Sitting of 14 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Tenison's Charity; Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment (No. 2).
2° Phœnix Park; Husband and Wife Relation Law Amendment (Scotland).

THE BREHON LAW COMMISSION. ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the labours of the Brehon Law Commission are yet brought to a close, and if not, when it is supposed they may be; whether it is not a fact that the work commenced in 1852 was to have been completed in three years from that date; and whether the gentlemen engaged on it are remunerated by annual salary, or by a contract for a certain sum? He would also beg to ask, whether the Royal Irish Academy, to which Parliament makes an annual Grant, is open to the public for consultation and for reference to its literary contents; for reading and extracting, as in the British Museum; and, if not, what is the reason why the same system of free reference, reading, and extraction, is not adopted in the Irish as in the English Institutions?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the transcription of the Brehon laws was completed, and it was confidently expected that the
  424
  translation would be completed in the course of the present year. The opinion entertained at the commencement was, that the work would be completed in seven years, and notwithstanding that the work grew in its progress, he was happy to say that the expectation would be realized. The gentlemen engaged upon the work, who were selected for their special knowledge of the Irish language, were paid a very moderate remuneration, and their duties had been very faithfully performed. The Commission was composed of some of the most eminent men in Ireland, and it was due to Dr. Graves, who had acted gratuitously, as Secretary to the Commission, and rendered most valuable service, to mention his name. With regard to the second question, he was informed that the Royal Irish Academy was open not only to members, but to all persons recommended by a member, or known to the librarian; in short, every respectable person was freely invited to it. With regard to transcription, there were certain regulations adopted. If a perfectly unrestricted power of transcribing manuscripts were given, ancient and interesting manuscripts would be subject to addition and alteration, and it was, therefore, necessary to make some rules. Any person known to the Council might transcribe for himself; or if he did not desire to do so, he might employ the person authorized by the Council; or if he selected another scribe, the latter must have the approval of the Council.
  On Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply,

  THE NAVAL RESERVE.
  Order for Committee read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice:—
  "That with a view to greater efficiency in war, and less expenditure in peace, it is the opinion of this House that more prompt and effective measures should be adopted to complete the reserves of Marines and Seamen for Her Majesty's Navy."
  The number of the Naval Reserve, it had been generally agreed, should not be less than 70,000; but this proposal was very far from having been carried out. First, the Report of the Royal Commission recommended that there should be at all times a reserve of 5,000 Marines in addition to

  425
  those that were enrolled at that time. Out of that number only 2,000 had been enrolled, and it was therefore 3,000 short. It was also recommended that there should be in the home ports a reserve of 4,000 seamen. Of these not a single man had been enrolled. It was recommended that the Coastguard should be increased to 12,000; only 6,800 had been entered, including officers, boys, and landsmen. Of short-service pensioners only 169 had been entered of the 3,000 recommended. Of the Naval Volunteers from the Merchant Service only 1,100 had been enrolled. The Commission recommended that the numbers of the Naval Volunteers should be 20,000; and he (Mr. Lindsay) thought there ought to be no less than 30,000; but there was only, by the last Return, 1,100 enrolled. The whole number enrolled of every kind was very far short, indeed, of the lowest estimate of what the Royal Commission considered necessary for the protection of the country. Every hon. Member in the House would agree that it was necessary to maintain the fleet in an efficient state, and at as small an expense as possible. At the present moment they were spending on the navy in the time of peace about £13,000,000 annually. They were doing so for two reasons; first, because there was no reserve; and, as the country must be prepared for war, they were compelled to keep a large fleet in commission always cruising about, as they could not otherwise obtain sailors at a short notice. This large fleet induced France to suppose this country had some intention of attacking it. It was a preposterous idea, but it had an effect on the Government of France and compelled it also to increase its naval force; which again reacted on this country. England spent more money because France did the same; and because France was spending money England spent more money also. But what this country was compelled to do arose to a great extent from the want of a Naval Reserve. The question then arose, had the Admiralty done all in its power to bring this reserve up to the proper number? It ought to be brought up to it on the ground of economy. With such a reserve it would not be necessary to keep a large fleet always cruising about. The bounties and retaining fees offered by the Admiralty had not drawn a sufficient number of men from the merchant service. The country was spending £1,000,000 a year to officers on the reserved and retired
  426
  list of the Royal Navy; and yet if they were to raise reserves to the full extent re commended, they had not got officers sufficient to command them. They were still scarce of active young efficient officers. If, however, they were to look to the merchant service, where quite as strict an examination was undergone as in the Royal Navy, and perhaps stricter, they would have no difficulty in obtaining the number of officers required, from that service, to command the reserve, and for a very small retaining fee indeed. Money was not so much an object with them as the position they would gain at home and abroad by being recognized as officers of the reserve; and they would all be recruiting officers for the Royal Navy. The consequence would be that we should, instead of having obtained only 1,100 men, have in all probability secured by this time the services of 20,000. As it was, the state of the retired list was such, the amount of money which it cost the country so serious, and the dissatisfaction among the officers so great, that Her Majesty's Government had been obliged to stop the supply; that is to say, instead of having eight or ten midshipmen as formerly in a line-of-battle ship, we now had only from two to four. The effect was, that the supply of young officers in ships of war was short, and that being so, they were obliged to fill the places of those junior officers by other men competent to perform the duties. Under these circumstances, he would recommend that a higher grade of petty officers in the Royal Navy should be established to perform the duty of midshipmen. That would also act as a further inducement to seamen in the merchant service to join the navy. He wished to say one word in regard to the Articles of War in the navy. It was, in his opinion, most expedient that the Articles of War should he revised, so that men might not be precluded from entering the navy by a dread of the punishment to which they might under the operation of those Articles be subjected, and the ends of justice be defeated by the fact that owing to their severity, the officers durst not, in many instances, carry them into execution. As to the question of flogging, he should only say that while he was not prepared to advocate its complete abolition, inasmuch as it was, perhaps, necessary in order to uphold discipline, he should wish to see it maintained with some symbol of justice; the seamen, instead of being subjected to summary chastisement, being afforded the

  427
  privilege of a trial as was the case with the soldier. Having made these observations with no intention of stopping the Supplies, but simply with the view of bringing the important matter to which he had referred under the serious consideration of the House, he should beg to leave to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'with a view to greater efficiency in war and less expenditure in peace, it is the opinion of this House that more prompt and effective measures should be adopted to complete the reserves of Marines and Seamen for Her Majesty's Navy.'"
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished, before the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty rose to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, to call his attention for a moment to a subject which was quite germane to the question before the House. He referred to the subject of school ships, with regard to the non-establishment of which considerable disappointment was felt throughout the country. Now, he should remind the noble Lord that the raising of a Naval Reserve had been recommended as only a temporary measure, and had been resorted to simply for the purpose of creating a supply of men for the Navy until the period had arrived when a permanent supply might be secured through the medium of school ships. It was, nevertheless, he believed, the fact that there was only one of those ships in existence, and that vessel had been stationed, or was about to be stationed, at Southampton. He should like, under those circumstances, to know why a larger number of school ships had not been put into requisition and why it was that the application of Liverpool to have one of them placed there had been overlooked? He was also anxious to ascertain from the noble Lord whether any communication had passed between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade in which the co-operation of the former was solicited in the working of the scheme to which he was alluding? He believed that the fault lay in the lowness of the Exchequer, and that there might be some difficulty in getting the money; but he (Mr. Liddell) could not too strongly urge upon the House the necessity and importance of making a beginning of that great scheme which had been recommended by the Commissioners for Manning the Navy. They were spending millions of money in building and altering their ships, but they
  428
  had not men to man them, and money could not obtain them. He had it upon indisputable authority that the supply of seamen every year was becoming more and more scarce, and neither by money nor money's worth could they obtain them. The establishment of the system of school ships, however, would do much to break clown the barrier which now existed between the naval and the merchant service, and speaking from his own experience he felt assured that the Government would meet with the co-operation of the inhabitants of our seaport towns in carrying it into effect.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: In reply to my hon. Friend who has just addressed the House, I have to state that several communications have passed between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade on the subject of school ships. There are two classes of those ships—the ships exclusively for the Royal Navy, and what may be termed mixed school ships for the navy and merchant service combined. I am now speaking of mixed school ships, and my hon. Friend is, I may add, misinformed, if he supposes we have established any of those vessels at Southampton. The Commission having recommended that there should be 2,000 boys trained in school ships for the navy, the steamship Eagle will be, I believe, located at Southampton in furtherance of that object. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that her Majesty's Government are extremely anxious not to stand still in this matter, but we think it the wisest course to wait and see how the school ships for the Royal Navy will succeed, before we commence the mixed system. It is a question of time. I am not at all surprised that those connected with the shipping interest, and, indeed, all who are concerned for the welfare of the navy, should be most anxious to have this scheme of school ships fully carried out. We are just as anxious as they can be; but surely the Government must be allowed some sort of discretion as to the rate at which we must proceed, always having regard to the economy of the public money, for as yet the cost of these school ships cannot be ascertained with precision. My hon. Friend may depend upon it this subject is not at all lost sight of by the Admiralty or the Board of Trade. It is only part, and a great deal must depend on the amount expended on other parts of the scheme of the Royal Commission. With regard to the Naval Reserve, for instance, a very large expense has been

  429
  incurred in fitting out ships and batteries; and, although the numbers enrolled do not come up to anything like 20,000, yet we are making very fair progress. I can inform the House—if we only chose to lower the qualification—if we chose to enter into the Naval Reserve force, men who were not first-rate seamen, we could make great show in a short time. But it has been the policy of the Government, and I think it a very wise and sound policy, that we should not enter in it any but first-rate seamen. To prove that they are first-rate seamen who are entered in the reserve it is sufficient to state how anxious shipowners are in entering men to get what are called reserve men into their ships. The officers of the Great Eastern, for instance, in preparing for the Transatlantic voyage, have shown the greatest anxiety to get as many men as possible belonging to the Naval Reserve, knowing that they are first-rate seamen. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) made a very fair statement, and I am very much disposed to agree with a good deal that he said. There is but a shade of difference between us, and that is in regard to the merchant service officers. Nobody is more aware than I am, that, in the event of war, we must count on the young officers of the merchant service. That I think nobody will doubt for one moment; but my hon. Friend wishes that they should be entered at once into the reserve force, with an honorary rank. That is no doubt a very taking view of the matter. I should certainly be very much disposed to concur with my hon. Friend when be says we should have already enrolled 20,000—he mentioned 20,000, but the number recommended was 30,000—had we allowed the officers to join. But much as I should desire to see the merchant service officers employed if an emergency should arise, I cannot say they should be appealed to join the reserve merely with the view of influencing the men to enter. I think my hon. Friend hardly does the officers of the merchant service justice in this respect. I believe they are all exerting themselves very much to induce their men to enter this service. But I am bound to say, if the merchant service officers were to be entered with the title of officers of the navy, we should probably very soon have them coming for pay as well as honorary rank. That becomes a question of pounds, shillings, and pence —a mere question of expenditure. But as such it is a very serious question. So much for the first recommendation of my hon.
  430
  Friend. His second recommendation was in regard to petty officers. He said if our petty officers were placed on a respectable footing, it would be a great inducement for merchant men to join the navy; but he must be aware that we have what are called chief petty officers, who are a superior class of men, receive very good pay, and form a link between warrant officers and the petty officers and the ship's company. Then my hon. Friend referred to what he considered the cruelty of our Articles of War, which he said alarmed merchant seamen from entering the navy. I was in hopes I should before this have been enabled to propose a Bill with a view to amend our naval code; but I can now inform my hon. Friend and the House that the Duke of Somerset is about to lay on the table in "another place" a Bill for the improvement of the Articles of War in the Royal Navy. I think my hon. Friend's observations were very much confined to these points. With regard to the present state of the navy, I may state that we are entering able seamen wherever we can get them. We might take second class ordinary seamen on board our ships from the merchant service, but I believe the Admiralty are perfectly right in not taking all-comers indiscriminately into the navy. I believe one cause of the late unfortunate occurrences which took place in some of our ships was the great admixture of the lower class of merchant seamen, being utterly unused to anything like discipline, not having been brought up in the navy, and having no interest in common with it. In many instances the disturbances were, in fact, traced to the action of these seamen. For the same reasons the desertions have increased. I do not wish to say a word against the merchant seamen as a body. I believe good merchant seamen are as good men as we could get; but the Admiralty, I repeat, are, I think, quite right in not lowering the qualification prescribed, and entering any but first-rate seamen into the Naval Reserve, or into the navy itself. Although we might swell the numerical force, and greatly increase the expenditure, I do not think it would tend to render the navy more efficient. We might fill our ships up quicker, but I believe it would be bad policy, for we should be introducing into the navy a class of men who really are not likely to do credit to the service. We have at the present moment nearly 9,000 boys in the navy. Only conceive of what value these boys—who

  431
  will, no doubt, mostly turn out first-rate seamen—must in a short time prove in the navy. You will have so many young men brought up in the service and attached to it; and, if the public will only wait patiently, they will see the navy in a short time on the most satisfactory footing in that respect. I may state to the House, indeed, I have done so before, but I will repeat, as the Member for Southwark will probably allude to the subject, what is the state of our home or reserve force at the present period. In the Coastguard, including Coastguard ships, we have 6,642 men and officers. The Naval Reserve, or volunteer force, now amounts to 1,105 men. The Royal Naval Coast Volunteers are 7,070, and the Marines on shore amount to 6,084. These different bodies of men I have enumerated amount altogether to 23,831. We are enlisting Marines as fast as we can, recruiting parties being out in all directions. We are as anxious to enlist Marines as my hon. Friend or any one can possibly be. In addition to the large force at sea, we have got fitting out a line-of-battle ship, the St. George, and it is satisfactory to state, that although that ship has been in commission only for a very few days, she is already more than half-manned. We have also fitting out the Bacchante, the Hecate, the Barracouta, the Geyser, the Torch, and the Bloodhound. There are a great number of seamen in the Royal harbours, including the men in the flag ships and harbour ships at Portsmouth and Plymouth, who will be perfectly available in the event of any unfortunate emergency. I must say, in conclusion, that I think it would be much more convenient to the House that I should reserve myself to answer the observations which hon. Gentlemen deem it their duty to make instead of having to speak early in these debates. The hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) usually prefers to wait till after I have addressed the House, when I have no opportunity of replying to his remarks. I am obliged to rise, and when I have spoken the hon. and gallant Member gets up and takes me to task for what I have said. I will only add that no exertions shall be spared on the part of the Admiralty to ensure an efficient navy and Naval Reserve.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: To the question at issue, what will secure the seamen whom we already possess, and what will win others to the naval service? I would answer, four conditions;—the encouragement
  432
  to continuous service, the incentive to emulation, the advance of wages commensurate with the seaman's increase in science, and a liberal pension at the expiration of a given period of faithful duty. Our present languid supply is the consequence of our past undiscriminating and irrational treatment of the indifferent and deserving seaman alike. At present, after a service of ten years, all seamen are entitled to a retirement on 6d. a day. I would induce them then to enter the reserve to an addition of £6 or upwards to this existing pension of £9; and the boon would bind these men to remain faithful to their own country instead of transferring their energy, vigour, and proficiency to another land. Let me repeat and press the suggestion upon the Admiralty, speaking as I do from long experience, from considerations matured by intimate acquaintance with a sailor's habits and ways of thought, that to recruit our navy efficiently we must invite the lad of 14 to 16 years of age, then docile and open to strong impressions, when the excitement, change, and novelty of a life at sea would present the most persuasive attractions, and he would easily adapt himself to the routine of order, regularity, cleanliness, and drill in gunnery and seamanship. The hardy youth, born and bred in our seaports, was the class from which the seaman sprang. Let training ships be stationed at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, Woolwich, and Deptford, under the command of officers of skill, judgment, and prudence, who would render the naval service attractive, and enter boys to the number of 3,000 to 4,000 a year, and I will pledge my professional character to the result—the formation of an efficient navy within a few years. It is of no avail to equip the most imposing array of our floating bulwarks, unless they are alive from stem to stern with first-rate practical officers and efficient crews, adepts in seamanship and gunnery. To secure this paramount object—to answer the country's just expectations, it is indispensable to hold out certain reward to the meritorious officers and seamen who exhibited zeal and proficiency in the discharge of their duties. Infuse this spirit into the navy, and the supremacy of England will be disputed only to secure for her an era of new triumphs.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty complained that he always waited, until he had spoken, to bring him to account. The

