Jockey Club was not unanimous in their opposition to the measure. He had had communications from members of the Jockey Club, who stated that they were in favour of his Bill and ready to support it. Therefore the petition before the House could only be considered as representing the opinion of a portion of that body. The principle of the Bill, as he had stated, was to raise the

  297
  weights above the standard to which modern practice had reduced them, and particularly to strike a blow at a great deal of the gambling that took place in racing transactions, through means of what were called light-weight handicaps, which Admiral Rous, the steward before mentioned, had openly acknowledged to be injurious to the best interests of the turf, and to encourage trickery of all sorts. These matters had naturally attracted the attention of those who liked the sport, and who were anxious to promote the improvement of our breed of horses. As a specimen of the present system, he would refer to the race that was lately run for the Chester Cup. In that race 29 horses started, and only six of them carried more than 7 stone. The highest weight in the race was 9 stone, carried by a six-year-old horse; the next was 7st. 8lbs., and the other weights ranged down to as low a figure as 4st. 10lbs. An aged horse started with 6st. only, and the winner, a three-year old, had been handicapped at 4st. 71bs., but carried 5st. 3lbs., being 10lbs. extra for races won after the handicap had been made. Those of their Lordships who knew anything about horses must feel that this system of weights was perfectly ridiculous in so far as it furnished any fair test of what horses could do. In calling their Lordships' attention to the support the Bill had received, he asked them to bear in mind that he had no connection with the turf whatever, and that the support he had received was wholly unsolicited by him, and that on the contrary he had declined to avail himself of some proposals he had received for securing support from certain quarters. A gentleman who owned racehorses, and with whom personally he was not acquainted, had written to him to say that he was in favour of the Bill, and offered to get up petitions from trainers and others for it, but knowing the position in which these trainers stood to their employers, he did not think it desirable to ask from that body of men any opinion on that subject. That expression of opinion, however, which he had thus declined to solicit, he had received spontaneously from the trainers themselves. He had received a letter from one of the Newmarket trainers, embodying the sentiments of many of his class, in which it is said,—
  "I can assure your Lordship that the general opinion is that if the Bill passes with a limitation to six stone your Lordship will have conferred a great boon and benefit upon the racing world generally."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: By whom is that signed?
  LORD REDESDALE: By Mr. Bradley and twenty-four other trainers. That memorial was forwarded to him, and he, therefore, agreed to reduce the minimum from seven to six stone. The memorialists also said:—
  "We are of firm opinion the present state of weights is productive of serious mischief, in that accidents have several times occurred through boys of such tender age and light weights having little or no command of horses. Bartholomew's accident at Goodwood for instance. We suggest six stone as an Amendment, feeling sure, from the general opinions expressed, that it would give great satisfaction and be a great boon to the turf."
  He would ask their Lordships to consider how strong must be the views of those persons who thus placed confidence in him, who was unknown to them, and quite unconnected with racing affairs. Many other trainers had also expressed strong opinions in favour of the Bill as it now stood, and they were more interested in the matter than any other persons, for their livelihoods depended upon a proper system being adopted, and their profits on the number of horses kept in training. Adverting to the dangers attending the light-weight system, he would call their Lordships' attention to what must be the danger of placing a child, weighing little more than four stone, including saddle and bridle, upon a young and fiery horse. Surely their Lordships would acknowledge that that was a danger to which they ought not to be exposed, and that legislative interference was as much called for in their case as in that of factory children. Again, what must be the nature of the process necessary to bring down even ordinary boys to the required weight, and what effect did such training have upon their constitutions? Their Lordships must not imagine that these children enjoyed all the profits received for their riding. They were mostly apprenticed to trainers, and were permitted by their masters to ride, and who received the wages for their efforts, and although the boys of course received some presents for riding satisfactorily, whether for winning or for losing, the fee for riding went into their masters' pockets. There was another reason, he believed, why the trainers as a body were desirous that the minimum should be raised to six stone, and that the system of putting up small boys to ride horses should be abandoned, and that was the moral effect it had upon the boys themselves, and

