Sitting of 26 July 1861

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Tamworth, v. the Right hon. Sir Robert Peel, baronet, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
PUBLIC BILLS.—10 Metropolitan Police District Receiver; East India Loan (No. 2).
3o Lace Factories; Inland Revenue; Stamp Duties on Probates, &c.; Public Works (Ireland).

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee (Supply) read.
House in Committee.
Mr. Massey in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £669,956, to complete the sum for the Packet Service.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the Vote was certainly less than it was on the preceding year, but still it was an enor-

1619
mous tax on the people of the country, and he wished to know whether there was any prospect of it being reduced. The traffic between England and America had increased so largely that he believed companies would be willing to carry the mails without any subsidy, and he wished to know what the Government intended to do to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee who had sat on this subject.
MR. PEELsaid, the Vote was less this year than last, on account of the contributions which had been received from the colonies. Part of the expense of the conveyance of the mails from Ceylon to Sydney was to be contributed by the colonies; and the colony of Mauritius had decided to bear the whole of the expense for carrying the mails from Suez to Mauritius. No doubt the recommendations of the Committee were entitled to the best consideration of the Government. But the sum then asked for was in respect of contracts concluded with companies. As they terminated, arrangements would be made for giving effect to the Report of the Committee.
MR. W. WILLIAMSreminded the House that the American Government had their mails carried by private packets without any expense. He wished to know what had become of the Estimate for the Galway contract.
MR. PEELsaid, the arrangement made by the American Government was that the packets carrying the American mails should receive the postage due upon those mails. The Galway contract having been terminated by the Postmaster General, no provision for that contract was any longer called for, but, should it be decided to reestablish a postal service between the west coast of Ireland and America, it would be for the Government to propose a Vote for that purpose.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he did not understand that the Galway contract was at an end. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) was about to put a question on the subject of intercourse between Ireland and America that evening, to which he hoped the noble Viscount the Prime Minister would give a favourable answer.
MR. PEELsaid, that he did not mean to say that a new service might not be established.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £1,000,000, China War.
MR. PEELsaid, that the Vote was a Vote of Credit for necessary expenses connected with the China War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House that he would propose this Vote, and they would recollect that provision was made for it in the service of the year, which provision had received the sanction of the House. There had been in all three Votes of Credit for the China War, the first of £850,000 in 1859–60, the second of £3,350,000 for 1860–1, and the present Vote. With respect to the Vote of 1859–60, half a million was for the army, and a quarter of a million for the navy; but it was found that the ordinary provision made for the navy was sufficient for all naval purposes, and so the quarter of a million remained in the Exchequer. The army expenditure had exceeded the grants for the year, and, therefore, a further sum of £105,000 was issued, leaving therefore the available surplus on the Vote of a quarter of a million. With regard to the Vote last year half a million was issued to the navy and £350,000 to the army, and there had been a further issue for commissariat services in China of £1,083,000, and to the Indian Government of £1,146,000. The balance in the Exchequer, however, could only be used for expenses incurred during the year for which it was voted. The sum of £1,000,000 was, therefore, asked to meet the expenditure of the forces in China for the present year. Extra allowances were required for the European troops, and, as it was doubtful how long they might require to remain there the present Vote became necessary. The claims from the Indian Government amounted to £1,327,000 up to the 1st of May last, and they had issued to that Government on account a sum of £114,000 out of the Vote of Credit under consideration, leaving a balance due to that Government of £170,000. In case it should prove possible to return the Native troops to India, the extra allowances to European troops would cease, and the necessity for the extra expenditure would be superseded. At the same time, it was necessary to make this provision; which, however, by no means indicated that an extra expenditure to that amount would be incurred.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he felt some doubts as to whether the £1,000,000 which the Committee were asked to vote on account of the China War, was the last call that would be made upon them. He did not clearly understand from the right hon.

1621
Gentleman what was the balance in hand on the Vote of Credit. Out of the early Vote of Credit taken for the China War payments were made for stores which were sent out to China as far back as 1848, and he should like to have explained upon what principle any portion of a Vote of Credit taken for the China War could be applied to the payment of stores sent out previous to the war. Nearly six millions of money had been taken in the shape of Votes and Credit for the China War, in addition to the ordinary expenses paid out of the money taken for the ordinary army and naval services. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an assurance that the £1,000,000 he now asked for would cover the entire expenditure on account of China? Until the accounts were squared and the final payments were made they could not be satisfied. He should like to know whether the expense incurred for the transport of troops to China by the Indian Government had been sent into the Treasury or not. He was informed that a single item of expense amounted to nearly £850,000 for conveying troops from India to China. He would also express a hope that better arrangements would be made with regard to our accounts with India, otherwise British finance would fall into the utmost disorder. For seven years there had been a sort of running account with India, and no one knew what would be the end of it. He was afraid they were going on very much in the dark in this matter. As long as there were old and unadjusted accounts for years they could have no notion in that House how the British finances really stood. As long as those accounts were outstanding it was ridiculous to talk of a surplus, or raise questions respecting the repeal of taxes.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must admit that the China war had been a very costly War; but, on the other hand, the sufficiency of the provision had brought the war to the more speedy termination. There was a balance in hand from the late Votes of Credit to the extent of £750,000; but he doubted whether that sum could be spent in operations undertaken after the Vote itself was granted, and hence the present application for the present sum. As to the charge for transport, it might be true that such a charge had been sent home to the Indian Office, but it did not follow that we had that sum to pay. As one instance of the vagueness of the Indian Estimates, he
1622
might mention that the Indian Government had sent home charges for operations which had already been settled at home by the Admiralty through a different channel. The charges for China during the present year would be chiefly under two heads—for the charge for transport and the charge for extra pay and allowances to the troops, which must be paid to the whole army as long as any portion of the Indian army remained there. He hoped, however, that would not be long if the instructions sent from home were strictly followed out. He did not think that the state of our account with India was likely to prove very formidable to British finance. He knew that two or three months ago the balance was rather in favour of England; if any charge had take place since, it was amply covered by the Vote before the Committee. He could not say that this was the whole of the accounts that had come from China, but he did not anticipate any further large sum to be asked from that source.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Am I to understand that we are to save £750,000 cut of the last Vote of Credit for 1860–1?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a great many troops have left China. If they left before the 30th of April the expense of their transport would fall on the £750,000 standing from last year. If they left after that date the expense would fall on the million now granted.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: But the expense will not fall upon both years. If it is taken from the sum of £750,000, then the Vote for this year will be retained?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Certainly. The expense cannot fall on the Vote of both years.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the explanation was satisfactory as far as it went.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, if they declined to interfere as they were doing in China, between the, two parties in that country, there would not be any necessity to keep so many troops in China—which was a great charge on the British taxpayers.
MR. GREGSONasked in what position the claims of the merchants in China stood, and what portion of the Vote the Government intended to appropriate to that purpose? Or were other arrangements in view for an immediate or speedy settlement of these claims?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no part of the Vote could be applied to the payment of the claims of the merchants. He had received the papers respecting those claims, and as soon as the pressure of business would permit, he hoped to be able, with his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, to look into these claims. The subject was a very important one, and one in which the Government should do all they could to meet the reasonable demands of the merchants, consistently with the fair claims of the public.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked whether the million then asked for was in addition to the balance on the former Votes of £750,000?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was difficult in military operations to apportion the sums voted in different years very accurately. If the balance of the Vote of Credit of £750,000 for last year was not expended, the sum would lapse entirely, and remain only in figures. But to meet all contingencies that might arise a million was asked for the year 1861–2.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £53,430 15 s. 10 d., War with Russia (Excess of Expenditure).
MR. PEELexplained that the Vote was asked on account of part of a sum of £115,000, arising out of claims and counter claims between the French and English Governments. The amount had been included in a Vote of Credit granted in 1858–9, but that Vote of Credit was surrendered, and the Vote was now necessary, in order that the sum might be transferred to the charge against the Vote of Credit. It involved a reduction of the excess of expenditure for the Russian War. He believed this would be the last of the Votes for the Russian War.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman was quite sure that the Vote would cover the whole outstanding amount for the Russian War?
MR. PEEL: Yes.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £17,933 11 s. 10 d., Revenue Departments (Excess of Expenditure).
MR. PEELsaid, the sum was asked for the payment of those pensions which had been granted in consequence of the reduction of the establishments. There had been a saving on the effective establishment of £78,000, which had been returned to the Exchequer.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement had anticipated a saving in these departments of £150,000. It seemed that the whole saving was only £78,000. He wished to know if that £17,983 was to be deducted from the £78,000.
MR. PEELsaid, that the saving of £78,000 only represented that which had taken place in the year after the changes were made. There was no doubt the saving in the end would be as large as had been anticipated.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £1,000, Poonah Observatory.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked, why the sum asked for was not charged to the Revenues of India?
MR. PEELsaid, the Vote was in consequence of a liberal offer made by a scientific gentleman at Madras to erect a telescope at Poonah, and make observations free of charge, if the Government would send out the instrument.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the Vote would not be considered as laying the foundation for further such charges, either at Poonah or anywhere else.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £60,692, New Westminster Bridge.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped some explanation would be given of this Vote by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works. There had been great mismanagement in the arrangements for constructing Westminster Bridge, and much time and money had been misspent. Mr. Page told them that the works would be completed for £206,000. He wished to know why they were now called upon to pay the sum of £60,000?
MR. COWPERsaid, the expense and loss of time incurred in the construction of Westminster Bridge were, to a considerable extent, to be traced to the fact that the bridge had been the subject of three Committees of the House of Commons. If there was any opprobrium connected with the construction of the bridge it was to be attributed not solely to the Office of Works, but must be shared by a Select Committee of that House. He believed that if the bridge had been left to the sole responsibility of the Office of Works, it would have been completed long ago, and within the sum originally stated. When the bankruptcy of the contractor caused a suspension of operations, a question as to the soundness of the plan of

1625
the foundations was referred to a Committee which reported in favour of a new mode of construction, superseding the use of coffer dams. In 1857 another Committee was appointed, and it was to that Committee he attributed the want of control on the part of the Office of Works over the expenditure and construction of the bridge. That Committee recommended that the works should be proceeded with by day work as recommended by Mr. Page and under his superintendence. The consequence was that the chief part of the works were being constructed without a contract. He knew of no security for the completion of a great work for an agreed sum, except a contract in gross. But in this instance the engineer was substituted for a contractor, and there was little control of the works at the bridge. The estimate made by Mr. Page was made in 1858, and the explanation of the additional Vote asked for was that the removal of the old bridge cost more than Mr. Page anticipated. It was a very difficult and complicated work to remove piers under water, and it was not easy to foresee the exact expense. Then the very mode of construction, which was so ingenious in its conception, led to an increase in the expenditure. A great deal of the expense had been caused by keeping open the old bridge during the construction of the first part of the new. A portion of the money voted would be met by credits from the old bridge, for it was anticipated that about £23,000 would be realized by the sale of stone, plant, &c. He must say that the only two works in which a great excess of expenditure had occurred were the Westminster Bridge and the Houses of Parliament; and those were the very works in which the Office of Works had not been entrusted with the entire management, but where a great deal of the details had been carried out by direction of Committees of that House.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt unintentionally, entirely misrepresented the facts of the case with reference to Westminster Bridge. The right hon. Gentleman had mixed up the consideration of two things totally distinct from each other—the building of the new Houses of Parliament and Westminster Bridge. The two things were as different as chalk from cheese. The right hon. Gentleman laid down the broad proposition that all the mischief connected with the erection of Westminster Bridge
1626
had been caused by a Committee of that House, and not by the Office of Works. It was when Sir William Moles worth was at the Board of Works that the works at the bridge commenced. The new principle of bridge-building was provided for in the first instance in a contract entered into by the Office of Works, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to allege that the House of Commons had anything to do with it. On the failure of the contractor the Commissioner of Works came to the House and asked for a Committee to relieve himself of the responsibility of making the changes which he wished to introduce. That could not with any fairness be called an interference of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Henley) was chairman of that Committee, and they had before them all the engineering talent and experience of the day. The Office of Works had already decided that half the bridge was to be built at one time, and the other half at another; but the Commissioner of Works had doubted if the old system of coffer dams should not be resorted to. The Committee recommended that the bridge should be proceeded with on the system then in operation, and it was then open to the Commissioner to enter into a contract if he so chose. On that point the Committee gave no opinion. In the following year another Committee was appointed. It was then decided that that half of the bridge which had been already begun should be completed under the engineer's direction, and not by contract. There was nothing, however, to prevent the Board of Works from contracting for the other half, and the blame, therefore, rested upon that department. As to the new principle upon which the bridge was constructed, there had, so far, been no symptom of giving way. He admitted that it was a great experiment to build a bridge over such a river without coffer dams, to build it in halves and then bring those two halves together; but if such works could be carried on they would be completed at an infinitely less expense than under the old system. Though there was an excess of £60,000, he believed that the bridge, when completed, would compare advantageously as to cost with Waterloo Bridge and similar structures.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYexplained that the way in which Lord Llanover intended to carry out the building of the second part of the bridge was by calling regularly for the accounts from Mr. Page, and ex-

1627
ercising a strict supervision of the various details of expenditure.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMasked whether, in the absence of a contract, Mr. Page was to be paid by commission, and if so, whether he was to have a percentage upon the excess expenditure of £60,000?
MR. COWPERsaid, that Mr. Page was paid by commission. The Board of Works, however, maintained that that commission was to be upon the estimate, and not upon the excess; while Mr. Page contended that he was entitled to a percentage on the £60,000. The point was not yet decided. On the general question he must not be understood as wishing to blame the House of Commons, but he still thought that the injudicious principle of employing the engineer without a contractor to construct the bridge originated with the Committee. It was true that their recommendations applied only to the first half, but he assumed that his noble Friend (Lord Llanover) who was then Commissioner, and was a member of the Committee, was influenced by the opinion of the Committee to entrust Mr. Page with the construction of the second half without the limit to expenditure which a lump contract alone could give. He thought also that he was justified in his reference to the Houses of Parliament, because it resembled the case of the bridge in this respect, that both works were executed without having a contract in gross.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the Office of Works ought to have ascertained, when the first half of the bridge was completed, whether Mr. Page had kept within the proportion of the Estimate; if not, the office ought to have insisted on a contract.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had never felt any doubt that they would get into a financial mess in the matter. He did not wonder at the difficulty of meeting with a new contractor after the failure of the first one, on account of the half-finished state of the works. There was a very good estate belonging to Westminster Bridge of the annual value of upwards of £7,000, and worth a capital sum of £171,000. The original estimate of Mr. Mare was £206,248. Mr. Page thought it would be completed for £316,000, and there had been an excess of £60,000. Would £377,828 conclude the matter? The principle of recompensing Mr. Page by a commission was a most vicious one, and was the old case of Sir Charles Barry over again.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could understand why when the contract for the first part failed it should be finished without a contract, but a grievous mistake was made when it was determined to complete the second part of the bridge by day work, for that was what it ought to be called. The proper course would have been to have instructed Mr. Page to obtain contracts from houses of solidity, to get him to report upon those contracts, and if Mr. Page would have undertaken to complete the bridge at a less cost it would be for the Chief Commissioner to say whether he would have accepted Mr. Page's offer. The Chief Commissioner could not say that the £60,000 asked for would be the last sum that would be required, nor did he (Sir Morton Peto) believe that Mr. Page himself had any conception of it. He did not throw any blame on Mr. Page; his character stood high, and his works were all favourably executed, and he believed the bridge would be after all more cheaply finished than other bridges of similar extent. But the fault, if fault there were, lay with the Office of Works, and the right hon. Gentleman must not throw it on the House.
MR. T. J. MILLERremarked that some of the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken were members of the Committee, and it was to them a matter of notoriety that a portion of the bridge was to be erected without a contract; and it would be more just to the Commissioner of Works if they had gone to the House and given warning before the harm was done, instead of complaining of it on the present occasion. He wanted to know whether anything was likely to be recovered from the sureties of Messrs. Mare. As to the bridge itself, he believed it would be the finest ever erected. They were indebted to the Committees that had been so much blamed for obtaining a bridge double the width of the other bridges on the Thames, and at two-thirds of the ordinary expense of stone bridges.
MR. COWPERsaid, it had been found impossible to recover any money from the assignees of Mr. Mare. As to the future expense he could only say that the estimate before the Committee was the estimate prepared by Mr. Page. Application had been made to a great contractor to contract for the completion of the remaining half of the bridge; but he had very fairly stated that in the present advanced stage of the work it would be cheaper to finish the work as it had been begun.
MR. SPOONERremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken the question addressed to him by the hon. Member (Mr. Miller). That hon. Member did not speak of the assignees of the original contractor but of his sureties, and he (Mr. Spooner) now begged to ask if any amount had been recovered from the sureties of the original contractor. He (Mr. Spooner) also wished to know if anything was left of the Westminster Bridge Estate?
MR. COWPERsaid, he meant to say that it was found impossible to recover from the sureties as well as from the assignees the money they were entitled to demand. The estate was valued at £111,000. It consisted of the north side of Bridge Street, and other houses. The site would much increase in value when the houses on the south side were removed, and if not required for public buildings it would be disposed of by the Government when it reached its full value.
MR. VANCEsaid, he did not grudge the expenditure on Westminster Bridge, which was a great metropolitan improvement; but he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Dublin had suffered for a long time from the want of a new bridge, in place of that which was called after an ancestor of the present Lord Lieutenant.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding, £250,000, be I granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Building Iron Ships by Contract, and of the Plating and Engines for five Wooden Ships, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862."
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I am anxious to afford the Committee some explanation of the Vote which I have now to propose of £250,000 in addition to the ordinary Estimates. It will be remembered that we have had various discussions respecting this most important subject. Since we framed our Estimates of iron-cased ships in December last other nations have very largely added to their iron-clad navy. It was consequently my duty in May last to state that the Government had resolved upon building five more wooden iron-cased ships in our dockyards; but that that of itself could entail no increase on the ordinary Estimates of the year beyond expense of plating and partly providing engines for these wooden ships, but that it would pro-
1630
bably be necessary that still further exertion should be made in order to keep pace with foreign Powers. Sir, this Estimate has reference to three distinct items. First, it is proposed to commence the construction of more iron-cased ships by contract. That item amounts to £120,000. The second item is for the plating required for the five wooden ships which I have already mentioned; and, thirdly, we ask for an additional sum towards the expenses of engines for those wooden ships. As to the proposed iron-cased ships, I trust that the intention of the Government to ask for an additional grant for this purpose will create no alarm, because we merely propose now to do, under the sanction of Parliament, that which we have actually being doing during the last three years in the recess without the sanction of Parliament. The Committee will remember that the late Government proposed to build two iron-cased ships of the Warrior class. One of those ships was ordered by them just before they left office, and the other by the present Government. In the autumn of that year(1859)we learnt that other nations were making great progress in the construction of these ships, and the Admiralty thought it their duty, without waiting for the sanction of Parliament, to ask the consent of the Treasury to the immediate commencement of two more iron-cased ships. That made two of the Warrior class in course of construction and two of the Defence class, the latter being of considerably smaller dimensions. These four vessels are now nearly ready, and we trust that the Warrior will be at sea in a very short period. In the course of the next autumn, 1860, the Government again received communications as to the progress made by foreign nations, and thought it was incumbent on them a second time, without Parliamentary sanction, to commence the construction of two more of these vessels, larger than the Defence, but smaller than the Warrior. These vessels will be ready in the course of the next year, and make six in progress. During the present year the Government have commenced the construction of a ship of the Warrior class at Chatham, making the seventh iron-cased ship, and in May last I also announced to the House, as I have just stated, that it was the intention of the Government to make use of the wooden frames of line-of-battle ships under construction which would enable us to construct five wooden iron-cased ships in the dockyards. That makes a total of twelve which are now in

1631
course of construction in the dockyards, or being built by contract. My right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) about the latter end of May, called attention to the great increase which was taking place in the construction of iron-cased ships by France, and quoted statements made by a gallant Admiral, who had -visited the French dockyards, and had reported that ten new iron-cased ships were being built over and above those already completed. In answer to my right hon. Friend, I stated that the Government were perfectly aware of what was going on not only in France, but in various Continental dockyards, and were carrying out a series of experiments under the control of a Committee, composed of very able men, with a view to ascertain what is the best form of construction. I, also, stated that as soon as we had arrived at some sort of conclusion the Government would, if necessary, state what they thought was requisite for the public service. These experiments have made very considerable progress, and, though I am unable to state that any definite conclusions are arrived at as to the nature, the thickness, and the exact style of casing, we have, nevertheless, decided, first, that it is advisable to have very large ships, carrying great weight; secondly, that under these circumstances it is desirable that those ships should be built of iron; and, thirdly, that, as we have very great facilities in the merchant yards throughout this country these ships should be built by contract. I am, therefore, going to invite the Committee to place confidence in the Government, and authorize us to commence the construction of a certain number of these vessels by contract during the recess when we have prepared the drawings, and have come to a definite conclusion as to size, armament, and various other particulars. The item of £120,000 will enable us either to commence six ships, and thus provide for one-tenth of the cost of six ships, or, if is thought more advisable, to make greater progess with a fewer number, in which case we shall have provided during the present year one-fifth of the cost of three ships. What I ask the Committee is, to leave it to the discretion of the Government either to commence the whole number of six ships and proceed at a very slow rate, or commence the construction of a smaller number, making greater progress with them. The course which may be taken by the Government will depend upon
1632
a variety of circumstances, and I am not prepared, at the present moment to say which plan would be the more advisable. Of course, much must depend upon the progress which other nations are making in building iron-cased ships. I have before me a list which I can read to the Committee if they wish, showing the number of iron-cased ships building by Continental nations, and that number is increasing very rapidly. It is the duty of the Government of this country that we should keep pace with such efforts, and, therefore, the proposal I have to make is that we should be empowered to commence by contract during the present autumn not more than six of these ships, leaving us either to make a greater progress with a smaller number, or to proceed very slowly with the whole six. Supposing we commence the whole six, we should then have under construction eighteen iron-cased ships; and these vessels, as far as we are at present advised, will be certainly not less in tonnage and armament than the Warrior class. A good deal must depend upon the trials which will be made of that vessel. I need not say that great care will be taken by the Admiralty to watch the performance of the Warrior, and I have great confidence that she will turn out a very fine and formidable vessel. I have stated what is the proposed expenditure during the present year, and I will now state what will be the ultimate expenditure upon all iron-cased ships. The Committee will then see that, however necessary they may be, these vessels are very costly. If the Government are empowered to commence six more iron-cased ships, you will have, of course, a further expenditure to complete them during future years. This expenditure may be spread over several years, and, indeed, it is only proposed to make such progress during the present year as will enable the Government to profit by the result of the experiments which are going on daily at Shoeburyness, and to modify, if necessary, the present system of iron-casing whether by a smaller backing of wood and thicker plates or by doing away with wooden backing altogether and devoting the weight to iron-casing, or to take advantage of these experiments in other ways. Our progress with these vessels during the present year will not be so great but that we shall be able to introduce any modifications which may be thought desirable after the experiments are concluded. Including the sum which

1633
is required this year, and including also the plating for the five wooden ships, and a sum which will about complete the expense of engines for the wooden ships, the total cost of these vessels will be £2,340,810, leaving to be provided during future years the sum of £2,090,810 as near as we can at present calculate. We have taken a large sum as the Committee is aware in the present year's Estimates for the other iron-cased ships, and over and above that outlay there will be required for those ships in future years the sum of £114,441, so that the whole cost to the country for iron-cased vessels, beyond the present year's Estimates, may be estimated at £2,455,251. That includes the casing of the wooden ships which are building in the dockyards, but exclusive of the workmanship on the iron ship Achilles, which is building at Chatham dockyard; and, supposing the Committee assent to the present proposal, this is the sum for which they will render the country liable in future years. Before sitting down I cannot help saying a few words respecting the alarm which may be created among the mercantile community in consequence of the additional force which we are about to create. It is no use denying that the whole world is commencing the construction of these ships. Every maritime nation has completely given up the thought of building wooden line-of-battle ships, and, I think, therefore, that the proposal which I have just submitted to the Committee is not of a nature to excite alarm throughout the country, but rather to engender a proper confidence, that we are determined to maintain our maritime position in its integrity.
Mr. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the discussion ought not to go on. The notice of Supply was only given at two o'clock that morning, and there was not the least intimation in the paper that the sum of £250,000 would involve so large an ultimate expenditure as £2,500,000. So important a Vote ought not to be proposed in so thin a House, and he would, therefore, suggest its postponement till the evening sitting.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he quite agreed that the House could not have anticipated the precise proposition that had been made; but at the same time no great delay should be interposed at that period of the Session. He admitted, however, that it was desirable to postpone until the evening the consideration of the Vote. He
1634
thought that the noble Lord had rather exaggerated the possibility of alarm among the mercantile classes from the proposal which he had just made. On the contrary, the proposal would rather appease than excite alarm. The public well knew what was going on in different parts of the world, and especially in a neighbouring country. It would be ridiculous affectation on the part of the House to ignore that, and they would be neglecting their duty if they did not make provision for such a state of things. He thought it absolutely necessary to confide certain powers to the Executive in such cases, but doubted whether what was proposed ought not to be finished out of hand as soon as possible instead of delaying for so long a period that reconstruction of the navy which was so imperatively required.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he regretted that a proposal of such importance should have been left to so late a period of the Session. The Committee would remember the earnest endeavours made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) to prevent further expenditure in the construction of wooden ships, and it was satisfactory to find the noble Lord admitting now that the navy must he reconstructed as an iron navy. He could assure the noble Lord that there would be no alarm among mercantile men at the proposition, but only a feeling of deep regret that the French Government had been allowed to take so far-seeing and practical a view as to the necessity for iron-cased ships, while Her Majesty's Government had fallen so far behind. It had been stated, without contradiction, that since 1858 the French Government had not spent a shilling on a wooden vessel, whereas this country had spent £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. Surely we had gained the same experience as the French Government during the Crimean War, and must have known that wooden ships attacked with the new projectiles would be on fire in a few minutes. For his own part he confessed that, instead of regarding the Emperor of the French as one who was plotting against the peace of Europe, he only looked upon him as the chief of a great nation, who, to secure the efficiency of his navy, was taking a course which our own Government ought to have pursued from the beginning. If Her Majesty's Government had only since 1858 quietly studied this subject, and done that which science and practical experience showed to be necessary, there would have