  433
  fact was, he had been in the habit of speaking early in the debates until experience taught him that it was necessary to wait for the noble Lord, because the noble Lord had a very clever way of parrying what fell from other hon. Members with respect to his department, and leading the House away from the questions that were addressed to him. He did not think the noble Lord had given a satisfactory reply to the very able speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. His hon. Friend complained with great justice that the recommendations of the Manning Commission had not been carried into execution. He had shown that the Manning Commission recommended a reserve of 30,000, not counting the 5,000 additional Marines which they suggested should be raised, or the 5,000 men for other stations. Now, they had it on the authority of the noble Lord himself, that after scraping together all he could get from different resources, the whole number of the reserve amounted only to 23,000 men, and if he would read the Report of the Commissioners he would find that he had included certain classes who ought not to be comprised in his estimate. We had not made the addition to the Marines which was recommended by the Commission, but had only increased that body by 2,000. The Commissioners gave their opinion that the reliefs at the home ports and the Coastguard ought to be speedily raised, but the Admiralty had not speedily raised either the one or the other. The restrictions upon the Coastguard were a great deal too high, too great a length of service being required. The Commissioners recommended that this force should consist of 12,000, and although a year had elapsed since they made this suggestion, we had now no more than 6,800. The state of affairs on the Continent was not very promising, and if matters grew worse, how were we to obtain the men necessary for manning the fleet? The Commissioners also recommended that there should be 4,000 seamen in the different ports, in addition to those in the guard-ships and flag-ships, and the men scattered in various places; but not a single one of those 4,000 men had been raised. There was no use trifling or practising concealment in this matter. Of the total number of 6,800 Coastguard men only 3,181 belonged to the class called "fleet men." He supposed that we should obtain the 20,000 Naval Volunteers some time or other; but as his hon. Friend had
  434
  asked with great propriety, Suppose you had obtained and had occasion to call out your Royal Naval Volunteers, where would you get officers to command them? You will then find it absolutely necessary to come to the mercantile service. Well, why not come to that service now, assign Volunteers their rank, and give some slight decoration—say, an "arrow," embroidered on their collar. When they went to sea in the splendid fleets of our merchant seamen, that decoration would proclaim to all on board, "I am a Royal Volunteer Officer—why have you not Royal Volunteer Seamen?" But the Admiralty would do nothing of the kind out of the absurd jealousy they entertained of the merchant service. The noble Lord said these officers would ask for pay. He did not see how they could do so unless they were employed; and he insisted that the plan of his hon. Friend was a plain and sensible one, showing a thorough knowledge of the merchant service, while the noble Lord as plainly showed he did not know how to deal with them. Then they were told that it was the influx of men from the merchant service that had caused the late disturbances on board the fleet. Why, ever since he had been in the service there had been a constant influx of men from the merchant esrvice, and very glad were they to get them. They used to get them from all kinds of craft during the last war—aye, and worse than that—convicts, "Lord Mayor's men" as they were called. It was because he wished to save the navy from being flooded, in periods of emergency, with such worthless, disreputable characters, with the sweepings of the streets and gaols, that he urged the maintenance of a disciplined reserve force, which they could call to the aid of the regular navy in time of war. If that were once properly done, there would be no need for those fortifications that were now so much talked of. But what was their condition? If war were to break out the next day they would require 120,000 seamen; and he would ask, where were they to be got? The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had expressed his disapproval of the bounty system adopted by the late Board of Admiralty, but he would ask what else was to have been done? Ships were lying three and four, and even five, months in harbour after they were commissioned for want of men; the bounty was offered, and the late Board was able to man ten sail of the line. Of course, a proportion of these

  435
  deserted; that had always been the case; but if the Government instituted an efficient system of police and punishment, desertion would soon cease in the British navy. The noble Lord said the Admiralty were now engaged preparing new laws. But how long were they to take in the preparation? The task was not a difficult one if the Board would only set about it in earnest; two or three officers would in a very few days make all the corrections that were needed. Now, he had made the matter more plain. He told them that the navy was at this moment between 7,000 and 8,000 seamen below the Vote of the House of Commons. He insisted that the Government ought to follow the example of their predecessors, and offer bounty to recruits until they had made up the proper complement of men, and then, if they thought proper, they might discontinue it. His hon. Friend recommended a higher grade of petty officers. He had over and over again stated that there was not a sufficient distinction made between the petty officers and the seamen. The only way to raise their position was to raise their pay, and the Admiralty ought to insist on the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving them money for that purpose. At present all that the best men on board a ship had to look forward to was the rank of boatswain, gunner, and carpenter. As to rising beyond these there was not the smallest chance. If a warrant officer did a gallant action in the war, he had a chance to get a commission; but since the peace that had been a rare event. Various things had been done for the benefit of seamen. The Royal Commission had recommended the establishment of a Seamen's Fund; but was there any prospect of that recommendation being carried out? Then, why were savings banks not established? It had been promised that savings banks should be established in the different ports, though nothing had been done: but he contended there ought to be a savings bank on board every ship. There was another thing of which he had often spoken privately. There was no ore to take care of the seamen's money on board ship. The seamen had no safe place to put their money; some stowed it in their bags, and some in their hammocks, where there was great danger of being robbed. How easy would it be for the paymaster to take charge of the money and keep a running account with the men. He might be told the paymaster had too much to do; then
  436
  give him an assistant. That, it would be said, was expensive but if it was necessary to the efficiency of the navy, expense ought not to stand in the way. The noble Lord apologised for the short supply of school ships by saying the batteries were not ready. What did they want with batteries? They wanted ships. Then the noble Lord said there was a difficulty in the merchant service of getting men. But he was informed by a gallant friend, the Great Eastern had no difficulty in getting petty officers with twelve years' service from the Royal Navy; and the great steam companies—the Peninsular and Oriental Company, for instance—could get their choice of men while the British navy was in want of them. All the great steam companies readily got the men they required; and there was no reason why the navy should not obtain them also, if they took the right course. The reason was that the service was unpopular. It was a disgrace to the country that it should be so, and the Admiralty ought to devise some means to correct the evil. As to entering boys of sixteen or eighteen years of age, he was aware that they would cost a great deal before they would be efficient seamen, but, as they had been cobbling, God knew how long, without succeeding in obtaining a sufficient number of men, they ought to take boys, however expensive it might be. The effect would not be felt immediately, and besides that, they ought at once, seeing the state of affairs in Sicily, and the confusion throughout the world, to take steps to obtain a proper reserve. He believed that the expenditure of large sums of money in fortifications would be entirely and totally useless. A man like Napoleon Buonaparte, with an army of 600,000 men, would not be such a blockhead as to attempt to land men where the fortifications were placed. He would go a little to the east or a little to the west, and he would find plenty of places where there were no fortifications. When England commanded the seas she defied the whole world, and the British way—the only way—to defend this country was to maintain a well-manned and a well-disciplined navy.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him that the whole purport of the Motion of his hon. Friend was to imply, or rather to assert, that the Board of Admiralty had not done the utmost in their power to carry out the recommendations of the Manning Commission; and he was bound to add that if that was the object of the Motion

  437
  it was one in which he entirely concurred. He did not think that the Board of Admiralty had exerted themselves to the utmost to give effect to those recommendations; and he further believed that they had consequently neglected an important duty. But the question then arose, upon whom was the principal blame in that matter to rest? Now he was not prepared to throw all the blame upon the Board of Admiralty. He admitted that they were the body directly responsible, but it should be remembered that they had great difficulties to contend with. He believed that the real blame laid with that House. The indifference of the House of Commons to the importance of the question was the cause of the absence of the necessary exertions on the part of the Board of Admiralty. That Board had, like all other public departments, to deal with that most inconvenient personage a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seldom allowed his mind to wander beyond figures, was indifferent to the requirements of the country, and was ready to starve every branch of the Government in order that he might reduce his Estimates to the lowest possible amount. He did not deny that the Board of Admiralty ought to insist on obtaining the sums required for the efficiency of the service over which they presided; but it was rather too much to expect from any particular set of gentlemen that they should break up the Government with which they were connected by coming to a quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under these circumstances the blame must be charged upon the House of Commons. Let some paltry discussion be raised involving the advent to office of one party or another, when it was of little consequence what the decision might be, they saw 500 or 600 Members coming down to the House, and taking the most eager interest in the result of the division, whereas during a discussion on the state of the navy the benches were almost deserted. The inference was that the House of Commons were perfectly indifferent upon the subject. He felt persuaded, however, that until the House should put a pressure upon the Admiralty, the present wretched system of conducting the naval service would continue. That system was based upon the principle of a penny-wise and pound-foolish economy, and the benefit of £13,000,000 expenditure was lost, when £1,000,000 more would make the defence of the country complete. It was a question purely of
  438
  pounds, shillings, and pence, and all discussion of details was a mere waste of time. The great steam-packet companies obtained as many men as they wanted, as his hon. and gallant Friend had stated, because they chose to pay for them, and it was a disgrace to this country that it should experience the slightest difficulty or delay in procuring the men it required for its navy. Let the Government pursue one or other of two courses. Let them either say, "we disagree with the recommendations of the Manning Commission, and we are not prepared to carry them into effect," or let them resolve on carrying them out by incurring the necessary expenditure. There was one other point to which he wished to advert. He entirely agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend in his condemnation of the proposal to defend this country by fortifications. He regarded it as utter insanity. He believed that for all practical purposes the money to be so expended might as well be thrown into the middle of the sea. It was impossible, in his opinion, to doubt that one-half of that money employed in raising and maintaining an efficient Channel fleet would do more good than all the brick and mortar or all the stone work that could ever be erected.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that he wished to correct a misapprehension as to what had fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty. The noble Lord had stated nothing about the difficulty experienced by the merchant service in obtaining men for their ships, but that they were anxious to get the men who had joined the Royal Naval Reserve, and adduced the fact to show that they were first-rate seamen. He might also add with regard to savings banks on board ships, if the gallant Admiral meant the reception of the seamen's money and the payment of interest, there was no such institution; but if he meant that, instead of placing their money in their chests and hammocks, sailors ought to have a place of safe deposit, there was what was called the second chest, into which savings were received by the paymaster, and the men were pressed by their officers to place their money there for safety. As to raising the number of Coastguard it might be done at once, but it must not be forgotten that it would take away the best men and half ruin the fleet. By lowering the qualification for the Coastguard and for the Reserve numbers might be added, but they would not have men to

  439
  be depended upon, and they would not have first-rate sailors.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he believed that the immediate subject then under consideration was the manning of the fleet. The Admiralty were accused of not having made sufficient exertions to ensure the due accomplishment of that object. It should, however, be borne in mind that able seamen, of whom alone a reserve ought to be composed, were very difficult to get. Only that day week he was on board the Great Eastern, and one of the officers told him that, although they expected to have to go to sea in forty-eight hours, they were seventy-eight able-seamen short; that they did not know where to get them, and they thought of endeavouring to obtain them ultimately in America. It was true that men had been readily obtained for the St. George and the Bacchante, but as one of those vessels was to convey his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Canada, and the other was to be the ship of Prince Alfred, the facility with which they were manned could not be considered a fair example of the ease with which men could be obtained for the navy. He was delighted to hear that the articles of war were to be revised, as he believed that such a revision would tend more than any other step which could be taken to make the naval service popular. The maintenance of discipline on board ships was of the greatest importance, but punishment should be commensurate with offences; it should also be certain, and it was impossible to carry out the extreme penalties provided in the present articles of war. He entirely approved of the recommendation of the Commissioners that a large number of boys should be trained for the Royal Navy. He wished they had 15,000 or 20,000 of those boys, for he believed that their services would hereafter be productive of the greatest advantages. It was on the education and training of boys that in future years they must rely for a supply of sailors.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the House was about to be asked for Votes upon account of the Civil Service Estimates; a practice to which he entertained the strongest objection, because when the money was obtained nothing more was heard of the Estimates until so late a period of the Session, that there was no opportunity of fairly discussing and considering them. It was quite true, as was stated by the noble Lord the Member
  440
  for the City of London the other night, that in the years 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, and 1858, money was voted upon account of these Estimates, the consideration of which was not commenced until the months of July or August. But what had been the result of the adoption of that course? Why, these Estimates had increased from year to year to a very considerable extent. In 1851 they amounted to £3,900,000, in 1853 to £4,800,000, in 1854 to £6,600,000, and in 1858 to £7,235,000, and he thought it was full time for the House to look into that expenditure. The proper course would be for the Government, instead of asking for Votes on account, to take those Votes upon which the balances were running short, and let them be fairly discussed and their amounts voted. The first item for which money was wanted on account was the salaries of the First Lord, the Lords and the Secretary of the Treasury, who were the persons responsible for the delay of these Estimates, and who ought, in his opinion, not to receive their money until they had fulfilled their duties to that House. The most important, perhaps, of all the Votes was, however, that for public education, which had run up in amount in a greater degree than any of the others; and if they agreed to these Votes on account, they would hear nothing more with regard to the subject of them until a late period of the Session, when it would be impossible to bring them under discussion. There were also Votes for the Commissioners of Works, for the convict establishments at home, and for the consular service; all of which ought to be fully discussed, but for the consideration of which the House would obtain no sufficient opportunity if it now consented to give Votes upon account. It had been said that the Estimates could not be submitted to the House earlier because there was before it a great and urgent constitutional question, and those who agreed with him had been accused of wishing to impede the progress of business. Such an accusation was unjust, because the Reform Bill was pressed upon the House in opposition to the wishes of all but a small section of its Members. He should not oppose the Motion that the Speaker should leave the chair, but he should take the sense of the Committee upon the first Vote on account that was asked for.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

PROPERTY AND INCOME TAX.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to call attention to the present mode of assessing the property and income tax, with a view to the more equitable assessment thereof. He would remind the House that from the establishment of this impost there had been general, wide-spread, and most deeply-felt dissatisfaction, in consequence of the mode in which it was assessed, and with reference to the principle of assessment. The subject had been repeatedly brought under the attention of the House, and in 1852 its importance had been recognized by the appointment of a Committee to consider it. It appeared that the subject was beyond the power of the Committee, because they referred it back to the House for its decision. He brought forward the question in the hope that the Government would render any further steps on the part of independent Members unnecessary, by stating what course they intended to pursue in respect to it. His object on that occasion was not to invite the House to discuss the present mode of assessment, or to inquire whether it could be improved, and if so by what means, but from the belief that, for the public interest, the Government should state at that period of the Session the course they intended to pursue in the next Session on the arrival of the time for renewing the tax. The first question was whether the present system of assessment was a just one. Now, without reviving all the arguments commonly urged upon this point, he would say that common sense revolted against persons engaged in trades and professions paying on their precarious incomes the same amount that was obtained from fixed incomes derived from real property. If the Government intended to persist in that system it was absolutely essential that they should mitigate the sense of injustice which persons employed in trades and professions must feel in contributing an equal rate, or something like an equal rate with the land, by making it clear and intelligible to the people of the country that it was essential to retain the assessment on its present footing, and that it could not be altered with any degree of consideration for the public service. In that case, unfair and unjust as it might be, those who suffered from the injustice would be ready to pay their quota with much greater readiness. Upon this point, however, the country was entirely
  442
  without information, although he believed that the Government had at its command ample materials for the re-adjustment of the tax, and that it could be re-adjusted without causing any of those divisions between different classes of the community, or of the jealousies between landed and trade interests, which appeared to constitute the great difficulty in approaching the question. In 1853, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that he sympathized with the feeling that the income tax bore more heavily on trade and professions, on skill and industry, than upon property; but in 1856 the right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, expressed totally different views. That right hon. Gentleman said, that in imposing a tax of this sort the State ought not to look to property but to income, and that the ability of each person to pay should be measured by the annual income he possessed. When the re-imposition of the tax was proposed, the members of trades and professions should know which of those views was approved of by the Government. In quoting the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he omitted to say that the right hon. Gentleman expressed his full and entire conviction that the sympathy he felt could not be practically carried out, and that a reconstruction of the tax could not take place without producing evils far greater than any good that could be effected by a change in the system. Well, if that could be shown, the country might be satisfied; but in his opinion the system could be altered without difficulty and without injury. At that time the right hon. Gentleman regarded the tax as a temporary one; but looking upon it, as they must now do, as a permanent arrangement, did there not exist materials by which, without any conflict of party, and without any serious conflict between opposing interests, the system could be changed so as to put au end to the prevalent dissatisfaction? Not only was the assessment inquisitorial and unjust, but it had the most prejudicial influence on the morality of the country, in leading persons to make false returns of their incomes. If it was possible to devise a remedy, it was most essential to adopt it when the property and income tax was about to be made the permanent source of revenue. In 1840 Parliament passed an Act releasing from its liability to the poor rate visible property, as stock in trade, amounting to £16,000,000 a year, and