  299
  the pernicious habits they acquired, which frequently clung to them through life. He had received a letter from a person who had been formerly a jockey, and is now a trainer, in which he said:—
  "How comes it that complaints are so often made to the stewards of meetings, and boys fined. Those who put them up pay the fine, and make them do wrong next time to serve a purpose. Then they get suspended, and all this comes from evil-disposed persons who give them orders to ride in such a manner, knowing they will be punished. But what do they care if the child has served their purpose? Nothing of the kind occurred before light handicaps were the fashion, and during the twenty-eight years I was a jockey I was never called before the stewards for misconduct, nor did such things occur once in twelve months with any jockeys at that time. This is the greatest proof we want reform. These boys do what our laws say shall not be done, but how can you complain against a child that cannot help himself? It is the man who puts him up who is to blame. Allow me on behalf of nine out of ten of my brother trainers and jockeys to thank your Lordship for the good you have already done with your Bill, which we hope will be made law."
  Let their Lordships consider what must be the feelings of an honest trainer in putting up a boy who was physically unable to do him justice and to bring out the qualities of the horse, upon whose training he had bestowed his time and attention. He had given one reason for his Bill in the present misuse of boys; another reason was that the present lightweight system was prejudicial to the breed of strong and useful horses. There was certainly some difference of opinion as to whether there had been any deterioration in the breed of thorough-bred horses in the country or not; but he was satisfied that there had been a material deterioration, for, although undoubtedly some superior animals were produced, yet they were by no means in proportion to the number of horses bred, nor were they of so strong and useful a character as those which were formerly bred in this country. He had put the question to a noble Lord not now in his place—a racing man, and in favour of light weights—whether he believed that there were now as many horses capable of carrying good weights over long courses as there were thirty years ago; and he at once said "No," although the number of horses in training had greatly multiplied. Those who, like himself, were hunting men knew how difficult it was to procure strong well-bred hunters, especially those approaching to thorough-bred, or to find thorough-bred stallions in country districts likely to get such horses, and there were complaints
  300
  from all quarters of the injurious effects produced by the present system of breeding more with a view to speed than stoutness. There were several precedents for legislative interference in regard to the breed of horses, racing arrangements, and for the prevention of gambling. All racing must be more or less attended with gambling; but it was nevertheless permitted and encouraged, upon the ground that it tended to promote excellence in our breed of horses, but when a system prevailed which tended to promote gambling, and at the same time to discourage the breeding of stout horses, a ground for legislative interference was established. Some of the Acts for encouraging the breed of horses probably arose out of the great destruction of these animals in the wars of the Roses, the first being in the time of Henry VII. In the reign of Henry VIII. Acts were passed in relation to this subject, and also in that of Edward VI. and Elizabeth. As a precedent for legislation on racing matters, he would specially call attention to the 13th Geo. II., cap. 19, which was the foundation of the present Bill, by which the weights were limited to 10 stone for five, 11 for six, and 12 stone for seven-year old horses. That Act was passed in 1740, at a time when the turf was greatly patronized in this country and when its interests were carefully watched. That may be considered the period when our thorough-bred stock was being perfected, being half-way between the birth of Flying Childers in 1715 and that of Eclipse in 1764; and he would ask any advocate of the present system whether he believes that our breed would have attained its present excellence, if, instead of the weights prescribed in that Act of Geo. II., the light weights of to-day had then ruled on our race-courses? It was said that they ought to avoid indiscriminate legislation; and he too was entirely against such legislation—but Parliament ought to see whether this was not a matter requiring attention, and one in which their interference would not be productive of much benefit. A noble Earl had written to him through a public paper, saying—"Suppose a Bill were passed compelling you to place your home farm in the hands of trustees, with Mr. Mechi as manager thereof, would not that be just as reasonable as the Bill you have introduced?" Now, he was glad that the noble Earl in advancing this argument had reasoned by analogy, for that enabled him to point out

  301
  the noble Earl's mistake. When you reasoned by analogy it was necessary that the things compared should be analogous. He presumed that the noble Earl considered both cases analogous because both were an interference with private concerns; but he forgot that the character of the interference must be similar, or else the cases were not analogous. If he were to bring in a Bill declaring that the noble Lord's stud should be placed in the hands of trustees, who should name the trainer, that would be an analogous interference to the one the noble proposed for his home farm; but to provide that when his horse was entered for a public stake he should run under certain conditions was only the same kind of legislative interference with private concerns as that which prescribed, when he brought his corn to market, that it should be sold under particular regulations with regard to weights. The noble Lord appeared to be unable to discriminate justly between what is private in racing and what is public. When a man entered a horse for a public stake he was not the only person concerned. There were others who entered their horses, some with the; intention of running them honestly, and others, he was sorry to say, who entered them with a dishonest object. Again, there were persons who ventured their money on the performances of those horses. If, there fore, any measures could be adopted by the Legislature to check dishonest practices on the part of owners or others in a public race, he contended that it be-came a matter of public concern and a jus-tillable subject for public interference. There were a great many private matters in which the Legislature thought it right to interfere. For example, it interfered in the most sacred of all private relations, marriage, declaring that the ceremony should only take place in certain hours of the day; and he certainly thought that to regulate the weight which should be put upon a horse in a public race was nothing like so violent an interference with private concerns as to prescribe the hours for a man's marriage. In point of principle, therefore, if you could show that the Bill was likely to be of public advantage there could be no ground of objection to it on the ground of its being indiscriminate legislative interference. The question was one which the Jockey Club ought to take up, but if they did not do so it was one which called for legislation. The Jockey Club was moreover not omnipotent, and any steps it might take
  302
  to check the practices of which he complained might not be universally accepted. There were thus good grounds for proceeding by Act of Parliament, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of the Club. Some five months had now elapsed since the introduction of the Bill; and yet, though the attention of the Jockey Club had been called to the Bill, and though, knowing the objection entertained to it by some leading members of that body he had offered to withdraw it if they would promise reform, they had held meeting after meeting without taking any steps in the matter. Among the large number of trainers in favour of the Bill, Mr. John Scott, who might he regarded as the head of the profession, strongly advocated the introduction of a six-stone regulation, and declared that with such a provision the measure would confer great benefit. On these opinions he greatly relied, and with such testimony in its favour he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE DUKE OF BEAUFORTrose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. Notice had on two occasions been given by advertisement that this question would be brought before the Jockey Club. On the first occasion they were unanimous, and on the second there was but one dissentient to the opinion that this was no fit subject for legislative interference. The noble Lord had urged the second reading of the measure on three grounds—first, that it would tend to improve the breed of horses; secondly, that it would prevent rascality; and, thirdly, that it would dispense with the employment of young boys in riding. On the first point he differed entirely from the noble Lord. He thought that carrying heavy weights would be much more likely to deteriorate the quality of horses than carrying light weights—carrying heavy weights would break down half the horses before they arrived at maturity. He assured the noble Lord that he should be most happy to assist in putting down rascality on the turf; but he could not see, and a great many others could not see, how you were in any way to attain that end by introducing a different scale of weights. It seemed to him that there would be as much rascality if the riding weight was 6 stone as if it were 9 or 10. With regard to the misuse of boys, he did not believe that they were so liable to accident as the noble Lord had represented. He was sure