1635
been none of these continuous alarms as to what was being done in France. He repeated that there was nothing alarming in the noble Lord's statement, but it reflected great discredit on the Government that at that late period of the Session, when but comparatively few hon. Members were in London, such a statement should be made. The wisest thing which could be done was that the noble Lord, putting aside all the arts of diplomacy and Foreign Office traditions, should during the recess go to France, and endeavour to come to a clear and distinct understanding with the French Government as to the relative forces of the two countries. He could not understand why there should be any greater difficulty in coming to such an understanding than there was in coming to an agreement with respect to the commercial treaty. On the one hand, the Government were endeavouring to encourage commercial intercourse with France, and yet they neglected precautions by which alone the intercourse could be preserved. From what he knew of the character of the French Emperor and the French people, he believed that so far as they were concerned no difficulty would be experienced in arriving at a satisfactory understanding. He denied that the French Government had in their naval preparations done anything which ought to excite the alarm of this country. They had only fulfilled their duty in acting upon the experience acquired in 1858, and upon their conviction that the fleet of the future must be a fleet of iron. The House of Commons would not refuse any request which our own Government declared to be necessary; but as men of business they hoped that during the recess some means would be taken for preventing all uncertainty and alarm, and for putting an end to the game of "beggar my neighbour." A constant intercourse during the last fourteen or fifteen years with French people of all classes led him to know their feelings, and he believed them to be most anxious to cultivate friendly relations with this country. The friendly speeches at the Mansion House the other day had been responded to most heartily across the Channel, and he had received many letters from French correspondents in this sense. The provincial press of France was full of good feeling, and reproduced at length the speeches of the hon. Members for Koch-dale and Birmingham. That good feeling ought to be reciprocated in this country, and the best way of reciprocating it was
1636
by the endeavour to promote such an understanding as he had mentioned.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I must join in the appeals which have been made to the noble Lord not to press this Vote at a morning sitting. It has been said that we need not look for a fuller attendance in this House; but at least we may anticipate another state of the Treasury bench. At present the Government is represented by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread), and the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peel). Now, I think such a question ought not to be debated in the absence of the confidential advisers of the Crown. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question under discussion, and I think it especially necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be present. If I rightly understand the noble Lord, this is to be treated as an extraordinary Vote beyond the ordinary Estimates of the year. A sum of nearly £2,500,000 of capital is expected to be expended on these ships. Now, is this to be included in time of peace in the ordinary Estimates of the year, or is it to be treated as a capital sum beyond the ordinary Estimates? Again, as the noble Lord has deprecated alarm, I cannot help saying that, to use an expression current on the Stock Exchange, the alarm has been already discounted. Whatever alarm has been created resulted from the speech of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, when the question of Sardinia was brought forward. It is impossible to separate this question from that of our relations with France and with other countries, and, to use the mildest phrase, I think it altogether unseemly that the Committee should be called upon to pass such a Vote when not one of the confidential advisers of Her Majesty is present, and I am bound to say that the House could not have been aware, until it heard the statement of the noble Lord, that the sum of £250,000, which is now asked for, is only the commencement of an expenditure of £2,500,000 beyond the ordinary expenses for the year. For the sake of decency in our proceedings, I entreat the noble Lord not to press the Vote.
LORD CLARENCE PAGEThad no objection to defer the consideration of this Vote till the evening sitting. But he besought the Committee not to run away with the idea that he was suddenly commencing as it were, by stealth, a vast expenditure. [Sir JAMES GRAHAM: £2,500,000.] He

1637
had frankly stated the ultimate cost of his proposal, and as long as he held his present office he would never bring forward an estimate without giving to the House a clear explanation, as far as he was enabled to judge, of what would be the ultimate expense to which would pledge itself, supposing that it should agree to the estimate. He, therefore, thought ho was rather hardly dealt with when it was said he had taken the Committee by surprise, or had not given fair notice. He could only say that notice was on the paper for two days.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that between 1859–60 and 1860–1 inclusive, the House had voted £1,500,000 for iron-cased ships, and that amount, added to the sum now proposed, would make£4,000,000, He hoped the noble Lord would state on a future occasion how that sum had been expended.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that no sufficient reason had been given for the construction of these six vessels, and the only result would be that France would build six more. Then, the chances were that next Session the House would be told that, France having added six ships to her navy, Her Majesty's Government had, during the recess, ordered the construction of twelve additional vessels. Where was that to end? He admitted that the country ought not to be behind France in her naval force, and that if she had twenty we should have thirty such ships; but from what had come under his observation when in France, he believed that the Government of the Emperor was willing to enter into some such arrangement as that indicated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) respecting the relative amount of the forces of the two countries, and if difficulties existed as to any such arrangement, he was afraid that they originated at home.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the question before the Committee is rather what we are now to do than where this is to end. The hon. Gentleman says that our naval strength ought to exceed that of France. I was glad to hear such an admission from him, and I hope he will act in that spirit. Sir, I agree in the necessity of postponing the Vote until the House assembles in the evening, but, although the noble Lord's statement has been a surprise to me, I have listened to it with the greatest satisfaction and the warmest approbation, for in submitting this proposal
1638
the Government are doing no more than their duty. It is said that ten ships are in progress in France. That statement creates an erroneous impression as to what is going on across the Channel. There is no doubt that at this moment sixteen iron-cased vessels are in progress in France. Moreover, there is no doubt that the French Government are not building them so slowly as my noble Friend seems to contemplate. On the contrary, for some reason or other, the French Government are pressing on the construction of these ships so rapidly as to excite public attention in France, as well as some alarm. I will not cuter now into the reasons; I will only dwell on the fact. Meanwhile, what is the position of this country? Until to-day, to set against those sixteen ships, nearly half of which are launched, we only knew that the Government intended to build twelve, of which only seven have been as yet commenced. The Government now propose to build six more, the general result being that when these are begun—and it is doubtful whether that will happen in the present autumn, and whether six or three will be commenced—we shall then only have a prospect of possessing two more of these armour-plated ships than are now actually in progress in France. Under these circumstances I must express my earnest hope that this Vote may not be postponed with any idea of rejecting the proposals made by the Government. These six new ships are to be of the Warrior class, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) seems startled by an ultimate expenditure of £2,500,000. But the cost of the Warrior and Black Prince are well known to the Committee. Multiply that cost by six, and you will have very nearly the amount stated by my noble Friend. I think, therefore, that he deserves credit for his perfect candour to-day. I was struck by the hope expressed by the hon. Members for Finsbury and Sunderland, that we should check this expenditure by entering into some arrangement with France respecting the amount of naval force which the two countries are to maintain. I cannot hear these observations without expressing my strong opinion that any such arrangement is absolutely impossible. In itself, no doubt, it is very specious and plausible, but my firm belief is that if you wanted to lay the foundation of future misunderstandings and quarrels with France you could

1639
not adopt a surer course than by entering into such negotiations, and by attempting, as between two powerful nations naturally jealous of each other's influence and power, and in some measure rivals in the exercise of that power, to define in a treaty what should be the number of ships or the relative armaments which they should maintain. Looking to the empire we have to defend, I feel that no such arrangement would be for the interests of England, and that it would be equally dangerous to the future friendship between the two nations. I must also dissent from the opinion expressed that the English Navy hereafter must be an iron navy. That opinion has been frequently expressed in the course of these discussions, and there is a strong tendency in the House to jump to the conclusion—and, as I think, the erroneous conclusion—that, because we have found it necessary to embark in a large expenditure in armour-plated ships, there is necessarily an end to the utility of our wooden vessels. I entertain no such opinion. Considering the extent of our empire, I believe that none of us will live to see the day when our wooden navy will not be most valuable and important to us in all parts of the world, though with a view to possible contingencies in Europe we now find it necessary to embark in this outlay upon an iron navy.
MR. H. A. BRUCEasked, whether in the sum of £2,500,000 was included the cost of completing the five vessels, as well as the construction of the six proposed to be built?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the total expenditure, as he had stated, would be £2,500,000, which would include the plating required for the wooden ships, the total expenditure of the six iron-cased vessels proposed to be constructed, and, likewise, the completion of the, vessels of that class at present building, with their engines, and also the engines for the wooden ships. The new ships would carry ninety guns each, with a tonnage of about 5,000 tons.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to disclaim all intention of opposing the Vote, and at the same time to admit the propriety and candour with which it had been submitted to the Committee by the noble Lord. As regarded the conduct of France, the Emperor always appeared to have acted very candidly, and to have said, "I have nothing to do with you; you may do what you like; but I shall
1640
maintain an efficient navy, and that is the best way of preserving peace between the two countries."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again this day, at Six of the clock.

APPOINTMENT OF INDIAN OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the appointment of Colonel Mollan, C.B., of the 75th Foot, to the command of the 101st Fusiliers (late Bengal 1st Fusiliers), to the prejudice of the claims of local Field Officers of the Bengal Army, has his approval; whether the following appointments in Bengal General Orders of the 20th of May last has his sanction: Brevet Major Gordon, of Her Majesty's 46th Foot, to command the 33d Regiment Native Infantry; Lieutenant Geddes, Her Majesty's 27th Foot, to be Adjutant of the 14th Regiment Native Infantry; Lieutenant A. B. Morgan, Her Majesty's 19th Foot, to be Adjutant of the 42d Regiment Native Infantry; whether those Officers have passed the prescribed tests as Interpreters; whether they are to be seconded in their respective Regiments; and whether those Officers are permanently attached to the Staff Corps?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had received no account of any one of those appointments, and, therefore, he was not able either to sanction or disapprove of them.

  CASE OF THOMAS CARTER.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Carter, who was on Monday, the 15th day of July, brought before Thomas Thorpe Fowke and Le Marchant Thomas, Esqs., at the Ryde Police Court, charged with being a vagrant and sleeping in the open air at Oakfield, and who was committed by those Magistrates to Winchester Goal for three weeks, and ordered to be kept to hard labour for that period; and, if so, whether he has given, or intends to give, orders for his immediate release.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I do not at this moment hold the seals of the Home Department. I did at the time when a letter was written calling for a report of

  1641
  this case. That letter was written several days ago, and no answer has been received from the magistrates. A letter has been written to-day again calling attention to the subject.

  On Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply,

  SLAVE TRADE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Government to the great increase of the Cuban Slave Trade, and the importance of supplementing the exertions of the squadron on the African coast by j additional measures for the suppression of that trade. At that period of the Session, and in the then state of the public business, he would not detain the House for many minutes. Ho was very anxious, I however, to submit two or three suggestions to the Government which ho believed would be efficacious, if carried out, in greatly diminishing, if not overthrowing, the slave trade. It was no longer matter of question that Africa would afford a boundless amount of cotton if only the slave trade could be put down, so as to enable agriculture and commerce to thrive. Even, therefore, if no higher motives came in, he should feel justified in reverting to that painful subject before the Session closed. The recent accounts of the slave trade were terrible. Too ample proof was afforded by the blue books of the extraordinary activity with which the slave trade was being pushed forward. That lamentable state of things might fill them with discouragement and almost with despair, but the legitimate inference would be that they should reconsider the system on which they were acting, and see whether some further measures could not be adopted which would render their exertions more effectual. The fact was that since the American Government had refused to acknowledge the right of visit the British naval force had been rendered, he would not say useless, because he believed that fourteen slave ships had been captured during the past year, but far less potent than it used to be. He was anxious, therefore, to call the attention of the Government to two or three supplementary measures, which would, he thought, be of great value. One of these was suggested last year by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs himself, though he believed it had not been acted on. It was that an
  1642
  attempt should be made to supplant the slave trade in Cuba by the introduction, under the most stringent precautions, of a free immigation from China and India. That would require the greatest possible care, and it might be thought that experience as to the abominable traffic in Chinese with Cuba ought at once to condemn the suggestion. But the truth was that recently Her Majesty's Government had made great and, he believed, successful exertions to put a stop to the cruelty with which that coolie immigration had formerly been attended. Our authorities in China, in conjunction with the Chinese authorities, had placed the emigration under strict regulations, and it also appeared that in Cuba the Chinese ha asserted their independence, and had enforced considerate treatment for themselves. He trusted that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would direct Mr. Crauford, the British Commissioner at Havannah, to make strict inquiries on that point, and if it could be shown that humane treatment and fair wages could effectually be secured for Indian and Chinese emigrants, then, by encouraging such an immigration, they would supplant, not only the slave trade, but in the long run slavery itself in the Island of Cuba. Next, he would urge on the Government that, instead of trusting only to cruisers on the sea, they should take steps to break up the slave trade on the African coast itself. He believed that would do even more than the squadron to harass and injure the slave traders, and it could not bring England into collision with any European Government. Now, by the kind of protectorate which England had established along the Gold Coast, and at Accra, and at Lagos, the slave trade had actually been extinguished along what formerly was its very mart and emporium, and which used in fact to be called the Slave Coast. But there was one exception. At Whydah, a port belonging to that execrable ruffian the King of Dahomey, the slave trade was still most prosperous. By the last accounts several slavers with large cargoes had sailed from Whydah. He could not see why they should not use violent measures to put a stop to it at that point. No courtesy surely need be observed with the King of Dahomey. Well, then, going further south, Portugal possessed great dominions along both the west and east coasts of Africa. Her western coast was formerly rife with the slave trade. When Mr. Gabriel, the English Commis-

  1643
  sioner at Loanda, first went there he saw eighteen slave vessels in one harbour. Since that the slave trade along the whole of the Portuguese West Coast had been utterly extinguished, and the result had been a great development of commerce, to the value, taking exports and imports together, of half a million a year. How had that come about? In great measure owing to the fact that England had had Consuls and Commissioners on that coast who had brought the influence of England to hear on the Portuguese authorities. Meanwhile, however, on the East Coast no such improvement had taken place. The last blue book showed an immense amount of slave trade from Mozambique and the adjoining districts. Now, surely, it would be only common sense for England to do her very utmost to induce Portugal to put the slave trade down on the East as well as on the West Coast, and nothing in his opinion would do so much towards that end as the appointment of an able and energetic man to the post of Consul at Mozambique. It might be said that no able and energetic man would go there, but a gentleman who stood very high in the opinion of the Government was willing to take the post. There were, he owned, some objections. The climate was unhealthy; the place was detestable. There was also the expense. That, however, would be small, and nothing in proportion to the interests involved. Again, it had been urged that Dr. Livingstone had recently been appointed Consul at Zambesi, but Zambesi was very far to the south, and Dr. Livingstone was always up the country exploring. The main objection, however, made by the Government was this, that a consul would be of no use without a large number of cruisers; but two or three ships of war were always kept on that coast. He thought their being few was an additional reason for giving them as much assistance and information as possible. Were the whole coast watched by cruisers it would be less necessary to have a consul on shore to find out all that was going forward, and the points from which it was likely that slaves would be embarked. The objections, then, were not strong ones. The inducements were very strong. The fact was that the Portuguese Government was well disposed on the subject. It was fain to stop the slave trade, but was too feeble to enforce its views on that far distant coast, where many of their own authorities had excellent reasons for cherishing
  1644
  the slave trade. Nothing, then, would so much tend to enable the Government of Portugal to carry out their views as the fact that England had a Commissioner there to watch with a keen eye all that went on, and report the proceedings of the slave traders and the action taken by the local authorities. In fact this would be the means of bringing the powerful influence of England to bear, and of pouring light on those dark places of the earth, rendering it infinitely more difficult for these cruelties to go on there. A consul had originally been appointed at Mozambique after full inquiry by Mr. Hume's Committee in 1853, and experience seemed to him (Mr. Buxton) to have shown the value of having such a representative of England on that coast. In urging the reappointment of a consul on the Government he was expressing the views entertained by Lord Brougham, by the Bishop of Oxford, the Anti-Slavery Society, the African Aid Society, and, in fact, nearly every one acquainted with the question of the slave trade. More than this, the same point had been strongly urged by the Economist newspaper, and by others who looked on the matter from a mercantile point of view. There seemed real grounds for believing that English influences exerted on that coast might do much to suppress the slave trade and open a large commerce. He was glad to think that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was sure to give the question a candid and careful study, as no man had shown more persevering energy in promoting as far as he possibly could the abolition of the slave trade.
  MR. CAVE: — Mr. Speaker, I could have wished that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) had been able to bring this question before the House on the day for which he first gave notice, as we might then have had the valuable assistance of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in discussing it; and I feel bound to take this opportunity of expressing my acknowledgment of the ready attention the noble Lord always gave to the representations I have felt it my duty to make from time to time on this subject. Late, however, as it is in the Session, I cannot think the moment an inopportune one, because the whole question has been advanced, during the last few days, by the publication of a very remarkable and important document. I allude to a letter from the French Emperor to his

  1645
  Minister of Marine, giving notice of the ratification of a treaty with Her Majesty, of which we have as yet heard nothing, but which will, I hope, late as it is, be laid upon the Table of the House before we separate at the conclusion of the Session. As far as we are able to conjecture, from the terms of the letter, this treaty extends and makes permanent the Convention of last year, under the provisions of which the Emperor, who cob siders the supplying his colonies with labour an Imperial question, is empowered, in return for abandoning the so-called African emigration, to compete in the labour market of Calcutta, backed by all the resources of France, with our colonists, who have only their own private and most scanty means to rely upon; and with such vigour have these resources been applied, that I have just learned that no less than twenty-seven ships have sailed from Calcutta with coolies for the French colony of Reunion, while only twenty-two have gone to the whole British West Indies collectively. I will not trouble the House again with my objections to the principle of this measure: I have already fully stated them, and they have since been strengthened by the occurrence of one of the evils I anticipated. We find in a recent minute of the Governor of Mauritius complaints that a large number of coolies had been shipped by French agents in Calcutta for Reunion, under the pretext of taking them to Mauritius.
  I cannot help thinking, however, that the letter itself is highly unsatisfactory. The Emperor has some doubts about the African emigration. He thinks it may possibly be open to abuse; he therefore determines to put an end to it. But when? Immediately? No, at the close of another year. It may, indeed, be said that it would be impossible to terminate these arrangements at once; and this argument would be very forcible, were it not for a letter which I have here from the same Imperial writer to his cousin, Prince Napoleon, dated as long ago as 1858, couched in similar terms, breathing the same doubts, and expressing the same determinations: and so general was the belief in England, at that time, that the Emperor had become convinced of what all the world knew long before, that this immigration was the slave trade in disguise, and was resolved immediately to put an end to it, that an hon. Member, now a Member of the other House of Par-
  1646
  liament (Lord Stratheden), proposed a Resolution in 1859, conveying the thanks of the House to the Emperor for his zeal and sincerity—a Motion which was seconded by my hon. Friend who has revived this subject to-night, but which, from some information of an opposite tendency which I had received, I felt bound to oppose.
  Has it taken His Imperial Majesty all this time to make up his mind? or is it not rather to the opposition of Portugal that we owe the discontinuance of this French slave trade on the east coast of Africa, if it be indeed discontinued? Perhaps a consul at Mozambique might tell us a different tale. However this may be, we were certainly led to expect, and we had a good right to expect, that the moment French recruiting agents were allowed to set foot in British India they would cease to be employed on every part of the African continent. But it appears that a much harder bargain was driven by the Emperor: that the Convention under which the Queen's subjects are now, as we learn, being carried in such large numbers to Reunion, was to be paid for by abandoning the slave trade on the east coast alone; and that this wider and more advantageous treaty was necessary to induce its cessation on the west coast also. But the fact is we give up everything and get nothing. The Emperor knows that the African immigration is the slave trade, and cannot be defended. He knows this, or he would not go all the way to India for a more distant, a more expensive, and less efficient class of labourers. If it be the slave trade, France is already bound by treaties as solemn as any new ones can be made, to have nothing to do with it. So we are paying her extra for abstaining from doing what she is already pledged not I to do.
  But, leaving this retrospect, I should like to say a word as to the future. As far as we can judge, France is to have the benefit, up to July 1862, of both Indian and African immigration, and we see that she is making the most of her time in I both. I presume we shall find that either of the contracting parties can put an end to the treaty by giving due notice. Supposing France gives this notice at the end of the year, she will be in statu quo as regards Africa, and be richer by some thousands of the Queen's subjects from Bengal. Again, there is an important exception in the terms of the treaty, as

  1647

  stated in the letter. France is still to be allowed to draw emigrants from her own possessions on the African coast. Now, any really free emigration from these places is out of the question, and, without imputing any intended breach of faith, I will show how liable this provision is to abuse, by a single illustration.
  It is perfectly well known that for several years the Natives of the British Province of Madras were smuggled to Reunion through the French territory of Pondicherry. Between 30,000 and 40,000 Indians are computed to have been so carried off. I need scarcely point out how easy it would be for an unlimited African slave trade through a French possession to flourish; either with the connivance or without the knowledge of French authorities. The French possessions fringe the African coast for hundreds of miles, and are bounded by great slave-trading nations in the interior. We have seen already that a consul at Reunion is to be added to our list for the purpose of watching the operations of the treaty in that island; a far greater number of consuls than even the hon. Member proposes will be necessary on the African coast to guard against the possible abuse of it there.
  Before sitting down I may, perhaps, be allowed to express a hope that when Her Majesty's Government were making these great concessions to France they at least stipulated in return for some modification of the French law relating to right of search, which interposes so many obstacles to the success of our African squadron. Hard language has frequently been used in this House in regard to the conduct of Spain, but Spain scarcely receives a single slave who is not carried under the flag of one or other of two great maritime nations. That the banner of America has long been deeply disgraced in this way is a matter of world-wide notoriety, but that of France is not unstained.
  A naval officer commanding one of our cruisers on that station wrote to me a short time ago thus—
  "The Franch flag, I am sorry to say, is becoming a cloak for slavery, through immunity as to the right of search. A French ship escaped on the south-west coast last November. She had a legal clearance for China for coolies."
  Somewhat significant this, especially as fetters form part of the equipment of free emigrants, according to French notions.
  "But had her papers been ever so irregular she was French and could not be detained; so our cruiser let her go, and she took 700 slaves."
  1648
  Now, Sir, if France and England really co-operate in earnest, America cannot long hold out, especially if her vessels are to sail henceforward under a divided flag. Now is the time to strike; and if, when this treaty is laid upon the table, I find that France has made some concession in this direction, even to the extent only of placing French Commissioners on board English cruisers to overhaul French slavers, I shall see some light under the cloud. If not, I shall be compelled to adhere to the belief, which is shared by many Members on both sides of the House, and it is said even by some of Her Majesty's Government, that this treaty, while creating new evils of a grave and painful nature, does practically little to obviate those which already exist, and against which it is ostensibly directed.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, that from letters which he had received on the subject he could corroborate the statement made as to the great increase of the slave trade on the East Coast of Africa. He was also in a position to state that the Portuguese authorities were most anxious that there should be an English consul at Mozambique, in the hope that a change for the better in that respect might be effected.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that if he rightly understood the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the question he was of opinion that the slave trade had not of late been vigorously prosecuted upon the Mozambique coast. But, if that were the impression of the hon. Gentleman, he (Sir John Pakington) had reason to believe that the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken upon that point. He had lately been informed by naval officers from the coast of Africa, that the slave trade so far from having decreased on the Mozambique coast, now flourished there in the utmost vigour.
  MR. BUXTON: It was on the west coast I said it had decreased.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought it would be well to defer creating any consular establishment on the East Coast of Africa until the report of Dr. Livingstone had been received on the result of his expedition up the Ruvuma. The presence of a consul at Mozambique was rendered the less necessary by the fact that the Governor General of the district entertained the most honest intentions to suppress the slave trade. The trade, moreover, was not carried on to such an extent at Mozambique as at other points of the East Coast of Africa.