  443
  which might be said to be property of an analogous character to that which came under Schedule D of the Property Tax Act. It was true that by usage this class of property was exempt from liability to the poor rate; but in the year he had mentioned the exemption was confirmed by Act of Parliament, and the burden transferred to the land. That Act was originally passed for two or three years, he forgot which, but since then it had been continually renewed without objection on the part of the owners of real property, by whom its justice had been previously practically recognized. When the Bill of 1840 was under discussion the present Lord Chancellor, then a Member of the House of Commons, said it was most inquisitorial to attempt to tax stock in trade; but how much more inquisitorial must it be to tax property such as was assessed under Schedule D, and which was not even, as stock in trade was, "visible" property, but property that was invisible. He submitted that in the course taken with regard to the liability of visible personal property to the poor rate, they might find a means for the satisfactory adjustment of the income tax in respect to incomes derived from trades and professions. With the permission of the House, he would read a letter from Mr. George Coode, who had a perfect knowledge of the subject, and who stated that the materials were in the power of the Government, not only for ascertaining the bearing and operation of the tax, but for setting it free from the objections that unnecessarily aggravated its unpopularity. Mr. Coode also stated that those materials would never come before a Parliamentary Committee; and that no Government department would never work them up; but that there must be a department to make an exposition of them if they were ever to be reduced to a satisfactory condition. The difficulty of dealing with Schedule D, therefore, was purely imaginary; n deep and general dissatisfaction was felt with regard both to the principle and details of this tax, and it was the duty, therefore, of the Government either to take some means to correct its evils, or to show that it was a perfectly fair and just tax. They had ample means at their disposal for either one purpose or the other. The great question which had lately arisen between the two Houses had had its origin mainly in the opinion expressed in "another place" that they were no longer equal to the administration of those functions which were supposed
  444
  to attach specially to that House. As regards the property and income tax, there might be some ground for the feeling that the House had not fulfilled its duty; but, whether that be so or not, they should have an authoritative statement on the subject. Although they might not satisfy the House of Lords that they were able to discharge the duty that properly belonged to them, it was the more important, as it seemed to him, to show that they had done all they could to render themselves worthy of the high trust, in regard to taxation of the country, which that House had ever enjoyed, and which he trusted it would insist upon retaining.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he firmly believed that the time had come when the feeling of the people on this subject could no longer be trifled with, especially as there never was a time when there was less reason for regarding the income tax as a temporary impost than that moment. At the beginning of the Session it might have been thought possible that the tax might be got rid of in a year or two, but the China war and the state of Europe, which rendered it necessary for them to spend large sums on armaments and fortifications, were sufficient to put an end to all such hopes. The Committee of 1851 and 1852 made an attempt to grapple with the tax, which proved a failure; but still he thought that their labours ought not to be altogether thrown away, and he suggested that some compromise should be come to upon the subject. He therefore hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give them some information upon it.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, there was a very strong impression in various parts of the country that there was unfairness in the imposition of this tax. That unfairness had been submitted to because there had been a constant hope that in two or three years the tax would be taken off. That hope had now departed, and he thought the country ought now to have an assurance that the Government, and especially the Finance Minister, would grapple with the subject.
  MR. WESTHEADsaid, he represented a very ancient city, in which were many members of the legal and clerical professions, and they considered that this tax was most unfairly levied. It was generally hoped that this tax, after what had been shown as to its injustice, would have been brought to an end; but the prospect before them was very gloomy, and he was

  445
  afraid that the burden must long remain as an incubus upon the industry of the country in various forms. He had had opportunities within his own experience of perceiving how unequally the burden affected different members of the community. One was the case of a merchant who had paid the tax upon a large income for many years, but in the panic of 1857–58 the whole of his property was swept away. In the case of another merchant, he invested a short period before that panic £120,000 in land, and he retained that property now. The incomes from trade and that from land were both taxed, but it was quite unfair to tax them upon the same principle as was done in that case. A man who gave his best efforts to the support of his family, and did his best to maintain them on his income, ought not to be taxed like himself (Mr. Westhead) and others who had property which, if they died the next day, would descend to their children. The country had been content to bear these inequalities upon the assurances of various Chancellors of the Exchequer that the tax should soon come to an end. That hope was now vain; and he gave notice that in a future Session he should use all his influence to prevent its re-imposition.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think this subject is one so important, and involves so many public interests, that it would not be respectful to my hon. Friend who raised the discussion if I were to allow you, Sir, to leave the chair without saying one word with regard to what has fallen from him. Now, Sir, there is one consideration that ought always to be borne in mind in a discussion as to the mode of assessing the income tax. It is not always so vividly present to the minds of those who enter into that discussion as it might be. I am far from mentioning it as a consideration decisive of the question, but it certainly is one very material to the question, and it is this— that when we are considering the re-adjustment of the income tax, with the idea of affording great relief to particular persons on whom we may think it presses too heavily, we do not always remember that the relief of one is, in point of fact, an additional burden on another. I have, indeed, known the case of a Member of Parliament who was assailed, I think, in the same town which he had canvassed, with complaints of the burdens of the income tax on those who come under Schedule D, on which he said that nothing could be
  446
  clearer than the claims of those who were assessed under Schedule D to relief. He afterwards became a county Member, and when he canvassed that county he was assailed with complaints of the unjust and unequal pressure of the income tax on those who come under Schedule A. He replied in like manner, and yielding to the same impulse of benevolence, said that nothing in his judgment was clearer than that relief ought to be given to those assessed under Schedule A. He was afterwards pressed with the case of the fundholder— he considered the case of persons receiving salaries from the Government who are assessed under Schedule C to belong to D; and thus he disposed of three Schedules: he was pressed, as I have said, with regard to the only remaining Schedule, which was the case of the fundholders, and he said nothing could be more invidious than to make them exceptions to the enjoyment of that relief which had been extended to Schedule C. That is, no doubt, a most agreeable method of handling a thorny question. It was most consolatory to the feelings of those classes who were addressed in turn in honied accents by the Gentleman who had that happy knack of dealing with an unpleasant subject. But the end of that method is, that if all get relief from the existing standard, then the standard of the whole tax must be raised in order to replace the Exchequer in the same position that it occupied before. With regard to the fault of the income tax, its inequality, there are certain parts of the inequalities of it common to it as to most other taxes levied in this country, although they may be more prominent in the case of the income tax. There are other inequalities—other disadvantages—which I myself have always strongly felt—and perhaps with regard to some of them, at least, I feel more strongly than most Members of this House—many inequalities and faults peculiar to this tax. There is a peculiar sense—a belief of the inequality attaching to the imposition of this tax. Now, I gather from what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who raised this discussion that he has no intention at the present moment of moving for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the subject. I confess I think that in so doing he exercises a wise discretion. I am very far from saying that it is the duty of the Government to oppose a further prosecution of the Inquiry into the assessment of the income tax, if at any time it should be the general desire of the House to in-

  447
  stitute that Inquiry, and not only to institute that Inquiry, but to prosecute it with earnestness, and energy proportionate to the extreme difficulty of the subject. I do not feel authorized to shut the door against a general desire of the House, but I must confess as an individual, and I believe on the part of my Colleagues, that in saying this we have done all in our power. The hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Goldsmid) who appeals to me in the office I hold, said he hoped the question would receive at the hands of the Government, and especially the Finance Minister, before he proposes another Budget, an attentive and careful examination. Now, it does happen that at a former period it became my duty, in my own behalf, in the same office I have now the honour to fill, and likewise on behalf, to a considerable degree, of the same Colleagues, to examine this question. Nor was I alone in the examination, because several Members of the Cabinet of the Earl of Aberdeen, including all those who had paid the greatest attention to the subject of finance, were good enough to associate themselves with me for the purpose of testing and sifting it to the best of our ability. At that period nothing was more obvious than that it was to the interest of the Government to come to some arrangement if possible for the adjustment of this tax. A strong disposition had been shown by those who then formed, as now, the Opposition party, to give their countenance to the reconstruction of the tax. I do not mention that now as a matter of praise or blame, but simply as an important historical fact. While that was the case with regard to the Conservative party, undoubtedly a large portion of the Liberal party were, in the abstract, favourable to the same opinion. Therefore there was the clearest interest on the part of the Government to have proposed a plan for the purpose, if we had found ourselves able to arrive at the means of constructing such a plan consistently with justice. It is very difficult to assert, with confidence, a negative on most subjects, and particularly on the subject of politics, and most of all on the subject of taxation. We did come to the conclusion, however, that it was not practicable to form any system of readjustment of the income tax with reference to the distinction between permanent and terminable income, without inflicting a greater amount of injustice than that which it would cure. I am bound to take notice—I am bound to remind those who have taken part
  448
  in this debate, because it is a material part of the case, that even in the commencement of the examination of it, we find ourselves confronted by this fact—that whereas, on the whole, those who are assessed under Schedule D pay on less than their real income—I do not speak now of the cases of fraud, though I fear they are not unfrequent, but I speak of the liberal arrangements made by the law, which, I think, legitimately have on the whole that effect —while those assessed under Schedule D pay on less than their real income, in almost every case—I believe I may say every case without exception—those who pay under Schedule A pay on more than the real amount of their income. Therefore, I think that if at this moment we institute a severe critical analysis of the tax, and pursue that to its farthest stage, we shall find that the tax presses more heavily on those assessed under Schedule A than any other. That is clear with reference to all property assessed under Schedule A, but one description of property—I think I may say all property; but I am not quite sure how the case stands with regard to the returns of mines. But speaking of the great branches under Schedule A, there is no doubt of the truth of the statement I have made. With respect to one large branch of that property—namely, house property, I may say with regard to certain classes of it at least, that if there he a special claim to be singled out from all the rest for relief, the strongest is the claim which may be urged by the owner of a certain species of house property. I only mention that as a material, but not as a decisive consideration, to be borne in mind by those who take an interest in this subject. It was my fate, in 1853, for a space of two mortal hours, to occupy the time of this House,— whether fruitfully or fruitlessly, I do not know,—in stating in great detail, and in giving a full development to the reasons that had actuated the Government in the conclusions at which they had arrived. There was then a strong sense, and there is still a considerable sense of the inequality of the pressure of the tax, as well as of its general severity, yet I am bound to say, on the whole, since that time the public have been more impressed with a sense of the difficulty of any practical reconstruction of it than they were at an earlier period. That result I entirely attribute to the labours of the Select Committee, and to the fact that that Committee, having been appointed with the notion

  449
  that a reconstruction of the tax, as practicable, and probably easy, might be accomplished, were—such was the general effect which the evidence brought before them left on their minds—led to the conviction that if such a reconstruction was not hopeless, it was, at all events, a work of extreme difficulty. Nay more, there were one or two highly intelligent Members of this House, who entered upon the inquiry in that Committee, in the firm belief of the practicability of the reconstruction of the tax, who concluded their labours in the full persuasion that its reconstruction was impossible. I think the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this question, will, therefore, see that it would be paltering with the House and the country, if I were to pretend, on the part either of myself, or, I believe I may say, any one of my colleagues, that we see our way to any plan for the readjustment of the income tax. It cannot, of course, be denied that there are many questions of a more limited character than the complete reconstruction of the tax, which, nevertheless, are of great importance, which may, perhaps, form the subject of useful inquiry; and with respect to which I am by no means disposed to say that improvements might not be effected. But what I am desirous of impressing upon my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Whalley) now is, that while I am aware there are very sanguine ideas entertained out of doors on this subject, I cannot give to those who entertain them any encouragement; and that, while I feel myself perfectly unable to give to those ideas practical effect, I should be unwilling to stand in the way of men, who, bringing a greater amount of ability to bear upon the question, may deem themselves capable of devising a scheme to accomplish this object. With that explanation, frankly owning to my hon. Friend that he exercises a sound judgment in not asking the House to go into an inquiry on this subject, I beg to conclude the brief remarks I have offered to the House.
  MR. WHALLEY, in explanation, stated that he had neither proposed nor suggested a revision of Schedule D merely, but such an inquiry into the whole of the schedules as would satisfy the just requirements of the country.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that as it was clear that the income tax must be permanent, he hoped that means would be devised to make it bear as light as possible. It might be extremely difficult to readjust the tax, yet there were
  450
  some of its more aggravated inequalities which might be easily redressed. In the course of last year, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman had greatly aggravated the inequality of the income tax by throwing the annual payment on the half-year. The class of long annuitants in this way were compelled to pay the whole year's tax on the half-year's income in October. The consequence was that they paid on a quarter's income that they had never received. That was a remarkable instance of the injustice of that House. The quarter he referred to was from the 10th of January to the 5th of April. He had been applied to by some of these long annuitants to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for restitution, and he had told them to appeal to him themselves; but he was afraid they would not succeed, as he never knew a Chancellor of the Exchequer to make restitution of anything. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) had done all he could. He had last year divided the House on the subject, but only thirty-seven Gentlemen followed him.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES,
  House in Committee.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he rose to move that a Vote of £654,000 be granted to Her Majesty on account for the purpose of defraying certain expenses for the Civil Service. In doing so, he would take occasion to say that it was by no means the wish or the intention of the Government to have recourse to the practice of taking Votes on account, or to lay down any new system with respect to the voting of the Estimates. The present Vote was proposed under exceptional circumstances, inasmuch as, while a certain amount was immediately wanted for the Civil Service, it was not thought expedient, nor probably would it be the wish of the House, that the discussion on the Estimates for that Service should be at once proceeded with, to the exclusion of those for the army and the navy, the debate on the organization of the Indian army, and other important subjects which claimed immediate attention. The amount, he might add, for which he asked on the present occasion was only sufficient to tide the Government over salaries and other payments due next month, and by no means so large as to preclude the House from exercising to its fullest extent their judgment with respect to Civil Service Esti-