  303
  that many of the trainers who had signed the memorial had done so under a misapprehension. He had a conversation the other day with Mr. John Scott, who told him that he was in favour of a Bill that the minimum weight should be 6 stone, because his horses would then be better ridden. He then said to Mr. Scott, "Suppose you had a valuable horse in a race, with 11 stone on his back, what would you do?" to which the reply was, "Scratch him at once." Mr. Scott was not the only trainer who entertained this opinion; he had spoken to many others who expressed the same views. There was no doubt that attempts were made to orrupt the boys engaged as riders, but he thought that all such cases could be better dealt with by the Jockey Club than in any other way. No accident, he believed, had ever happened at a race to a boy under 6 stone. That was a remarkable statement, but he understood that there was no doubt of its correctness. He could assure their Lordships that it was the almost unanimous opinion of the Jockey Club that the Bill of the noble Lord would do a great deal of harm, and would do little or no good of any kind.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months").
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he did not think there was any ground for bringing against our present racing system those severe charges which the noble Lord the author of the Bill had advanced. He (the Earl of Winchilsea) felt persuaded that the Bill would hold out a premium for bad horses, because under its operation such a crushing weight would be imposed by handicappers upon good horses that no owner would run them. The noble Lord was merely theorizing upon a question, of the practical working of which he knew nothing. There was nothing to justify the imputation of the noble Lord that our breed of horses was degenerating under our existing system of racing, and in reply to such an allegation it was only necessary to point out the eagerness of foreigners in competing for the successful runners on the English turf. England, indeed, had not only given race-horses to the world, but also laws and regulations for racing; and he did not think that the present Bill, which would be the severest blow the turf had received since the time of Charles the Second, came with a very good grace from their Lordships. It was impossible to deny that racing in this
  304
  country was made the subject of extravagant gambling, but the extent of that evil was, he thought, frequently exaggerated; and he should also express his belief that the freedom from émeutes and revolutions which England enjoyed in the most critical periods was, in some degree, to be attributed to the fact that racing afforded to persons of restless temperament a much more innocent excitement.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to tender his thanks to the noble Lord who had introduced this Bill, and to express his sincere hope that their Lordships would pass it into law. He felt even more strongly than the noble Lord apparently did the call of humanity upon this subject, if humanity was to be deemed a motive for legislation. He had always viewed with considerable dislike any restriction upon what might be called the rights of labour, but many such restrictions had effected a great amount of good, and he had no hesitation in saying, from what he had himself observed at races, that the present Bill was as much required as any Factory Act ever passed by Parliament. It was terrible to see the children who were put upon horses and exposed to the most fearful accidents for nothing in the world but what might be called the supposed pleasure of others. It was said if crushing weights were put on horses no man would run first-class animals—but such magnificent horses as West Australian and the Flying Dutchman were never put into handicaps. He was not aware, for example, that any horse had ever established its reputation by winning the Chester Cup. These prizes fell to the owners of horses that carried mere "feather weights," and which were in many cases kept back merely for the purpose of succeeding in such contests. The noble Duke opposite had talked of the cruelty of running a young horse upon hard ground with 11 stone upon its back. Why should 11 stone be put upon its back because they were not to be allowed to put less than 6? If the merits of horses were fairly put before the handicappers, there never would be animals started with a difference of 5 stone between them. Such a difference would be found only where a deceit had been practised. The noble Lord who had introduced the Bill did not intend that horses should run with 11 stone upon them, nor would such be the effect of his measure. His own impression was that the root of the evil lay in horses being

  305
  brought out too young. What good could be attained by running horses when it was impossible to have a fair trial of their bone and muscle? The late Lord Jersey, who had often carried off the "blue riband" of the turf, never ran a horse until he brought him out for the Derby, and if the only effect of the present Bill should be to put a check upon running horses of two years old it would prove a good and useful measure. With all deference to the noble Duke, it was not uncommon for the poor children who were at present put on horses to meet with serious accidents. Upon one occasion, at Northampton, he saw a boy killed by the mere stumbling of a horse; though he was not thrown, the mere concussion of the brain was fatal, and he believed a similar accident happened a few years back in the south of England. It stood to reason, indeed, that if children were put upon horses accidents would occur. He had always approved of plates being given by the State for the enouragement of the breed of horses, and therefore it was from no dislike to the turf that he supported the present Bill, which he trusted would receive the assent of their Lordships and of the other House of Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not think the question now before your Lordships can be called a party question; and in rising to make a few observations upon it I wish to be understood as expressing my individual opinion only. I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been delivered in the course of the discussion, and I must say they have been amusingly consistent with the nature of the subject and with the character of the different speakers. The noble Lord who moved the second reading of the Bill took a steady heavy-weight gallop over the old Beacon course. The noble Duke who followed, preferred a short half-mile run, while the noble Earl who spoke on the same side was as light and as frolicsome as a fresh two-year old. I do not mean myself to enter into any elaborate discussion of the general merits of the Bill—it deals with details which I do not think it necessary your Lordships should discuss—more particularly since it appears from the speech of the noble Earl that the Jockey Club have the intention of taking the question into consideration. I am not going to discuss at length the question raised by the noble Marquess, whether it is desirable in handicaps that the handicappers
  306
  should go down as far as four stone, or such low weights. The noble Marquess stated some objections of detail, with regard to those great races into which I need hardly enter, and which I think had better be left to the Jockey Club than be dealt with by your Lordships. My noble Friend the Chairman of Committees reproached the Jockey Club with being so exclusive that they would not permit the interference of laymen upon any question which came before them. If the Jockey Club had legal power which enabled them to control all matters connected with racing, and it was shown that they acted in opposition to the opinions of every one who took an interest in racing or in the improvement of the breed of horses, then a case might be made out for interference on the part of your Lordships. But the Jockey Club has no legal power whatever. They are the landlords of a part of Newmarket Heath, on which races are run, and are therefore able to insist upon the observance there of any regulations which they choose to make; but with regard to other racecourses, they have no power whatever, and the adoption of their regulations in other parts of the country is an entirely voluntary act on the part of those who have the management of race meetings. What is the composition of the Jockey Club? Are its members exclusively of one class, and so bound up in one amusement that they may be considered entirely to exclude from their consideration all matters which are not connected with it? The list of the Club includes fifty-four members, some of whom are members of agricultural societies; some are cavalry and yeomanry officers; ten, I think, are masters of foxhounds, and twenty are Privy Councillors. Of these twenty Privy Councillors, one has been President of the Poor Law Board, two have been Postmasters General, two have been Viceroys of Ireland, seven have been Cabinet Ministers, and two have been Prime Ministers of this country twice in their respective lives. This is the constitution of that eminent body; and if they are backed up by a large part of the population, by the owners of horses and by those who take an interest in the amusement of racing, I think it is but fair to infer that they are not so exclusively absorbed in the pursuit of racing as to be likely to exclude from consideration all the collateral advantages which may be derived from it. I now come to the reasons why I do not think that your Lordships ought to take legis-