  1649
  The Portugese Governor of Mozambique was exceedingly desirous of putting down the abominable traffic, and the fact was the more creditable to him because he was placed in a position of great temptation to connive at the evil. He did all he could to suppress it, but, in fact, he was powerless, on account of the extent of coast to be guarded, and the few and wretched means at his disposal. His soldiers were most of them twice convicted criminals, and he had only one brig and one gunboat, and that was useless. It was true he had a militia to assist him, but their value might be guessed from the fact that the officers only received £4 a year. They did not want a consul to keep an eye on the Governor General. If anything was to be done at all, they must have five or six cruisers; permanently stationed on the coast. But his own opinion was that Cuba was the point which ought to be watched. It was notorious that there was a joint-stock company in Havannah for carrying on the slave trade, and that slavers were fitted out in that and other ports under the very nose of the authorities. The law and the church, were always ready to connive at the importation of negroes, and the Captain General, though he had the power, wanted the will to put a stop to the slave trade. By stationing an efficient force of gunboats off the coast of Cuba they might, to some extent, check the importation of slaves, and it was also the duty of the Government to make the strongest representations to the Spanish Government with the view of inducing them to put in execution existing treaties. He repeated he could not approve the reappointment of a consul at Mozambique at that moment; they ought to wait to see whether Dr. Livingstone might not succeed in establishing a legitimate trade with the interior, which would supersede the slave trade.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought that was a peculiarly suitable time for calling attention to the subject. He was glad that the Emperor of the Ereneh had at last determined to put a stop to that branch of the slave trade between Reunion and the coast of Africa. It appeared to him that the Emperor, having adopted that course, might be induced to join with us in taking more vigorous measures for the suppression of the slave trade between the coast of Africa and Cuba. Persons were generally but little tolerant of those bad practices which they had relinquished themselves. The disruption of
  1650
  the American Republic was another circumstance which gave him hopes that they might at length be able to aim an effective blow at the slave trade. It was notorious that the real traffickers in the flesh and blood of their fellow men were citizens of the Northern States. It was in Yankee ships, floated by Yankee capital, commanded by Yankee skippers, sailing forth on their abominable errand, with the connivance of bribed Yankee authorities, that this work of the devil was carried on. Lord Lyons writing to Lord John Russell in September, 1860, stated that within the previous eighteen months eighty-five vessels had sailed from American ports to be employed in the slave trade. The captures made by the American squadron itself off the African coast from September, 1859, to October, 1860, consisted of ten vessels, seven of which were from New York. Of forty-four slavers which arrived at a certain part of the African coast within a limited period, thirty-one were American vessels. It was not surprising, under these circumstances, that Lord John Russell should have written in strong terms of the prostitution of the American flag. The noble Lord had conducted his correspondence with the American Government in a spirit which entitled him to the highest commendation from every person to whom humanity was dear. The reply of General Cass was couched in a style of flippant impertinence; but the rejoinder of the noble Lord—that as long as it was clear that the American flag was prostituted to the purposes of the slave trade—as long as that accursed traffic was mainly maintained by American citizens he would not cease to remonstrate with the American Government and people on the subject — was worthy of the Foreign Secretary of England. The United States were no longer hampered by what were called Southern prejudices. Now was the time to test the truth of all the statements they had made that Southern prejudices had prevented a really vigorous opposition to the slave trade, and to see whether, when an appeal was made to the United States authorities, we might not be able to obtain from them that real hearty co-operation which would enable us eventually to put down this traffic. The difficulty hitherto experienced, as every one knew, was the almost impossibility of stopping, detaining, or visiting American vessels. Every proposal we had made to the United States with that view had been rejected. Joint

  1651
  cruising and every other expedient had been invariably rejected. In former days, no doubt, these proposals had been rejected, not from any inherent difficulty in the proposals themselves, but because there was a feeling in America that it would be against American interests, he might say, to attempt to employ vigorous means in the stopping of the trade. At one time it was perfectly notorious that the acquisition of Cuba was the question not of years but of months, in the opinion of the American people. That dream had now faded completely away. It was then a great object to obtain Cuba well stocked with negroes. It was no longer an object that it should be so. On the contrary, if the slave trade were not revived—and he would not enter into the question of the real bonâ fides of the Southern States upon that point; he simply believed they did not intend any thing of the kind—and if Louisiana had to contend against Cuba, it was the greatest object to Louisiana and the South that the importation of negroes into Cuba should not continue. That negro labour in Cuba should be dear was a primary object to the Southern States. He believed, therefore, they ought now to have both the North and South of America perfectly concordant in their views to put down the slave trade. He did most sincerely trust that Her Majesty's Government would now have to deal with a different set of statesmen at Washington, and that they would again appeal to them in the cause of humanity to join with England in vigorous action to put down this trade; for he was perfectly confident that it did rest with the hearty determination of the American authorities to prevent these slave vessels sailing from their ports, when they had sailed, to give every facility for their capture, so that they might eventually hope for the suppression of that detestable and atrocious traffic.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the only conceivable objection that could be urged to the reappointment of a consul at Mozambique was the salary he must receive; but when he considered the success which had attended the presence of a consul on the West Coast, and the large sum they spent in cruisers, he was inclined to believe that small outlay might result in a great saving; so that the appointment might be justified on the mere grounds of economy. He agreed that that was a peculiarly fitting time when an effort should be made to obtain the co-operation
  1652
  of other countries in putting down the slave trade, and they might especially hope for the co-operation of the United States. Till recently America had been the great supporter of the slave trade. If disruption should unfortunately take place, he should look forward with great fear to the revival of the slave trade. Upon that point he might mention the fact that Mr. Gancey, the leading Commissioner to Europe of the so-called Southern Confederacy, himself proposed a year or two ago in the Southern Convention at Montgomery a resolution for the repeal of the law of the United States against the slave trade, and for months supported the resolution with great energy and ability. He differed from his hon. Friend who introduced the subject as to the propriety of sending coolies into Cuba. He did not see how they could take on themselves the responsibility of their proper treatment under a foreign Government.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he thought that the only means of effectually putting the slave trade down would be by making it unprofitable, and that could only be done by rendering the production of free-grown sugar as cheap as slave-grown. He entirely agreed that the introduction of East Indian coolies into foreign countries was fraught with the greatest danger. At the same time he advocated the importation of free coolie labour into our own colonies. He was glad to find there was a great change of feeling in this respect, and that the measure was no longer opposed by those who were inimical to the slave trade. Under the present stringent regulations, however, it did not pay to invest private capital in that enterprise, as a sufficient term of service was not insured. As a remedy for that difficulty he would propose, although it might be an unpopular suggestion, that a differential duty should be put upon slave-grown sugar, which might be applied for the purpose of coolie emigration into our own colonies. He regretted that this country had so largely imported slave-grown sugar from Spain, and he thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government would inflict a heavier blow on Spain by putting a differential duty on that article of produce than by attacks on paper. If Spain gave up the traffic he believed it would cease in the quarter of the world alluded to.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that he thought the tone of the discussion proved, that there was not the least dimunition in the deep

  1653
  feeling of hostility entertained in this country against the abominable traffic in slaves. He trusted that some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Galway would have their due effect upon Her Majesty's Government. It was an indisputable fact, that the capital and ships of the Northern States of America had been largely employed in this traffic, and our Commissary Judge at the Havannah (Mr. Crauford) said—
  "Since the year 1858, when there was such outcry about our cruisers in these waters boarding American ships, the traffic has been almost exclusively carried on by vessels under that flag, which fit out and sail from the United States; and such has been the effect of the impunity enjoyed by the slave traders, that the American masters and crews no longer hesitate to continue on board, and have brought all their energies and cunning into operation to avoid their own Government cruisers, as well on the coast of Africa as in the waters of Cuba, from the last mentioned of which all Her Majesty's vessels of war have been withdrawn for the two last years."
  Our cruisers had been withdrawn from the Cuban waters because the American Government refused to co-operate with them in suppressing this nefarious traffic; and the American cruisers, being left to execute that task alone, had entirely failed in its performance. He earnestly entreated the noble Lord not to imagine that the restoration of the consul at Mozambique was not to be desired. The slave trade was carried on there to a considerable extent, and but for our cruisers it would be greatly increased. Dr. Livingstone was particularly anxious that there should be a consul at Mozambique. The trifling expense which such an officer would entail on the country would be amply repaid by the legitimate trade it would occasion, for there was a great demand therefore our cloth and hardware. He looked with extreme jealousy on the plan for importing coolie labourers from India into the French colonies, and he hoped that the recent treaty on the subject would be laid on the table without delay.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to make some observations upon what has passed with regard to the slave trade. I am bound to say that I think the House and the country are under obligations to my hon. Friend who brought forward this Motion, because this is a subject of the deepest interest; and it is impossible that this House can too often or too strongly express its opinions in condemnation of the continuance of this abominable traffic. The truth is that the abolition of the slave
  1654
  trade, although it may be, and, in some instances, has been brought about, as in the case of Brazil, by the exercise of force, cannot be wholly extinguished except by the progress of opinion, not only in the minds of different Governments, but in the minds of the different nations which they rule. I regret to say that of late years there has been a relapse on the part of our neighbours on the other side of the Channel. France very early abolished the slave trade. France not many years ago abolished slavery in her colonies; and we had reason to hope that, the French nation and the French Government being throughly convinced that slavery and the slave trade were abominations, and having determined to get rid of both, there was no danger whatever of their backsliding. But the first symptom of a relapse was seen when the French Government, under M. Guizot, refused to ratify the convention for the mutual right of search which was negotiated by the Earl of Aberdeen, its refusal being grounded on some Motion made in the French Assembly. That was, no doubt, an indication of a retrograde movement in opinion. Then came, four or five years ago, the Regis contract for the emigration of so-called free labourers into a French colony, but which was nothing more nor less than the slave trade in its purest and simplest form, at least as far as the acquisition of the labourers was concerned. It was the slave trade in the beginning of the process, though not entirely so in its end, because although these unhappy creatures were landed in a French colony, apprenticed against their will, subjected to regulations which rendered them liable to degrading punishments, and otherwise made to feel that they were in a state far from one of freedom, the French law did not acknowledge the system of slavery. The manner in which these negroes were caught was exactly the same as that in which the Spanish and the Portuguese got their slaves in order to send them to Cuba. It was said, indeed, that they were ransomed, and were to be set free, and documents were given to them which professed to be certificates of their emancipation. But they were obtained in the first instance by persons who sold them to the French by all those means of force, of violence, and fraud by which slaves were and still are procured for the Spanish market at Cuba. This, unfortunately, was the result of the ascendancy gained in French councils by the colonial interest.

  1655
  That ascendancy was paramount; and for a long time the French Government was deaf to all the remonstrances made to them by the Government of England, pointing out that this was the slave trade, and contrary to every principle by which they had openly promulgated their resolution to abide. At last the French Government consented to put an end to that system, provided other means could be obtained by which the additional supply of labour required in the French colonies could be procured. The only means by which we could at all assist in procuring labour was by allowing the French to obtain coolies from our possessions in India; and the question was whether we would give them that permission on condition that the Regis contract should be put a stop to. I should say that two years ago the French Government, upon the urgent representations of the Queen's Government, did put down the exportation of the so-called free labourers at the Western Coast of Africa, but it still continued on the East Coast. There were great objections, such as those referred to in the course of this discussion, to our allowing these French colonists to go to our territories in India for the purpose of obtaining coolies. No doubt, it was liable to this objection—that improper means might be resorted to for, as it is called, kidnapping the coolies; and, therefore, it was necessary to establish regulations by which you should be sure that those labourers who went did so of their own goodwill, that they should not be overcrowded or otherwise ill-treated during the voyage, and that they should be well-used when they reached the island of Re-union or the French West Indies. These matters were the subject of long and difficult negotiations, because we had to contend with the peculiar interests of those who thought it better and cheaper to go on with the existing plan. The Emperor's advisers felt that the system was a bad one, and were anxious to co-operate with us to put an end to it. Accordingly, a treaty has been recently concluded by which, under certain regulations, the French colonists are entitled to bring coolies from India into the French colonies. It has been said that we give everything and get nothing. That is not exactly the case. It is quite true it permits the exportation from India to take place at once, while the French Government does not engage to stop the Regis contract until 1862—a period to which
  1656
  they are bound to allow that contract to continue in force. We might have said, "We will not allow you to get coolies while you are carrying out this contract." That point was considered, and it was decided, rightly as I believe, not to act upon that view. We felt that they would not get a less number of negroes if we refused them coolies; but that, on the contrary, it was probable if we allowed them to have coolies immediately they would find them better labourers, more subordinate, and cheaper than negroes; and in proportion as they obtained coolies so they would obtain fewer negroes; and, therefore, our object being to put an end to the abominations of the African trade, I think we were right in opening the supply of coolies at once to the French colonists. I am not sure whether that convention has been ratified, but when it is it will, of course, be laid on the Table of the House.
  There is no doubt that the crime of slave trade does exist still, and to a great extent; but, omitting for the moment all question of the Regis contract, it is chiefly confined to the supply of Cuba. Now, how is that carried out, and how have we been prevented from putting an end to it? It arises from the corruption of all the authorities in Cuba, and the apathy of the Spanish Government at Madrid. We have remonstrated time after time; we have sent proofs that the slave trade is enormously carried on—that large fortunes are made by their officials—that Captains General go out poor and return rich. We were met by assurances that the orders sent out would be better observed, and that there was every disposition on the part of the Spanish Government to fulfill their treaty engagements. That is what we get from Madrid. It is unsatisfactory, but, of course, we are obliged to take the answer, especially when it admits the treaty obligations, and declares the intention of the Spanish Government to observe them. Then, in Cuba, when our consul sends proofs to the Captain General that a cargo of slaves has been landed at such a time and place, and calls upon him to punish the offenders, the Captain General says he will make inquiries, and after a certain time he reports that he has made inquiries, and is unable to trace any proof that a landing has been effected; and when he is requested to search certain plantations to which it is suspected the slaves have been removed, he replies that he has not the power to do so conferred

  1657
  upon him by the Home Government. So we have Cuba setting up Madrid, and Madrid setting up Cuba against us. That is a disgraceful thing for a country like Spain, and I believe that at last they feel it to be so, as they have lately sent additional ships to watch the coast of Cuba, in fulfillment of their treaty obligations. It is quite true that the importation of slaves into Cuba does not take place in Spanish ships, but in ships sailing under other flags, and especially under the American flag. There are some little Portuguese shipments from the East Coast of Africa, but it is mainly carried on under the American flag. Lately there has been some little amount of slave trade carried on under the French flag, but not to any great extent. We have, as is well known to the House, been constantly remonstrating with the American Government against that abuse—that prostitution of their flag. In one piece of correspondence I told them that a piece of bunting ought not to be a national passport. They took offence at that, and said I had insulted their flag. It was not the expression that nettled them, but the reproach that their flag was prostituted to base purposes. We tried to persuade them to grant a mutual right of search, but we were unsuccessful. We tried other plans, and at last we proposed to the Government of Mr. Buchanan that English and American cruisers should sail in company, and when any ship under the American flag should be taken with slaves on board, she should be prize to the American cruiser, and treated according to the American law; but when a ship was taken without a flag or papers with slaves on board she should be prize to the British cruiser, and be subject to our law. That proposal seemed too well calculated to accomplish its purpose to be accepted by the American Government, and accordingly it was declined. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) says that now that the North and the South are at variance is the time to get the assistance of the North against the South. It is quite true that at the time of the disruption of the Union—if we may assume it to have taken place—or before this civil contest broke out, it was the influence of the South which prevailed at Washington, and prevented the Government there from accepting any of the offers we made for the purpose of enlisting the support of the United States Government in the execution of their treaty engagements. There is a treaty engagement by which they are bound
  1658
  to co-operate with us for the suppression of the slave trade. For a time they sent one or two small vessels to the coast of Africa, and lately they have increased the number. But this I have observed, that when an American cruiser is commanded by a captain from the South, no effective assistance whatever is given us for the suppression of the slave trade. The Southern captain shuts his eyes to what is going on, and runs off to Madeira for supplies or water; but the cruisers commanded by captains from the North do give us very effective and vigilant co-operation. This would lead to the hope, no doubt, that if the turn of events should give to the North a more sovereign existence, possibly the spirit of the North would prevail over the influence which hitherto has controlled them, and, although most of the cruisers were fitted out at New York and at Boston, and, perhaps, with capital from the North, yet it was the spirit of the South which animated these expeditions. With a view to the suppression of this crime we have urged upon the Government of Portugal to exert its authority more effectually upon the eastern coast of Africa; but, as has been truly observed, the Portuguese possessions on the eastern coast are of enormous extent, thinly populated, and the ports are separated by immense distances, while the authorities there are far removed from the observation of the Government at Lisbon, with every opportunity for yielding to corruption and bribery; and, therefore, it is very difficult for the Lisbon Government to control what goes on there. I am informed by our Minister at that Court that that Government is doing all in its power by removing delinquents and sending out better persons as Governors to put an end to the evil. Whatever may be said of the Government of Spain, I have no doubt of the sincerity of that of Portugal in exerting all the means in its power to accomplish this purpose. I do not even despair of seeing the Portuguese Government adopt some measure for prospective emancipation. Portugal has no interest in the slave trade, but quite the reverse. Her possessions lie in Africa—they want all the labour for cultivation and improvement that the population will afford, and every man sent away is a man withdrawn from the development of the natural resources of the country. Spain is in a different position. Her colonies import labour from other places, and in their narrow and erroneous view every slave imported is so

  1659
  much gain. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hope) wants us to revert to a differential duty between slave-grown and free-grown sugar. The question has been frequently discussed, and Parliament has made up its mind that such a plan is not desirable, as evasion would be easy, and, if applied to sugar, the principle must be extended to slave-grown cotton, tobacco, and other articles. As to the particular point of establishing a consul at Mozambique, I am inclined to agree that it would have little reference to the slave trade. Mozambique is known to be an unhealthy station, and there would be a difficulty in inducing a consul to go and in insuring his continued residence when he was once there. I believe it was chiefly on account of the unwholesomeness of the place and the little influence he would have in checking the slave trade that the consul has been withdrawn from Mozambique, but at the same time the expediency of his return is a fair subject for consideration, and I can assure the House that my noble Friend (Lord John Russell), who is as eager and as anxious as any man can be to put an end to this abominable crime, will give to this and every other method of putting a stop to it the fullest consideration. I do not know whether there is any other point to which I ought to advert, but I can assure the House that both my noble Friend and myself and every Member of the Government are most anxious to complete the work—I will say the noble work—in which this country has been engaged for so many years. Cuba is now the only plague spot in the world, for I do not believe that there is any real importation of slaves into the Southern States of America. Cuba, I repeat, is the only real plague-spot, and I hope that by some means or other we may be able, if not entirely to put an end, at least greatly to check and ultimately to put an end to the abominable practice of the slave trade.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he thought the abolition of slavery could be best effected by importing large quantities of free labour into the slave districts, as they would thereby reduce the value of negro labour, and, therefore, the value of the negro, and consequently render the importation of negroes an unprofitable occupation.

MERCHANT SHIPPING.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LINDSAY,in calling attention to the Report of the Merchant Shipping
  1660
  Committee of 1859–60, said, that the House was aware that the shipping interest of this country for more than two centuries was a protected interest, and presumed to derive from protection peculiar advantages in which other classes of the community did not participate. Consequently, peculiar taxes of various kinds were laid upon that interest. In 1849 and 1850 protection, and all the supposed privileges of protection were taken away. The least the Government could have done when they removed protection was to remove those burdens and those restrictions which were created with that protection. Well, he was sorry to say that, though Committees of that House had reported over and over again in favour of removing the burdens which still fettered that great and important interest, most of those burdens still remained. For two years he had the honour of sitting on the Merchant Shipping Committee upstairs. That Committee, after great consideration, laid a Report, in 1860, upon the table of the House, recommending, under ten distinct heads, that various burdens and restrictions ought to be removed, and stating that these were questions which seriously affected the maritime interests of this country, with which it was the duty of the Government to deal. He had delayed calling attention to this subject up to that late period in the hope that the Government would have introduced Bills for the removal of at least some of the most oppressive of those burdens. From some cause or other he was sorry to say but one of those ten recommendations had been dealt with by the Government. The Merchant Shipping Committee recommended that the question of belligerent rights should be dealt with, and unanimously arrived at the conclusion that the time was come when all private property not contraband of war ought to be exempt from capture at sea. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) made four or five attempts during the Session to bring that question under the notice of the House. It was but reasonable that he and other hon. Members, and many out of doors who felt that we had a larger share of private property. On the ocean than any other nation, should desire that that private property should be exempt from capture. But all attempts to bring that question forward were, he was sorry to say it, stifled by Her Majesty's Government. After unsuccessful attempts, on the 18th

  1661
  of February and the 17th of April, his hon. Friend on the 7th of May had an opportunity of bringing the question forward, but an appeal was made to him not to do so, on the ground that the whole question of the Treaty of Paris was under consideration. Now, he wished to know from his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, what was the result of that consideration on the part of the Government? Again, a revision of the liability of shipowners who were exposed to heavy and ruinous penalties and conditions in fitting-out passenger ships, &c, was another of these recommendations which had not been carried out. So far back as 1845 a Committee, of which the noble Lord at the head of the Government was a Member, recommended that the shipping interest should be relieved from light dues, but since that period nothing had been done, and since then the shipping interest had paid for the liquidation of debts contracted for the purchase of private lighthouses no less than £1,250,000. Pilotage was a monopoly in the hands of private individuals. It was clearly shown that where pilotage was voluntary a better supply of pilots was to be obtained. With respect to local charges at various ports, the shipping interest was still taxed for craneage where there were no cranes, for buoyage and beaconage where there were no buoys or beacons, and for wharfage where there were no wharfs. It had been proved before a Commission appointed by this House that there were many who levied those dues who had no right to levy them, but even where there were rights those rights could be valued and redeemed, and he could not help expressing his surprise that the Government did not deal with them during the Session. It might reasonably be supposed that, considering the vast increase of trade, the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 and the Passenger Act might require some modifications, but nothing had been done with regard to it. In respect of the main and truly important question of reciprocity, he was sorry to find that nothing whatever had been done, and he feared that no exertions had been made by Her Majesty's Government to obtain from foreign nations those reciprocal privileges and advantages which we had long granted to them. France still maintained differential duties against us—duties so high as in many cases entirely to exclude our shipping. Spain, Portugal, the United States, and various
  1662
  other nations, including Austria and Russia, still excluded us from the coasting trade. There was one remark which struck him very forcibly which was made by a large shipowner who was examined before the Committee of which his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was at the head. Alluding to his ship in the port of Calcutta, he said—
  "It is very galling, indeed, and enough to break one's heart, to see my ship lying at Calcutta getting only 15 s. a ton, while a French ship alongside obtained 60 s., 70 s., or 80 s. per ton, simply because the latter vessel, on arriving at this part of the world, was at liberty to deliver its cargo with equal facility either in England or France."
  In the Report of the Merchant Shipping Committee regret was expressed at the apparent apathy on the part of the Government in connection with this important question, and their neglect to enforce the retaliatory clause. That Report had been upon the Table of the House for a year and a half, and he wanted to know what had since been done to obtain from foreign nations a reciprocity of advantages. He was in America during the last recess, and Mr. Buchanan in discussing the question with him frankly admitted that, it was no more right to call the trade between New York and California a coasting trade than the trade from this country to Calcutta. He believed, too, from what he learned while in France, that the French Government, if the matter were fully brought before them, would have seen the justice of reciprocating the many advantages which this country had granted to French ships. Of all the re-Commendations of the Merchant Shipping Committee only those relating to the abolition of passing tolls and the settlement of differential dues had been carried into effect. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had given notice of a Merchant Shipping Bill, but it was too late for such a measure to be introduced in the present Session. He hoped, however, that the Government would early in the next Session bring in measures to carry into effect the more important provisions of the Merchant Shipping Committee. The shipping interest did not require protection, but they desired a clear stage and the opportunity of conducting their business without those disadvantages which they were at present subject to. Having made these observations, he did not intend to move the resolution which stood on the paper in his name.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he was glad his hon. Friend had brought forward this subject. On most of the points he took he cordially agreed. He would remind him, however, that the difficulty of obtaining reciprocity was caused by our having given everything to other nations without stipulating for anything in return. He had intended asking the right hon. Gentleman a question on this subject, but was better pleased that the initiative should be taken on the opposite side of the House. Those who, like himself, were interested in the welfare of the Mercantile Marine had, he thought, reason to complain that the right hon. Gentleman had not, he might almost say, redeemed his pledge, but at any rate had not fulfilled his intention, and brought in again a measure which he carried last year, of great value and utility to the shipping interest—he meant the Clearance Inwards and Lien for Freight Bill—or, at any rate, incorporated its provisions in some more comprehensive measure. This Bill simplified and rendered intelligible the laws respecting freight, which were now the source of constant litigation. It also placed the law which regulates the landing of goods (which was now habitually disregarded) on a footing more in accordance with the important changes caused by the general use of steam in merchant shipping. The right hon. Gentleman met with no opposition from that side of the House. He was sure he would allow that he gave him, in his humble way, all the assistance in his power both in and out of Parliament, as did the Member for Sunderland. The Bill was one which severely tried the patience of those interested in it. It appeared on the orders of the day two or three times a week during the greater part of the Session, and eventually came on between two and three in the morning, in an empty House, when the reporters were worn out, and the space in the papers allotted to reports filled up, when it might be said that virtue was its own reward; for though for two or three nights there were lengthened and animated discussions, strong opposition from a few hon. Members opposite, whose constituents were interested in maintaining the present anomalous state of things, and two or three divisions, yet all these exertions, all this expenditure of time and patience were as little known to the public as the achievements of the heroes who lived before Agamemnon. However, the Bill passed, and if they might judge by the comments
  1664
  of the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, and other papers specially devoted to the subject, it gave universal satisfaction to the shipping interests. It was too late, unfortunately, to pass through the House of Lords, and it was generally supposed that it would have been re-introduced at the earliest moment this Session. A Bill of this sort, full of details affecting particular interests, and which Members in general could not, or at any rate would not give themselves the trouble to understand, had little chance unless it was brought in as a Government measure, and he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give the assurance that evening that he would introduce some measure of the kind as early as possible next Session.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the real reason why he had not dealt with some of the subjects to which the hon. Member for Sunderland had called the attention of the House was that the opportunity of doing so had not been afforded him. He had brought in a Bill for the purpose of abolishing passing tolls, but when that measure received the assent of the House he found there really was no time at his disposal to proceed with a measure of such magnitude as that to which the hon. Member for Sunderland adverted. So far as light dues were concerned, the question arose whether the object for which they were imposed should be carried out by means of public taxes or of dues levied on shipping, and, although a good deal might be said in favour of the former alternative, yet he could not help thinking there was nothing very unreasonable in the latter when it was taken into account that it was chiefly for the benefit of the merchant shipping that the lights were maintained. If, he might add, the charges under that head had not been placed on the Consolidated Fund they had, at all events, been reduced to the extent of £60,000 or £70,000. Then came the question of compulsory pilotage, which was beset with much difficulty. In principle there was, he admitted, not a little to be said in favour of not compelling the owners of vessels to employ pilots, while there was a legal difficulty pointing in the same direction, inasmuch as if, as matters at present stood, a ship in charge of a compulsory pilot did, owing to his fault, any damage, the owner was not held to be liable to make compensation. Indeed, the consequence of that state of the law was to give shipowners themselves an interest in upholding the