  451
  mates as a whole, the discussion on which the Government did not wish to postpone a single day beyond the time necessary for the despatch of more important business. It had been said that those Estimates were in a state of constant and rapid expansion, but it would be found that when the whole of the items of the revenue—class 7—were before the House—which would be the case in a few days—they did not exceed the amount which had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in February last, and that upon the whole of the Civil Service Estimates there was a diminution, as compared with last year, of at least £320,000.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £654,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge of certain Civil Services, to the 31st day of March 1861."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had great objection to the system of voting sums on account, but seeing the difficult position in which the Government were placed, as they had no moans of going on without these Votes, he should not offer any opposition to that before the Committee. He wished, however, to know how long the present Vote would enable the Government to go on?
  MR. LAINGsaid, that the Votes had been taken to carry the public service over the payment of the quarterly salaries due at the commencement of July. The Government, if those votes of credit were granted, would have to come to the House again for money about the middle of July.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the Committee must be convinced that, if the Votes on account were granted, there would be an end to all discussion on the Civil Service Estimates. They all knew that by the middle of July the House was in a state of dissolution, and no reduction could then be made in the Votes. He should, therefore, offer a few observations on the first item, the Vote for the Treasury, and, as the Gentlemen representing that departpartment had not done their work this year, and had not got these Votes discussed and passed, they were not entitled to their salaries. The subject was one of importance, as a very unsatisfactory mode of conducting business at the Treasury had recently sprung up, and some fresh organization of that department was much wanted. Formerly the Lords of the Treasury sat as a Board. Everything went before them, and their sanction as a body was required. But of late years he un-
  452
  derstood the business was transacted by the Secretary and the Chief Clerk of the department. More important matters were arranged between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary, and then the clerk wrote the determination that had been come to in the name of "my Lords," although "my Lords" knew nothing of the matter. The Lords of the Treasury ought to be really active and responsible officers. The inquiry before the Packet Contracts Committee showed the necessity of bringing the business of the Treasury into one focus, so that one department might know what another was doing. The Lords of the Treasury were very active in and about that House, and hon. Members were sure to find one at the door, but they were less entitled to their salaries this year than ever, because on two or three occasions they had been active in counting out the House, and preventing it from proceeding with the business before it. He would move as an Amendment that the Vote of £15,000 for the Treasury be postponed until the whole Vote for the Treasury was before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not move the postponement of a Vote.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would move, then, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £15,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £639,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge of certain Civil Services, to the 31st day of March 1861."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, it was absurd to suppose that the House could properly discuss the Estimates if they were put off to a late period of the Session. The Civil Service Estimates were those upon which their only hope rested with regard to economy. It would be impossible to economise on the Army and Navy Votes, the only fault of which was that instead of being too high they were too low. The increase in the Civil Service Estimates during the last six or seven years was out of proportion to the apparent requirements of the country. The House would do well to make it imperative upon the Government to lay the Estimates before the House at an early period of the Session. If a Resolution of that kind were passed, marking the sense of the Committee upon the delay which had occurred, they would do more towards economising the finances of the country than had been

  453
  done by any previous House of Commons. The difficulty in which the Government now found themselves was one of their own creation. Still, he did not see that any good would result from refusing this Vote on account; but if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Augustus Smith) chose to divide the Committee upon it he would go into the lobby with him.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) for an earlier production of the Civil Service Estimates was a good one, and he trusted it would engage the attention of the Committee up-stairs, and form one of their recommendations. As, however, it was not through any fault of the Government that the present delay had occurred, he trusted the hon. Member for Truro would not press his Amendment.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to know whether any part of the money voted would be applied to the Art and Science Department Vote of £94,000, and the Vote of £34,000 for works and repairs about the Palace of Westminster. It was his intention to move a considerable reduction in both these Votes.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped it was not intended to postpone the consideration of the Estimates till the middle of July, because what had happened before might happen again, and when very few Members were present, except those he-hind the Treasury bench, many very important Votes might be taken.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could assure the House that there was no intention to postpone unnecessarily the discussion of these Estimates. All that his hon. Friend asked was that there should be a Vote on account to meet the wants of the service up to a particular period. It was desirable to go on as soon as possible with the Navy and Army Estimates, as those related to services of great magnitude and importance to the country; but as soon as those Estimates were gone through, which he hoped would be next week, the House would be able to discuss in the fullest manner all the items of the Miscellaneous Estimates.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, the statement of the noble Lord would give great satisfaction, as the impression might have gone abroad that the Government had no desire to give the House an opportunity of fully considering these Estimates.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he thought they could not conscientiously refuse this Vote,
  454
  as the Treasury was at a very low ebb. The state of the public business bad given the Government an excuse for asking Votes on account that Session; but he considered the principle of such Votes to be highly objectionable. He was glad to hear the noble Lord say that ample opportunities would be given for discussing the Estimates.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask whether any architect had been appointed as the successor of Sir Charles Barry; and also whether any considerable works were to be undertaken with reference to the Houses of Parliament during the ensuing year?
  MR. LAINGsaid, it was not intended to apply any portion of the money then asked to the expenditure upon the Houses of Parliament, the money already taken for that purpose not being yet exhausted. A sum of £12,000 would be appropriated on account of the arts and sciences, the total Vote for which was £94,000.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had, a few evenings ago, spoken of the consideration of the Miscellaneous Estimates as business that might be put off without much detriment, and that on an average of years the reductions made in them were very trifling. That was not a position in which the Civil Service Estimates, which were growing in importance every year, ought to stand. It had also been said that the principle of voting on account ought to be acted on by the House, and that it should be the rule— not the exception. When that was laid down as a rule, it was high time for the House to look into the question. He thought that they should act on the principle of no money being spent till it was appropriated, and in order to carry out that principle, the commencement of the financial year should be on the 1st of July, instead of the 1st of April. It was his intention to bring the latter proposition more prominently before the House on a future day.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Smith) that a reorganization of the Treasury was required. That had been shown by the evidence given before the Public Moneys, Miscellaneous Expenditure, and other Committees, for the way in which it had been thereby proved that the Treasury transacted their business was far from satisfactory. The Lords of the Treasury were all very able gentlemen, and he could not understand why more use was not made of them in departments where

  455
  their ability might be of service. He thought the financial secretary of the day exercised too much power. A remarkable instance of the unlimited exercise of power in that direction occurred when Mr. Wilson was financial secretary, for during that period he alone, without consulting any single functionary, or the Treasury, entered into a most important contract, involving the outlay of £185,000, of which 92,000 had to be paid by one of our colonies. That contract had given great dissatisfaction in the colony, for it had proved to be a complete failure; and Mr. Wilson had avowed that though my Lords were stated to have done this and to have done that, no one but himself had had the least share in the matter. That was a very wrong mode of conducting public business, and Her Majesty's Government and the Treasury should look to it, and be made responsible for all the transactions that took place. He thought the hon. Gentleman had done good service in calling attention to the subject.
  MR. A. SMITHsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  (2.) £444,049, New Works in Naval Establishments.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he should be glad to hear whether the Board of Admiralty had taken into their consideration the pressure that existed for the extension of the dockyards at Chatham. The late Board of Admiralty had given the subject their most anxious consideration, but did not come to any final conclusion upon it. He was disposed to think that there ought to be a large expenditure upon the Chatham dockyards. It was most important to have the naval estsblishments well strengthened particularly upon that part of our coast. They could not do justice to our naval forces without largely increasing our dockyard accommodation there. He wished to know whether the Board of Admiralty had come to any conclusive opinion upon the subject.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Board had given much attention to the case of the Chatham dockyards. They had found upon inquiry as to their rights over St. Mary's Creek, which formed a sort of highway for small vessels between Chatham and Gillingham that there was
  456
  an opposition on the part of the Corporation of Rochester and Chatham against their taking possession of it. In carrying on the works at St. Mary's Island it would be necessary to shut up St. Mary's Creek, and the Admiralty proposed to introduce a Bill for the shutting up of that creek. In the meantime they were doing what they could to arrest encroachments from the sea on the outer part of the island, which would be so much gained. It was not, however, proposed in the present year to go beyond the works already in progress.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had heard the answer of the noble Lord with very great satisfaction, and he hoped the Admiralty would continue to bear the matter in mind.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid he wished to call attention to the expense of gas used in the various dockyards. There was an item of £350 for gas at Deptford, another of £842 for gas at Woolwich, £900 for Chatham, £600 for Sheerness, and £1,000 for Portsmouth. Now, when the sum charged for gas in one yard amounted to £1,000 a year, it became a question whether it might not be more economical to manufacture it. He was led to put this question, as a sum was now to be taken for gasworks at Deptford.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, they had manufactured gas for themselves at Pembroke at a cost of 2s. 7d. per 1,000 feet; but when they could get pure gas from a company at 3s., they did not think it advisable to incur the expense of gasworks. The rate at Deptford, however, was high, and in this Vote there was an item of £300 for gasworks there. With regard to Portsmouth, the question was under consideration. They wanted, further, to see how they got on at Deptford and Pembroke before embarking in larger works.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcommented upon the enormous sums placed upon the Estimates, comprising all sorts of matters, without the necessary information as to what items they belonged. He also complained that with regard to Keyham, and also to Woolwich, large Votes were taken for the purchase of land, and cost of erection of buildings, without distinguishing the cost of the land from the cost of the buildings. He asked whether there was any objection on the part of the Admiralty to give a return specifying all the land purchased in connection with the dockyards, with the quantities and the prices paid, and extending back some two years.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the land alluded to in the Votes had been, generally, long since purchased; but all the details of the great works were kept on the Votes year after year until the whole were completed. The only new item was that of £6,000 for the purchase of the Quadrangle at Keyham. At Woolwich there was an item of £10,250 for the final completion of the infirmary. That building had cost a good deal more than the original Estimate, but this Vote would make it ready for the reception of patients.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the noble Lord had not as yet touched upon an old and long-standing question in respect to Keyham—namely, the purchase of what was called the St. Aubyn's Estate adjoining. He wished to know whether any decision upon this point had as yet been come to. There was an item of £25,000 for additional barrack accommodation at Plymouth, which required explanation. The Supplementary Estimate for the purchase of an estate and for the further extension of this barrack accommodation involved an expenditure of £51,000.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, with regard to St. Aubyn's Estate, the Admiralty had made over and over again an offer for the purchase of it, but it was refused, and they had no intention at present to purchase any land in that quarter. The Marine Barracks at Plymouth were in a very unsatisfactory condition, and their enlargement was absolutely necessary for the accommodation of a force which had greatly increased. The adjoining premises were therefore to be purchased.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: How many additional men will they accommodate?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: We have only purchased the land. We have not yet got plans.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the outlay now going on at the Bermudas, which figured in the Estimates at £150,000, called for a searching inquiry on the part of the Government, with a view to the removal of abuses.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that £96,000 had already been voted for the Bermudas, where the dockyards works were begun as far back as 1812 or 1813. Was it possible that this expenditure had been going on ever since then? Stabling for twenty horses had been provided for the superintendent of an island much too small to afford exercising ground for such a stud.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that works had been in progress at the Bermudas for a great number of years; but the present Estimate related to works that had been going on only for seven or eight. A storehouse was being built, the accommodation in the dockyard increased, and an additional house outside it erected.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERinquired whether the Governmeut had any intention of carrying out the plan for concentrating all the Admiralty departments at Whitehall.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETadmitted that it would be desirable to bring all the departments connected with the navy under one roof, but to do so would involve much expense, and he was not aware of any intention at present to propose an Estimate for that purpose.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to refer to the Vote for Gibraltar, where he found it stated that in consequence of the insufficient supply of convict labour recourse had necessarily been had to hired labour. He would suggest to the Government whether, instead of sending convicts to Western Australia, they should not send them to Gibraltar, where they could be made useful. He also wished for some explanation respecting a Vote for the Corodino tank at Malta. The Vote was £12,737, and an additional sum of £5,605, which appeared to be a larger sum than ought to be required. Another Vote of £2,000 for a coal wharf at Trincomalee also needed explanation, as he could not see why that outlay should he made just now.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETexplained that at Gibraltar the army works were extending, and the first demand upon convict labour belonged to them. The Admiralty were, therefore, obliged to have recourse to hired labour. He did not know whether those works would go on increasing, but, if they did not, there was plenty of work for convicts at Gibraltar, such as lengthening the mole and other works. The outlay for the tank at Malta was large, but excavations in that island were always expensive and uncertain, owing to the porous nature of the rock. The item for a coal wharf at Trincomalee was a consequence of our warlike operations in the East, and it was obviously necessary for us to provide a depot for coals for the use of our steamers in those seas.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he observed a sum of money put down for increased barrack accommodation. He had that day

  459
  been studying a document which had just been laid before Parliament, the contents of which had made his hair stand on end, both at the danger we were in if an invasion took place, and at the enormous expense—some £12,000,000—which would be necessary to make us safe. The Commissioners upon National Defences, among other things, recommended fortifications of the dockyards, which included large barrack accommodation. He therefore thought it would be as well to defer the present Vote, as all money now applied would be thrown away if the recommendations of the Commissioners should be adopted.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would ask the noble Lord, after the satisfactory answer he had given to his former question, whether the Admiralty would undertake to bring the question before the Government of the removal of the convict establishment in Western Australia to Gibraltar, in consequence of the scarcity of convict labour at the latter place.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he would draw attention to the item of £25,000 for building cottages for the Coastguard. He observed that a Return recently made showed that each cottage cost £220, which he thought was more than should be the cost of buildings of that nature.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, with reference to the question concerning Gibraltar, if there should be more works at that place than the present supply of convicts could perform, probably the Board of Admiralty would communicate with another department on the subject. With respect to cottages for the Coastguard, he admitted the cost was large, but it must be remembered that they had to be built in a most substantial manner in places often remote from towns and difficult of access. The plan, however, had recently been slightly altered, and the last tenders sent in were at a lower price than formerly.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that his impression, when he was at the head of the Admiralty, was that the expenditure for the Coastguard cottages was rather large. He was, therefore, glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) that the Board would do all in their power to keep it down. The marginal observation in the Estimates respecting the Admiralty having been unable to obtain a sufficiency of convict labour at Gibraltar raised this very important question—were the finances of this country to be subjected to those expenses for hired labour when
  460
  we were incurring such an enormous expenditure per head for sending out convicts to Western Australia? If the demand for convict labour still continued at Gibraltar it was high time for the Admiralty to communicate with the Home Office, and he therefore hoped that the noble and gallant Lord would give the subject his serious attention.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that undoubtedly, if the large works now going on at Gibraltar were to continue, it would be the duty of the Government seriously to consider the question of securing more convict labour; but that would be attended with considerable expense in the way of providing additional convict accommodation. The subject was, however, a very important one, and should receive due attention. Indeed, his hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread) had asked Admiral Martin to make inquiries into the matter when he arrived at Gibraltar. In his own opinion the work was only of a temporary character.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOasked whether the expenditure upon barracks proposed by the Admiralty would be independent of the expenditure on fortifications recommended by the Commissioners on the National Defences. He wished to know also whether a supplementary Estimate would be brought forward in the present year founded on the Report of this Commission.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETcould not hold out any hope that the recommendations of the Commissioners would bring about any reduction in the present Estimates with respect to barracks. As to the other question, he was not prepared to answer it. The Secretary for War would make his own statement on the subject.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERasked what was the largest ship that could get into Sheerness basin at all times of the tide, and whether it was necessary to remove her guns and stores before going in. He wished to know, also, whether the Admiralty expected to deepen the passage into Portsmouth harbour so that a three-decker could sail in and out with her guns on board. At present, if an enemy were at Spithead and our ships inside the harbour, they could not get out to drive the enemy away. That was not a state of things which ought to continue. Would the noble Lord inform him to what extent the Mole of Gibraltar had been lengthened, and how many ships could he within the Mole protected from the gales which prevailed there?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was intended to carry out the Mole at Gibraltar 200 feet beyond the 1,000 feet originally intended. It would, therefore, be 1,200 feet longer, and he believed about 400 feet were still unfinished. With regard to Portsmouth Harbour, he feared he could give no positive assurance that such a depth would ever be attained as would enable a three-decker to sail out at all times of the tide. Dredging was being carried on, but he was sorry to say that shingle of the same nature as that on the top of the Spit had found its way again into the Channel, thereby showing that continual dredging would be necessary. The great dredging works now going on at Spithead were expected to be completed this autumn. The gallant Admiral had asked whether the basin at Sheerness would admit a very heavy ship. It would not, for it was impossible to make it deep enough for that.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERobserved that in case of war Sheerness would be a very important place, and perhaps the noble Lord would ascertain whether it would he possible to deepen the basin sufficiently.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that as the unhappy Chinese war was about to begin temporary provision must be made in the shape of coal stores in the Eastern seas, but the sheds and stores mentioned in the Estimates appeared to be intended for a permanent purpose. He wished to know whether the Estimates of these items were made on the authority of competent judges, so that the noble Lord could rely on the necessity of expending such amounts.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTinquired what was the breadth of the Mole at Gibraltar.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not state exactly, but he knew it had a good broad platform with a high parapet, and was a very convenient mole. With regard to the coalsheds and stores, the Estimates went through a process of weeding very considerable in the aggregate, and there was scarcely one which was not cut down before it was submitted to the House. It was economy to keep up good stores of coals, because in the Indian and Chinese seas coals must always be in use, and it was idle to suppose that they would not be required every year.
  Vote agreed to; as was also
  (3.) £73,000 (Medicines, Medical Stores).
  (4.) £92,750 (Naval Miscellaneous Services).
  MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that a
  462
  variety of divers matters were put together, so that it was impossible to know whether the charges were right or wrong.
  MR. LYGONsaid, the sailors' homes and other similar institutions had been of the greatest benefit to the men employed in the service, and therefore he hoped that in future years a larger sum would be placed in the Estimates than at present. £1,600 was all that was now devoted for these purposes.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTasked how it was that there was such a large increase in the sum required for passage money. In 1859–60 £12,000 was voted; and for 1860–61 £30,000 was required.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid the increase was in consequence of the passages out to China of the military officers and others.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he could not but express his regret at finding certain sums set down under the name of rewards "for the destruction of pirates." It was desirable that the rewards given to officers and seamen on account of their bravery should be stated under some other description, rather than be described as bestowed for the destruction of human life. There was an item of £7,773 for "compensation for damage done by Her Majesty's ships," and he wanted to know how it was that they committed this damage.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, with regard to the item mentioned as destruction of pirates, in former years it was called head money. In estimating the sum to be awarded, the Admiralty took into consideration the amount of the service, and the number of lives lost among their own men, and the strength of the enemy, and after the Admiralty had made an estimate it was submitted to the Treasury, and was again gone into. The terms employed might seem a little harsh, but the sums voted were rewards rather for the destruction of vessels than the destruction of human lives. With regard to the damages for collisions, the hon. and gallant Member knew that when the Admiralty went before a jury they were sure to give a verdict against the Admiralty. If any misfortune arose, it was by far the cheaper way to compensate the owners than to go to law. There was recently great damage done to the Hastings, and for which the Admiralty ought to claim compensation, but they felt that they would not be able to get a jury to give them anything.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he