  307
  lative action upon this subject. Two of the reasons for this measure are contained in the preamble of the Bill, and the third is that upon which great stress has been laid by the noble Marquess—humanity to the boys who are put upon these horses. Upon this last reason I cannot lay great stress. I think it is impossible to compare legislation of this sort, even if effectual, with legislation applied to great masses for the restriction of the hours of labour, or for preventing the employment of young children in mines. If you enter upon the course contemplated by the noble Lord in this Bill, you must pass an Act to prevent boys going bird's nesting, or venturing into the water before they are able to swim. [A laugh.] Noble Lords may laugh, but I remember being in a country in which a similar precaution was enforced. I wanted to bathe in the Danube, and before I was allowed to do so I was obliged to exhibit in a small pond before two gentlemen in uniform, who had to be officially satisfied of my power of swimming before they allowed me to enter that noble river. Such an amount of interference I imagine that your Lordships are not prepared to adopt. The next object of the noble Lord is most laudable—namely, the diminution of gambling and dishonest, practices. Now, no one in this House—not even ray noble Friend who spoke so warmly—will contend that there are not many malpractices and a great deal of gambling of an injurious character connected with the Turf; but does any one suppose that this Bill will put an end to those evils?—that some trifling-regulations as to the weights which horses are to carry will put an end to gambling and to the malpractices which are connected with the turf? The idea that it would do so is perfectly futile; and I believe that if you wish to protect young and inexperienced persons against those fraudulent practices, you can take no more unwise course than by an unwise Act of Parliament pretending to do that which no legislative enactment can effect. With regard to the breed of horses, I totally disbelieve that there has been any deterioration in it. I think that it is impossible to walk through the streets or parks of this Metropolis without seeing that no such thing has occurred. The noble Duke (the Duke of Beaufort) referred to a conversation which he had had with an eminent trainer; probably your Lordships will not think it irrelevant if I state the result of conversations which I have had to-day with one
  308
  of the greatest dealers in the Metropolis, and a large job-master. The dealer sells horses of all kinds, hunters, hacks, and carriage horses, and it is of course his interest to represent that there is extreme difficulty in procuring good horses, and that it is, therefore, necessary to ask very-high prices for them. He told me that there was at present a greater demand than at any previous time for a very beautiful class of horses with very high action, and that any price could be got for them; but he said, "If you ask me for a fair opinion whether you find fewer horses than you used to do combining great strength with high breeding, I believe that, notwithstanding the drain for the foreign market, there are quite as many to be obtained as formerly." The jobmaster to whom I intended to apply for information was not at home when I called; but his foreman said, "Oh, complaints that you cannot find good horses are universal; but it is fair to say that I have been a long time in the job trade, and I never remember a period at which exactly the same complaints were not made." This is confirmed by the observation of the noble Chairman of Committees that so much as 120 years ago complaints were made that there had been a frightful deterioration in the breed of horses. This is, in fact, one of those complaints which are constantly made, but which, when examined into, prove entirely without foundation. As far as I can see, there are no precedents whatever for such a measure as this. The clause to which my noble Friend referred as furnishing such authority was repealed a few years afterwards, and in the Index to the Statutes I can find no reference to any proposition of a similar kind connected with the subject of racing. For these reasons I certainly am not inclined to support the Bill of my noble Friend. Without professing to give an opinion that it may not be desirable that the Jockey Club should fairly consider this question, at any rate I do not think it is one with which your Lordships ought to interfere. There has lately been too much desire to legislate upon every possible question, and I am persuaded that that desire ought to be checked rather than encouraged. There is an old maxim, de minimis non curat lex, which I think may fairly be translated, "Do not legislate for feather weights."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Doubtless your Lordships have received a great deal of edi-