  1665
  system of compulsory pilotage, and he was not at all sure, therefore, that if a measure for its abolition were introduced it would not meet with some opposition from that quarter. Be that, however, as it might, the subject was one with which the Government fully intended to deal, and a ' Bill had actually been prepared, which he thought would be found to contain some satisfactory provisions with reference both to light dues and pilotage, and which he hoped to be able to lay on the table of the House at an early period next Session. He now came to the complaint of the hon. Member for Sunderland that the Government had taken no steps to insure reciprocity from foreign countries, and he begged to assure him that in that respect he was in error, as he would discover if lie were to look into the records either of the Foreign Office, or of the Board of Trade, which clearly showed that Government had lost no fitting opportunity of representing to foreign countries the claims which England possessed to full reciprocity in navigation. The subject was one, he might add, on which a great deal of misapprehension prevailed in this country as to the extent to which reciprocity was really withheld from this country by foreign nations. At present there were only, three countries—France, Spain, and Portugal—that in the indirect foreign trade did not give to England complete reciprocity. In the direct foreign trade they had, he believed, reciprocity with every country. He believed that British ships coming direct from England received national treatment in almost every country in the world. In many countries the coasting trade was given to England in consequence of the repeal of the navigation laws. And it was something to say that the three countries he had mentioned were the only countries that had not given to England complete reciprocity. With regard to the direct trade with France they were on the footing of national ships. With regard to the indirect trade with France they had recently received very considerable relaxations. The differential dues on jute and cotton wool coming from Australia and India to France had been abolished, and those articles were liable to the same duty, whether brought in French or English ships. That was a great object effected, and he hoped we might be able to secure a still larger share of advantage in that direction. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for
  1666
  Sunderland in regarding the shipping interest as of the utmost importance, as well as with respect to the expediency of adopting the necessary measures for its encouragement; but he should beg the House to bear in mind that that interest was evidently increasing both in amount and prosperity. He found, for instance, that for the first six months of the present year, ending the 80th of June, the total British tonnage entered and cleared with cargo amounted to 5,951,722 tons as against 5,628,589 tons in the corresponding period of 1860; and 5,429,277 for the first six months of 1859, thus showing a regular increase of tonnage for those three years. He also held in his hand a statement which proved that the repeal of the navigation laws had, instead of doing harm, done great good to British shipping, though we had not received from any country the same privileges of free navigation which they granted to all the world. Be that, however, as it might, he found that on comparing the year 1860 with 1850, the year immediately subsequent to the repeal of the navigation laws the tonnage entered and cleared with cargoes in the former year amounted in six months to three-fourths of what it was for the whole year in 1850. So that since the repeal of the navigation laws there was a constant increase in the amount of tonnage. It might also be satisfactory to the House to know that our export trade was exhibiting no signs of that decline which some persons anticipated, inasmuch as for the month ending the 30th of June last the declared value of British exports was £10,362,893 as against £9,236,454 for the month of June, 1860. The decline in the export trade was not so considerable as many people supposed. In the first six months of the present year the declared value of British exports was £60,143,425; in the first six months of 1860 it was £62,019,989, showing a decline of only 3 3-10ths per cent—a much smaller decline than at the commencement of the year seemed probable. He might mention that there had been a considerable increase in their trade with Italy and also with China, owing, no doubt, in the case of Italy to the changes that had taken place, and to having the benefit of a more liberal system under the Sardinian Government. He mentioned these facts in order to remove an impression which seemed to prevail—that some very considerable decline was taking place in the export trade of this country, which

  1667
  might have a serious effect on the revenue of the country and on the interests of the merchant shipping. The hon. Member for Sunderland was not more anxious than were the present Government on every fitting occasion to urge upon foreign countries the claims of the country in regard to freedom of navigation. At the commencement of the next Session a Bill would be introduced dealing with light dues, compulsory pilotage, and the liabilities of shipowners, and he trusted it might become law.
  In reply to a question from Mr. CAVE,
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not give a definite pledge to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cave) that the Bill which he (Mr. Gibson) introduced last Session, and which passed that House with reference to clearances and freights inwards, would be reintroduced next Session. Since that Bill passed the House of Commons representations had been made which somewhat altered the view originally taken by the Customs authorities in this matter. He could only promise that a measure dealing with the subject would be introduced.

  THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH AND ITALY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to call attention to the tone and tenour of certain telegraphic despatches which had just been addressed to the Italian Government by the Emperor of the French. A few days before at Vichy the Emperor Napoleon happened to cast his eye over a Legitimist journal, called the Gazette de France, where, in the correspondence from Naples, he read a statement to the effect that General Pinelli had ordered three peasants to be shot for the alleged offence of having carried provisions to the brigands. Without further inquiry the Emperor sent off the following despatch to General Fleury, who was then in the north of Italy:—
  "The Emperor to General Fleury.
  "Vichy, July 21, 10.35.
  "I have written to Rome to make remonstrances. The accounts which arrive are of a nature to alienate from the Italian cause all honest hearts. Not only misery and anarchy are at their height, but the most unworthy culpabilities are the order of the day. A general, whose name I have forgotten, having forbidden that the peasants should carry provisions with them in going to their work in the fields, has caused those to be shot upon whom a morsel of bread had been found. The Bourbons have never done anything like that."
  That despatch was shown to Baron Ricasoli on the evening of the 23rd, but on the
  1668
  morning of the same day the journal L'ltalie had given the following account of the matter:—
  "The Gazette of France, in its correspondence from Naples of the 9th of July, announces that General Pinelli had caused three peasants to be shot who were suspected of having conveyed provisions to the brigands. We are able to contradict absolutely this story on every point. What may have afforded a pretence for it are the dispositions made by General Pinelli to forbid the bakers, in localities exposed to the attacks of the brigands, from making a larger quantity of bread than is required by the population of the place, and from selling it to persons outside; which is a measure of simple prudence, to prevent the maintenance and extension of brigandage. We, therefore, totally deny the fact related by the Gazette de France, and assert its statements to be falsehoods, and totally undeserving of credit.
  In order, he supposed, to make the despatch more insulting to the Italian Government, it was not sent in cipher, but in the ordinary language of the country, and its contents were known by every clerk between Vichy and Turin. If brigandage existed in the South of Italy nobody was more responsible for it than the very man who now affected a virtuous indignation and presumed to insult the Italian Government on account of an erroneous statement in a Legitimist newspaper. He believed that that proceeding on the part of the Emperor of the French would have a very different effect from that which it was intended to have on the Italian Minister. Baron Ricasoli was distinguished for firmness of mind and nobility of character. Not a single inch of Italian territory would ever be yielded by him, and his answer to the gratuitous rebuke from the Emperor of the French would be such as to vindicate the independence of Italy.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he believed it might be alleged on behalf of the Emperor of the French that he knew what was going on in the South of Italy, and that in addressing the despatch to which the hon. Member had alluded he thought he was only discharging a duty to humanity by protesting against the shooting down of peasants who were fighting for their legitimate Sovereign.
  Motion agreed to.
  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES. House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £250,000 (Iron Ships, &c).
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Sir, I entirely

  1669
  approve the course which has been taken by the Admiralty as explained by the noble Lord at the morning sitting. The protection of our own shores, our enormous commerce, and our wide-spread colonies and dependencies renders it a matter of vital importance that our navy should be placed on a footing not only equal, but superior to every other navy in the world. Our naval supremacy was essential to our existence as an empire. I, therefore, not only concur in the present Vote, but in the next Session will give my cordial support to any increase of the Estimates of £2,300,000 now assumed, which might be thought necessary. I wish to know from the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty whether the six ships he names to be the intention of the Admiralty to build were to be altogether of iron, or of wood and iron combined. At no distant period, I believe, the staple material to be used generally in the construction of our ships would be iron, but there could be no objection to converting those for which the timber had been prepared into iron-cased ships; and, independently of large ships like the Warrior and Black Prince class, we required some of the smaller dimensions, not more than 280 feet in length, carrying, say, eighteen guns, and cased entirely in iron, and having a speed of not less than twelve knots an hour. I consider it a great error in having built the Warrior and Black Prince with tender ends, and both bows and quarters unprotected; likewise I beg to call attention to the urgent necessity in our being provided with a number of formidable gun and mortar-boats. I did not exactly understand what the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty proposed with respect to the construction of the six ships about to be l laid down—what was to be their tonnage, what description of guns were they to carry, and were they to be built entirely of iron, or of iron and wood combined—were they to be built by contract, or to some extent in our naval yards? Before the Admiralty proceeded with these ships the Warrior and Blade Prince should be thoroughly and fairly tested in respect to their general good qualities, not being sent to sea in smooth weather, sea, and wind, but with the prospect of a heavy sea and strong gale of wind.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he had heard the statement of the noble Lord that morning with great satisfaction, and it had also afforded him no little gratification to find
  1670
  the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich giving the noble Lord his earnest support. He had, however, heard with great surprise the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), although in a tolerably full House, propose that the Vote should be postponed in order that it might be discussed when there was a larger attendance. They ought to support the Government energetically to enable it at the earliest possible period to have as good and efficient a fleet of iron ships as the French possessed. No man had studied the science of artillery more deeply than the Emperor of the French, and as soon as he had convinced himself that wooden ships could not resist the improved artillery of the present day he ordered iron vessels to be built. We had been slow in following his example, but once having begun to do so, our great resources and advantages would soon enable us to construct a fleet of equal strength to that of France. He thought the Admiralty had exercised a wise discretion in asking only for a small additional sum that year, as it would be some months yet before the experiments at Shoeburyness were brought to a conclusion. The Admiralty could not be too careful in the steps they were taking with respect to the mode of constructing iron ships. We had to reconstruct a navy which should have the mastery of any other navy in the world, and the average cost of each iron-cased ship was estimated at half a million sterling. There was, however, much to be ascertained respecting the powers of resistance of iron ships. It would be advisable if, when the Warrior was completed, she could be subjected to a number of experiments with heavy Armstrong guns. It was really no use in sticking up a single plate of iron 41/2 inches thick to be experimented upon at Shoeburyness, for there were many other things which required to be tested besides the question of mere resistance, such as the best mode of putting the plates together, and the nature of the supports which were to be placed behind the armour plates. He was anxious to know whether the Admiralty had determined to condemn rolled iron plates, and to confine themselves entirely to the making of steam hammered plates instead.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when this Estimate was brought forward at the morning sitting, thought the matter too important to be considered in so thin a House.

  1671
  The question was now revived at the evening sitting, when the attendance was not any larger, and the right hon. Baronet himself was absent. He (Mr. Lindsay) wished to ask the question—whether, by that vast expenditure, they were creating a greater danger from within than that against which they were guarding themselves from without? Taxation was bearing heavily upon the people, and, if the harvest should prove deficient, and the unhappy war in America continue, vast masses of our people would be thrown out of employment. Then they would complain to Parliament, if they did nothing more, that they were ground down by unnecessary taxation. Against that danger they were more likely to have to contend than war with foreign Powers. Already the House had voted more than £12,000,000 that year for the navy, and now his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty coolly asked for £250,000 as an instalment of a sum of £2,500,000. In his (Mr. Lindsay's) opinion £4,000,000 was more likely to be the actual sum. As they were at peace with all the world he could not understand whom they were arming themselves against. It was said that they required six more iron ships, because a neighbouring power was increasing her navy; before his noble Friend asked for the Vote he ought to give the Committee ample information as to the present state of the French navy, and the number of ships she was building. The Government ought to state the whole truth and say if they were proceeding on any other information than the rumours of Admiral Elliot, who made a flying visit to the French dockyards, and represented that he saw vast preparations going on, but which the gentleman that he (Mr. Lindsay) sent there could not see. The Government had cased five wooden ships with iron, and now the House was asked for means to build six more iron ships equal in size and power to that terrible instrument of destruction—the Warrior. What would be the effect of this? Why, the effect would be that France would go on building her ten iron ships, which he did not believe she intended to complete for two or three years under present circumstances. It was useless to say to the House and the country, as his noble Friend did, "Don't be alarmed," because the people would not believe that there was not something behind if these ships were really required. If they went
  1672
  on in that way the French Emperor could not stop, however anxious he might be to do so, because the people and the Representative Assembly would bring an irresistible pressure to bear upon him to keep pace with England. Again, if the statements they had heard with respect to the preparations in France were true then even more ships than those proposed to be built were necessary, because England ought to occupy the first position in Europe upon the sea. But he not believe those statements. As at present informed he believed we were fooling away millions of money, as he was convinced that the Emperor of the French knew it to be his interest to keep on terms of peace with England. Unless the noble Lord gave to the House a satisfactory statement he would resist the Vote, though he might do so alone.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is supposed by my hon. Friend that our information rests upon the statement of Admiral Elliot. Now, I do not in the least degree mean to discredit that Report, but we have other information upon the subject from totally different quarters. We know that the French Government have now afloat six iron vessels of various sizes—two of them two-deckers, not frigates—all large vessels. We know that they have laid down lately the keels, and made preparations to complete ten other iron-vessels of considerable dimensions. The decision as to those vessels was taken as far back as December last, but was not carried into effect until May, because they were waiting to ascertain what were the qualities and the character of La Gloire and other ships afloat. My hon. Friend says he sent a friend to the French dockyards who saw nothing. I remember an amusing story called Eyes and No Eyes—one person who saw everything, and the other, who made the same tour, saw nothing; but the one who saw was right, for the things he saw were there, and the things which the other man did not see were not the less in existence. Well, here are six ships afloat, or which can be completed in the course of next year. Ten others are begun, which will be completed, with ordinary exertion, in the course of eighteen months or two years, and which by great exertion might be completed in less time. We know that the French Government have great dockyard establishments. I cannot say offhand what the area of their dockyards is,

  1673
  but I believe it is three or four times that of our own. They have an almost unlimited amount of labour, for they are not now occupied in building purely wooden ships, and if it were their interest or their view to hasten in any great degree the completion of these iron vessels—there is no illusion about them, for we know their names and the ports at which they are being built—if it suited them to hasten materially the completion of these ships, they might, probably, finish them in eighteen months. That makes sixteen ironships; but besides them France has, I believe, eleven floating batteries, as they are called, but two or three of which are very powerful seagoing ships. That makes twenty-seven ships in all, which they might have fit for sea at the end of two years. My hon. Friend asks if this is to go on, England increasing her force and Franco increasing hers. But I say in this ease France has taken the lead. It is not our preparations; but it is her great preparations which render it indispensable we should make corresponding preparations. The hon. Gentleman tells us to look at home, and spoke about a bad harvest, interrupted trade, the industry of the country impaired and thwarted. Those would be unpleasant and lamentable results, but are we, in anticipation of those evils, with our eyes open, to add an additional evil—that of having another country superior to us at sea? Is that a remedy for those evils? Upon the contrary, it would be a great aggravation of them, and would expose this country to a condition which my hon. Friend, as a good Englishman, would be most unwilling to see it exposed to. There is nothing in what he has said to justify the Vote which he announced his intention of giving; and I hope, after this explanation, he will not feel it necessary to continue his opposition to the Vote.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he hoped that his noble Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, would tell the House in what ports and arsenals of France the six great iron-ships, the eleven powerful iron-cased batteries, and the ten ships laid down, were to be found. If what the noble Lord had stated was true—and he ought to be accurately informed—his statement was quite alarming, and he, for one, would not be satisfied with a Vote of £2,500,000, but would be prepared to vote double that sum. France had no right to have these ships.
  1674
  If she had them, she could not be honest in her professions to England, and it believed us to know what she meant by such armaments. He could not help thinking, however, that the Government had been misinformed.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should have remained silent on that question but for the observations made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jervis), who had blamed him for suggesting the postponement of the debate from the morning to that evening sitting. The discussion which had already taken place was, he thought, a sufficient warrant for the postponement. The statement just made by the noble Lord the Prime Minister was not unimportant. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Jervis) had said that when the Navy Estimates were proposed the House was forewarned with regard to these supplementary Votes. His hon. Friend must have had quicker ears and more insight into mystical sayings than he (Mr. Henley) could possibly profess to have if such were the case. He should have been much surprised if any one had discovered in the speech of the noble Lord when he proposed the Navy Estimates a ground for the notion that a supplementary Vote would be taken pledging the country to a future expenditure of £2,500,000. He was more confirmed in the opinion that nothing of the kind took place, because the noble Lord took credit to himself for having made a candid statement with respect to the purpose for which the £2,500,000 was required. Had the supplementary Vote been announced when the Navy Estimates were proposed, or under discussion, it would now have been quite unnecessary for the noble Lord to say a word on the subject, and it would have been passed as a matter of course. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend had made a somewhat singular recommendation to the Government, after having blamed him for postponing this discussion, in having urged them not to go on in haste and to do nothing blindfold. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had recommended them to try experiments on iron-cased ships—on the Warrior, for instance—and see if they could not batter to pieces almost the only iron-cased ship we had got. He (Mr. Henley) did not think it a very satisfactory course to build up a ship at a vast expense, and then batter her to pieces. It was not quite clear whether the idea of building iron-cased ships did not first come

  1675
  from us, although the French had worked it out more rapidly and continuously. We had waited to see whether modern artillery would batter these plates or not. It was now quite clear that, under all circumstances, we must go on. He did not think the country had any choice in that respect, but he disagreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Lindsay) in thinking that this was a matter to be regarded as one of hostility on the part either of France or England. The hon. Member had no right to say that it was any proof of hostility on the part of France to choose to have a navy. The French always had a navy. We destroyed it at the time of the Revolution, but France chose to have a navy again. Nor was it a proof of hostility if France thought that iron ships were better than wooden ones. We ought to look at this question irrespective of France, and to take care that we had a navy equal not only to that of France, but all other nations put together. Every small State was building iron-cased vessels for itself. Unless we progressed with the same rapidity they exhibited, we should soon be in the minority. It was a great misfortune, but he did not see how it was to be helped. If we waited until men cunning in artillery battered the Warrior to pieces, and ascertained the number of plates that would resist shot from Armstrong guns, we should fall so much behind that when the pinch of the game came we should not be able to fetch it up. He held it to be the duty of the nation not to look with too jealous an eye at what the Government might do in the matter. The Government must do the best they could. No man could tell whether a ship plated in this or in the other way would succeed, and he did not believe that accurate information on such points would ever be gained until we were at actual war, an event which he sincerely prayed God would avert. Until then, however, we should not know whether big or little ships were best, or whether we were not better, as we had ever been, in smaller ships than our neighbours. We must trust to the Government upon these matters, and if they did their best not to be behind hand, he did not believe they would find the country, and at all events they would not find him, too apt to find fault with them because they had not adopted the course which experience afterwards proved to be the best. Unfortunately we should have to pay the piper, but that could not be helped. No necessary
  1676
  thing could be got without paying for it, and we must continue to pay for it. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lindsay) had taken a very curious course in this matter, for he had expressed his disbelief of the truth of the Prime Minister's statement. [Mr. LINDSAY: I said nothing of the sort.] He had certainly so understood the hon. Gentleman, for he had said, "If it is true, take £5,000,000, but at the same time I do not believe it." The noble Lord had used the strongest possible expressions in saying that he knew his statement to be correct; and, speaking as the noble Lord did from his place as Prime Minister, if 100 persons had been sent by hon. Members just to look round them, open and shut their eyes when they liked, perhaps having no eyes to see with at all, he did not think that the reports of such people ought to be allowed by the country to weigh for one moment against the positive declaration of the Prime Minister from his seat in Parliament that he knew the facts he stated to be facts. He should cordially support the Vote.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he considered the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to be so completely to the purpose as to render unnecessary any further statement in favour of the present vote. He was sure the country would agree in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, on that point he should not say another word. With respect to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) he regretted that a gentleman of his knowledge and experience in shipping and love of country (for he had stated that very day that he was willing to vote any sum that might be necessary to put the navy on a proper footing) should have expressed himself as he had done in the face of being told officially, as he had been over and over again, of the increase of foreign navies in regard to iron-cased ships. Every word which his noble Friend at the head of the Government had stated he could affirm to be fact, and he could also inform the House that the increase in other navies was going on in a ratio corresponding with that of France. Austria was building two iron-cased ships; the King of Italy was building two, and had two others ordered to be constructed; and Spain was building two. So that there were not less than eight iron-cased ships over and above what were possessed by France, and he believed that Prussia, and, in fact, every continental

  1677
  nation were moving in the same direction. The right hon. Member for Carlisle had that afternoon asked whether the sum named as exhibiting the probable ultimate cost of the proposed ships was to go on over and above the ordinary Estimates of the next year. It was impossible to state anything with certainty for the future, but he was quite sure that his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset was anxious, inasmuch as there was to be that great expenditure in building iron-cased ships by contract, that there should be certain corresponding reductions made in the dockyard expenditure. He trusted that, if matters remained peaceable, and no unforeseen and unfortunate event occurred, in future years there would be a still further decrease of expenditure in the dockyard. That year the Government had decreased that expenditure by something like £300,000. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) seemed to think that because the Government were going to build very large ships of iron, therefore, the Admiralty had changed their mind, and had given up the building of wooden ships. It would be very improper that such an idea should go forth. There was no intention whatever on the part of the Admiralty to give up wholly the building of wooden ships. As far as these very large sized ships were concerned he believed that wood has not strength for the purpose, but for corvettes, gunboats, and other small vessels, which must be maintained for the protection of British commerce all over the world, as yet iron vessels had been found no substitute whatever. Therefore, he trusted that it would not be supposed, because it was necessary to construct at once a certain number of very large iron-cased ships of iron, that in future there would be no further building or repairing of wooden ships in the dockyards. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) seemed to think that the Warrior no sooner than completed ought to be battered to pieces. That was not the intention of the Admiralty. What they were preparing to do was to carry on experiments against a target precisely similar to the side of the Warrior, and that target was now being constructed, and would, no doubt, be the object of very interesting experiments. He trusted his hon. Friend would not persevere in his opposition to the Vote, for in so doing he would be acting against the wishes not only of the
  1678
  House of Commons but of the country at large.
  MR. DISRAELI: If I were to judge from a speech made a few nights ago by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell), and from, the observations that have fallen from the noble Lord the Prime Minister on the present occasion, I should suppose that the good understanding between England and France was in great peril. Sir, that is not my opinion. Notwithstanding the rumours that are in circulation I believe that good understanding will be I maintained; and I still hold the opinion which I have always expressed in this House, that upon that good understanding the happiness of the world and the cause of progress and civilization mainly depend. But how is it that questions of this irritating nature are mixed up with matters of business detail, such as those which ought to occupy the attention of the Committee of Supply this evening? There is no doubt that a great change has taken place in ship-building. There is no doubt that there is no country in the world so interested in ascertaining the best construction of vessels, and of vessels of war especially, as our own country. But it does not follow that because we feel it to be our duty to reconstruct the navy of England upon the undoubted principles of science which now are acknowledged, we should be supposed to be taking a course adverse to the interests of any other country, and especially to a country so near to us, with which our interests are so various and numerous, and with respect to which, whatever may be the occasional misunderstandings there is no doubt that the general tendency of our policy for nearly the last half century has been that of increased amity and increased good understanding. Well, is there any cause for this irritating discussion? Is it France that objects to the reconstruction of the English navy? Is it France that objects to our building iron ships? No one for a moment has ever hinted that there has ever been any protest from the other side of the water against the course which we are adopting. Well, I have yet to learn that we have felt it our duty to protest against the course which France is following. No one has maintained for a moment that France has not the right to establish a navy, and a navy of great power. She is justified in taking such a course by her geographical position, by her possessions, and by the