  463
  wished to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to recommend any change in the rule in reference to the granting of gratuities and pensions for wounds so as to assimilate the rule to the one in force for the army. The manner in which compensation was assessed to officers wounded in the navy was most unjust. It was a rule not to grant compensation unless the wound was equal to the loss of a limb. Now it was impossible for parents, or persons going into the navy, to know what the rule was. The sum now asked for gratuities and compensation was ridiculously small, being only £2,000. Again, no provision was made for ruptured men. They were discharged from the service, and, as they could not get employment, they had to go into the union workhouses. How could the Admiralty expect to obtain men for the navy when they were thus treated.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could give no distinct promise on the subject; but he would bring the matter under the consideration of the Lords of the Admiralty, and he was sure that they would be ready to give the navy a fair share of any advantages which might result to the army from any modification of the Royal warrant with respect to pensions and gratuities.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he wished for an explanation on two or three points. There was an item of £2,340 damages for the rejection of 541 tierces of salt pork at Deptford. That sum was more than the value of the pork. Then there was an item of £7,638 by loss on exchange in sending money to India. Surely there ought to be no loss, seeing that several great banking establishments were sustained upon the profits they made in transmitting money to India. There was, further, a sum set down of £2,400 paid to the Bank of England for the transmission of money to our out-ports. At what rate was the Bank of England paid for such services?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, with regard to the last question the Admiralty paid 2s. per cent on money transmitted by the Bank of England to all the dockyards, except Pembroke, and in that case they paid 4s. per cent. He was not aware that any other bank would do it cheaper. He thought it was a fair charge, and they could not expect the Bank to do the work for nothing. The loss of £7,638 upon remittances to India was sustained in the
  464
  year 1858–59, and it arose inconsequence of the Admiralty having done an act of justice to those officers who were on distant stations. Formerly, officers had to draw bills at their stations, and get them discounted, which caused a great loss, and was much felt by the poorer officers. The Government had fixed a price for the rupee, and if the exchange was favourable to them they made a profit; if not, there was a loss, as in the present instance. As to the first question, he could not answer it, as the case occurred before he was in office. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) would explain the matter.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £691,262 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retirement to Officers of the Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I think, Sir, this Vote is one on which the Committee may fairly require some information. It will be recollected that last year the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwitch (Sir John Pakington) in a very eloquent speech in favour of the officers of the navy, adverted to the extreme difficulty which the Admiralty experienced in giving due promotion and encouragement to our zealous officers, in order that they might feel that justice was done to them in the service. The right hon. Baronet went into the details, which much interested the House, and he showed what is perfectly true, that at present promotion in the navy is almost at a standstill, It is absolutely sad to think of the small number of promotions we have been able to give during the past year, particularly promotions of commanders to be captains, and of lieutenants to be commanders. Prior to the last war there was a vast number of officers who in peace were unemployed; there was no opportunity of employing them, and a great many were put upon the retired and reserved lists. The result is that our system of half-pay for the navy is in a complicated and most unsatisfactory condition. It would be well if some comprehensive scheme could be framed which would enable you to provide for officers who have served their country faithfully, to encourage young officers to remain in the service, and to hold out to all a fair hope of promotion. Unfortunately, however, this is impossible.

  465
  I am prepared to show that no scheme, however comprehensive, which you could frame would ever be permanent in the navy. The navy is liable to such great fluctuations that you cannot deal with it as you can, for example, with the Civil Service, where you have a fixed body of gentlemen serving you, and where there is a known and certain amount of promotion. If to-morrow we could get rid of those alarms which are excited by the state of Europe, we know well that the first proceeding on the part of the House of Commons would be greatly to reduce our fleet. The result of that would be to throw a vast number of young officers out of employment, and those officers would necessarily cease to advance on the navy list, for if you cannot give employment to your officers it is quite impossible you can promote them. Suppose, on the other hand, a great war were unfortunately to break out. There would then be a great increase in the navy, and you would have, so far from anything like a reduction, to draw largely from the merchant service. It will thus be seen that the navy is liable to such great and constant fluctuations that, however desirable it might be that you should put your lists upon a fair and proper footing, I maintain no Minister could come down to the House of Commons and submit a scheme which would do for all future years. You must deal with your navy lists according to the circumstances of the time. Where the shoe pinches there you must apply a remedy. No doubt, if one were to take a superficial view of the subject, one might come to the conclusion that we should at once place our lists upon such a footing that what we call our effective lists should be composed solely of effective officers. The scheme which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich drew up, and upon which he bestowed so much care, goes further in that direction than the one which I have now the honour to submit to the Committee, but there are many defects in his plan which doubtless I shall have to point out in the course of this debate. I think, that one of the principal objections to his scheme is, that it is very expensive, and that it could not be permanent. If the right hon. Gentleman could show that his scheme was equally applicable to a time of peace and a time of war—because that is the important point—no doubt he would prove it to possess at least one great advantage; but inasmuch as it is very expensive, and does not offer that advantage, I think it ought not to be
  466
  adopted. There is another reason why I should be sorry to see it carried into effect. It would hurt the feelings, I might almost say break the hearts, of many old and valuable officers who served their country during those wars in which it gained its greatest glory. I allude, of course, to the proposal of the right hon. Baronet that admirals who are above a certain age should be placed on a retired list.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: On a supplementary list.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: They are not to remain on the active list.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Yes, they are.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Well, at all events, the old admirals are dealt with in the scheme. I maintain that there is no necessity for doing so. If, indeed, it were necessary by some means or other that you should increase your list of admirals in order to bring in younger men some change might fairly be adopted; but the present system gives you plenty of young admirals. There is no lack of such admirals now; many old officers will, no doubt, shortly follow their forefathers, and among those who are coming up there are plenty young and active enough to discharge satisfactorily all the duties of flag officers. I say, therefore, there is no necessity for dealing with the admirals at all. Where does the shoe pinch in the navy? The evil is that we have no means of promoting lieutenants to be commanders, and commanders to be captains. During the time the present Government have been in office, notwithstanding the vast number of officers who are now employed, and who have been employed for some years past, the First Lord has been able to promote only three commanders to be captains. One has been promoted in consequence of a death vacancy, and three have been promoted by the Board for distinguished services, making a total of seven commanders who have been promoted to captains during the past year. During the same period the First Lord has promoted four lieutenants to be commanders, three have been promoted in consequence of death vacancies, and two more in consequence of haul-down vacancies of admirals. In addition there were seven Board promotions, making a total of sixteen lieutenants who have been made commanders. Considering the vast body of officers in the service, it is obvious that under the present system the prospect of

  467
  advancement which is presented to them is of a very melancholy and unsatisfactory character. In order to remedy as far as possible this state of things, we propose to lighten the lists of captains, commanders, and lieutenants by the retirement of certain officers, in order to make way for the promotion of others. The principle we propose to adopt is by no means a new one in the service — it is that of compulsory retirement. The term, I admit, is an ugly one. It is always painful to compel men to go on a retired list, and I should have been very glad if it could have been avoided. In dealing with these retired lists, however, nothing but compulsory retirement would effect the object we have in view.
  The various features of our proposal will he found set forth in a printed document which has, I believe, been issued today, and is in the hands of hon. Members. First, then, as to captains, the arrangement we propose is as follows:—
  "All captains who have attained, or shall hereafter attain, the age of sixty, without having served in their present rank, to be placed on a Retired list, and receive pay as follows:—If on 10 s. 6d. half-pay list, when retired, 18 s. per diem; if on 12 s. 6d., 20 s.; if on 14 s. 6d., 20 s.; such officers to assume the rank and title of rear admiral at the time they would have obtained their flag by seniority had they remained on the active list."
  These officers, recollect, have never served at all in their present rank. It will be observed, however, that there is one class of the above on whom it would be unfair to impose this arrangement,—those officers, I mean, who are on the 14 s. 6d. half-pay list, and may therefore be regarded as on the high road to their flag. That class of officers will not be affected by this proposal, unless by their own desire. It would be unfair to touch them because as rear admirals they would be entitled to 25 s. a day. We propose to deal with commanders in much the same way as with captains. All commanders of the age of sixty are to be placed on a retired list, with the rank of retired captain, and to receive half-pay according to their length of sea service, on the scale which is shown in the same document. We desire, you will observe, to adopt the principle that half-pay shall increase according to the length of service. That is a totally new, and I think beneficial, feature in the half-pay system of the navy. At present each rank receives half-pay altogether irrespective of service. The officer who lives on shore
  468
  at ease is paid at the same rate as the one who has been engaged in active service afloat or abroad for years and years. The general principle we seek to introduce will, I think, meet with general approval, and will confer a great boon on the service. All commanders on the active list who have not been employed either afloat, in the Coastguard, or as mail or transport agents, within a period of fifteen years, are to be placed on a retired list, and to receive retired pay according to their amount of sea service, on the same scale as other commanders, such officers being permitted to assume the rank of retired captain on reaching the age of sixty, but without further addition to their retired pay afterwards. The scale of pay will be as follows:—Pay per diem—Under nine years' service, half-pay they maybe receiving at the time when retired; above nine years' and less than twelve years' service, 10 s. 6d.; above twelve years' and less than fifteen years' service, 12 s. 6d.; above fifteen years' and less than twenty years' service, 14 s. 6d.; above twenty years' service, 16 s. 6d. Officers after twenty years' service in these ranks, or who are physically incapable of service, are to be eligible for this retirement, with the rank of retired captain, irrespective of age, at the discretion of the Board of Admiralty. Time served in command of Revenue vessels will count as sea time. Time served in the Coastguard on shore, or in Transport service on shore, will count as sea time in the scale of reired pay in the proportion of three years in the Coastguard or Transport Service, as one of sea service; while time service as mail or transport agents afloat will count for the purpose as sea time for the first three years, and after that in the proportion of three years' agents' time as two of sea service. Lieutenants are to retire, the same way as commanders, when they attain the age of sixty, with the rank of retired commander, and to receive pay according to their sea service, on the following scale:— Pay per diem.—Under six years' service, half-pay they may be receiving at the time when retired; above six years' and not less than nine years' service, 7s.; above nine years' and not less than twelve years' service, 8s. 6d.; above twelve years' and not less than fifteen years' service, 10 s.; above fifteen years', 11 s. 6d.; officers after twenty years' service in this rank, or who are physically incapable of service, to be eligible for retirement. We propose that

  469
  no further additions shall be made from the active list to the present retired list for commanders and lieutenants. Provision is also made in our scheme for an improvement in the half-pay of lieutenants on the active list. Of commanders we have, unfortunately, always too many seeking for service, but there is a difficulty in regard to lieutenants on the active list. They are constantly on duty, and render, I need hardly say, very valuable service to the country. After a great number of years' service, however, many of them find they have no prospect of promotion, and when they go on shore they return to the same half-pay as those who have not served at all. We propose that an encouragement should be held out to lieutenants to serve in the shape of an increase of half-pay, according to their increase of service, and we trust that that will induce them to be anxious for employment. The effect of the proposal, should it be adopted by the House, will be at once to remove eight captains, sixty-four commanders, and 179 lieutenants from the active list, and to give us the opportunity of bestowing immediate promotion on a number of officers, which will be a great boon to the service. Those lists which are now overburdened by the numbers established by orders in Council will be reduced to their established number, so that we shall be released from the unfortunate and heartbreaking necessity of promoting only one in three. Our proposal will leave vacancies for the immediate promotion, should it be deemed desirable, of three commanders to the rank of captain, and eighteen lieutenants to the rank of commanders, and what is far more important for the future efficiency of the service, will hereafter admit of a promotion for every vacancy. These are the details of the scheme which I have very imperfectly put before the Committee. I do not see the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) in his place, but I wish to introduce a few observations to him and to those who advocate the cause of officers on the reserved list. The Admiralty have considered very fully the claims of those officers. We cannot admit them to be the same as the claims of officers on the active list, inasmuch as they never, in all human probability, can be called on for active service. Although no doubt the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, when, as First Lord, he drew up the scheme of retirement, never did intend that those officers
  470
  should rise in the list, nevertheless, it as was not perhaps fairly put before them that they would never rise on the list, pari passu with the active officers, it has been a great grievance. They say that they accepted the offer which was made to them with the distinct understanding that they would rise as on the active list. There is no document to show one way or the other. I find on looking over the names that there are many officers on that list of good service. The Board have therefore decided to recommend that under the system they shall be included—that is to say, that officers on the reserved list shall enjoy half-pay according to the length of service, whereby those who have served faithfully will benefit largely.
  There is but one subject more which I have to remark upon, the scheme of the right hon. Baronet opposite, the First Lord of the Admiralty under the late Government. His proposal, that the patronage shall be solely in the hands of the First Lord, the Board do not concur in. They think the present system of Board promotions most invaluable to the service, and invaluable for this reason, that they are the only promotions which are not governed by the numbers already on the list. If an officer has gone through such distinguished service that it is a matter of justice he should be promoted, there is a Board meeting, and, on all the Members concurring in the view of its propriety, the Board have the power to make the promotion, even though the numbers be above the scale fixed by the Order in Council. I should be very loth and very sorry to see that done away, [An hon. MEMBER: So would the service,]—because it is most important that officers should feel that if they distinguished themselves by signal service, and particularly in action before an enemy, the Board have power to promote them, even though the numbers are completed. I will read a list of the officers promoted last year by the Board, which I hope will induce the right hon. Baronet to entirely agree with me that these Board promotions ought not to be abolished. There is Captain Turnour, promoted for services in the Naval Brigade in India. This officer was at Delhi and throughout the terrible scenes of the Indian war. Would the right hon. Baronet say that, if the list were complete, such an officer ought not to be promoted? There is Captain Viscount Gilford, for services and severe wounds in China. He had his arms shattered and bullets through his