  309
  fication and amusement from the speeches that have been delivered in the course of this debate, and no doubt my noble Friend who introduced this Bill has likewise received a great deal of edification and instruction on this topic; but I hope your Lordships will not think it disrespectful on my part, on a subject of this kind, to say that I think your Lordships as a body are hardly competent to judge of the merits of the question, notwithstanding that you have received so much support in your deliberations by so full a bench of the right rev. Bishops—we are hardly, I think, so competent to deal with such a question as the present as those who have devoted more of their attention to the subject, and who take a deeper interest in the pursuits of the turf. I am anxious to state in a few words how far I concur and how far I differ from my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees in the objects which he seeks to effect by the prevention of malpractices, the improvement of the breed of horses, and, to a certain extent, the protection of the jockeys themselves, both low weights and high weights. These objects I conceive most desirable ones; but, on the other hand, I think I can show my noble Friend that his Bill will not in the slightest degree attain them. I concur with my noble Friend the President of the Council that unless a very strong case is made out it is most undesirable that your Lordships and Parliament should legislate upon a subject of this description. No doubt if there is a great object to be attained, or a great and gross abuse to be put down, and legislation will effect the object or put down the abuse, that would be a justification for the interference of the Legislature even with such a subject as this. But is that the case? My noble Friend believes that there is a great deal of gambling, especially that species of gambling produced by handicaps. Now, I so far concur with my noble Friend that I very much regret the increase of handicaps compared with weight-for-age races which has recently taken place. At the same time, I see that in the present state of the turf it would be impossible entirely to abandon handicaps without putting an end to many county meetings, and thus losing a great deal of harmless amusement. I do not deny that handicaps afford considerable facilities for fraudulent practices; but that does not at all depend upon the more or less weight which the horses are to carry. The object of those who subscribe to and
  310
  enter their horses for handicaps is to deceive the handicapper, not with regard to the positive, but with regard to the relative weight-carrying qualities of their horses. My noble Friend said that horses are kept in training for these handicaps which would not continue in training if they did not exist. That may be so; but, on the other hand, if my noble Friend examines the statistics of the turf he will find that horses are now kept in training for a much shorter period than they used to be, and that a comparison between the young and old horses formerly and at the present day shows a considerable difference. Some days ago, with reference to this Bill, I looked up some statistics, and they will be interesting, as enabling us to compare the ages of the horses that ran in 1829 and 1859. I have only the ages of those that ran and won in 1829, and of the running horses in 1859, but the figures enable us to compare the ages of the horses. In 1829, of the winning horses there were of two-year-olds fifty-five, of three-year-olds 194, and of four-year-olds and upwards 279. The total was 528 horses. The proportion of two-year-olds to three-year-olds was as two to seven, and the proportion the two-year-olds bore to the whole number was one to nine and a half. I find that, in 1859, 1,666 horses started for the different races, of which number 588 were two-year-olds. 504 were three-year-olds, and 574 were four-year-olds and upwards. While the proportion of two-year-olds to three-year-olds was as to two to seven in 1829 it was in 1859 as eight to seven. The proportion of two-year-olds to those above them, which was in 1829 about one to nine, was in 1859 more than one to three. I mention these facts to show that there was a much larger proportion of old to young horses formerly than at the present time. My noble Friend objects to these handicaps that they tend to discourage the good horses, and to give great advantages to bad and inferior horses. Now, the very character of a handicap is, that you must frame your handicap so as to give a moderate three-year-old as fair a chance of winning as a superior five or six-year-old. If, therefore, you began with 7 stone, the consequence would be that in all handicaps the superior old horses would have to carry 11 stone and 12 stone, and the handicaps run would be left to inferior horses, which, would have the advantage of being ridden by jockeys instead of boys. The good

  311
  horses would then be excluded from handicaps, while at present they have a fair chance. But when my noble Friend says that horses that cannot carry 6 stone ought not to be kept in training, and are good for nothing, I assure him he is quite mistaken, for I could mention horses that with 6 stone on their backs cannot live at a racing pace for three minutes, but yet are competent to carry my noble Friend over a cross country for hours, and to keep up with the hounds. You cannot, in all cases, have lasting qualities accompanied by the enormous effort and great speed of racing; but it does not follow because a horse cannot carry 6 stone in a mile and a half race and live, that he belongs to an inferior class of animals, and is incapable of being made useful for hunting purposes. My noble Friend says it is more difficult to get good hunters now than it used to be; but I must remind him that hunting is a very different thing now from what it formerly was. Perhaps my noble Friend would like to turn out at six in the morning, go on a long, slow drag before he found his fox, and then ride after it at six or seven miles an hour for the remainder of the day. If he wants a class of horses suited for that kind of work, I admit he would not find them in handicaps. But if he inquires how horses can best combine bone, blood, speed, and endurance, I believe that the character of English horses never stood higher, and that in these qualities they are unmatched by any country in the world. If my noble Friend thinks that to prevent gambling on the turf all that is necessary is to do away with light weights, let him go to a steeplechase. I never saw but one, and never wish to see another. But there they have heavy weights, old horses, and long courses. No boys are put upon horses in these steeplechases, the lightest weight put up being 8st. 7lb. A steeplechase, therefore, combines all my noble Friend's requirements; and yet I will venture to say that, with regard to the character of the horses, the gambling, the fraudulent practices, the danger to horses and men, and the number of serious accidents, there is no comparison whatever between the ordinary racing with boys of light weight and steeplechasing. I do not deny that there are evils inseparable from handicaps; I regret their prevalence; but they do not depend either on the lightness or the heaviness of the weights, but on the character of the horses themselves. That which is really the cause of a great deal of the
  312
  evil and the deterioration in the breed of horses is the way in which the animals are forced forward, owing to the vast preponderance of two-year-old races. The consequence is that young horses are called upon for exertions far beyond their strength, and great numbers of horses are broken down, while others are entered without reference to their carrying light weights, or to their competency to stand the work, because being brought out as two-year-olds they may, over a long course, have an advantage and answer the purpose of gambling, and winning the large stakes which are attached to these two-year-old races. I do not wish to put down all two-year-old races by legislation, but I should like to induce members of the turf, in the interest of the turf and of the breeders of horses, to see if some intervention and regulation are not possible. If not, your Lordships would do much better absolutely to prohibit all two-year-old races than to raise the weights of the jockeys. One reason why it is desirable that practically the weights should be somewhat higher than they are at present is not on account of the danger to little boys or the argument which my noble Friend has brought forward, but on account of the great difficulty you have in procuring jockeys to ride old horses in the present competition with the light-weight system. As soon as a jockey arrives at the weight of 8st. 7lb. he has comparatively little opportunity of riding, for the great amount of riding is monopolized by boys of from 6st. 5lb. to 7st. 12lb. When jockeys arrive at 8st. 5lb. the labour they have to undergo to bring themselves down to racing weights has cost the life of many respectable men, and is attended with great danger to others. I will only say that this matter is under the serious consideration of the Jockey Club. Notice has been given of a motion at their next meeting for raising the weights on the Derby and some other races from 8st. 7lb. to 8st. 10lb. A. proposal is also under the consideration of the Jockey Club, which has my cordial concurrence, to enable them to raise the weights on handicaps to a minimum of 5st. 7lb. I assure your Lordships that many boys can ride as well as any men, and would be perfect masters of their horses under circumstances where my noble Friend would find himself in a considerable "fix." The improvement of the breed of horses and the prevention of gambling are very desirable objects; but