  1679
  general course of her conduct in various parts of the globe. But, then, it is said by some hon. Gentlemen that there is no termination, apparently, to this race of competition between England and Prance as to the respective positions of their navy; and I will admit that if every time we build new ships of war France immediately proceeds to build an increased number on her side, and if the moment we hear she is laying down new keels we are to enter into an indefinite competition with France —I admit that such a state of things would be most hostile, and perhaps, fatal to the interests and fortunes of both countries. But what is the use of governments? What is the use of diplomacy? "What is the use of cordial understandings, if such a state of affairs can take place? I speak, of course, now with great deference to the Government on this subject; and I hope with that reserve which is befitting one of my inferior position compared with that of Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject. But, certainly, I have always been under the impression, at least so long as I have had any intimate acquaintance with public affairs, that, on the part of the French Government, there has certainly been for many years past a perfect willingness to come to an understanding with the Government of this country, if not in an absolutely definite sense, yet, generally speaking, as to the relative proportions of the naval powers of the two countries. That understanding has been by France candidly expressed and voluntarily offered, for France has always been ready to acknowledge that there should be a superiority—I will not say a supremacy, but a superiority, and a great superiority, too, on the part of England, in natural consideration of the undoubted superiority in military power possessed by France. I am under that impression. I cannot doubt that there is to be found on the part of the Government of France a readiness to come to an understanding as to the definite proportion which should exist between the naval powers of the two countries. Well, if that be the fact, and I cannot believe that any one will deny the accuracy of that fact, then I say that we do see the end of this reconstruction of the naval power on the part of both countries—that there is no danger of that indefinite and fatal and ruinous competition which has been referred to, and that we ought to see before us the point at which this vast expenditure should cease.
  1680
  Well, Sir, if these be just views—if I am not mistaken in the facts to which I have referred—it is in the power of the Minister of this country to tell us that, no doubt, under existing circumstances, it is the duty both of England and France to reconstruct their naval power; but that they do this with the understanding that it is not that they have entered into a reckless competition on this subject, but that they have arrived previously at some grave political conclusion upon it, and that it is understood between the two countries that when that reconstruction has taken place it shall be accepted on the part of France that the superiority of the maritime power of England, the naval force of England, shall not be a subject of jealousy to France, but that she is prepared to willingly accept that naval superiority as the natural and inevitable result of the circumstances of the British Empire; France at the same time expecting from us that we shall exhibit no unjust or unnatural jealousy of her equally necessary military superiority. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government would only come forward and tell us this, with all the authority which waits upon the expression of opinion and upon the statement of a Minister, and especially one so experienced and influential as himself, a better understanding on this subject I cannot help thinking would prevail. I think on the part of the French people there would not be that hostile jealousy and that irritable feeling which I am sorry to see when debates of this kind take place; and on the part of England there would not be that undignified panic and readiness for reckless expenditure, which I for one entirely deprecate. Am I right or wrong in maintaining the expediency of this course? The noble Lord can tell me that I am labouring under a delusion if such be the case, and that it is a mistake to suppose there exists between the statesmen of the two countries that generous and wise and politic understanding as to the relative proportion of the naval force of each to which I have adverted. If he makes such a statement then I may be induced to believe that the wildest suggestions which I have heard in this House upon this subject may have some authority. But if the noble Lord can assure us—and I am unable to bring myself to doubt that he can—that the understanding of which I speak exists and that France, while establishing—as she is in my opinion perfectly justified in doing—a navy equal to the exigencies of

  1681
  her position and all claims on her power and patronage that may arise, is willing at the same time to acknowledge that she views with no jealousy on our part the reconstruction of our naval power in conformity with recent scientific changes and discoveries, on a scale greatly superior to that which she has fixed upon as the term of her exertions—if, I repeat, the noble Lord can give us that assurance it will, I have no doubt, have the effect of putting an end to the vexatious controversies in which we have been in the habit of indulging of late, and throw light on the subject. If, however, the noble Lord can do this I can hardly think he is justified in rising as he does on every occasion when discussions of this kind take place, and seeking to impress on the public mind that it is in consequence of unexpected and almost unnatural efforts on the part of France that he feels obliged to call upon the country to make exertions by which those efforts might be overpowered. For my own part, I hold that both nations need not stand with respect to this question in a hostile, invidious, or competing position. They are both great Powers with vast demands on their maritime influence, are placed in consequence of the revolution which has of late years occurred in naval affairs in a situation in which both are called upon to make great efforts to establish an adequate naval force. Instead, therefore, of looking upon one another under those circumstances in a criticising and hostile spirit, the leading statesmen, at all events, of each ought to use every effort in their power to enlighten the public mind, and to point out that the exertions which are being made to create those naval armaments are the inevitable result of that march of science which neither men nor nations can resist, that both countries, so far as can be judged, are justified in the adoption of the course which they are pursuing, and that nothing has hitherto occurred in reference to this question which England on the one side, or France on the other, can fairly impugn. But, that being the case, the interference of statesmen may bring about this result, that there shall be on neither side excess or extravagance of action; that there shall be no unnecessary or wasteful expenditure, and that instead of the people in both countries being oppressed, owing to rival exertions, care should he taken that, mutual understanding should exist that the naval power of each should not exceed the amount
  1682
  which the interests of each demand. Well, I say, if these grounds were placed fairly before the House—if the noble Lord called upon us to make those exertions in consequence of that great revolution in naval affairs, and at the same time should assure us that there is not an insane race of competition for naval power between England and France, then the Governments of the two nations would have each before them definite objects, and which when obtained need not endanger the peace of Europe, but rather consolidate and secure it. We should end unfounded sources of panic, and these circumstances, no doubt very distasteful to the population of both countries who have to pay for the expenditure, would not be a source of misunderstanding, but, on the contrary, would be clearly apprehended, and would tend rather to peace than to those hostile sentiments so often referred to.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he had heard with pleasure the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman had so admirably expressed, differing, as they did, materially from those which appeared to find favour on the Opposition benches in the earlier part of the Session. It was evident the right hon. Gentleman looked upon the responsibilities of office as not very remote, and that he now deemed it the more statesmanlike course to adopt, to come round to views which it was some time ago the fashion to regard with abhorrence when uttered by hon. Members who sat below the gangway on the Ministerial side, while every expression of hostility to France was greeted by the followers of the right hon. Gentleman with cheers. But, passing from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he had to complain that categorical answers had not been returned by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to the questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Sunderland. He should, however, again put those questions to the noble Lord, and if he declined to reply to them, it only remained for him, in conjunction with his hon. Friend, to take the sense of the House on the subject. If the required information were not furnished, the probability was he would find, on taking up the Moniteur in a few days, a flat contradiction given in its pages to the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he wished, therefore, to have some more detailed knowledge with respect to how matters really

  1683
  stood. The questions he had to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty were —what were the names of the six iron vessels now afloat to which allusion had been made? Where were the ten new vessels being built or laid down, and the eleven floating iron-cased vessels to be found?
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, these were points of detail which should be left to the Government. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had assured the Committee that such a force was in course of construction in the French ports, and upon a former occasion the Secretary to the Admiralty gave the names of the vessels and the places where they were to be found. He hoped the Government would proceed with all possible speed in getting up the strength of our navy.
  Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I rise to give the information which as been asked for by the hon. Member for Sunderland with respect to the French iron-plated ships. The Magenta and the Solferino are two-deckers. The Magenta is launched, and the Solferino is either launched or will soon be so. The Gloire is afloat, the Normandie is afloat, the Couronne is afloat, the Invincible is afloat, the Saigon is afloat, the Palestro is afloat, the Tonnante is afloat, and the Devastation is afloat. Here we have ten vessels, two of them line-of-battle ships, four of them with 36 or 40 guns each, and four belonging to that formidable class which the French call floating batteries. We have then the Provence, the Savoie, the Revanche, the Magnanime, the Gauloise, the Valeureuse, the Heroine, the Surveillante,the Flandre, and the Guienne, These vessels—improved Gloires—were commenced in the early part of this year, and are all in course of construction. We have besides the Congreve, the Lave, the foudroyante, the Paixhans, and the Peiho—all floating batteries. There are two other vessels, the names of which I do not know, and as to which I have not such correct information, but I believe they are being built as floating batteries. The Magenta is at Brest, the Solferino is at L'Orient, the Gloire is at Toulon, the Normandie is at Cherbourg, the Couronne is at L'Orient, the Invincible is at Toulon, the Provence is at Toulon, the Savoie is at Toulon, the Revanche is at Toulon, the Magnanime is at Brest, the Gauloise is at Brest, the Valeureuse is at Brest, the Heroine is at L'Orient,
  1684
  the Surveillante is at L'Orient, the Flandre is at Cherbourg, and the Guienne is at Rochefort. Altogether, the French have 16 large iron-plated vessels and 11 floating batteries, either afloat or in course of construction. Is any further information I wanted?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I stated this morning that I entirely approve the course which the Government have taken in proposing this estimate, and I should not have troubled the Committee again had it not been for an error into which the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich has fallen with respect to the cost of these iron-cased ships. The hon. and gallant Member stated that we might take these ships as costing half-a-million each. [Captain JERVIS: With their armaments.] Even with their armaments the estimate of the hon. and gallant Member is exaggerated. The most expensive of these ships is the Warrior, and yet I think I am right when I state that the whole cost of the Warrior, excluding the armament, will not be much, if at all, more than £300,000. The sum is enormous, no doubt, but still, as the expense is so large, it is desirable that it should not be overrated. The hon. and gallant Member will recollect that of the eighteen ships which are promised — twelve in progress and six proposed to-day —nine are to be of the Warrior class, and the remaining nine will consist of the four which the Admiralty are now building of considerably smaller dimensions, and of the five small wooden ships which were promised some time ago. It will be seen, therefore, that of the whole eighteen ships one half will cost only three-fifths of the sum which the hon. and gallant Member has estimated, and the other half will cost very much less. And now I must say that I have heard the hon. Member for Sunderland to-night with great regret. This morning the hon. Member told us that whatever number of ships the French may have we ought to have more. I was sorry to hear him this evening, I will not say retracting that expression, but declaring that if ho stood alone he would vote against the proposal of the Government. On what ground? Because he did not believe their statements. After what the hon. Member has now heard I think he must abandon everything like disbelief, which, indeed, he had no right to entertain before. The statements which he refused to credit rested upon unimpeachable authority; the evidence was conclusive,

  1685
  and the hon. Member might as well have said that he did not believe this was the House of Commons. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bucks that the question before us is not one of a foolish rivalry between England and France. The right of France to have a large navy has never been disputed; but, on the other hand, we must take care to maintain the same right for England. We have the largest colonial empire and the most extended commerce in the world, and it is our first duty to provide ourselves with an adequate naval force. I thoroughly approve the proposal of the Government, in which I see nothing hostile to France, and I hope it will meet with the approbation of the Committee.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he had no doubt his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, after hearing the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, would at once accede to the propriety of this Vote. He did not believe there was any panic in this country, but he was quite convinced the temper of the people would not tolerate that we should be left behind any other country in our naval armament. The proposal of the Government, which had been somewhat tardy, would be found in unison with the public sentiment. It was absolutely called for; and he was not without a hope that the strength of our naval armament would enable us to make reductions in other departments.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that after the statement which had been made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that there were in France six powerful iron-clad ships now afloat, and eleven floating batteries, while there were ten iron ships in the course of construction, he should no longer oppose the Vote. That statement, however, was entirely at variance with the information he had received from high authorities in France. But he could not do otherwise than accept the declaration of the noble Lord, and he could not, therefore, take upon himself the responsibility of dividing the Committee upon that point. If what the noble Lord stated was correct he was desirous that the Vote should pass unanimously. But it was a serious subject for consideration how long that rivalry between this country and France was to go on, and he thought they ought to consider well the suggestion that had been made by the right hon. Gen-
  1686
  tleman the leader of the Opposition. The Government should, at least, make an attempt to come to an understanding with France, for the purpose of preventing this rivalry of expenditure. He could confirm what the right hon. Gentleman had said. France would not be the last to move, and if some arrangement was not made, it would not be the fault of France, but their own fault.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £206,629 10 s. 9d, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Excess, of the Army Expenditure, beyond the Grants for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1860."
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had no wish to renew the discussion which had taken place on the previous day, or to object to the passing of the Vote. He must say, however, that there was nothing in the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Under Secretary for War to alter the opinions he had expressed. He entirely disclaimed any intention, which had been imputed to him, to make a personal attack on the late Secretary of State for War. He had doubted the accuracy of his figures from the first, and he should not have discharged his duty if he had not come forward and stated wherein he thought his calculations were mistaken.
  MR. T. G. BAKINGsaid, that he had not stated that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made any personal attack on Lord Herbert of Lea, and ho (Mr. Baring) had only defended the statement which had been made last year by his noble Friend against the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. No words had fallen from his lips which could lead any one for a moment to imagine that he had supposed that the right hon. and gallant Member meant a personal attack on Lord Herbert.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should move that the Vote be reduced to £l83,595. That was a remarkable instance of their total loss of control over the public money in consequence of the alteration which took place in 1845 in the Appropriation Act. They had no control over the expenditure either of the army or navy. In fact, he found that a million had been expended without the authority of Parliament, which he thought was too serious a matter to be passed over without

  1687
  notice, as it showed that that House had lost its control over the expenditure. He wished to ask whether in the last two months of 1859–60 there was not an excess in each of 9,559 and 11,327 respectively above the number of men voted by Parliament? He further wished to know whether any portion of the Vote in excess arose out of that excess in the number of men, and if not, from what source was the pay of that extra number defrayed? There were also two payments in the army grants which he thought were utterly indefensible, and upon which, unless satisfactorily explained, he should take the opinion of the Committee. One was a sum of £14,212 on account of the survey of London, and the other £8,820 for the survey of towns. It was stated that those works had been executed by the Board of Ordnance, respectively at the request of the Commissioners and the Board of Health; but, if that were so, those bodies should pay the expense, which could not legitimately be regarded as an army expenditure.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that there was certainly an excess upon some of the Votes; but, of the million spoken of by the hon. Baronet, 6£600,000 was expended for services caused by the China War, and was, therefore, properly charged to the Vote of Credit for that war; pound;200,000 was met by the savings upon other Votes, and the remaining £200,000 was the Vote now asked for. The excess upon the Votes did not arise from any excess in the number of regular troops, but from an excess in the number of the embodied militia, the excess in the number of regular troops in the months to which the hon. Baronet had referred was covered by their numbers having in others months been below the estimate. With respect to the two items which the hon. Baronet complained should have been charged to army services, the reason was that the work was originally done by the Ordnance Survey, which though strictly a civil service, yet was included in the Army Estimates. The money due on account of that work was partly repaid by the Board of Health. Those two balances, however, Were left over, and as it was found impossible to get the money, the Treasury decided that the sum should be borne by the army Votes.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had not met the case that had been put. There was an excess of expenditure of £973,000 upon five Votes.
  1688
  How was that excess met? The Vote of Credit was not moved until March 19, and, of course, the money had then been spent. There was no doubt when the Vote of Credit was taken it was applied to meet the excess as well as all the savings upon other Votes; but it appeared that the authority of the Treasury was only given on the 2nd of April this year. Before the 14th of March he had asked his hon. Friend three questions—first, whether any portion of the 500,000 was to be appropriated to meet the expenditure upon the ordinary estimate, and the reply was, "None." The second, question was whether the Treasury had given authority to appropriate the surplus upon other Votes, and the answer was in the negative. The third question was whether there would be any further Vote in excess, and the answer was "None." Now, he found that all the Vote of Credit, all the savings upon other Votes, had been disposed of before the expiration of the financial year. He had stated in March last year that £500,000 would not cover the excess of army expenditure, but that a further half million would be required. It now appeared that he was so far wrong that, instead of £500,000, the excess was £973,000.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that from the Returns he had moved for it appeared that the number of men voted for in 1859–60 was 122,659, and the number that was borne and paid out of the British Exchequer on the 1st of March, 1860, exclusive of the embodied militia, was 132,233 men, so that more than 10,000 men were kept and paid beyond the number voted by Parliament, which was unconstitutional. With regard to his Motion, it came to this, was a debt, whether it belonged to the Army or not, to be paid out of the Army Estimates? They might as well apply the money to the embankment of the Thames.
  MR. PEELsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet did not understand the question. The particular sums were irrecoverable debts due to army funds, and the only question was whether these sums should remain outstanding debts, or whether they should be charged to army grants. In 1848 the Commissioners of Sewers applied to the War Department to make a survey of London, they undertaking to repay the expense. The survey was made, and£10,000 paid on account, but when application was made to the Commissioners for

  1689
  the balance they said they could not pay without legislative sanction. The matter stood over, and when application was made to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in 1858, they objected to pay, upon the ground, among others, that if the Commissioners of Sewers had waited the survey would have been made for them gratis, there having been a survey made of the whole of England. The charge of £8,000 was made for surveys instituted by the Ordnance Department at the request of the Boards of Health of various towns, on the understanding that the local boards would pay for them, which they afterwards declined to do.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that the number of men voted by Parliament in 1859–60 was 122,050. At that time the number of men below the Estimates was 20,000, but they were represented by the embodied militia, and he deducted from the pay and allowances £125,000, which ho took for the militia. The money taken exactly corresponded with the number of men. What he wanted to know was out of men. What fund the expenditure of £978,000 was absolutely paid. Was it by appropriating the surplus of other Votes?
  MR. PEELsaid, that the Treasury gave authority for the issue from the Exchequer of the aggregate amount of the Votes on the Army Estimates, and they had no power of telling from day to day whether the amount of any particular Vote was exceeded or not. When the sum for 1859–60 was exhausted, application was made for a Vote of Credit, and then the Treasury gave authority to draw from the Exchequer on the Vote of Credit.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that the surplus of one financial year had clearly been devoted to meet the expenditure in excess of a previous year. He should like to know where the money was held during the interval.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know by what authority the Board of Ordnance had instituted these surveys of towns and sewers?
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he had never heard a more extraordinary statement than that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel), that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) did not understand what he was talking about. It now appeared that the ignorance was altogether on the side of the right hon. Gentleman. Earlier in the Session he had expressed an opinion that the Military Estimates would be
  1690
  nearer£16,000,000 than£14,500,000, the amount when they were first brought in. The House had, however, been called upon to vote for military expenditure alone, during the present Session, a sum little short of£17,000,000. He believed that such an expenditure was totally uncalled for, and that it was not distributed in the manner most serviceable to the Army.
  SIR WILLIAM VERNELR,in rising, pursuant to notice to call attention to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains for the army, said, that every one who got a commission in the army and navy was expected to be a gentleman. It was also universally admitted that all the persons appointed as chaplains had been educated at the College of Maynooth. He said that in many instances these chaplains originally came from a very low class of society, and were, therefore, unfitted to associate with and attend upon officers in the army. He pointed out other inconveniences connected with the appointments, and complained of the great increase in their number of late and the consequent augmentation of expense.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding£183,596 13 s. 2d. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Excess of the Army Expenditure, beyond the Grants for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1860."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 45; Noes 52: Majority 7.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.)£637,000, Disembodied Militia.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSremarked upon the enormous standing army kept up, and pronounced it to be unnecessary, considering the great Volunteer force which had sprung up. He would begrudge no funds for making the navy equal to meet all comers; but the army was preposterously large. He objected to the Vote for the disembodied Militia, believing that body to be very inferior to the Volunteers.
  Lord BURGHLEYsaid, he hoped that something would be done for the Militia surgeons, who were most inadequately remunerated for their services. Ho suggested that that they should either receive permanent pay on the Staff, or have a certain amount of lodging-money allowed to them.
  COLONEL DUNNEremarked that Ireland must be very badly off, for, as it was not allowed Volunteers, it had to put up with, according to the hon. Member for Lambeth, a very defective militia force.

  1691
  But his estimate of the latter force was very different from that of the hon. Member. The efficiency of the force, however, very much depended on the Inspectors. Hitherto officers of the Line only had received those appointments. He thought the Inspectors should hold commissions in the militia. With regard to the lodging-money of the Serjeant-Major (4d. per day) it was only the mere pay given to a private in the army. He considered it ought to be increased, for the Serjeant-Major had many responsibilities resting upon him. He objected to the item of £500 for rewards for discovery of deserters, considering money so spent ill-spent. He thought instructors in musketry ought to be supplied by the Government. The Adjutants were too much occupied to be able to perform this duty. With these alterations he thought the Militia would be made perfectly efficient.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he believed that if half the attention were paid to the Militia that was devoted to Volunteers the former would be as fine a force as the country could possibly have to fall back upon.
  MAJOR WINDSOR PARKERsaid, that the Volunteers and the Militia were drawn from very different classes of the community, and there was a difference between their motives for enlistment, but the only rivalry between the two forces was in their desire to be of service to their country.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he fully concurred in the observations of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Parker). He considered an officer of the Line had full power to inspect. The question raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) as to lodging-money and desertion would be taken into consideration. Arrangements were being made for supplying instructors in musketry to the Militia, and due consideration would be given to the other suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member who had addressed the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £30,000, further charges for Volunteer corps.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought it was a miserable sum, and that, unless the Government acted more liberally towards the Volunteers, the movement would ultimately fail.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution reported.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) had correctly stated last night that the fresco of King Lear had been seriously injured by decay.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that any one who would take the trouble to use his eyesight would see that the fresco had sustained no injury, and that the figure of Cordelia was in as perfect a state as when the late Sir Robert Peel had referred to Mr. Herbert's noble work as fully justifying all the money expended upon the House in frescoes.
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Order for Committee read.

  APPROPRIATION BILL.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to know, Whether the Appropriation Bill would be printed, and. in the hands of hon. Members, before the second reading? He should be glad also to know why the usual Appropriation Clause, the most important of the Bill, had been omitted from the Bill in the second Session of 1857 and again in the second Session of 1859?
  THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUERsaid, that so far as he was aware, the printing of the Appropriation Bill was conducted by the officers of the House, and the Treasury had not interfered with it. A regular account was kept by the clerks of the House of the Votes in Supply, which was checked by an account kept by the Treasury. Therefore, the accuracy of the Appropriation Bill depended on the accuracy of these accounts. Whether the Bill should be printed or not was more a matter for the consideration of the House than the Government. He could not say why the clause was omitted from the Act of 1857, as he was not then a Member of the Government.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it was omitted from the Act of the second Session of 1859, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make no difficulty about printing the Appropriation Bill, which ought to be in the hands of hon. Members.

THE NEW SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITE: I beg to ask a question of the noble 'Viscount at the head of the Government. A new writ has been moved for Tamworth, and I' wish to ask, Whether the hon. Baronet has really been appointed Secretary for Ireland; and, if so, whether he is still a member of the Carlton Club?
  VISCOUNT PALMEBSTON: Sir Robert Peel has accepted the office of Secretary for Ireland. In regard to the Carlton Club, I am not in the secrets of that body.

  WATS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  1.Resolved,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there be issued and applied, to the service of the year 1861, the sum of £424,207 7s., being the surplus of Ways and Means granted for the service of preceding years."
  2. Resolved,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £32,605,936 11 s 5 d., be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  WINDSOR SUSPENDED CANONRIES BILL—CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he should move, after Clause 1, to insert the following clause:—
  "The said Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall hereafter pay over to the said dean and canons, or permit them to retain, one half-part of the share of divisible revenues of one other of the said suspended canonries, and the said dean and canons shall pay and apply the same unto and equally between the said vicars choral, in augmentation of their present emoluments."
  The adoption of that clause would only do justice to the vicars-choral, who were in his opinion fully entitled to the provision which he desired to make for them.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, that all gentlemen who were desirous to secure the proper performance of the services of the Church of England, especially in our cathedrals, ought to support a proposal for giving a fair remuneration to the lay clerks, whose position had during a long series of years been continually becoming
  1694
  worse and worse, and whose emoluments were now entirely inadequate to the proper remuneration of their services. He should, therefore, vote for the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was sorry that it was not in his power to accede to this Amendment. He had already carried the proposal for dealing with the suspended canonries to the furthest limit to which it was expedient to go. The hon. Member for Bristol had spoken of the vicars-choral as though they were I clergymen, but in fact they were nothing more than the singing men of the choir. It was quite competent for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to raise the stipends of the vicars-choral out of the Cathedral funds without legislative interference.
  MR. G. W HOPEobserved that he should be happy to see further remuneration granted to these persons.
  MR. VANSITTARTobserved that, even if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the Amendment, the revenues of five and a half canonries would remain to the Commissioners. He thought that the claim of the vicars-choral was a very just, one.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 44: Majority 17.
  Lord JOHN MANNERSobserved that the whole tenor of modern legislation had been to respect the local claims of parishes, and he, therefore, wished a clause to be introduced to the effect that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have due regard to such claims before they appropriated tithes. The great tithes of Wraysbury, which were £392 a year, were proposed to he given to the Military Knights and the two livings of Windsor. The net revenue of the clergyman of the parish of Wraysbury was£86 a year without any house to live in. They ought first to satisfy the just claims of that parish, and then he should have no objection to improve the condition of the Military Knights of Windsor.
  Clause (Local claims in respect of Tithes) brought up, and read 1o.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if neither the clause nor the Bill were passed the proceeds would go to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and would be appropriated to increase the small livings generally, but not necessarily the living of Wraysbury. The Chapter of Windsor was on a totally different footing. The other chapters were no precedent for it, nor was it a precedent

  1695
  for the other chapters. The proposed arrangement was fair and equitable, and he hoped the Committee would not assent to the anomalous clause proposed by the noble Lord.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that Wraysbury would be left by the Bill precisely as it was before, and, in fact, Wraysbury had no claim.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  Clause 2 (Appropriation of Profits of Eighth Canonry to Churches),
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that if they went on nibbling in this way at the source of revenue of the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they would very soon have other claims as irresistible, and the common fund would disappear. It was a retrograde step in legislation which was gradually bearing fruit with the greatest possible advantage. He, therefore, felt it his duty to divide the Committee against the clause.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not propose the clause as part of a general policy, and it would not become a precedent.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsupported the clause on the ground that it recognized local claims.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMobserved that whatever specialty might have been in the case of Windsor there was a waiver on the part of the Crown of its rights. If the clause received the sanction of Parliament it would reverse the principle on which the common fund was placed.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he thought that it was a great oversight in the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission that some stipulation was not laid down that parishes, the tithes of which were dealt with, should be considered in reference to their spiritual wants before the money was applied to other purposes. But that was not proposed to be done by the present Bill, and he could not support a clause which established in that case exceptional legislation, which was not applied to other cases.
  MR. HENLEYobserved that if the clause passed the common fund would be gone.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 13: Majority 26.
  Clause 3 (Mode of ascertaining Amount of Payments to be retained),
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he would propose an Amendment in Clause 3, the effect of which would be to exclude commanders and masters in the navy from the privileges of naval knights. The intention of the bequest was that these persons should be exclusively lieutenants in the navy.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause to follow Clause 3, line 5, to leave out from "knights" to "it," in line 7.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill to be read 3o To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Courts of the Church of Scotland; Indemnity.
2a Turnpike Acts Continuance; Ordnance Survey Continuance.
3a Vaccination; Annoyance Jurors (Westminster); Voters (Ireland); University Elections; Dublin Revising Barristers; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act Continuance; County Cess (Ireland) Act Continuance; Tramways (Scotland); Local Government Act Amendment.

STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, notwithstanding the important business which stands for consideration this evening, I hope that I shall not be thought unduly to occupy your Lordships' attention if for a few moments I invite your attention to the present state of public business, and ask the noble Earl the President of the Council to give some explanation as to the course which the Government intend to pursue with regard to those measures which are waiting for what must at this period of the Session be called by courtesy your Lordships' consideration. I have examined the Journals and Proceedings of the House of Commons, and I find that the state of business in that House has been and is as follows:—At Whitsuntide there had been introduced into the House of Commons 68 Bills, and since then 80 more have been brought in, making a total of 148 Bills proposed for progress this' Session Of these 76 have been passed by the House of Commons, including those subsequently rejected by this House, five have been rejected by the House of Commons, and 23 have been withdrawn. There remain now in the House of Commons 44 Bills, of which a considerable number have still to come up to your Lordships' House. Besides these, there are now in this House 30 Bills in progress, and 18 for which no day has been named, making a total of 48 Bills now before your Lordships' House; and
  1566
  there are 44 more yet before the House of Commons, on which your Lordships may have to give your decision. Even if the Session was to last for the three weeks with which we were threatened the other, evening by the noble Duke, I think that your Lordships will agree with me that there would be but scant opportunity for discussing the vast mass of Bills, 92 in number, to which I have referred. I have not in this calculation taken any notice of the various Bills which have been sent from either House to the other with Amendments requiring consideration, and one of which will, I apprehend, occupy a very considerable portion of your Lordships' time this evening. Among the Bills in progress, and more especially among those for proceeding with which no day has been named, there are some of very great importance. For example, there are seven Bills which I wonder that the Government have not taken an earlier opportunity of bringing under your consideration—the Bills for the consolidation of the Criminal Law. Those Bills were passed through this House at a very early period last year, and were sent to the House of Commons. For some reason that House never took the slightest notice of them, and they were not passed. This year the House of Commons has got the initiative, and a considerable time ago all the seven Bills were passed and sent to this House. They have been for some time upon your Lordships' table, but as yet no noble Lord has given notice of his intention to bring them forward. These are Bills which have already passed your Lordships' House, and cannot lead to much controversy. Indeed, I believe it is the general opinion that they should be taken on trust, because it would obviously be impossible to go through all the details. On the other hand, there are some Bills which do not at first sight appear to be so important, but which yet involve very serious questions. For example, in your Lordships' House there is a Bill with regard to the building of courts of justice, which was read a second time pro formâ, on the distinct understanding that it was to wait the arrival of another Bill still under the consideration of the House of Commons, the object of which is to provide the money for the erection of these courts. Upon inquiry the calculations upon which the financial portions of that Bill are founded have been discovered to be exceedingly erroneous, and it has been ascertained that

  1567
  if the schemes is carried out it will not only absorb the whole of the suitors' fund, as to our right to avail ourselves of which there is considerable doubt, but will also involve an expenditure on the part of the country of something like a million of money. In the course of yesterday evening notice was given in the House of Commons that the progress of that Bill would be resisted whenever it was brought forward, yet between two and three o'clock this morning the Bill was read a second time without a word being said, and a few minutes afterwards the House was counted out. If a Bill of this importance is to pass the other House on the 26th of July, between two and three o'clock in the morning, in the face of a threatened opposition, and if the Chief Commissioner of Works still clings to the hope of passing the Bill this Session, I must protest against that mode of getting a measure forward, and express a hope that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) will, on the part of the Government, take care that this Bill does not pass at a period when the attendance in both Houses is exceedingly thin, and after this evening is likely to be thinner. There is another Bill, of his intention to bring forward which on Monday next the Postmaster General has given notice, and which, although apparently of little consequence, is really a very important Bill. It professes to settle the rank and social status of the mayors of boroughs, and nothing can be more unobjectionable, though hardly anything can be more unimportant, than a measure of that kind; but under the plea of settling the status of mayors clauses are introduced which give power to the Secretary of State, on the application of any fifty individuals, absolutely and arbitrarily to alter the arrangement of wards in any borough, and to vary the number of the representatives of each; in point of fact, to completely alter an Act which was passed for the regulation of these matters only two years ago. I have no objection to settle the status of mayors, but I hope that the Government will not press so important an alteration as this. My reason for calling attention to this subject is that I am sure that this House suffers in public estimation very unjustly from the manner in which Bills are at this period of the Session hurried through it. Last night we had twenty-six Bills to dispose of; to-day there are twenty-three on the paper; and no one can think the manner in which some of them
  1568
  are disposed of—and I allude more particularly to the Committee on the Irremovable Poor Bill, a measure of very great importance—is at all creditable to this House. There is another danger to which we are exposed at this period of the Session. Bills are brought in which are called Continuance Bills, but in them are frequently introduced material alterations of the law, which pass both Houses without attention being paid to them. Last year about this time we were called upon, on the ground of urgency, to pass a Bill called the Gunpowder Bill, which was represented to be of great importance as providing for the secure storage of gunpowder. It was objected that it was a Bill which might have been brought forward at a much earlier period; but on the representation of the noble Earl opposite, your Lordships passed it in the month of August. I perceive that within the last few days a Bill has been introduced into the House of Commons for the purpose of amending that Bill, and it will be sent up to this House at about the same period of the year at which the original Bill arrived. Yet the errors of the original Bill must have been discovered long ago, and this amending measure might have been brought in much earlier in the Session. If I rightly understand the proceedings of the House of Commons the Secretary of State for India last night moved certain Resolutions, which are to be reported today, and upon which a Bill is to be founded authorizing the Indian Government to borrow £5,000,000 more money. That Bill has not yet been even introduced in the other House, and I leave your Lordships to judge when it is likely that it will reach this House. I wish to ask the noble Earl whether he is prepared to act in the spirit of the Resolution which my noble Friend, the Chairman of Committees, usually proposes, and whether the Government are prepared to give a pledge that during the short remainder of the Session Bills against which considerable objections are entertained, and Bills which are not of paramount and urgent importance, shall not be pressed on the attention of the House, which will probably consist of a very limited number of Peers? I wish further to ask the noble Earl whether he will communicate with his colleagues in reference to the business which stands on the books of the other House, so that he may be able to state what portion of the business before either of the Houses of

  1569
  Parliament it is the intention of the Government to proceed with, and that your Lordships may be able to ascertain what amount of business is likely to be carried on during the period when your Lordships can be in attendance? I do not think I am unreasonable in calling attention to the fact, that something like ninety Bills still remain to come before us at the end of July—but a week or ten days from the end of the Session; and in expressing my belief that the time has come when Her Majesty's Government may advantageously exercise a discretion in selecting those Bills which they deem most important to carry.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answering the question of the noble Earl, I must give in some degree the same sort of unsatisfactory reply to similar questions, as far as I remember, ever since I sat in this House, and which I have been informed by the Marquess of Lansdowne and Lord Aberdeen was uniformly given during the whole of their experience. But I would ask your Lordships not to allow yourselves to be carried away by a mere enumeration of a number of Bills; because it is very evident that many of them are of no importance, being mere continuance Bills and the like; and, therefore, at whatever period of the Session they may be brought in, they do not require any great deliberation. The noble Earl alluded to several measures for effecting the consolidation of the law. There were particular circumstances connected with the Attorney Generalship which prevented those Bills from being brought forward as early as they would otherwise have been; but most of them having been under the consideration of this House last year, a great deal must, and I think may fairly, be taken upon trust. The particular day, therefore, on which they may be taken into consideration is immaterial. With regard to a most important and, I think, most useful Bill, which was considered in Committee last night—I mean that relating to the Irremovable Poor—I really do not know how Her Majesty's Government are to blame with regard to it. We think it an excellent Bill; we approve all its clauses. Five minutes before it came on in Committee there were nearly 100 Peers present. The noble Earl voted against the Bill without giving the slightest reason for his vote, and it was quite open for him or any other noble Lord to have questioned every one of the clauses and to have divided the House if he thought it desirable to do so. It was not for us to
  1570
  get up and raise objections to a Bill of which we approve; but I am quite sure that my noble Friend the Under Secretary, who had charge of the measure, would have been ready to reply to any questions or objections which the noble Earl or any one on the other side of the House might have thought proper to originate. The noble Earl has mentioned another Bill, of which I know nothing, with regard to giving precedence to mayors; but if the proper authorities have consented to the measure, I cannot see any objection to such a Bill. The noble Earl has mentioned one clause which, primâ facie, deserves consideration; the Bill is at present fixed for Monday next, when, if it comes forward, and the noble Earl should urge satisfactory reasons, the House, no doubt, will not refuse to be guided by them. I really do not think it is too much to expect that Peers who are interested in particular Bills should be present when they come forward, and I am sure the majority of the Peers present could, if they wished, make it convenient to stay in town for the very limited interval during which the Session will continue. I will certainly make inquiry as to what Bills Her Majesty's Government may think it desirable to abandon as not being likely to pass this Session.
  LORD REDESDALEprotested against the conclusion at which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had arrived with regard to the Irremovable Poor Bill. He had no objection to raise against the measure, but with regard to the manner in which it had been pressed he did not think the House had been fairly treated. It was read a second time on Tuesday, and the Committee was fixed for Thursday. On Thursday evening he left a letter at the noble Earl's house intimating his intention of proposing Amendments in Committee, and of asking the noble Earl on that account to postpone the Bill. He did make the request, and was at once refused. He did not anticipate that any high value would be placed upon his suggestions, but it was, nevertheless, the fact that he bestowed more attention upon the business of the House than almost any other Peer, and having been for twenty-five years chairman of a board of guardians, he naturally knew something of the subject. He gave reasons for the Amendments which he wished to propose, and stated some strong facts connected with the rates upon different kinds of property; but the

  1571
  noble Lord who had charge of the Bill did not condescend to give a single reply to his arguments or the slightest explanation of a satisfactory character. The Government had a majority in the House and forced on the measure. It was true that he might have compelled a division to be taken, but it was never his wish to adopt a vexatious proceeding or a course which was not likely to have any useful result. The responsibility of what had been done, therefore, rested upon the Government, and he was bound to say that if the legislation of their Lordships' House was to be either beneficial to the country or creditable to Parliament, the Government ought to abstain from throwing difficulties in the way of those who were disposed to take part in that legislation. He certainly did not think it desirable that any measures except those of importance should be read a second time after that evening; being within ten days of the close of the Session, the effect of introducing Amendments into any Bill would be either to defeat it altogether or to send it down to the Commons, where, in its altered shape, no consideration could be given to it. Had the Resotion which he usually proposed been adopted, it would have been impossible for Bills to be brought before them in such numbers at so late a period of the Session. At the particular request of the noble Earl opposite he had abstained from moving that Resolution this year, a Committee of the House of Commons, from whose deliberations some good result was hoped, being at the time in investigating the subject. But, on the contrary, the business of that House was more behind now than it had ever been.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was true the noble Lord had written to him on the subject of the Irremovable Poor Bill, but the letter did not reach him till some hours afterwards. But even if he had deliberated an entire day upon his request he did not see that he could come to any other conclusion. The noble Lord himself had originally fixed the Committee for Thursday, and his Amendments were directed not to the improvement of the machinery of the Bill but tended to subvert the principle, which had already been affirmed.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, it was unjust to ask Members of their Lordships' House, which had been sitting from February, to debar themselves of that relaxation which the public generally were
  1572
  preparing to enjoy. Members of the Government, who were paid high salaries and obliged to stop in town, might find no difficulty in coming down to the House, and disposing very pleasantly of the business; but their Lordships, generally, had reason to complain of the alternative forced upon them, which was either to remain in town at considerable inconvenience, or, in the public sight, to incur the odium of neglecting their duties.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, noble Lords opposite were not justified in speaking as if the present was the only Government which was to blame for slackness in bringing business before the House. During the Government of the noble Earl opposite an important and cumbrous measure of some 200 clauses—the Local Government Bill—was carried through their Lordships' House within a few days of the close of the Session. On that Bill a series of Amendments were proposed, and he warned the noble Earl at the time that the subject was one which demanded careful consideration, and that the measure contained provisions which, if passed as they stood, would require amendment in future years. The noble Earl, however, said that great pains had been taken with the Bill in the other House, and that it was deemed of importance that it should not be delayed. He therefore withdrew his opposition; but his prediction had been fulfilled, for they had been amending the Bill from time to time up to the present moment, when another measure was before them to amend the clauses which were passed, contrary to his advice, in such hot haste. As to the Irremovable Poor Bill, it was introduced in February last, and was deferred in order that it might be referred to the boards of guardians throughout the country. The result of that reference had been about seventy answers in favour of the Bill and only some half-dozen against it. The Bill had been most carefully considered; the principles upon which it was based were simple and well understood by those who had studied the subject, and it consisted of only nine or ten clauses. It was perfectly obvious that the object of noble Lords opposite in urging the postponement of the Bill was simply to renew, in an indirect way, the attempt which they made directly, and in which they were defeated on the second reading, to throw out the Bill. He did not think that that was treating the Bill fairly. On the previous evening, when he had an

  1573
  Amendment to propose in the Universities Elections Bill, the noble Earl opposite deprecated it on the ground that the return of the measure to the Commons at that period of the Session would jeopardize its passing. But the alterations which were proposed to be made in the Irremovable Poor Bill would not merely endanger it, but would insure its defeat. He thought, therefore, that, under these circumstances, his noble Friend the President of the Council had no alternative but to refuse to postpone the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHobserved that, since he had sat in the House, he had repeatedly heard complaints of the pressure of business at the close of the Session. He regretted to say, however, that the evil, instead of diminishing, was constantly increasing. It was no excuse for the present accumulation of arrears that matters were worse in a former Session. There were a number of important Bills affecting Scotland which their Lordships had not yet had an opportunity of considering, and which he thought it would be unjust and unreasonable to proceed with at that period of the Session.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, in his opinion the chief cause of the delay in public business was the increase of the talking powers of the other House. As long as the House of Commons chose to spend several months every year in mere debating, instead of in doing work, their Lordships must expect to have to sit perhaps through the whole of August in order to carry on the business of the country. However disagreeable it might be, he thought they were bound to sit on, and that they ought not for any pleasure of their own to go away till they had accomplished their task. He hoped their Lordships would teach the other House how real work might be done without unnecessary talking.

  THE NEW ZEALAND DIFFICULTY.
  LORD LYVEDEN LORD LYVEDEN rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could state to the House what Instructions he had given to Sir George Grey respecting the settlement of the tribal rights of the Natives and the payment of the expenses of the war by the colony of New Zealand. On a former occasion a noble Friend of his (Earl Grey) had expressed an opinion that the only solution of the New Zealand question was the recall of the Governor and the suspension of the
  1574
  constitution. The noble Duke, the Secretary for the Colonies, had, however, anticipated the former step, while he very wisely declined to adopt the extreme measure of suspending the constitution for which there was not the slightest pretence. The recall of the Governor whenever anything went wrong in the colony was a somewhat inconvenient practice. It was quite true, however, that Governor Browne's term of service was nearly expired, so that he could not so much complain of the injustice, but it should be borne in mind that Sir George Grey would not return to the colony under the same favourable circumstances as when he quitted it. He left it in a period of prosperity, and would return to it at a time of convulsion and misfortune. He left it with great popularity; but his return at the present crisis would be apt to be misconstrued by, and to excite the suspicion of, both Natives and colonists; by the Natives who would consider it a triumph, by the colonists who might couple it with Earl Grey's proposition, and look upon it as a defeat. They heard again of war breaking out; but whether there was war or peace, some definite arrangement ought to be made with the colonists and the Natives upon two great questions—namely, the tribal rights of the Natives and the expense of military operations. All the convulsions in New Zealand had turned upon the question of tribal rights, and he did not think it was as difficult as was imagined for the noble Duke to define the tribal and individual rights of the Natives, which should be respected in the sale and purchase of lands; but whether the noble Duke could do so or not, it would be far better to acknowledge altogether the tribal rights of the Natives than to have these perpetual convulsions upon a question of so difficult and delicate a nature. The other and more important question was the defence of the colonies, and that was a question which must be considered everywhere. Responsible government having been laid down as the doctrine upon which the colonies were to be governed, they must abide by it in the small colonies, because they must abide by it in the large colonies, and they must abide by it in the large colonies because they would lose them if they did not. It was important, however, to know whether, responsible government being the rule, the mother country was to pay for the defence of the colonies. We were fortifying our

  1575
  own coast, and the people were preparing for what he trusted would prove an imaginary invasion. It was said that the spirit of modern warfare was to strike at the heart of the empire; but might not the limbs be attacked? And if they were attacked some definite rule should be laid down upon which they might claim assistance. If such a rule was necessary with regard to foreign invasion, it was much more necessary with regard to internal convulsions. In Australia the Anglo-Saxon race had swept away the Native tribes; but in New Zealand the Natives were active and ambitious, and quite capable of offering strong resistance to what they conceived to be injustice. The settlers who went out were men who looked to acquire land for profitable investment, and to remunerate them for exile and sacrifices. The only property of the Natives was the land, and their pride in its possession equal to the oldest feudal feelings elsewhere led to collisions with the settlers. As long as the mother country paid there would be no peace. According to the Report of the Colonial Military Expenses Committee the cost of New Zealand was £104,862. Next year the cost would be double, and it would be treble and quadruple unless the mother country came to the resolution that the colonists should defend themselves. The line beyond which no assistance would be given must be laid down, and it was only owing to the unwillingness of the Ministry to face the difficulty that it had not been laid down before. He thought it important before Parliament separated to call attention to the subject, and he hoped the noble Duke would state in reply whether any rule had been laid down as to the tribal rights, and whether Sir George Grey had been instructed that beyond a certain amount the Home Government would not be responsible for the cost of suppressing internal commotions in the colony. In what he had said he did not wish to disparage Sir George Grey, for whom he felt great admiration. Sir George Grey was originally appointed when he (Lord Lyveden) was Under Secretary of State for the Colonies with Lord John Russell in 1841, solely upon his merits, in consequence of an able book which he had written on Australia He had been promoted by each successive Secretary for the Colonies, and he had received the approbation of every Minister under whom he had served. He believed that unless such in-
  1576
  structions as he had indicated had been given to Sir George Grey, they would be hearing constantly of commotions in a colony which should of all others be happy and prosperous.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, Sir George Grey would not assume the Government until the full period of his predecessor's service had expired; although it was quite true that his appointment had anticipated that event by a few months, He (the Duke of Newcastle) thought that the consequences of sending Sir George Grey to New Zealand would not be what the noble Lord anticipated. He did not believe that it could have the effect on the Native population which the noble Lord seemed to dread, and he was quite convinced it would not have the effect on the European settlers which the noble Lord seemed to expect. Why should the Natives apprehend that Sir George Grey was about to reverse the policy of his predecessor, when the Government which appointed Sir George Grey had expressed their opinion in favour of the government of Colonel Browne? And why should the English settlers dread that their interests would be neglected when they had nothing to complain of Sir George Grey's former government in that respect? Sir George Grey was sent out as the most likely man to restore confidence to the settlers and to the Natives, and to adopt such a policy as would prevent the recurrence of war. His noble Friend wished to know what instructions were given to Sir George Grey in reference to the tribal rights of the Natives, and thought it easy for a Secretary of State sitting in Downing Street to lay down distinct rules as to those rights, so as to guide the Governor in the exercise of his duties. He could only say that, whatever facilities the noble Lord might feel for such an operation, he could not profess to have them. When he saw men in the colony of such legal eminence and experience as Sir William Martin and Chief Justice Arney, differing in toto upon that question, he felt that he should be acting most unwisely, and doing anything but furthering the policy of the Government, if he endeavoured to settle difficult questions of law in England. These matters must be left to the judgment of men upon the spot, and all that the Colonial Secretary could do was to select the best instruments in his power for the purpose. These tribal rights were not the same in all parts of New Zealand, and the Natives them-

  1577
  selves did not agree as to their extent. When, therefore, the noble Lord said it would be better to concede the whole, he forgot that by concession to one party they would be depriving another of privileges and advantages which they possessed. The whole question of tribal rights was most delicate, intricate, and difficult, and it should be recollected that Sir George Grey expressed an opinion, expressed by others before him, that it was most desirable some tribunal should be constituted on the spot which should decide upon them. He had stated before, and he repeated now, that the great obstacle to the constitution of such a tribunal had always been the indisposition of the Natives to submit their claims to such an arbietment. There was a greater tendency now, perhaps, among the Natives to accept such a tribunal; but, at the same time, it was doubtful whether the Natives would greatly benefit by such an arrangement, because the power of the Crown, reserved by the Constitution, had always been exercised in their favour, and a tribunal bound to give its decisions according to dry law could not make that convenient concession to the prejudice of the Crown which the Crown itself had been in the habit of doing. However, he read in the last despatches of Colonel Gore Browne, that, in anticipation of a greater readiness on the part of the Natives, he had consulted the Judges of the colony, in order to see if some plan could not be devised for the establishment of such a tribunal. The noble Lord asked what instructions had been given to Sir George Grey. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had sent instructions to him on the 5th of June, and again on the 26th of the same month on these questions, but more especially bearing on the Native Council Bill, which had been passed by the local Legislature, and had not received the sanction of the Crown. His noble Friend would see that in the peculiar position in which Sir George Grey was placed it was most desirable that he should not give full details of those instructions. When Sir George Grey was appointed on the 5th of June he was at the Cape of Good Hope. He received instructions to proceed to New Zealand with the greatest possible despatch, and would, no doubt, leave the Cape and proceed to New Zealand as quickly as possible. If he were now to state what wore the instructions which he had sent out to Sir George Grey, the report of this statement would reach New Zealand be-
  1578
  fore Sir George Grey, and that would obviously be placing him in a very unfair position. At the same time, he did not disguise the fact that, though he had given Sir George Grey general instructions, he had not given him any specific instructions. He had expressed opinions, but subject entirely to Sir George Grey's discretion in the application of them. In appointing a man like Sir George Grey it was not fair to him to hamper him with definite instructions, seeing that the circumstances under which they were given might have changed entirely before the time came to put them into action. He had, therefore, left a larger discretion to Sir George Grey than he should have left to any other Governor under different circumstances. As to the expenses of the war, he had stated previous to the breaking out of the war that he had come to an arrangement with the Legislature that the colony of New Zealand should pay £5 per head for every soldier retained by the Imperial Government in the colony, and that the colony should also pay the expenses of the Militia and Volunteer force. The Colonial Government had also borrowed money from the commissariat chest without any arrangement for repayment, and he had told the Governor that all payment for the local forces must be defrayed by the colony itself, and if money were advanced for the war, it must be under a guarantee that it would be repaid. He had received a despatch from the colony, stating that that arrangement had been agreed to. He could not disguise from the House his belief that the expenses of a war conducted as this had been must be paid in a large proportion by the mother country; but he had every reason to believe that the expenses of this war would be borne in a larger proportion by the colony than had been the case in any previous war of the kind. He could not agree with his noble Friend that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to lay down some definite rule as to the proportion of military expenditure which should be borne by the colonies in time of peace. The circumstances of the colonies differed very much, some required a larger military expenditure, others a smaller; some were rich, and others comparatively poor, and there was this further difficulty, that having given self-government to most of our colonies, the arrangements would have to be made in conjunction with the Legislatures. The only way in which any definite rule could be laid

  1579
  down would be by saying to a colony, "You must either pay for these troops or we will withdraw them," and he had not made up his mind that such a course would be prudent or advisable with regard to our great colonies. He had not seen the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, but, considering the difficulty of laying down any definite rule, he was not surprised to hear that they had left the matter very much where they had found it. He did not mean to say that considerable reductions might not be made in our colonial military expenditure, but if our colonial empire was worth preserving we must not act rashly, nor without full consideration of the local circumstances of each colony.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