  471
  body, and I believe went through tortures in consequence. He was three or four times under fire. Then there is Captain Grandy. That is an annual promotion given to the Coastguard, and a very proper promotion, too. Of commanders there is Commander T. Jones, senior Lieutenant of his ship in Japan, and in action in China. There is another Commander Jones—no relation—Commander W. H. Jones, for service before Nankin. He also navigated the Yang-tse-Kiang, and was at the Peiho action. There is Commander Anderson, for service in the Royal yacht. That is an annual promotion, and I do not believe any one will object to it. There is Commander Hobson, for Arctic discoveries under Captain M'Clintock. There is Commander Balfour, as senior Lieutenant in command of the gunboats in the Peiho. There is Commander Winthrop, an annual promotion in the Coastguard. I am sure the Committee will agree, after hearing that list, that these promotions are most valuable to the service. I believe that I have now dealt with every point, and all I can say is that I shall be happy to answer any questions which may be put to me.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: It is impossible to overrate the importance to the naval service, and, therefore, the importance to the public interest, of the subject which the noble Lord has now submitted to our consideration. As it is one to which it was my duty to give considerable attention during the time that I had the honour to be connected with the Admiralty, I am sure the Committee will indulge me while I address to them not only some observations upon what has fallen from my noble Friend, but upon the more general subject of the condition of the various classes of officers of the Royal Navy. I can take no exception whatever to the frank and fair tone in which my noble Friend has now addressed, as he always does address us. But I am sorry to say that I heard the statement with very great disappointment, and I am bound to say that I think the plan which he has now submitted does not bear out or correspond with the observations with which my noble Friend commenced his speech. My noble Friend commenced by stating most fairly and truly that the present state of the navy with regard to promotions, is as unsatisfactory as possible. The expression of my noble Friend was that promotion is at at a standstill, and he then proceeded to give a proof of the accuracy of his state-
  472
  ment by mentioning the number of promotions which the present Board have been able to make in the past year, from the rank of commander to that of captain, and from the rank of lieutenant to that of commander. I am sorry to say that in consequence of being out of town I did not see the printed plan until my noble Friend was kind enough to hand it to me, and I was not aware until to-day that the subject was to be brought before the House. In the few observations, therefore, which I shall make I shall have to speak principally from memory, and I cannot recollect accurately how many promotions of these two classes the late Board of Admiralty were able to make. But I think I am right when I state that the number of promotions at my disposal during the year that I held office was even less than that mentioned to us to-night. My noble Friend adverted to the unsatisfactory state of the lists of retired officers and reserved officers until the navy has become a mass of confusion; but he did not go on to state, as he might, that the real cause of all this confusion and complication is that successive Boards of Admiralty have from time to time been content to adopt mere stopgaps to meet the emergency of the moment, and have never had the courage to deal with the subject upon broad and permanent principles. I am convinced that the navy never will be satisfied, and never ought to be satisfied, until this miserable hand-to-mouth sytem is abandoned. My noble Friend tells us that, owing to great fluctuations in the navy, by which I presume he means the alternations of periods of war and peace, a permanent system of retirement is impossible; but in the same breath—almost in the same sentence —my noble Friend tells us that a comprehensive system is desirable. Now, in my opinion, a comprehensive system ought to be a permanent system, and I dispute altogether the dictum of my noble Friend that a permanent system is impossible. I admit that a period of war may require a mode differing from that which is required in a period of peace, but I do not for a moment admit that that is any reason why a permanent system is impossible. The duration of periods of peace is usually much longer than that of periods of war, and it is the duty of this House and of the Admiralty, in addressing themselves to this important subject, to make the nearest approach they can to a permanent system which shall meet the requirements of the Royal Navy during an average of years.

  473
  My noble Friend says that my scheme was expensive and not permanent, but I must beg leave to differ from him. The scheme which I ventured to propose was in its nature permanent, that is to say, it was self-acting, and not like that of my noble Friend's, only meant to meet the pressing emergency of the moment. One objection mentioned by my noble Friend has frequently been adverted to before, and I heard his observations cheered from some quarters of the House. I allude to the effect which he said it would have on the feelings of flag officers. This is a very difficult and delicate part of the question. I have stated before, and I state again, that no man would shrink more anxiously than I should from inflicting pain on those most distinguished men—one of whom I see before me (Sir Charles Napier); but, on the other hand, let me say as broadly, that we must deal with this matter for the public interest, and for the general interest of the naval service. Provided we do not inflict any hardship on the gallant Admirals at the head of the list, of which they would have fair reason to complain, I do not think they ought to allow their feelings unnecessarily to stand in the way of an improvement which may be for the good of the service and the welfare of their brother officers. In dealing with this complicated question I feel it is an advantage to have one of the Admirals who would be affected by the scheme, here in his place in this House, ready to state their case if I at all misstate it. My noble Friend—unintentionally of course—did not accurately describe the manner in which I proposed to deal with these Admirals. He first said that I proposed to put them on a retired list; and when I corrected him, he changed the phrase, and said I meant to put them on a supernumerary list. There may be something at the head of the paper containing my plan which might appear as though there was to be a supernumerary list; but my noble Friend will find it is not so if he looks to the end of the revised plan. At page 35, I proposed as follows:—
  "1. Active Flag List, to be divided into two lists, to be called First and Second Flag Lists. First List to consist of all flag officers on the active list who have completed 70 years of age; second list to consist of 15 admirals, 24 vice-admirals, and 36 rear-admirals. 2. As officers on second list complete 70 years they are to be transferred to first list, and each vacancy so created to be filled by promotion from active list of captains. 3. Officers on first list to be as eligible for all honours and all employments as they are now, the principle and object of the proposed arrangement
  474
  being solely that officers who have completed 70 years should no longer impede promotion; and that there should be flag officers of each rank of an age at which they are likely to be effective."
  My noble Friend will admit, therefore, that I proposed neither a retired list nor a supernumerary list. I did not propose to remove those distinguished men from the active list; but I said, as distinctly as words could say, that they should be as open to all honours and employments as now. All I proposed to call on them to do was one thing—that when they arrived at threescore years and ten they should admit the fact, and when they had passed that age that they should no longer check the promotion of their junior officers. I appeal to truth and common sense whether there is anything in this of which they have a right to complain, which treats them with disrespect, which disregards their services, or to which, considering the general interests of the service, they ought to take the slightest exception? Looking to the extreme difficulty of the question and the necessity of maintaining promotion, I cannot imagine that they should not acknowledge the fairness of no longer continuing to impede promotion when they have arrived at that age. My noble Friend proposes, and rightly proposes, as I think, compulsory retirement. I quite accept the explanation he gave; and after the plan which I proposed it is almost unnecessary to say that, however painful it may be in exceptional cases, I agree with him that we cannot deal with the subject without adopting the principle of compulsory retirement; but I say distinctly that you will have no satisfaction in the Navy—you will not deal as you ought with this most important subject—unless you deal with all ranks.
  I now come to the explanation given by my noble Friend of the plan he proposes. He proposes a system of compulsory retirement, and so far he is right; but I believe there can be no satisfactory arrangement unless you deal with all ranks alike. You must adopt fair and sound principles, and when you have adopted them you must apply them to the admirals as well as to the lowest officers in the Navy. There should be no suspicion of favouritism, no ground for complaint of dealing with officers of different ranks in a different way; if there is, public opinion will not support you, and the opinion of the naval service will not support you. I object to the plan of my noble Friend, because it is insufficient, because it does not meet the evil,

  475
  because it will create objections in the navy not of a fanciful character, not arguing from matters of feeling merely, and because it deals differently with different ranks, and applies one rule to one rank and another rule to another. I object to your not applying your rule to admirals, because I am convinced that you will therefore be doing injustice to the captains. Your first rule with regard to captains is that at 60 years of age all captains are to retire who have not served at all as captains. To commanders you apply a totally different rule. You say that all are to retire who are now 60, and all hereafter are to retire as they become 60. There is no limit applied to them as to whether they have served as commanders or not. That is unfair, and it originates in the timidity of the Admiralty in not having dealt with the question in a bolder spirit. By not dealing with flag officers you act unfairly to the captains. Officers will arrive at 60 who ought to become flag officers, and who would become flag officers if the plan were applied justly to all ranks, and they will have to retire because the admirals are not got out of the way by seniority as they advance in years. This inequality will apply most unfairly, for the same reason, to commanders. I am very glad that the Admiralty have so far followed the plan which I prepared as to have adopted the principle of compulsory retirement at a certain age, but they ought to have applied it more equally and more boldly. If you had applied the principle of retirement at 60 to all captains, then you would have given a fair chance of promotion to all commanders; but you apply that principle to only a small fraction of the captains, those who have never served as captains. The retirement on the captains' list will therefore be much slower than on the commanders', and it will stop the commanders' promotion.
  I will now advert to another part of the noble Lord's speech, and with more pleasure, because I can speak of it in different language. I agree with what the noble Lord proposes to do in regard to increased half-pay according to service, and also in regard to allowing the half-pay of active lieutenants to be increased in the same way. I think that is quite right. I think also it would be a fair matter for consideration whether the time served as mate should not be allowed to count. You will do very great injustice if, in computing their time, you exclude the whole period
  476
  during which they served in the rank of mates. I do not say that in every instance the whole of that time should be allowed, but I repeat, you will do great injustice if you do not allow some part of it to that considerable number of junior lieutenants who have served a long time in that grade. I therefore hope the noble Lord will take this matter into consideration.
  I will now allude to the subject of Board promotion, and I am obliged to tell my noble Friend that I have not changed my mind on that subject. Speaking as I do, with only brief experience at the Admiralty, I do not presume to speak of the soundness of my own judgment, but I deem it my duty to state frankly and openly the conclusion at which I have arrived,—that, on the whole, the system of Board promotions does not work well for the public service. I will read to the Committee an extract from a memorandum I added to my scheme of retirement just before I quitted office. It was in these words:—
  "As I am going out of office, and can no longer be open to the suspicion of wishing to increase my own patronage, I must say that I still think it would be for the advantage of the public service to do away with Board promotions. I do not mean, in expressing this opinion, to imply the slightest suspicion of, or reflection upon, the gentlemen who now, or at any other time, constitute the Board of Admiralty. I only mean that I think such patronage ought to be exercised under the strongest possible responsibility; and I have no faith in aggregate bodies ever acting under that sense of responsibility which is felt by individuals. It Board promotions are retained, they should not be allowed to swell the lists, and should only be made in anticipation of vacancies."
  If hon. Members who take an interest in this question will refer to the earlier pages of this memorandum they will find statements bearing on the change when Board promotions were first introduced. The practical result has been that the aggregate amount of promotions has greatly increased. I adhere to the opinion I then expressed—that whoever may constitute these Boards there is not the same sense of responsibility in the aggregate body that there is in the individual Minister, open to question and censure in this House. Therefore, although I express my opinion with the respect due to gentlemen of professional experience, I do, on the broad public principle just stated, adhere to my opinion that it is for the interest of the public service to concentrate responsibility in all matters of promotion and do away with it as regards all aggregate bodies. I may be told of the distress-

  477
  ing case of Lord Gilford, who was wounded in China, and other officers who stand in the same position. I say no doubt they are entitled to every consideration, but in one of the very votes passed to-night you find the name of Viscount Gilford most properly selected for a very handsome pension. Therefore, I would rather refer to that case as supporting my view of the subject. You have rewarded him by a pension. It may be right to give him reward by pension and promotion, too. I cannot say how that may be; but you must remember that you cannot promote him without keeping back some other officer who ought to be promoted.
  There is another branch of this subject to which the noble Lord did not allude; he did not give his opinion upon the question of haul-down promotion. In this memorandum I have condemned such promotion; and I adhere to that view. I say haul-down promotions do not benefit the public service; and they create very sore feeling. It is all a matter of chance, luck, or favour who may obtain these haul-down promotions. ["Hear!"] I am glad that observation is cheered by a gallant Admiral opposite who is so competent a judge; for he is just one of those distinguished men who are likely to benefit by the continuance of that system.
  I am not aware that I need detain the Committee by longer observations upon the statement the noble Lord has made; but I would beg leave before sitting down to ask the attention of the Admiralty and the Committee to some other points connected with the present position of the different classes of officers in the navy. I am sorry to say my belief is that there is scarcely one rank of officers in the Royal Navy which is not at present dissatisfied more or less with their position. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Hear!] I do not know what is the meaning of the gallant Admiral's cheer. If he means that the different classes of naval officers who complain of their position do so without reason, I will say no man is less disposed than I am to yield to any unreasonable claim; but, on the other hand, I think the gallant Admiral will agree with me that it is one of the greatest possible misfortunes in our naval service to have large classes of men aggrieved by well-founded complaints. The question is whether the complaints they make are well-founded or not. The first class to which I allude are the captains of the Royal Navy who are not contented with
  478
  their present position, and I submit to the House, I submit to the Admiralty, I submit to the gallant Admiral, that, knowing what we do of what was passing lately in the fleet, knowing the unfortunate dangers which have existed and to which I hope the attention of the Admiralty has been gravely directed, this is not a moment when your officers ought to be dissatisfied. Have the captains in the Royal Navy any grounds of complaint or not? There are several respects in which they allege they have grounds of complaint. In the important respect of pay they are not in the position in which officers of their rank and fulfilling their important duties ought to be. The noble Lord is conversant with the change which took place some few years ago as regards the pay of captains in the Royal Navy. A few years ago I believe they were paid according to the class of ship they commanded. That is no longer the case. They are now paid according to their seniority in the service. What is the result? There are three classes of pay? At the present time no less than twenty captains are commanding line-of-battle ships on the lowest class pay, and I believe it to be the fact beyond all question that captains in the Royal Navy occupy their high position at a pecuniary loss to themselves. This cannot be right. I hold in my hand a letter from an officer of great distinction—it is a private letter. I have no objection to communicate in regard to it with the noble Lord, but I trust the Committee will allow me to read an extract from it. It comes from an officer of very high reputation as a captain who happens to he a man of independent fortune and to whom a pecuniary loss in the service of the country is not of that importance it must be to others. He writes to the effect, that a captain working out his three years in a ship will find himself considerably out of pocket. In fact, he pays for his own services. The consequence is, that a great many officers of this rank are never able to take employment; and the country in the hour of need loses the services of some of her best men. The average expense attending the commissioning of a ship is estimated at about £500. The writer has commissioned four ships which cost him £1,700, and that many will say was cheaply done. Will the Committee allow me to mention one or two cases which happened to myself when I was first Lord of the Admiralty. At that time, about a year ago, we were anxious to get up as speedily as possible a Channel