  313
  I do not think they will be touched or promoted by the measure of my noble Friend. I think that he has not established such a case as will induce your Lordships to enter upon legislation where all previous legislation has proved a failure. I assure my noble Friend that the subject is under the consideration of the Jockey Club, and that this year will probably not pass without some legislation in the direction of his wishes. I therefore trust, after the opinions expressed by your Lordships, that my noble Friend will not give us the trouble of dividing, but will consent to withdraw the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEreplied. He thought no better proof of the necessity for increasing the weight could be given than the returns quoted by the noble Earl. They proved most clearly that a system equally injurious to the breed of horses and to the best interests of the turf had sprung up of late years in connection with the light weight handicaps; that the evil was increasing, and that reform in racing matters was urgently required. He considered the noble Earl's speech to be in fact favourable to his proposition; but after the promise he had given that if the Jockey Club would take the matter in hand he would not persevere with it, he had no choice but to act in accordance with that promise, after the assurance which the noble Earl had given to him and to the House on the part of the stewards of the Jockey Club, who had selected him to present their petition, and empowered him to enter into that engagement on their behalf. He would, therefore, ask leave of the House to withdraw his Motion for the second reading, and if the Amendment was also withdrawn, he would then, with the permission of the House, withdraw the Bill. He might be permitted to say, however, that there was strong evidence that the introduction of the Bill had led to the serious consideration of this subject, and therefore he should always feel satisfied with himself for having brought it forward. He would add, that none of the arguments which had been brought forward proved that the subject was one with which the Legislature ought not to interfere. If the Jockey Club should by new rules put down the abuses complained of, and if what they proposed met with universal submission from the racing world, legislation would be both unnecessary and undesirable. But the interests of the dishonest members of that society were op-
  314
  posed to the establishment of a sound system, and he feared not only that the Club rules, if carried to the required extent, would be resisted in some quarters, but still more that the Club may be deterred from doing all that they ought from an apprehension of such resistance. If such should be the case, he trusted they would not hesitate to apply to Parliament for a law to enforce their rules, and he was satisfied that whatever they asked for would be granted.
  Amendment and original Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn, and the Bill also withdrawn.

DUCHY OF CORNWALL (LIMITATION OF ACTIONS) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE moved that the House go into Committee on this Bill, and stated his belief that the Bill would have the effect of placing the Duchy of Cornwall and landed proprietors in the neighbourhood, on the best possible footing.
  LORD VIVIANsaid, he could assure the noble Duke that great jealousy existed in the minds of those holding property within the bounds of the Duchy, in consequence of the sharp practice exhibited by those charged with the management of its affairs. Those who held lands "in charge" thought that they had been very hardly treated by the agents of the Duchy, and unless these lands held "in charge" were exempted from the operation of the Bill he should move clauses to effect that object.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (9 Geo. III., cap. 16, to extend to the Duke of Cornwall.)
  On the Motion of Lord KINGSDOWN the following addition was made to the clause.
  ("Subject nevertheless as to the Property and Possessions included in this Act to the Provisions contained in Sections Seventy-two and Seventy-five of the Act of the Seventh and Eighth Years of Her Majesty above referred to with respect to the Property and Possessions included therein.")
  LORD VIVIANcomplained that a case had occurred in which parties were refused access to the records of the Duchy, except on condition that they would not oppose this Bill.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that there was a sharp practice in manner and a sharp practice in action. They were not pleasant words to use in any case, but few men were able to conduct public business in the soft and oily way which would probably satisfy the noble Lord. He certainly de-