  COMMONS' REASONS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise, my Lords, in the hope I shall be able to show good reasons why your Lordships should concur in the course the House of Commons has adopted with regard to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill. Your Lordships are aware that the House of Commons has attached great value to this measure; and, with some few and inconsiderable exceptions, it has disagreed to the alterations made in it by this House. Your Lordships made very great and extensive changes in this measure, and I have no doubt that powerful reasons can be given in support of those alterations. But I deeply regret that we are not aware of those reasons. In the House of Commons this measure was debated in the face of the public, that watched the course of the debate from day to day; it took great interest in the proceedings of the Committee, and those who took part in the argument received from time to time from the public out of doors very valuable suggestions with regard to the alterations made; the House of Commons sent this Bill up to your Lordships as the fruit of that full discussion. And I regret deeply, though I do not presume to censure, the course your Lordships thought proper to take with regard to it. You took this Bill upstairs into a Select Committee, and for reasons we know not you altered almost entirely its character and effect. I repeat again, I know not why or where-
  1580
  fore these alterations were made; and the course your Lordships adopted has excited surprise as well as regret, because in the House of Commons the support given to the Bill was almost unanimous. From the Gentlemen who sit on what is called the Opposition side of the House I received the most generous and sincere support. In fact, if I wanted to carry any portion of the Bill that had excited discussion I was almost sure to receive the support of those Gentlemen who generally act with the noble Earl who may be called the head of Her Majesty's Opposition. But I was very much surprised by the difference between the opinions of those Members of the House of Commons and those who lead the Opposition in this House. And, it will be admitted, there was reason for this surprise, because I never heard that great party charged with want of unity in its course of action. How was it that the Bill received the cordial support of the Conservatives in the House of Commons, and rejection and condemnation from the Conservatives in the House of Lords? When it was sent down again to the House of Commons it was most desirable that the course to be adopted should be one altogether free from party influence. The alterations were debated on their own merits, and the result has been that upon the first series of Amendments—those relating to the constitution of the Court—a large majority uninfluenced by party motives has altogether departed from the views taken by this House. In reconsidering the question, I will venture to hope that your Lordships will bring to the discussion minds uninfluenced by anything but a wish to secure a proper administration of justice. I should be sorry if a question so great and so important as the administration of justice should be influenced by political feelings. If your Lordships believe that the administration of justice does not require this measure, you ought to reject it; but if you determine to reject it merely because you are bidden to do so; if you are gathered together at a season of the year when it is not usual to see so large a number of Peers on the Opposition benches to pronounce judgment on a measure that has never been debated in this House, then I should come to the conclusion that your Lordships have decided on other grounds than regard for the administration of justice. My Lords, I have observed with some pain the altered tone and language of some Members

  1581
  of the House of Commons with regard to this measure—of some who formerly acted with me with the utmost cordiality. I have found with pain that some of those who agreed with me have been obliged to adopt language which, while it shows there is no alteration in their real opinions, proves that something has led them to abandon the sentiments they previously professed. Let me give an example. I was encouraged by the support of such men as the Members for the University of Cambridge, and the Solicitor General to the late Government. ["Oh, oh!"] Surely, my Lords, there is no impropriety in speaking of what has taken place in the discussions on this subject. Those right hon. Gentlemen admitted the absolute necessity of this measure. And let me also remind your Lordships that I was indebted for the idea of appointing a Chief Judge of the Court to the Attorney General of the late Government. The Chief Judgeship is an idea not of the present Government, but of the past. It was the law officers of the Administration of the noble Earl who first introduced this as a necessary measure, though I am afraid the noble Earl is likely to be insensible to the paternity. But I was adverting to the change of language on this question in the House of Commons. Those who formerly concurred with the measure now say they think it better to wait till the next Session, and try the Bill in its present form. Well now, my Lords, I am about to ask your Lordships to pass on with me to the consideration of those topics which have been relied on in the discussion of this measure. Of course, I am unaware of what took place in the Select Committee of your Lordships' House; but I will advert to the principal grounds on which your Lordships' objections are understood to have been based, and I ask your indulgence while I do so, as this is the first time that those points have been discussed in this House. First, I must observe that, in the short public discussions which took place when the Bill was before your Lordships, the proposal to appoint a Chief Judge was designated by one or perhaps more of your Lordships as "a job." If it is a job it is one to be imputed to me alone. I arrived at the conclusion to which my noble and learned Friend to whom I have already adverted had previously come as to the necessity of having a head to this tribunal. Her Majesty's Government adopted my suggestion on the subject; but I must entirely disclaim having been in-
  1582
  fluenced in that conclusion by any other consideration whatever than that such a head was absolutely necessary for the proper administration of the law. It is undoubtedly true—and I will confess it to the noble Earl—that I did meditate a little bit of political delinquency against him, because, my Lords, you are aware that the administration of justice in Bankruptcy had been always united to the administration of justice in Chancery; and, therefore, if the Government had to make a selection for this office there was a probability of their being obliged to go to the ranks of the supporters of the noble Earl. It was thus brought to my mind that I was labouring for the benefit of the noble Earl, though probably I should be compelled to deprive him of one of his political supporters. This proposition of the Bill has been objected to on the ground that it entailed an unnecessary expense. I could, my Lords, go into details, and show you that this measure will result in a saving to the public; but I do not think that the question of expense is one on which any solid argument can be founded, and I shall, therefore, pass from this preliminary consideration—only observing that the five Commissioners of Bankrupts who receive salaries amounting to £10,000 a year, that there are Commissioners of the Insolvent Courts, and official assignees, the whole of whom will be either at once or gradually abolished; and that the saving in official salaries will be £12,000 or £15,000 a year, while the whole charge thrown upon the Consolidated Fund will be a single £5,000 a year. I shall, with your Lordships' permission, make a short statement with reference to the present system, and then explain to you why this change has been introduced—why some change is necessary—and what are the means by which we propose to effect the desirable alterations. My Lords, from a very early period the complaint respecting the Bankruptcy Court has been one directed against the mode of administering justice, and not against the rules themselves. The rules of administration are exceedingly simple; but the mode of administering justice has always been found most difficult, or, at all events, has been constantly subject to much complaint. I think the great difficulty in the administration of justice in Bankruptcy hitherto has been the complete confusion between the administrative and the judicial duties. They have been confounded; there has been no

  1583
  provision for their distinction and separation; and the result has been that the judicial part has been performed in an unsatisfactory manner, and that the administrative part has been also performed with a less amount of prudence and skill than ordinary commercial intelligence, if applied to the subject, would secure. From the earliest times to about thirty years ago the administration of the Bankruptcy law throughout the country was carried on by seventy Commissioners, who were ordinarily called "the Lord Chancellor's Septuagint." It had been found utterly impossible to submit that system to any effective control, and it was broken up by my noble and learned Friend Lord Brougham in 1831. Changes have been, made since then, and under the existing system there are several Commissioners, but they are without any controlling head. Each exercises a separate and independent jurisdiction and pronounces his own orders, and each comprehends in himself administrative and judicial functions. The result is this—that if you go into the Court of a Commissioner you will perhaps find a meeting of creditors going on, and at the same time the Commissioner is transacting something approaching to judicial business. There is no effective control over the Commissioner—no controlling power to which an appeal may be made speedily and economically for the purpose of setting at rest the numerous questions that will arise in so large a field as the administration of Bankruptcy and Insolvency. That is one of the evils which suggested the necessity of efficiently controlling all those tribunals till it was possible to substitute for them a uniform administration of justice in one single Judge, who should combine dignity, rank, and that satisfaction which the Judges of England give to the people when justice is meted out by persons filling high stations. That is one of the first evils which it is desirable to suppress by the appointment of this Judge, whose functions are intended to be of a threefold character. First, he is to superintend all the administrative part of the business; and then he is to exercise a jurisdiction of a double character—partly original and partly appellate. In the superintendence of the administrative business questions constantly arise—with regard to the collection and distribution of the property of bankrupts—on which a speedy and satisfactory decision is highly desirable. What we desire is to unite simplicity and uni-
  1584
  formity. Questions arising in all parts of the country will be brought before this Judge without any of the forms usually required in courts of justice; and at an expense of a few shillings an immediate decision will be had on the question which the parties may wish to have determined. All who are conversant with the mode in which the great mass of the ordinary business is transacted, both in the courts of law and equity, are aware that it is performed by a Judge in chambers. It is done most competently, most efficiently, and most cheaply. But it can easily be believed that in the whole of England, throughout an area where so many bankruptcies and insolvencies occur, cases will perpetually arise which cannot be satisfactorily settled by a single Commissioner —who, by the way, is hardly ever at his office, except on state occasions. But these will be settled by establishing a tribunal in London to which there will be constant reference; and this tribunal is only to be attained by the appointment of a Judge with rank and duties such as are described in the provisions of this Bill. One of the great evils incident to our administration of the law of bankruptcy has been that the Court was always one of limited jurisdiction, exercising power only among the creditors themselves. Its jurisdiction was such that it could not avail itself of the ordinary appliances of justice. For example, a Bankruptcy Court or a Bankruptcy Judge had no power of acting against any person who was a stranger to the suit. He had no power of trying a question by means of a jury, nor had he any power of administering justice upon any of the principles or rights of a court of equity. This was a great evil which manifested itself in this way. Questions continually arose which the Judge found himself unable to determine; to-day he was obliged to send parties to a court of law, and to-morrow to a court of equity. Suitors, or rather creditors in bankruptcy, being brought within a limited forum, were compelled to have recourse to other tribunals to obtain that justice and determination which the Bankruptcy Court itself was not competent to give. In the preparation of this Bill I accordingly directed my attention to rendering the Court of Bankruptcy self-sufficient. I armed it with all the powers exercised either by courts of law or equity; and those who come into it for relief will no longer be danced about and sent at one time to one

  1585
  side of Westminster Hall, and at another to a different side of Westminster Hall; but the Court itself, possessing all the requisite powers, will be enabled to administer justice finally, fully, and without seeking the aid of any ancillary tribunal. But this could not be accomplished without putting at the head of the Court a Judge equal in rank, dignity, and standing, in experience and education, to any of the Judges of the courts of law or equity; and that is another great object which I desire to accomplish by this Bill; for your Lordships are all sufficiently versed in the state of the law to know that we in England suffer under evils which have grown up from the fact that a great portion of justice is administered by one tribunal, and another equal or larger portion of justice is administered by another; the two tribunals being frequently antagonistic and opposed to each other—so that, in point of fact, justice is constantly elaborated by a system of counter processes. This anomalous state of the law would speedily bring it into discredit if it were not that in this country the manner in which justice is administered is so satisfactory that it atones for a great part of the evils of the system. These are the evils and these the mischievous operations which I desire to remedy by this Bill; but it is impossible that I can remove them unless I put at the head of the new jurisdiction a Judge equal to its conduct in every particular. I would fain hope that on fuller acquaintance with the provisions of this Bill your Lordships will support them, because I feel assured that if you had known and understood them you never would have been parties to depriving England of the benefit that would result from the establishment, for the first time in this country, of an all-sufficient tribunal that would be able to administer justice in all its branches, and would set the example of a Court competent to discharge its duty without dancing the suitor to and fro to enable him to get a fragment of justice in one place and another fragment elsewhere. We come, in the next place, to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. Remember that you have scattered over the country a great variety of local tribunals and local Judges, charged with the duty of administering this law of bankruptcy each within a limited area. Is it not desirable to establish with regard to them the efficient superintendence of a centralauthority,
  1586
  which by its rightful exercise of power, shall secure uniformity of principle, unity in the administration of justice, and consistency and care in every part of the system? And that is the function with which the Judge will be invested in his character of an appellate tribunal. Your Lordships, perhaps, will pardon me if I transgress the ordinary rules in referring to proceedings in Committee, but I have been informed that the Judge was then regarded merely in his character of an appellate Judge. The Committee was told—no doubt by very great authority—that the existing tribunals sufficed abundantly for all the exigencies of appeal, and that a Judge invested with such functions would be a perfect superfluity. If that was the ground on which the Committee proceeded, I am not surprised at their Report; but I am greatly surprised that even in ordinary perusal of this Bill should not have conveyed to the least technically-informed mind on the Committee conclusions utterly at variance with the limited view taken of the functions of the Judge. But I am not afraid of perilling this measure by putting it again on the question of the necessity of a Judge of appeal. This Bill, for the first time, throws down the wall of partition that has grown up or been established either by accident or by design, or by that which has originated so much in our jurisprudence, per incuriam, between the administration of the law of bankruptcy for the trader and of insolvency for the non-trader. I stay not to explain the reasons why that partition should no longer exist—you have determined both in this and the other House of Parliament that it shall not do so. But what is the consequence? You add to the Court of Bankruptcy more than double its antecedent jurisdiction. For years past the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy has not very much exceeded 1,000 commissions or fiats annually. The petitions in the Insolvent Debtors' Court amount to considerably more than 2,000 per annum. Therefore, in considering the exigencies for an appellate tribunal, and the duties which will belong to it, it would be the most idle thing in the world to proceed, as I am told, with great respect, the Committee of the House did, upon the statement of what the number of appeals in bankruptcy has hitherto been. But it does not stop here. The practical operation of the evil administration of the law of bankruptcy, the result of the cumbrous

  1587
  system which was established originally, afterwards reproduced in 1831, and again reproduced with slight alterations in 1848, has been to drive the Queen's subjects out of her courts and to compel the people of this country to abandon the legal highway of public justice, and to seek relief in byroads of administration by which they may get that which they cannot obtain in the courts of the Sovereign. And the practical result has been that, by reason of your having an unsatisfactory law of bankruptcy, the private administrations of insolvent estates have multiplied to such an extent that they now exceed in number by more than ten times the ordinary commissions of bankruptcy. While for many years the commissions of bankruptcy—I use the old phrase—have scarcely exceeded in number 1,000 or 1,100 per annum, the number of compositions with creditors, assignments for the benefit of creditors, and inspectorship deeds has averaged annually between 10,000 and 11,000. Can anything be a more complete proof of the unsatisfactory administration of the bankrupt law than the fact that people prefer private arrangement to public administration? Because these private arrangements are carried on at great disadvantage. In the present state of the law if any question arose under one of these deeds, there is no relief for the party except by a suit in Chancery; and although I am bound to say that relief is now obtained in that Court at a much less expense than formerly, yet a suit for the benefit of a number of persons interested in a trust deed is still a proceeding attended with much delay and necessarily with much expense. Yet, notwithstanding all these evils, the country has for years preferred this imperfect justice to that which was obtainable in the Queen's Court of Bankruptcy. One of the objects of this Bill is to distribute to the country the stream of law and equity in bankruptcy in the same manner in which they obtain it from the other Courts in Westminster Hall; and accordingly it compels all persons interested under these trust deeds to resort to the Court of Bankruptcy, and it gives them power to go to the Chief Judge with the same facility and readiness—and even with more than the same facility and readiness—with which an individual would go to his solicitor or his counsel, and to have determined promptly and economically any question which may arise in the administration of property under
  1588
  these deeds. Now, every noble Lord will at once observe that after enlarging the jurisdiction of this Court, first, by pouring into it all the business now done by the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and then adding to it all the enormous mass of property rights, trusts, and engagements which are dealt with in the 10,000 or 11,000 trust deeds which are annually manufactured, you will, in point of fact, have a Court crammed with business, instead of, as now, one which is deserted and neglected, and which is visited only by those who are compelled to resort to it to expose some fraud or to overcome some difficulty in the administration of an estate. How does this bear upon the appellate jurisdiction? In this way:—First of all the Judge will be the first person consulted to solve all questions which arise under these trustees, and in the next all such questions, when decided elsewhere, will, if necessary, come before him in his appellate capacity. Is it possible for any noble Lord to doubt the necessity of having such a head, or will it be possible any longer to listen to the suggestion which has been made that the present appellate tribunal in bankruptcy is perfectly equal to all that will be required? I think I have shown to all who have listened to me that it would be most fallacious to derive arguments from the business now transacted by the Court of Bankruptcy, and to apply them to the extended area which will belong to the tribunal constituted by this Bill. It has been repeatedly mentioned that some persons who are engaged in trade in different places have expressed an opinion that the present tribunal of appeal in bankruptcy is equal to the exigencies of the case; and in a petition signed by certain merchants of Manchester I find it is said—
  "That your petitioners are of opinion that the appointment of a Chief Judge would be a useless expenditure of public money. The Lords Justices discharge their duties in a satisfactory manner, and have ample time at their disposal."
  Yet the very gentlemen who signed that document presented an earlier petition, in which they said—
  "With a view to the amendment of the Bankruptcy Law your petitioners consider that the strength and character of the Courts ought to be improved, and that uniformity in the administration of the law ought to be secured."
  How are you to improve the standing of the Judge, except as this Bill proposes? How are you to secure uniformity in the

  1589
  administration of justice except by establishing a culminating point to which all these petty tribunals may at once yield? I listen to the opinion of mercantile men with great respect and attention when it is expressed with reference to evils of which they are sensible, or to matters connected with the more ready collection, management, and conversion of estates; but matters of legislation and of the administration of justice belong to legislators and not to merchants; they belong to men who have spent their lives in courts of justice and in the examination of their procedure—and I cannot for a moment imagine that the opinions of commercial men upon questions of that nature will hare the weight with your Lordships which would deservedly attach to them upon matters within their experience and the extent of their proper observations. These are the principal objects which it is proposed to effect by the Bill with regard to the enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Court; but in the enumeration of the objects of the Bill I have omitted one of the most important. There is nothing which has for a long period of time caused greater reproach to the administration of the bankrupt law, or more injuriously affected the commercial interests of the kingdom, than the manner in which a bankrupt's conduct as a trader has been examined and the principles which have been applied to his discharge from his liabilities. I am sorry to say that there have been exhibited in England during the last few years instances of looseness of commercial morality which it has been painful to witness, and which have been most injurious to the credit of the community. A great number of these have been brought to light through the instrumentality of the Courts of Bankruptcy, but I am sorry to say that the Courts of Bankruptcy as at present constituted have differed from each other in a most wonderful manner as to the punishment which ought to be applied to this delinquency when discovered. Some years ago your Lordships attended to this subject, and those who framed the Bill which then became law, thought that they had made a useful discovery in classifying bankrupt debtors, and dividing them according to their certificates into three classes. A certificate of the first-class evidences that the bankruptcy was due to unforeseen circumstances alone. The second class includes those cases in which bank-ruptcy has been caused partly by unfore-
  1590
  seen accidents and partly by improvidence; and the third class those in which bankruptcy has been entirely owing to the bankrupt's own want of providence and improper conduct of his business. Now, my Lords, I would wish, with all humility, to impress on your mind that it is very little matter what rules you lay down, unless you provide corresponding machinery that shall insure the efficient administration of those rules according to the spirit in which they have been conceived. I would recall to your memory the old saw which asserts as a general principle that "whatever is best administered is best." The application of the rules as to classification has been left to a number of Commissioners, who differ so greatly in the estimation of commercial delinquency that where one would award a first-class certificate another would refuse a certificate altogether. Upon an analysis which I presented to the other House it was shown that in 100 cases one Commissioner had given 13 first-class certificates, where another had given 50 or 60. The consequence is that the classification in bankruptcy has been frittered away in its application until it has become useless and absurd. I desire to restore its efficacy by establishing one head and one hand to administer the rules, and to give uniformity and consistency to their application. Accordingly this Bill proposes that in all cases of disputed discharge, which form the great proportion of the cases of appeal, the Chief Judge should be immediately resorted to, and should determine the extent to which the bankrupt is entitled to a discharge, and the measure of delinquency which is to be stamped upon him. Moreover, there is, as your Lordships are aware, a different rule with regard to future property in cases of insolvency and of bankruptcy. When a man is discharged in the Insolvent Debtors' Court his future property is left liable to his creditors, while in the Bankruptcy Court, as a general rule, a bankrupt's future property is not exposed to the same liability. In throwing down that distinction it appeared right to the House of Commons, and your Lordships have concurred, to give to the tribunal that granted the discharge the power of determining, where the circumstances required it, that the future property of the bankrupt, although discharged, should still be liable. That is a very grave discretionary power, I and ought only to be intrusted to a Judge

  1591
  of high position and authority. That is one of the points on which I am sanguine enough to hope that the provisions of the Bill will be a great improvement of the present law. But that hope is completely strangled and destroyed by your refusal to acknowledge the hand by which alone these benefits can be secured. We have been told, apparently on authority, that the tribunal of the Lords Justices is adequate to all exigencies of the appellate jurisdiction. I venture to say that there are no Judges who are more fully or more advantageously employed at this moment than the Lords Justices; and it is impossible, without materially interfering with their utility, to add anything to the burdens which they already have to bear. The extent of the appellate tribunal in this House compels the Lord Chancellor to be here about five days in every week, except when Parliament is not sitting, and during that period it is of course impossible for him to attend in the Court of Chancery. A great part of the administration of the appellate tribunal in Chancery consequently devolves on the Lords Justices. A great addition of business also has lately fallen on the Privy Council. The Lords Justices sit in the Privy Council a great number of days in the year, and I feel assured that the business of that Court will go on increasing, and that the demands which will be made in that respect on the Lords Justices will thus be yearly augmented. Those who profess that the Lords Justices are sufficient for the work must know perfectly well that they will be sufficient only till next March or April, when perhaps they hope to see a change of circumstances which may alter their view. I maintain that the Lords Justices have not time, or anything like time, to discharge the appellate jurisdiction constituted by this Bill. There may be some few cases in which appeals will still go from the Chief Judge to the Lords Justices, but the control and superintendence of the subordinate officers and the great mass of the appellate business will be borne by the former. I hope, if this Bill passes, that the public administration of the business of the Bankruptcy Court will be placed on the same footing as the administration of probate and divorce, which is now discharged by a single Judge, with the aid of registrars throughout the country; it is a tribunal which works with the utmost effect and simplicity, and the cost of the Court, I am happy to say, is not a fifteenth or sixteenth part
  1592
  of the old testamentary jurisdiction. It is my hope that to introduce a similar simplicity of jurisdiction into bankruptcy; and accordingly power is taken in the Bill not to fill up the vacancies which may occur among the Commissioners of Bankrupts; and there are many other topics, my Lords, to which I would willingly refer, but I must not trespass too long upon your kind and patient attention. I venture to think that no one will read this Bill and observe its working without concurring with me in acknowledging the necessity of the appointment of a Chief Judge. Therefore, in an earnest desire to promote the sacred interests of truth and justice, I humbly request you to agree with the House of Commons in their rejection of your Amendments, as far as they relate to the appointment of a Chief Judge. I believe that by so doing you will most effectually promote the great cause of reform in the administration of justice in this country. The noble and learned Lord then moved, not to insist on the Amendments made by this House relating to the Office, Powers, and Duties of the Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy, to which the Commons have disagreed.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, there was one part of the able speech of his noble and learned Friend in which he fully concurred, and that was the part in which his noble and learned Friend expressed his regret that this was the first time the question had been discussed in their Lordships' House; but he could not agree that this circumstance was attributable to those who considered the creation of a Chief Judge unnecessary. When the Bill was read a second time, he gave his late lamented Friend who then occupied the Woolsack distinct warning that he considered the appointment of a Chief Judge unnecessary and mischievous, and that he should oppose that part of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) regretted that the discussion on this measure should have taken place in what he called a Secret Committee. It was in a Select Committee, which in that sense was a Secret Committee. But why was the Bill sent to a Select Committee? He (Lord Cranworth) pointed out to his late lamented Friend so many objections on points not, perhaps separately of great importance, but absolutely necessary to be corrected, that it was impossible to deal with them in a Committee of the Whole House, and his late noble Friend con-

  1593
  curred in its being referred to a Select Committee, but expressly stated that it should be open to any Member to oppose any alterations when the Bill came to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. When the Bill was before their Lordships again, he expected to hear from his late noble and lamented Friend the reasons upon which the proposal to appoint a Chief Judge was made; but they only heard him say that he was satisfied that without a Chief Judge the Bill could not work. Whose fault, then, was it that they were now driven to discuss the propriety of their most important feature of the Bill in the most inconvenient mode of objecting to Amendments by the other House? Certainly it was not the fault of those who raised objections to the proposal, but of those who never condescended to give the reasons which induced them to propose it at a more legitimate stage of the Bill. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had stated a great number of abstract propositions from which no one dissented. No one doubted that it was important that justice should be uniformly administered, or that Parliament would not grudge the cost of a Chief Judge. But what he complained J of was that his noble and learned Friend had given the go-by to the real question, which was whether the enactments of the Bill pointed out any necessity for the officer whom it proposed to appoint. No one could come to a correct conclusion who did not bear in mind what the duties administered in bankruptcy were, and how this Bill proposed to deal with them? What did the statement that a man had become bankrupt mean? That a person was I in debt, and that he had committed an overt act of insolvency. Those points established the law took possession of his property, and distributed it rateably among his creditors. In order to make a man bankrupt it must be proved that the person making him a bankrupt was a creditor, and that he had committed an act of bankruptcy. It was a simple proceeding, and the machinery by which it was now effected consisted of five Commissioners in London and seven or eight in the most populous places in the country. If the person against whom proceedings were taken disputed the adjudication, the matter was investigated; but in a very large proportion of cases he was adjudged bankrupt. Generally the proceedings were of a merely formal character; and indeed that was the
  1594
  view of the noble and learned Lord who anticipated that the greater part of the future proceedings in bankruptcy would be taken before the registrars. All his property then became vested in a public officer; and then came the tug of war. The claims of persons to be creditors were investigated in undisputed cases before the registrar, and in disputed cases before the Commissioner. The question whether a man was a creditor or not did not depend on any peculiar law conected with bankruptcy, but on the ordinary law of the land. The list of creditors having been settled, the property of the bankrupt was got in, and distribution was made rateably among his creditors. Those were the simple functions which the Commissioners had to discharge, and to state gravely that the gentlemen who at present held those appointments were incapable of performing such duties seemed to him to be drawing upon the credulity of their Lordships to an extent hardly conceivable. He need not name the present Commissioners, but among them he could point out men who for integrity, honour, and knowledge of law stood as high in the estimation of the profession as any functionary that could be selected. Lord Brougham, in 1831, constituted a Chief Judge and three pusine Judges as a Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Commissioners. His noble and learned Friend had been sneered at for having created a tribunal which was unnecessary, but he thought his noble and learned Friend was at that time well justified in supposing that a great deal of business would come to the Court of Review. The appeals in bankruptcy used to be from the old Commissioners to the Lord Chancellor, and in Lord Eldon's day a large portion of the time of the Lord Chancellor was occupied with bankruptcy questions. But by a superior class of Commissioners being appointed, and by amendments in the law, which took away four-fifths of the subject matter of litigation, the Court of Review had really nothing to do. The consequence was that the Court fell to the ground, and in 1847 the whole business was transferred to one of the Vice-Chancellors, and in 1851 to the Lords Justices, and from that time to the present that system prevailed. The complaint which he had originally made when the Bill was introduced was that it did not at the outset define the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge. His jurisdiction had to be picked out from the various clauses of