  479
  fleet. I sent for an officer, with whom I had no personal acquaintance whatever; I only knew him to be an officer of the highest distinction and standing in his profession. I offered him a line-of-battle ship. He requested twenty-four hours to consider. Next day he came back; thanked me for the offer, and said he should be proud to hold such a command, but that he could not afford to undertake it. I will give the House another instance of the same kind, also a captain in the navy, who happened to be a friend and connection of my own. He was an officer of high reputation, and I intended to offer him a ship. I believe he became acquainted with that intention, for he called on my private secretary, and through him sent me a request that I would not make him the offer, because he had not yet recovered from the debts he had contracted in fitting out a former ship as commander; and in consequence of these debts he could not afford to take command of a ship as captain. Now, this must he a false and erroneous state of things, and cannot he for the interest of the public service. Let the House remember the diplomatic duties captains of ships are often called upon to fulfil on foreign stations; and the hospitality they are required to extend to the officers of foreign vessels according to rules of the service which no one desires to see broken through. I am speaking in the presence of naval men, who can vouch for the truth of what I say; and I ask, can it he for the good of the service that officers should he exposed to such pecuniary loss in the discharge of their duties, that unless they are possessed of private means they cannot afford to take the command of a man-of-war? But how is it with foreign nations? Is it the case with France? Not at all. All officers in command of ships in the French navy have advantages that are not given to officers in the British service. In the first place their cabins are furnished; but a more important advantage is this—in the French navy there is regular system of table money on a scale proportionate to the rank of the officer, and, I believe, also to the class of vessel. There is also one scale of table money for the homo ports, and another for foreign ports. This prevents the occurrence of instances like those I have mentioned, of officers whose services the country requires, and who ought to be afloat preserving that discipline which I am afraid is now impaired. It is most painful and distressing
  480
  when an officer comes to the First Lord of the Admiralty and says, "I should be proud to hold a command, but it is too expensive, I cannot afford it." My noble Friend is in a position to know the fact; he is the man of all others to whom, on account of his knowledge and experience, the navy looks for some remedy for the evils complained of.
  The lieutenants have also complained much of their position; but I have great hopes that the proposals of the noble Lord, especially the suggestion I took the liberty to make — that their mates' time should be counted, and the increased rate of pay, will give satisfaction. But I am sorry to say, that the masters, the paymasters, the engineers, and the naval instructors, are all making complaints, more or less well founded; they all desire to be improved in their positions. I will not go into these complaints, as I do not wish to detain the Committee longer. But I am distinctly of opinion that it will be for the good of the service and the country if these matters are looked into. Anything like ill-founded and unreasonable complaints should, of course, be disregarded and set aside, but all well-founded complaints should be fairly and justly met. It is difficult to enter into the whole of the retirement question; I do not wish to put the scheme I ventured to propose into comparison with that of the noble Lord, further than it may conduce to the public good. I do not wish to carry any comparison of the kind beyond the fairest reasonable limit; but I cannot help thinking the best course for the Admiralty and the country would be to refer the whole question to a Commission. If the Admiralty is willing to deal with it, it is no doubt competent to do so. But it is a large question; taking the operation of the retirement pay and allowances, and all the complaints made by various ranks of naval officers, this course appears to me the most desirable. I would suggest to the Government whether an inquiry into the whole question by a competent Commission might not be satisfactory to the service. As far as I can judge of the scheme of the noble Lord at the moment, I think his plan is timid and unsatisfactory, that it is not likely to give that satisfaction to the service which is so desirable. In making these observations, I trust I have said nothing of which the noble Lord can complain. I assure him I have no motive whatever but the good of the naval service. No man can hold, even for a short period,

  481
  the office I had the honour to fill without admiring and taking a sincere interest in that noble service, I shall heartily thank the Admiralty for adopting any scheme that may really be for its benefit; and I shall be very glad to hear that the Government is prepared to refer the whole question to a Commission.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he begged leave to thank the right hon. Baronet for the clear manner in which he had stated the grievances of the officers of the navy. Every word he had said would be received with satisfaction by the navy at large; there was no exaggeration whatever in his statement. As to the scheme of the Government, he thought the Committee had reason to complain that it had not been laid before it in time to receive full and sufficient consideration. He did not understand how the noble Lord could hope for such great advantages from his plan. He did not wish to see the system of selection done away with, though, as it was conducted, it gave dissatisfaction rather than encouragement. They were told of the promotions of the First Lord, and the patronage of the First Lord, till the House hardly knew what was meant by it. The patronage of the navy was given to the First Lord to dispose of fairly and properly. But it was impossible to avoid making most of the promotion in the navy, independent of political influence. Every one knew it was given by influence; it was nonsense to suppose it was not. If he commanded four or five votes in the House he could go to the First Lord of the Admiralty and insist on promotion for his son. They saw that men of influence and title always got on. The chief promotions were political. He held a list in his hand which showed that the promotions from the rank of commander to that of captain had been in 1854, 34; in 1855, 32; in 1856, 32; in 1857, 23; and in 1858, 22. They could not with any arrangements make promotions sufficiently large, without constant retirements from the service, and the way in which that result should be effected ought to be whatever way was least hurtful to the feelings of officers of the navy. In 1854, no less than 52 lieutenants were made commanders; in 1855 there were 61 thus promoted; in 1856, there were 68; in 1857, 30; in 1852, 52. Now, considering that every man who entered the navy must not expect to be an admiral, any more than every clergyman ought to expect to be a bishop, he must admit, he thought, there
  482
  was no lack of promotions for a time of peace. [An hon. MEMBER: And partly a time of war.] He thought the noble Lord would do well to leave these matters alone, and leave the officers as they were at present. He did not find fault with the noble Lord's desire to benefit and ameliorate the condition of the navy; but when he said he intended to benefit the captains of the navy, all he did was to add five years to the captain's age before he retired, and to take 5s. away from the captains when they were made admirals. He had not studied the plan proposed by the late First Lord, much as he respected, and he might say admired, the way in which he did his duty when he was at the Admiralty; but he did not think he was long enough at the Board of Admiralty to enter into the feelings of the old officers in the service. He would not, therefore, go into that plan, but he would suggest to the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty the desirableness of withdrawing his plan for the present, and give the profession a fuller opportunity of considering it. It was not respectful to the Committee to place it in their hands a few hours only before it was discussed and to ask for more money, while at the same time it was proposed to inflict injury without conferring advantages on the officers in the service. He could not agree with the right hon. Member for Droitwich that it would be desirable to refer the matter to a Commission, because any such Commission would be appointed by the Admiralty themselves, and would in all probability, in reporting on the matter, do just exactly what the Admiralty bade them.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I did not understand that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty intended to press for any Vote of money to meet the scheme which he has advanced, but simply to lay it before the House; and I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier), that, with such a short notice it would be impossible to bestow upon it that amount of consideration which is due to the officers whom it so immediately concerns. I am glad that the late First Lord (Sir John Pakington) has corrected his first proposition on the subject of retirement; if, acccording to his second plan, the Admirals were to be entitled to hold commands and be capable of nomination to pensions and honourable distinction, in the same manner as if they had been retained on the active list instead of being removed, as the case proposed, to a substantive list,

  483
  on their advance in age, the change could have afforded only a slight benefit to the service, whilst it necessarily struck a heavy blow on the hearts and feelings of the officers themselves who had been employed in the war, lasting with slight intermission, from 1784 to 1815, and been distinguished for gallantry and ability. It is peculiarly distressing to myself to refer to my own case; and if it had been possible to mention the names of other officers, I would gladly have declined the necessity. After having served as a lieutenant for upwards of six years and as a commander for seven years more, I became in 1822 a captain. It was my good fortune to perform services in the command of a frigate in 1823 which obtained the high approbation of the Admiral commanding the squadron on the station to which I was attached, and led to the recommendation of my name to the Sovereign in 1827 for the distinction of the Companionship of the Bath by his late Majesty, who then presided at the Board of Admiralty as Lord High Admiral. To this hour I have never received that honour, it has been denied to me by every successive First Lord, except Lord Ellenborough, who left at the Admiralty a Minute, that I: should be promoted on the next vacancy—this was in 1846. I was entitled to it, by the fact of wearing a medal. The reason why I was not made in 1827 was that the number of Companions was then limited to one hundred. I am now told that the honour is restricted to officers whose names have been recorded in The Gazette. At the period to which I refer, 1827, actions against pirates were not entered in The Gazette; the case is now altered, and similar services have appeared in The Gazette with the names of officers raised to that distinction on their account, while I have been most cruelly refused that which they have been given. One other observation. If an officer declines to serve he is entitled to no consideration; in my case I challenge contradiction when I make the assertion that no officer in the navy, from 1824 to 1852 more earnestly, more emphatically sought employment than I did, and I had commanded a frigate in action; but I was told from time to time—firstly, that I was too low on the list of captains—secondly, in the middle—thirdly, too high for ships then about to be commissioned. The fact was I had no interest, and, therefore, I could get no employment. Every step I won through my own energy, and for thirty years I offered, year by year,
  484
  myself for any description of service and for any station in the same spirit, and year by year came back the cold curt answer, enough to break my heart. In a case like this the question should be put, has the officer really endeavoured to serve? If he has not, let his name be set aside, but if he has, it is an excess of cruel injustice to punish him for his misfortune by placing him on a reserved list. Sir, I shall be pardoned for these remarks, when I remind you that my days are closing in, and the time approaches when no distinction of earth will be of value; but I could not allow the opportunity to pass of justifying the reserved Admirals, and of showing conclusively that Admiral Walcott who sat in Parliament was one who had not failed in exertion in his own profession. I could not brook any imputation to the contrary. The late First Lord had recommended that the patronage should rest with the First Lord for the time being, on the ground that he was accountable to this House for its just administration— but the real mode of employment was the following:—the First Lord would say to the Naval Lord, I intend to appoint Captain Black to such a ship, or to promote an officer, as the case might be, and without inquiry into the claims of other officers that favoured individual at once received appointment or promotion. Three only of from ten to fifteen admirals who are between the ages of fifty and sixty are in employment. Officers, while captains, do good service; but in their removal to the superior rank are rarely employed in command; the less occasion therefore for removing the more aged officers who gradually die off when promotion occurs from the captains' list. I cannot approve of the scheme of the late First Lord (Sir John Pakington) with respect to commanders. The postion of lieutenants is a standing proverb of neglect. It is flagrant injustice to withhold from that grade advantages which are bestowed for medical officers, when their services are equally meritorious. By the existing regulations a surgeon may attain the rank of lieutenant colonel, while a lieutenant of twenty years remained stationary. Permit me, Sir, to offer to the House my sincere thanks for the patience with which they have listened to my remarks in general, and for their kind attention when I referred to my own position. Would that I could indulge the hope that the time was at hand when promotion and honour would depend wholly on the con-

  485
  duct of officers, and not on uncertain, and capricious regulations, which lead to bitter disappointment, and when the golden rule would be adhered to, suum cuique, give to every man according to his deserts.
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURobserved, that in a great service like the navy nothing short of a full and efficient scheme could be of a permanent character. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) met generally his approval, and he should be glad to see it carried out. He should like to see the claims of the various classes of officers settled on a right basis. That part of the right hon. Gentleman's plan which referred to the admirals had been objected to, but he was sure there was no intention to cast any reflection on the services of those officers. He would be the last man to throw any reflection on those gallant officers, but he could not see how they could be affected by removal from one list to another. If benefit was to accrue to the service from such removal, he did not think there should be so much sensitiveness as had been exhibited on this subject. He deeply sympathized with the gallant Admiral (Admiral Walcott), than whom no one stood higher in the opinion of the service, although he might perhaps justly complain of the manner in which he had been treated. The principle of selection was tried in the higher branches of the navy upwards of 100 years ago. When it first commenced we had only twenty-one admirals; but the system finally broke down under Lord Howe, who made a selection of sixteen captains, who were passed over the heads of a large number of other officers, thereby exciting the greatest possible dissatisfaction. The question raised by that debate being a very important one, he trusted it would be examined in a comprehensive manner, and one that would result in advantage to the service.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the discussion that had taken place on the noble Lord's scheme was calculated to attract a good deal of attention. The noble Lord held that no general plan could be laid down for meeting this subject, but that means must be taken to ease the shoe where it happened to pinch at each particular moment. The opinions of the House, however, appeared to be in favour of viewing the question in a broader spirit. A non-professional mind could not help remarking that the cost to the country of
  486
  the retired list was very nearly equal to the entire charge for the officers who were now in active employment. That anomalous state of things existed, too, at a time when the navy afloat had been almost doubled within the last few years. The number of men now voted was between 85,000 and 86,000, whereas eight or nine years ago it was only between 40,000 and 50,000. With such a large increase in their force it might have been supposed there would not be much difficulty in promoting officers in the lower ranks; but they were told the fact was otherwise. The noble Lord gave a curious reason for the course he was about to take. He said he was going to promote commanders and lieutenants, but there stood an order in his way declaring that there should not be above one promotion for every three vacancies. Well, the natural, as well as the simplest course, would surely be to get rid of that order. The noble Lord, however, did not do that, but meant to create the vacancies instead, giving to a number of gentlemen an increased rate of pay, without regard to whether or not they had a fair claim to it, merely with a view to clear the way for the promotion of those below them. Would it not be far better to relax the order against the promotion of officers in the lower grades? When it had been strongly stated by his right hon. Friend, and confirmed by all the naval Members who had spoken, that there were captains in such a position that they would not serve because they would serve at a loss, it was pretty obvious that the whole service, both active and retired, required to be looked into in a large and comprehensive manner. We had now pretty nearly worn out the old French war list; and yet, although the navy had lately been greatly increased, the cost to the country for the unemployed was about equal to that for the employed. Whether that was remediable or not he could not tell; but it seemed to indicate that the arrangements of the service were very far from perfect, and the evil would hardly be cured by the bit-by-bit expedients suggested by the noble Lord.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he wished to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the crowded state of the half-pay list was not due to the present day at all, but was the result of past years. If any one looked at the lieutenant's list, comprising the young officers who had been promoted of late years—he would

  487
  find that almost every lieutenant upon it, who was fit to go to sea, was now in active employment. As his worthy and gallant brother Officer had told the House, they could not kill the elderly officers. He should, indeed, he very sorry to kill them, and would prefer that they should live in honour as long as it pleased God to spare them. It was all very well, therefore, to say the list was in an unsatisfactory state, and ought to he dealt with in a comprehensive manner, instead of by mere driblets; but it was impossible to get rid of the old admirals, old captains, old commanders, and old lieutenants. The right hon. Gentleman said that, if they dealt with the captains and commanders, it was but fair that they should deal in the same way with the admirals also. Why, it was asked, should they not carry their compulsory retirement for the junior ranks up to the admirals? Now, the admirals were in a totally distinct category. In the first place, they were necessarily officers of more distinguished service; and it became offensive to officers of their age to put them upon the retired list, unless that was absolutely unavoidable. The Admiralty did not find such a course to be necessary. They had plenty of young admirals, and they desired to have plenty of young captains and commanders likewise. When he was asked to produce a great and comprehensive scheme, he could only say that he did not think that such a scheme was proper at this time. Nor did he think the matter of sufficient magnitude to justify an inquiry by a Commission, as was asked for by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. What he proposed was, a small boon to a certain number of officers, by which a flow of promotion, which was admitted on all hands to be desirable, would be created. Reference had been made to the hardship of not allowing mates' time to count; but if that were permitted, there could not be such short periods of service taken as at present; however, this point should receive the earnest consideration of the Admiralty. In former times officers served eight or ten years as mates, before receiving promotion; but that was not the case now, when every officer obtained promotion very soon after passing as mate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) had given a touching recital of the hardships suffered by captains of line-of-battle ships from insufficient pay; and had stated that officers had refused employment, because they could not afford to
  488
  command a line-of-battle ship. He (Lord Clarence Paget) felt inclined to go some way in that expression of feeling, and was willing to admit that in some cases the pay of captains of line-of-battle ships did bear hardly upon individuals. Until within a few years the pay of captains graduated according to the size of the vessels they commanded; but in the late war it became necessary to employ some of the most distinguished and senior captains in vessels of light draught of water, and there arose complaints that while one officer commanded a frigate, another, who was his junior, commanded a line-of-battle ship, and had better pay. No doubt, the costs of living attaching to the command of a line-of-battle ship were great, but it should not be forgotten that of late years the Admiralty had done much for the captains. Formerly a captain had to go to a great expense in his outfit, but now he had nothing to take on board but his portmanteau. The Admiralty furnished almost everything—plate, furniture, linen, &c. He admitted there were some cases of hardship, but this was a question of expense, and it was the duty of the Government to economise the public money as far as was consistent with justice. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would not persist in his opposition to the Vote, as a great and comprehensive scheme would be a costly affair, and one that would not be certain of proving a permanent advantage to the navy.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved that, while the noble Lord called this a small boon, he asked the Committee to adopt it because it was so small. Would the noble Lord say what the cost to the country would be, and whether this Vote would cover the whole expense? [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Yes.] Then, was it to be understood that if the Vote were agreed to it would involve the sanctioning of the scheme by the House? Because, if so, that could hardly be asked of the House, seeing that the scheme itself had only been published that morning, and its reception by the Committee had not been very gratifying. Before committing themselves to this scheme, time ought to be given for the consideration of it.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he fully concurred with the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped the scheme would be withdrawn, or he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee against it.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEalso complained of the little time allowed for consideration