  315
  nied that there had been any sharp practice on the part of the Duchy in action. It had been found most difficult to recover and maintain the rights of the Duke of Cornwall, which in past times had suffered material damage.
  LORD CHURSTONstated that cases had come to his knowledge, and things were said to be done by order of the Duchy, which, if they did not actually amount to sharp practice, certainly savoured of it.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEobserved, with regard to the inspection of Duchy records, that in the case of Crown records, any person who asked to examine them was called upon to state whether he wished to do so for the purpose of opposing the rights of the Crown, and unless he stated that that was not his object, he was not allowed to inspect them. He believed that if an inquiry were instituted by impartial persons into the management of the Duchy property, it would be found that, so far from sharp practices having been resorted to, there had been a desire to act with the greatest possible leniency in maintaining the rights of the Duchy, which, in some instances, had been sacrificed for noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen, who now came forward to complain. The noble Lord said that there was a feeling of uneasiness in Cornwall on the subject, and no doubt if a person had got property which did not belong to him, he might feel uneasy when the rightful owner came forward to claim it. With regard to the present Bill, if the opponents of the measure thought it no boon, let them say so, and he would at once give it up; but it was not fair towards the managers of the Duchy estates, nor to the illustrious Prince, who was about to come into the property, to make accusations of "sharp practice." If any persons had such charges to make, let them bring those charges forward distinctly before the Duchy Council, and they would be investigated, and, if found substantial, the grievance would be remedied.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he could bear testimony to the fact that "sharp practice" did not always originate with the managers of Crown property, but was very often practised against that property. He believed his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to be justly entitled to every farthing that could be properly obtained from the property assigned for the maintenance of his dignity.
  LORD VIVIANsaid, he should be rejoiced to see his Royal Highness receive
  316
  every farthing to which he was entitled. He had spoken on behalf of others, and not from any interested motives of his own.
  LORD KINGSDOWNdid not believe that during the twenty years he had been a member of the Council of the Duchy, upon any one occasion, upon any one subject, in reference to any one appointment or other act, there had been a single object in view except that of discharging honestly and faithfully the duties imposed upon the members.
  LORD PORTMANacknowledged that there had been a strong expression of feeling in the Duchy, but he was sure it was not well founded.
  Clause, as Amended, agreed to.
  LORD VIVIANthen moved to inser the following clause.
  "Provided always, That Section Seventy-two of the said Act of the Seventh and Eighth Years of Her Majesty shall be and the same is hereby incorporated with this Act, and shall be read as Part thereof; provided also, that no Manors, Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments, or the Rents, Revenues, Issues, or Profits thereof, shall be deemed to be or to have been duly in charge to the Duke of Cornwall so long as any Person or Corporation shall be or shall have been in possession of such Manors, Lands, Tenements, Rents, Tithes, or Hereditaments, or in the Receipt of the Rents, Revenues, Issues, or Profits thereof, adversely to the Duke of Cornwall."
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he must oppose the clause.
  Motion, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received on Friday next.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  COMMITTEE—(ON RE-COMMITMENT).
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsuggested that as notice had been given of many Amendments it would be better that the Bill should be re-committed, in order that the now clauses should be considered.
  Order discharged; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House forthwith; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses I to 11 agreed to.
  Clause added to enable an exchange of patronage.
  Clause 15, (Site of Church to be pulled down not to be sold or let without certain Consents.)
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD THE BISHOP OF OXFORD moved an Amendment. He had no objection to sell

  317
  the sites of the removed churches; but there were certain cases in which the ground itself under the churches had been consecrated for the burial of the dead. He contended that where the Church had pledged herself in the most solemn manner to maintain for ever a certain parcel of ground it was monstrous that she should afterwards come to Parliament and ask for power to break her pledge, for the purpose of taking advantage of the increased value of the land so consecrated. The deeds of consecration of a church and of a burial-ground were essentially different. One consecrated a building for the purposes of worship, the other set apart a portion of ground from all profane uses for ever. He saw no objection to selling the site of a church to which no consecrated burial-ground was attached, because the occasion for which the consecration of the building took place having passed away, and it being for the glory of God and his increased worship and service that the church was to be removed, he did not see any objection to selling the ground on which the church stood. But it was different with the churchyards in which the dead were buried. It might be said that the same objection applied to churches in which dead were buried in the vaults; but his Amendment did not touch them, because in the first place the vaults being constructed in the ground under the church, and the church alone being consecrated, there could be no objection to the removal of the coffins, as they would have to be removed in any case should this Bill pass; but at all events it would throw on those who objected to the sale of such sites the onus of proving that the ground was consecrated, which would be almost impossible.
  Amendment moved, after ("Department") to insert ("nor if it shall have been consecrated for the Burial of the Dead.")
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was quite at a loss to know how any objection could be raised to the sale of the sites in question, when it was notorious that ground of a similar character had been sold to railway companies; and surely, when the sole object of the Bill was to provide increased facilities for the worship of God, the most tender conscience could not object.
  THE BISHOP OF CASHELcould not see any difference between selling the site of a church and a burial-ground, seeing that both were consecrated.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDthought that
  318
  his right rev. Brother misapprehended the question. In the one case it was the church and not the site that was consecrated, and in the other it was the ground itself. The church might be removed, but the bodies of the dead remained in the churchyard by which it was surrounded.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that the distinction drawn by his right rev. Brother was so very fine that he could hardly understand it. He could understand the Church being held to the strict performance of all her contracts, but he could not comprehend why she should be allowed to depart from them in the case of churches, and be prohibited from doing so in the case of burial-grounds. His right rev. Brother had no objection to the sale of the site of a church under which hundreds of corpses might have been buried, but the consecration of which for burial it was impossible to prove. The operation of the clause would, therefore, on his own statement, be nugatory. He looked upon this as an insidious attack intended to destroy the whole of the Bill, for if it were carried the good effects of the measure would be rendered entirely nugatory.
  THE EARL OF POWISsupported the Amendment. This point had been settled in a Bill which was passed five years ago. They ought not for a few thousand pounds to shake the confidence of the people in the permanence of these sites for burial-grounds.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sdid not think the argument of the right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment had been at all shaken. This was a Bill for Church purposes, and the question was, would the advantage arising from the sale of these sites, cover the loss arising from the violation of the contract created by the consecration of these burial-grounds?
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that it would be extremely difficult for any one to prove that a particular piece of land had been specially consecrated as a place of burial; and the result of the adoption of the Amendment would merely be to raise uncertainty as regarded the title, and persons would not purchase unless at a diminished value to cover the risk.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, if there was any great public necessity for the sale of these sites, he should not object to the measure; but when he found that no such necessity existed, he was disposed to support the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that in

  319
  order to meet the objection of the noble and learned Lord, he had no objection to add the following words, "Provided also that the validity of such sale should not be questioned by reason of any allegation that the ground had been consecrated." It should be recollected that this was a Bill for Church purposes, and it was not for the Church to propose to disturb these contracts, which were made by the Church, and consecrated by her.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the sale of a church or a burying-ground was as repugnant to his feelings as a layman as it could be to that of a clergyman, and he would only consent to it in cases of extreme necessity; but the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate would, in point of fact, put an end to the practical working of the measure. He regretted that such a Bill as the present should not have been taken up by the Government, as without their assistance the right rev. Prelate would never be able to carry such a measure as would produce the full effect desired. Surely, if they were willing that these sites should be sold for the benefit of railway companies, they would not object that they should be sold for purposes of a purely religious character. The Bill would to a certain extent be useful, but this great question could never be fully settled till it was taken up by the Government.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that believing that the measure was one of great public necessity, he would support the clause as it stood.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYwas opposed to the removal of any churches. Let the pews be removed, and good clergymen placed in them, and congregations would be drawn thither.
  After a few words from EARL GRANVILLE,
  On Question, Whether the said Words shall be there inserted? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 10; Not-Contents 21: Majority 11.

  CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

  St. David's, Bp.

  Powis, E. [Teller.]

  Romney, E.

  Denham, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Lyttelton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Somerset, D.

  De Grey. E,. [Teller.]

  Newcastle, D.

  Ducie, E.

  320

  Granville, E.

  London, Bp.

  St. Germans, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Cranworth, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Dartrey, (L. Cremorne.)

  Cashel, &c, Bp.

  Harris, L.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Durham, Bp.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Wodehouse, L. [Teller.]

  Clauses 15 to 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Providing Funds for Payment of Expenses of carrying Act into execution).
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he thought it extremely undesirable that when a sum of money had been raised by the sale of these sites, a portion of it should be locked up to remain as a fund for future speculative alterations. It would be merely a temptation to the schemers who surrounded the office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to propose useless plans for making away with this money.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsubmitted that the objection would be met by an alteration, of which he had given notice; and after a short conversation,
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Appropriation of Seats in Church of United Parish).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDobjected to the power given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to meddle with pews. He believed the right rev. Prelate had no objection to the Amendment which he bad proposed, namely, to leave the Bishop to deal with them by faculty.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the opinion he held on this subject might be unpopular, but he objected to pews altogether. It was the old custom, before the Reformation, that there should be no pews at all; and in the church which he attended they had been swept away. Whenever he went to church, he sat with the rest of the people, without the smallest distinction; and it appeared to him that nothing could be so inconsistent with the feelings with which a man ought to attend Divine worship as that he should box himself up in a pew. Take power by all means to knock pews down, but do not provide for building them up again.
  Then it was moved to add the following Schedule.
  "The Metropolis (including all Places comprehended in that expression, as defined in the Act 18 and 19 Vict. Cap. 120, intituled 'An Act for the better Local Management of the Metropolis").
  "Cities of—

  "York,

  Exeter,

  "Lincoln,

  Norwich,"

  The same was agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
  LORD REDESDALEgave notice of some further alterations which he would move on the third reading. Amongst them was a proposal to give powers for re-seating churches without a union of benefices. There were a great number of sacred edifices in the City, in which there was no provision whatever for those casual visitors, of whom there were always many in London. Last Sunday, however, he was at one (St. Michael's, Cornhill,) that had been admirably restored, and there he found exactly the arrangement which he thought desirable. There was a large congregation; and it appeared to him that if a similar course were adopted at some other of the larger and handsomer City churches—Bow church, for instance—the same result would follow.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed an Amendment rendering it penal to be guilty of any indecent behaviour in a church, whether during Divine service or at any other time. This was intended to meet the case of persons staying behind after service to sing hymns, which was one of the forms which indecent conduct had lately assumed.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the Bill was aimed against indecent behaviour in churches at any time; and therefore he did not see the utility of the proposal.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEproposed a clause somewhat mitigating the penalties imposed by the statute of Philip and Mary, but re-enacting the power which was given by that Act to any person to seize and convey before a magistrate any one offending in church.
  LORD CRANWORTHdid not propose to repeal the Act of Philip and Mary, so that any portion of it which remained in force would continue to do so; but he begged their Lordships not to be led by their indignation at what had recently been taking place to enact a provision so little in accordance with the general spirit of our law as to give any person power to seize any other person—not in flagrante delicto, but at any time—and to convey
  322
  him before a magistrate on a charge of misbehaviour in a church. It had been said that "hard cases made bad law;" but let them not make bad legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORalso opposed the Amendment, saying that, although he was as anxious as anybody to put an end to such disgraceful scenes as had recently occurred, he did not think that this was the proper way to attempt it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.