  489
  of the scheme. The complaints of captains of line-of-battle ships which had been stated by his right hon. Friend were well-founded, but could easily be remedied by a graduated scale of table money.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he desired to say that the change in the pay of captains was made while he was at the Admiralty. According to the old rule officers, of whatever standing, were paid according to the rate of the ships in which they were employed. A complaint was made during the Russian war that it was impossible to put captains of high standing into frigates or small vessels in which they might most advantageously serve the country, because by so doing they received a lower rate of pay than other officers of less standing who commanded line-of-battle ships. It was strongly represented that if officers were paid under all circumstances according to their standing in the service it would facilitate the choice of captains for the work they were most fitted to undertake, and that on the whole no injustice would be done. While the war was going on, vessels of light draught being greatly in request, it was thought very desirable occasionally to appoint to the command of them captains of high standing, whom under the old system they could not have so employed. He did not mean to deny that the captain of a line-of-battle ship might be subjected to higher charges than a captain commanding a frigate. But there was no rule to which objections could not be urged; and this, on the whole, was considered by his naval colleagues an advantageous one.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the plan had been adopted by the Admiralty without thought, and the sooner the old system was reverted to the better. He moved that the Chairman report progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that after the opinions which had been expressed, he would beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of ,£12,000— the cost of the proposed scheme—with a view of postponing the consideration of the subject. He hoped the Committee would allow him to pass the reduced Estimate.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that under these circumstances he would withdraw his Motion.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had no objection whatever to the course pro-
  490
  posed by the noble Lord, and he sincerely hoped the scheme would never again be submitted to the House.
  Motion and original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
  The following Votes were then agreed to.
  (5.) £679,262 Half-Pay.
  (6.) £488,806, Military Pensions and Allowances.
  (7.) £173,030, Civil Pension and Allowances.
  (8.) £478,000, Freight of Ships, &c.
  The House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. SPOONER MR. SPOONER moved the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill was one entirely unobjectionable, being merely to bring Roman Catholic charities under the general law, and he therefore trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) would not press his Motion.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, the Bill would give the Commissioners the same power over Roman Catholic as over Protestant charities. It was merely a Bill to remove certain defects of title. He contended it was of importance that the House should go into Committee on the Bill, inasmuch as the Act of Exemption of the last year would expire on the 4th of July.
  Motion made, and Question "That the Debate be now adjourned,"
  Put, and negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 1 postponed.
  Clause 2 (No Proceedings to be instituted as to Dealings with Roman Catholic Charities, prior to 2 & 3 William IV., c. 115).
  Mr. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought that the clause required some explanation.
  MR. BOWYERexplained that the object of the clause was to place Roman Catholic charities on the same footing as the Protestant charities. As respects this and the remaining clauses they were prepared by a most experienced conveyancer, Mr. Stoner, The object of this clause was to prevent litigation regarding matters which occurred previous to the passing of the

  491
  statute 2 & 3 William IV., c. 4, which placed Roman Catholics on the same footing as Dissenters. As the law gave no protection to the churches and schools of Roman Catholics before that time, it was just that the law should not take cognizance of anything done in the administrations of such unrecognized charities. The law should not exercise jurisdiction where it gave no protection. Hon. Members over-estimated the effects which the Bill was intended to produce. The object of the Bill was merely to remedy defects in title, and it was simply a conveyancer's Bill. The Attorney General had carefully examined the clauses of the Bill, with which he was perfectly satisfied, and he (Mr. Bowyer) hoped the Government would proceed to pass the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the very best reason why the Committee should further investigate this Bill, when he said there was no use in discussing it by persons not learned in the law, and he thought the debate ought to be adjourned.
  MR. ADDERLEYalso objected to proceeding with the Bill. It had been said that inconvenience would arise if the Bill were not passed before the 4th of July. If so, why had not the Bill been proceeded with before?
  MR. BOWYERsaid, the Bill was introduced in the last Seesion, and re-introduced by him in the first fortnight of the present. If it had not made more progress the cause was to be found in a desire that the measure should be well considered, and the obstruction caused by the proceedings on the Reform Bill.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to know whether, under this Bill, the Charitable Trust Commissioners would have the same control over Roman Catholic charities as they had over other charities. He had been informed by good lawyers that they would not.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill went as far in that direction as was consistent with the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Attorney General had looked at it with as jealous an eye as the last speaker himself. He (Sir George Lewis) conscientiously recommended the passing of the clause to the Committee.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, the Charity Commissioners would exercise the same control in both cases.
  CAPTAIN STURTsaid, he objected to proceeding with a Bill of a purely legal
  492
  nature without the presence of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. ADDERLEYconcurred, and proposed that the present stage should be passed, and further discussion reserved for the third reading.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought that would be the best course.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Strafford (Baron Strafford) after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Councillors of Burghs and Burgesses (Scotland).
2a Fisheries (Scotland).
Royal Assent.—Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences; Sir John Barnard's Act, &c, Repeal; Malicious Injuries to Property Act Amendment.

DISTURBANCES IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, referring to the accounts which had recently appeared in the newspapers with respect to the disturbances in the northern island of New Zealand, asked the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies, Whether any despatches had been received by the Government on the subject.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEregretted to say that it was not in his power to assert the incorrectness of the accounts which had appeared in the newspapers relative to the insurrection in New Zealand. The noble Earl was probably aware that the mail, viâ Southampton, had not yet arrived. He had, however, received a despatch from the Governor of New Zealand, viâ Marseilles, which, so far as it went, corroborated the accounts contained in the newspapers of yesterday and the preceding day. The extent of the insurrection appeared to be somewhat doubtful, but on the arrival of the mail at Southampton, no doubt further despatches would be received by the Colonial Office. No doubt despatches would be received by
  418
  the Horse Guards by that opportunity, none having been received by that Department through Marseilles. Until those despatches arrived it was impossible to say what measures the Government would find it expedient to take; he would, however, immediately put himself in communication with the Commander-in-Chief and with the Secretary of State for War on the subject. He was glad to state that everything that was possible in the nature of local effort had been made. Three vessels of war had been despatched to New Zealand from our Australian Colonies. He had reason to believe from a private letter that the Pelorus had proceeded from Melbourne with 600 men on board, and that another of Her Majesty's ships had left Sydney for New Zealand with a similar reinforcement. He could not suffer the opportunity to pass without expressing the admiration he felt at the conduct of the Volunteers in these Colonies. This newly-formed force, which was extending as widely in our Colonies as in this country, had offered to embark for New Zealand, and leave their homes and families, if called upon, to put down the insurrection. In all our Colonies, in North America, Australia, and elsewhere, a desire for self-defence, and to act as Englishmen were now doing, was manifested. Standing there as Secretary of State for the Colonies he was bound to bear testimony to the zeal and alacrity with which the Volunteers had come forward in this distant part of the globe, and their readiness to leave their homes and their ordinary occupations upon a great public emergency in order to re-establish peace and security.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he should be glad to know the date of the last despatch received by the noble Duke.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, his last despatch from the Governor General of New Zealand was dated March 31. The private letter apprizing him of the reinforcements from Melbourne and Sydney was dated April 18.

REDUCTION OF THE WINE DUTIES.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.—QUESTIONS.
  LORD MONTEAGLE LORD MONTEAGLE moved for
  "Account showing the Amount of Drawback paid, or which will be payable, on Foreign Wines by reason of the Reduction of the Duty on Wines by the Commercial Treaty, distinguishing French, Spanish, Portuguese, and other Foreign Wines."
  The noble Lord said, he believed there would be no objection to the Return, but he took the opportunity of asking two

  419
  Questions, of which he had also given notice. It was generally known that the wine trade between this country and Spain and Portugal, was very much larger than that with France; and probably it would in future be still larger relatively if the consumption of foreign wine were generally increased by the reduction of duty, for the wines of the Peninsula were stronger and more familiar to the palates of Englishmen, than the light wines of France. In 1857 the importation of Spanish and Portuguese wines was 5,080,000 gallons; while of French wine it was only 622,000 gallons. Yet, so far as the House was informed, the reduction of duty on this enormous quantity of Peninsular wine was made by England without obtaining, or even seeking any equivalent concession. He wished to know whether any negotiations were pending or were proposed with a view to induce the Spanish and Portuguese Governments to make corresponding reductions in their tariffs against us, to compensate for the great advantages which their wine-growers would derive from the recent changes in the wine duties. In 1856 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a debate upon a Motion for a reduction of the wine duties, said:—
  "That he would state, with argumentative reasons, his grounds for opposing the Motion. We should, to a considerable extent, rely for revenue upon import duties, as well as on taxes on internal consumption. In 1810, when the duty was 13 s. 8d. on French, and 9s. 8d. on Portugal, wines, was the year of greatest revenue—the duty produced £2,786,000. Notwithstanding the reduction to an uniform duty of 5s. 9d., the consumption of 1854 was only 6,775,000 gallons, and the revenue only £1,914,000. Thus, notwithstanding the great increase of population and reduction of duty, the consumption and revenue have diminished since the early years of the century . . I believe it is in vain to expect that any considerable quantity of the weaker wines of the Continent will be consumed in this country . . Inquiries have been instituted to ascertain whether there were any means of imposing ad valorem duty on wine. None has been as yet contrived. The only means by which the inferior wines of the Continent could be admitted would be to lower the duty on wines, so as to make them a substitute for spirits and beer, and subject these latter to an unfair competition."
  The question of revenue was important; since the introduction of the Budget, from changes in the duties made or acquiesced in by the Government we had lost £171,000 by the wine duties, and £110,000 by the changes in the warehousing system, it became necessary to consider whether, if we sustained such losses in dealing only with
  420
  revenue of no more than hundreds of thousands, whether we might not sustain still greater losses when we dealt with articles which brought in £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 annually to the revenue. He alluded to the duties on malt, hops, and British spirits, which could not fail to be affected if a large increase in the consumption of foreign wines took place. He, therefore, wished to know whether any information had been obtained or calculation made of the losses which might be sustained upon British spirits, malt, and hops, in consequence of the reduction of the duties on foreign wines. Upon that point he would quote some observations of the present Home Secretary, who had expressed a fear that a lowering of wine duties would tend to diminish the revenue from other articles of consumption. Sir George Lewis, in 1856, said:—
  "It would, undoubtedly, be advantageous if, consistently with the demands of the revenue, it were in our power to reduce the duties on wine. But, looking to the great amount of our revenue, which is derived from beer and spirits, and remembering that if the duty on wine, which is already a moderate duty, were still further reduced, it would interfere with the consumption of other fermented liquors, I think the revenue would suffer more than the demands of the public service will permit."
  These inquiries were important at the present moment, for the present state of things could only be taken as provisional, because important circumstances had occurred since the plans of the Government had first been explained in February last, and to increase greatly the probable amount of our expenditure, He need only draw their Lordships' attention to the question of national defences, for which an enormous sum was stated to be required under circumstances of deep exigency; and he could not help remarking that though the Report of the Commission was signed in February last, it was not comunicated to Parliament though urgently pressed for, until nearly the middle of June. That paper of itself, if there were nothing else, would be quite sufficient to show that every effort, by a careful maintenance of the revenue, as well as by the most effectual economy, ought to be made to meet the augmenting necessities of the country. His questions were, Whether any Negotiations are pending or proposed in respect to Alteration of Duty consequent upon the Reduction of the Import of Duties on Spanish and Portuguese Wines: and Whether any Information has been obtained, or Calculation has been

  421
  made, showing the Losses which may be sustained on British Spirits, Malt or Hops, by reason of the Reduction of Duties on Foreign Wines?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there would be no objection to the production of the Returns moved for, but expressed a hope that the noble Lord would postpone the Motion for the present. With regard to the question whether negotiations were pending, or proposed, in respect to alterations of duty consequent upon the reduction of import duties on Spanish and Portuguese wines, he would observe that when the French Treaty was first discussed in that House, the Government were reproached with taking a retrograde step, and were charged with resorting to the system of reciprocity treaties. The Government gave reasons why they considered the case an exceptional one, believing that, by means of the Treaty, Prance would be enabled to reduce her duties, and that benefit would be conferred on this country. The Government, however, never intended, certainly, to take such a backward step as to postpone their intended alterations until they obtained the assent of every country to a reduction of duties. With regard to Portugal, communications had taken place with a view of inducing her to reduce her tariff; but though those communications had not yet been successful, one important point had been gained. There existed certain fiscal restrictions in respect to the wines of that country, the abolition of which would be of the greatest importance to the trade, and the Portuguese Government had agreed to effect that abolition, and had brought in a Bill for that purpose. With regard to Spain, the Government had not entered yet into official communications on the subject, but he believed that that country was not actuated by any inimical feeling. With respect to the last Question, it was impossible to give a categorical answer. The amount of loss likely to be sustained must be matter of opinion, and all he could say was that it was not believed that the reduction of the wine duties would interfere with the produce of the duties on malt, hops, and British spirits. If, however, wine should be substituted in any degree for malt liquor, then the substitute would have to pay a higher duty. With regard to spirits, it was not clear that foreign spirits might not interfere with the duty on British spirits; but that was as broad as it was long, as the duty was equal in
  422
  either case. With regard to the Report of the Fortification Commission, it was true that their Report had been completed and signed some months since; but the delay in its presentation was owing to its having been referred to the Committee on the National Defences, and the Government received the final Report only a fortnight ago.
  Lord MONTEAGLEintimated that he would postpone his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TUSCANY.—THE YACHT "MEDINA."

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, What had been done in the case of the captain and crew of the English vessel that had been ill-used by the officers of the Tuscan Government. It was quite evident that these English subjects, although the Tuscan Government had passed into the hands of the Sardinians, had a right to compensation, and he believed it had been insisted on by Her Majesty's Government, and the Sardinian Government must feel it to be their duty to take on themselves all the liabilities that previously existed in connection with the Tuscan Government. When he asked the question some time since, it was intimated that the Government had urged the matter on the attention of the Sardinian Government; but he had received a letter that morning from the ill-used men, complaining that they had lost everything they had to depend upon, and that they were only kept from the workhouse in consequence of the charity of friends where they were, at Plymouth. They complained that they had had no compensation, and could not obtain any. He wished his noble Friend would inform the House what steps had been taken, and what chance there was of compensation being given by the Sardinian Government.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, the Government had communicated on the matter with the Sardinian Government, arguing that the case was one for compensation. The Sardinian Government had replied that they were not satisfied with the representations that had been made, and that the matter should be further inquired into. Since then the two Governments had agreed to refer the matter to two impartial persons, and from what he had heard he

  423
  had no doubt that they would come to a speedy decision.

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED ELECTION.

  ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY THEREON.
  EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved,—
  "To agree with the Commons in the Address to Her Majesty, and to fill the Blank with ('Lords Spiritual and Temporal and'); agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that the Lords had agreed to the Address, and had filled up the Blank: The Lord Steward and The Lord Chamberlain of the Household to attend Her Majesty with the Address on the Part of this House: The Lord Steward to wait upon Her Majesty humbly to know what Time Her Majesty will please to appoint to be attended with the said Address."
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Half past Ten o'clock.