  1595
  the Bill. It was very easy to state generalities and truisms about Courts of Appeal and the necessity of keeping Judges in uniformity; but what the House wished to have explained to it was what the Judge had to do, and how the duties placed upon him would carry out those generalities. There was an old adage—"Dolus latet in generalibus," and without accusing his noble and learned Friend of being dolosus, he did accuse him of having misled their Lordships in his zeal for the Bill by not condescending to particulars. He had looked through the Bill carefully several times with a view of ascertaining what the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge was. With regard, first, to his original jurisdiction, Clause 18 gave him power to review bills of costs; Clause 43 gave him power to regulate certain payments made for coals, stationery, &c.; and Clause 52 transferred to him certain powers to make general orders and regulations. By Clause 60 he was enabled, along with the Commissioner, to assign uncontested business to the administration of the Registrars; and Clause 61 gave the parties in those uncontested proceedings liberty to take his opinion on any point which might arise in the course of them. Clause 63 gave him power to order any person who might refuse to answer before the Registrar to pay the costs; and Clause 64 enabled the parties to any proceeding by agreement to take his opinion at any stage by submitting a special case. With regard to Clauses 67 and 68 persons who were actuated by a feeling of hostility towards the Bill might almost say that they had been introduced for the purpose of making it appear to the public that something had been done, when, in fact, nothing was done. They gave power to the Chief Judge to try issues by a jury; but he was perfectly certain that such a power never would be used. When the Court of Review was established he remembered Sir George Rose saying that the power of trying by jury never would be used, for there were no questions which required to be solved by a jury. In order that there might be no doubt on the point, he (Lord Cranworth) had written to Mr. Erskine to ask him what number of issues had been tried by a jury during the seven he years had presided in the Court, and his answer was that he believed that three had been tried, or set down for trial, but only one had ended in a verdict. Passing on to Clause 99 it merely gave authority to
  1596
  transfer certain cases from the Chief Judge to other courts. Clause 112 referred to the provisions that enabled pauper insolvents to be adjudicated bankrupts. Clause 142 was more important; it provided, in case of any dispute between the creditors and assignee, or creditors and a trustee, that the question in dispute might be referred to the Chief Judge. A similar power now exists of referring to a Commissioner. But, in fact, there had been very few such references, as such questions did not arise. The 164th Clause gave the Chief Judge the power of refusing or suspending orders of discharge, or in other words of giving or refusing the certificate. But that was not a new proposition, there was a similar provision in the 229th section of the old Bankruptcy Act, though he admitted that this clause went further in this respect than the old Act, and was so far an improvement. That was a new jurisdiction and an important one; but it was for their Lordships to say whether it was important enough to render the appointment of a Chief Judge necessary. In the country this jurisdiction was entrusted to the Commissioners alone. Were they such superior men that the same functions could not be given to the London Commissioners? Even by this Bill this power in many cases was given to the Judges of the County Courts. Could it, then, be said that this function rendered a Chief Judge necessary? No doubt it was proper that this power should be entrusted to the Chief Judge, supposing it to be conceded that a Chief Judge was necessary. But nothing appeared in the Bill which showed it to be necessary that a high legal functionary ranking with the Judges of the land should be appointed to perform the functions he had pointed out, and which were at present executed by functionaries of a lower rank. Besides, he would appeal to his noble and learned Friends to say whether anything was said in the Committee of these different functions that were to render a Chief Judge necessary. All that was said was that he would be more accessible as a Judge of Appeal than the Lords Justices.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that there would still remain many cases that would go to the Chief Judge.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that was the way in which they had been misled. They had been led to suppose that nothing would go to the Chief Judge but appeals from the Commissioners. Where was the clause

  1597
  which took away the power of appealing from the Commissioners to the Lords Justices? Noble Lords who were on the Committee would correct him if he was wrong in stating that the question had been put several times, and that the answer had been that there was no intention to take that appeal away. The jurisdiction of the Lords Justices in those cases was now existing, and could not be taken away without express words. It had, however, been urged that the Chief Judge would be more accessible—that appeals would be brought before him readily and cheaply. He would take the liberty of pointing out to their Lordships that appeals now came before the Lords Justices by "motion, petition, or special cause," and those were the very words introduced into this Bill. in reference to appeals to the Chief Judge. How, then, was it proposed to make appeals come before the Chief Judge more readily and in a cheaper manner than they now did before the Lords Justices? Surely it could not be intended to frame a different scale of fees for the Chief Judge's Court of Appeal to induce suitors to give it the preference. Many persons, however, I believe most, would prefer to have the decision of the Lords Justices to that of the Chief Judge, and they would still have the power of carrying their cases before them. He did not doubt that appeals might be heard more rapidly by the Chief Judge, for he feared that that learned functionary would have nothing to do. If their Lordships were anxious to constitute a functionary who should have nothing to do but hear imaginary appeals there might be a very good reason for appointing this Chief Judge. A Return presented to their Lordships showed that in a space of between thirteen and fourteen years, since 1847, the Lords Justices had heard bankruptcy appeals on 215 days, or about fifteen days in each year. But their Lordships must not imagine that the whole of those fifteen days were spent in the discharge of that duty. It often happened that two or three of those appeals were put at the head of the paper, and that, when they were disposed of, the Lords Justices proceeded to other business. But, even supposing that the whole fifteen days were, spent in hearing these appeals, surely they would not want another Judge for that. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack said that the Lords Justices were fully occupied. He admitted it; but they get through the whole of their business
  1598
  —including the bankruptcy appeals— within the year. He now submitted to their Lordships that a constitutional question of the gravest importance was raised; by the 23rd Clause, and the interpretation which his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack put on that clause. If the object of that clause was to give power to the Government, having regard to the state of business in the Court, not to fill up vacancies, it was a very proper one; but if it was meant that, not having regard to the state of business, the Government should have the power of not filling up the vacancies, with the view of creating another form of tribunal—namely, a Chief Judge without Commissioners — then he said that the power was not one which it was proper to vest in any authority save the Legislature. On the present occasion he was only taking the course which he had intimated to his noble and learned Friend the late Lord Chancellor that he would follow in respect to this Bill. He believed that the appointment of the Chief Judge was not necessary; and that not being necessary it was objectionable and mischievous. He could assure his noble and learned Friend that his only object was to act in this matter according to his honest convictions, and in every law reform his noble and learned Friend might rest assured that he would find no more cordial supporter than himself.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, no one can for a moment question the motive which has actuated my noble and learned Friend in the admirable speech which he has just delivered; and, my Lords, I feel gratified that my noble and learned Friend has pursued the course which he has, because, I think, it furnishes a most complete refutation to the insinuation of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that the opposition to this Bill was on political grounds. My noble and learned Friend has also endeavoured to insinuate that even the Committee which decided this question was improperly biassed in the division to which they came, and he has stigmatized the Committee by calling it a "Secret Committee," with very considerable emphasis. Now, my Lords, I must say for that Committee that, though the majority of the noble Lords who composed it were supporters of the Government, I believe there was not a Member of it who did not try to perform his duty faithfully, and make the Bill as perfect and complete as it could be made, and

  1599
  who did not give his undivided attention to this important subject. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has desired particularly to know what were the grounds which influenced the Select Committee in coming to the conclusion against the establishment of a Chief Judge. I think the unanswerable speech of my noble and learned Friend who has just spoken will gratify his curiosity. My noble and learned Friend, by his dissection of all the clauses of the Bill, has so completely exposed the groundlessness of the principle on which it is alleged the Chief Judge ought to be established, that I do not wonder that no noble Lord who disagrees with him has risen to reply to his argument, but that they have rather chosen to have the answer—if answer there can be given—to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. My noble and learned Friend, in a tone which we have been unaccustomed to hear, insinuated that in consequence of the decision of the Select Committee, the votes in the other House have been influenced, and that Members of that House who had given their support to him have been induced to change their opinions; and my noble and learned Friend, complimenting those who had supported him generally, stated that the suggestion of the Chief Judge came from an hon. and learned Member who was Attorney General under the late Government. I do not think my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) or any one of his Government is answerable for the opinions entertained on the subject of bankruptcy by my hon. and learned Friend Sir FitzRoy Kelly. The Government of my noble Friend brought in a Bill in the year 1859; but that Bill makes no provision for a Chief Judge, nor for any alteration in the existing establishment. My noble and learned Friend has addressed your Lordships with considerable ingenuity and ability. He naturally feels great solicitude for his own offspring, for it has been the result of long and painful labour. My noble and learned Friend will see nothing but symmetry in its limbs, and is displeased if anybody can discover anything like deformity or irregularity in them. But, as he has laid his offspring at the door of the public, we must be excused if we examine it a little before we determine whether it is worth taking up and adopting. The question you are called on to determine is, not whether the present system ought to be abolished, and in its place a high Court established, with a
  1600
  Judge exercising important judicial functions, and with subordinate functionaries, to whom administrative duties alone are to be given. That was partially, at least, the scheme of my noble and learned Friend during the last Session of Parliament, because he then introduced a Bill into the House of Commons by which he proposed to get rid of the London Commissioners altogether, and to establish in their place a Chief Judge. But the question is this—are you of opinion that, retaining the present system, you should superadd a Judge of high rank and with large salary, to perform duties which, I will satisfy your Lordships, are now adequately and efficiently performed by those to whom they are intrusted? In looking at these subjects a very narrow view is often taken. We are apt to look at things round us, and to forget those which are far off. We turn our attention exclusively to the London district, and we omit from our recollection the fact that there are such places as Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and other great commercial towns, where trade is carried on as extensively, where bankruptcies are as numerous, and where the estates to be distributed are as large as in the Metropolis. I am very much disposed to agree with my noble and learned Friend that matters in bankruptcy are not of such importance as to require the intervention of a functionary of this description, and that proceedings in that Court ought not to be so dignified. I stated on a former occasion that of the bankruptcies which take place annually 85 per cent are estates under £1,000, and the great majority are estates of less than £300. The duties of this great Judge, therefore, will be confined, in the first place, to 15 per cent of the bankruptcies in the metropolitan district only—for the cases throughout the country will derive no benefit from the "dignity" of the Judge, on which the Mercantile Law Amendment Society lay such stress. The other functionaries in different parts of England must shine with their own dim light, for they will not have the slightest lustre reflected upon them from the rays of the dignity of the metropolitan Court. Both my noble and learned Friend and the House of Commons in the Reasons which they give for adhering to their own opinion say that it is most desirable to establish consistency and uniformity of decision. To accomplish so desirable an end there is no necessary sacrifice which ought to be refused.

  1601
  It could be accomplished in one of two ways—either by vesting the jurisdiction in a single person, or by an appellate tribunal checking and controlling the proceedings of a multiplicity of Judges. From the Reasons assigned by the House of Commons any one not informed on the subject would believe that this was the first time that a court of appeal had been suggested. But it is stated that there is already a most admirable court of appeal, which performs its duties most satisfactorily and efficiently. It is impossible to praise too highly the character and ability of the Lords Justices, who practically form the court of appeal, whose powers it is proposed to transfer to the new Judge. My noble and learned Friend says they are overburdened with work, and that they will be unable to perform, not merely their new, but their present duties. With regard to their attendance at the Privy Council my noble and learned Friend knows that the time which they devote to that part of their business is the very time at which the Court of Chancery is not sitting. Nor is he more correct in saying that they have no time to give to the duties of a court of appeal in Bankruptcy. I take last year as an illustration, and I find that the forty-two cases which constituted the whole of the business in that Court were settled in the course of fifteen days. It has been said that there is delay; but, in my opinion, it is merely imaginary. No delay was ever complained of—ever suggested—till it became necessary to establish some ground for transferring their jurisdiction to the new functionary. If any delay has taken place it has been, I believe, on the part of the suitor, and not of the Judge. Whether it be a petition, motion, or special case, if it is put down on Monday or Tuesday, it will be heard on the Friday following. Another ground on which the change is advocated is the costliness of appeal. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General stated that it would be impossible any appeal could take place from the Lords Justices at a cost of less than £60. That amount rather startled me; but I should like to know how it will be in the slightest degree diminished by any of the provisions of this Bill. Nay, it appears to me extremely probable that the expense will be very considerably increased. There may be an appeal to the Chief Judge, and there may also be an appeal from his ruling to the court of appeal in Chancery, providing the Judge gives
  1602
  permission for that appeal to take place. I do not know who is the Great Unknown on this occasion. From something which fell from my noble and learned Friend I am led to suppose that he has desired not to commit the Government to a hasty choice; but that he has some one in his mind whom he appeared to be considering in the course of his speech. But for a considerable time the Chief Judge, whoever he may be, will not be likely to have the experience of the present London Commissioners, and if he has the becoming diffidence which I expect he will have, and the feeling which every Judge ought to have, that in doubtful cases his decision should not be final, he will not, when reversing the decisions of the Commissioners, refuse the parties permission to appeal; and thus, instead of diminishing the cost of appeals, you will probably double it, because in many cases there will be a double appeal. My noble and learned Friend admits that the existing business is not sufficient to justify the appointment of a Chief Judge; but he says that insolvency and bankruptcy are to be united, and that there will be such an influx of business arising from that union that it will be quite impossible for the Lords Justices to get rid of it. I believe that that supposition is as imaginary as many others with which he has favoured your Lordships. The insolvent business is, as regards value, generally of a very insignificant character. Very few insolvencies would bear the expense of an appeal, and we who have had experience in courts of justice know that there is very little encouragement to enter an appeal when there are no funds to maintain it. But let us suppose—and it is a good deal to suppose—that this union of the two kinds of business will double the number of appeals; that, instead of there being forty-two appeals in a year, there will be eighty-four, and instead of fifteen days being required for disposing of them thirty will be needed—is any case made out for appointing a new Judge to discharge these duties? My noble and learned Friend felt this difficulty, and he, therefore, cast about to see how he could find some original jurisdiction to be exercised by him. I remember that when we were in Committee my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Cranworth) asked the late Lord Chancellor to define what would be the duties of the Chief Judge. The noble and learned Lord did not give any satisfactory explanation; but, quoting

  1603
  the words of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, he said that the Judge was the keystone of the arch; upon which I ventured to say to some one near me that £5,000 a year was a great deal to pay for a metaphor. Let us come now to this general jurisdiction. My noble and learned Friend opposite has so completely anatomized the provisions of the Bill upon this subject that it is unnecessary for me to go through the different clauses. I may state generally that the only exclusive original jurisdiction which the Chief Judge is to exercise is that with respect to opposed discharges of bankrupts, and the reason given for confiding to him this jurisdiction is that it is desirable to obtain uniformity of decision. It is said that there is great contradiction in the opinions of the Commissioners, and it is for the sake of getting rid of their contradictory decisions that the Chief Judge is to be invested with this original jurisdiction. There is a great deal of misapprehension, not to say misrepresentation, with regard to the contrariety of the decisions of the Commissioners. There is no conflict whatever in their decisions founded on the Bankruptcy law‐the contrariety has arisen only in the decisions upon applications for certificates. There are three classes of certificates, and the class of certificate which a bankrupt receives depends upon the view which the Commissioner takes of his conduct. There is no settled or fixed principle involved in that. One Commissioner may take a sterner and another a more lenient view of the conduct of a bankrupt, and no principle is violated. But, with regard to all the great principles of law which enter into questions of bankruptcy, such as those relating to reputed ownership, fraudulent preferences, and so on, there have been no contradictory decisions. But how will the appointment of a Chief Judge get rid of contradiction in the measure of commercial morality in various cases? The 164th section of this Bill points out so clearly that he who runs may read what are the grounds upon which the Commissioner or Judge is to proceed with regard to granting, suspending, or refusing orders of discharge; and it is impossible that there can be any mistake except with regard to the facts which constitute the particular courses of conduct which are pointed out by the section. The clause enacts that the Judge shall give the order unless he finds that the bankrupt has been living extravagantly; incurring debts without a
  1604
  prospect of paying them; falsifying books, or things of that kind. Is not that as much as can be provided for uniformity, and how can the Judge fix any uniform settled principles on which the orders shall proceed?—because every case must turn upon its own facts. Why are not the Commissioners, who are men of the greatest experience, competent to be intrusted with the performance of these simple duties? So much for the uniformity which is to be obtained within the metropolitan district by the appointment of the Chief Judge. But how is uniformity to be secured with regard to the decisions of the nine country Commissioners, and the sixty County Court Judges? Is it not trifling with the House to pretend that this is the ground on which you will establish a new Judge with this high salary? As to the power to be given to the new Judge to try issues of fact, my noble and learned Friend opposite has pointed out very justly that a question of fact is not likely to arise within his jurisdiction once in ten years. The questions which occur in bankruptcy are generally between persons over whom the Court has no jurisdiction—such questions, I mean, as fraudulent references, disputed ownership, and so on, which must be decided, as at present, by the courts of law. In fact, this is only another of the points on which a great parade has been made of the duties to be performed by the new Judge in order to justify his appointment and make people believe it is absolutely necessary. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack spoke of the enormous influx of deeds of arrangement to be expected under the Bill; but I think his argument in that respect was somewhat inconsistent. He pointed to the frequency of deeds of arrangement as a proof that the present Court of Bankruptcy is unpopular; and yet he inserts clauses in the Bill for the express purpose of inviting creditors and bankrupts to effect deeds of arrangement. My own opinion is that these clauses are the most valuable in the Bill, for I am satisfied that such deeds are the very best mode which can be resorted to for the purpose of arranging the affairs of a bankrupt in the first instance. I would have your Lordships observe, also, that it is only deeds of arrangement within the metropolitan district which will fall within the province of the Chief Judge, for the Commissioners are to exercise the same authority in the country. Again, the circumstance that the new Judge is

  1605
  to sit in chambers has been made a great deal of without much reason. I very much doubt whether it will prove so satisfactory an arrangement as has been represented. The Commissioners are joined with the Chief Judge in these sittings, and I should suppose would be able to dispose of the business without him. There are many other points upon which I would like to touch, but the clock warns me not to exhaust your Lordships' patience. I have endeavoured to distinguish as far as I could the appellate and the original jurisdiction of the Chief Judge. I have shown in regard to the first that there is no necessity for the creation of a new Judge to discharge the duties, as they are most efficiently and satisfactorily performed by the present court of appeal, and as there is not the slightest chance of any increase of business arising which the Lords Justices could not overtake. I have also shown that the original jurisdiction is nothing but a pretence for making a new appointment; that the business can be done perfectly well by the five Commissioners; and that the idea of procuring by those means greater uniformity of decision than at present is a delusion. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will adhere to the Amendments which you have introduced on the subject—and which were agreed to in the Select Committee without a division—and spare the public purse the expense of this most unnecessary appointment.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that lie entirely concurred in the views that had been expressed by his noble and learned Friend. The law of bankruptcy required no great amount of legal learning, and he really did not see, therefore, what necessity there was for a Judge of the rank and with the salary proposed by the Bill as it originally stood. This particular question had been very carefully considered by the Committee, which was composed of noble Lords of all shades of politics, who were animated, in his opinion, by only one desire, namely, to pass a measure which should lead to the proper administration of justice in regard to bankruptcy. That Committee had thought fit to make this Amendment, and he had heard nothing which tended in any degree to shake his opinion that the decision of the Committee was a sound one. He was surprised that, after what had passed in Committee, his noble and learned Friend should persist in opposing the Amendments which had been made in the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, the kind attention which your Lordships gave me at the outset would be most ungratefully repaid if I were to trespass on you long in reply, and yet I must beg your attention for a few moments. I have listened with great attention and with all the respect which is due to the two noble and learned Lords who spoke after me. I regret deeply that I was unable to hear one word of my noble and learned Friend who spoke last. I say so not for the purpose of exciting a laugh, but to express my sincere regret that I am not able to advert to his observations. But I am indebted to the two noble and learned Lords who spoke before him for a great discovery—namely, how your Lordships' Select Committee arrived at their conclusion; for now I see perfectly that, if they had no further information before them as to the contents of the Bill than the knowledge of the subject, and of the subject of bankruptcy generally, which has been exhibited by my two noble and learned Friends, I have no right to be at all surprised at that conclusion; and when I consider the irresistible effect of the witticisms with which their lucubrations ended, I may assume that in the Committee solvuntur tabulœ risu, and so the Chief Judge was dismissed. I beg your Lordships to follow me one moment while I justify the observation, which if I had time I would redeem to the letter, that from beginning to end not one word is correct of all you have heard from these two noble and learned Lords. First, I will take the last observation of the noble and learned Lord who spoke last but one. He talked of deeds of arrangement as if it were desired that they should be excluded by this Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: I said, on the contrary, that you encourage them by the Bill.
  THE LOKR CHANCELLOR: They are encouraged by this Bill, and so the noble and learned Lord said; but he seemed to think that because you encouraged them they would not supply material for the occupation of the Chief Judge. Now, they will supply most abundant material, and they will supply it in this way—that all questions arising under them will have to be disposed of by the Chief Judge, and if one question for judical decision arises in twenty deeds, with 10,500 deeds there must be several hundred questions to come annually before the Chief Judge. Then, in the next place, my noble and learned

  1607
  Friend and his coadjutors were very eloquent on the subject of the costs of appeal. My noble and learned Friend on my right thought he had discovered a very great failure in the Bill in its leaving the possibility of appeals to the Lords Justices, and he told us that he asked in Committee how that was met, but got no answer. I am very sorry that my noble and learned Friend should not have read the Bill, as it might have superseded the necessity of asking the question. If my noble and learned Friend had only condescended to inform himself how the appeal court was vested in the Lords Justices—how it was originally created by the Consolidation Act, and transferred to the Lords Justices—and if he had looked at the schedule and observed that the clause in the Consolidation Act was repealed, he need never have asked with wondering anxiety to find an answer to the objection that appeals to the Lords Justices were continued. The sections of the Act giving the right of appeal, which was ultimately transferred to the Lords Justices, are repealed by the Bill.
  LORD CRANWORTH: The Act which transferred the jurisdiction is not alluded to in the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That only shows my noble and learned Friend's want of apprehension. The Act to which he has alluded is an Act transferring an existing jurisdiction; the Act which is repealed is the Act which created the jurisdiction so transferred, and if the jurisdiction which is transferred is repealed, nothing is left upon which the transfer can operate. My noble and learned Friend talked a great deal about the costs of appeal, and wondered how the Bill would effectuate any diminution of that expense. Does the noble and learned Lord know what constitute the principal costs of appeal? I apprehend not. But I will tell him. The great cost of appeals is produced in this way—that before the Lords Justices new evidence is received Parties come before the Lords Justices with a mass of new affidavits; these affidavits create new issues; and in that way the cost of appeals is indefinitely augmented If he had condescended first to read the Bill he would have found a section which enacts specifically that on the hearing of appeals before the Chief Judge no new matter shall be received without leave of the Chief Judge; and if he had looked into the evidence given before the Commission which sat in 1854, he would have found the evi-
  1608
  dence of two of the most extensive practitioners in bankruptcy, and whose names may be seen every day in the newspapers. Those two gentlemen, whose names are Mr. Lawrance and Mr. Linklater, concur in pointing out the evils of the present system, and they state that the present form of appeal to the Lords Justices amounts to a denial of justice. Had he not better have been a little more informed upon the subject before he ventured on these criticisms? This only shows an utter want of understanding the subject; and this is the way your Lordships are brought here. ["Order, order!"] I do not know why exception should be taken to that statement. Do not noble Lords attend here out of anxiety on the subject? You do, and therefore I am quite sure you will give me your ears, and decide not on any antecedent instructions, but according to what in your consciences you believe the interests of justice require. I will turn again to what is much more acceptable—the exposure of the errors which I find have been made. The expenses of the appeals, according to the evidence which I have quoted to you, are so great as to amount, in fact, to a denial of justice, but I have struck at the root of the evil by laying down as a principle that no new evidence shall be received, and I have so regulated the appeal that I expect that the expenses of the appeal will not amount to more than one-tenth of what they are at present. My noble and learned Friend who spoke last but one (Lord Chelmsford) said that I had represented the Lords Justices as not having time for their present work. But I said no such thing. What I said was that they would not have time for the additional work which would be cast upon them by the augmentation of the business of the Bankruptcy Court which would be produced by this Bill. My noble and learned Friend, who spoke immediately after me (Lord Cranworth), went through the Bill, picking out here and there various administrative functions of the Chief Judge, which he seemed to wish to represent to be those for which alone the Chief Judge had been created: but it is quite evident that when the jurisdiction of the Court is enlarged as I have described, the functions of the Judge will also be enlarged to the same extent. The whole Court, in fact, emanates from him, and it is he who regulates all its proceedings. My noble and learned Friend spoke of the absurdity of trying questions of

  1609
  fact in the Bankruptcy Court, and referred to former experience; but he forgets that at that time of day the jurisdiction of the Court was limited. Observe how this appeal to the Chief Judge will work. An estate is brought into the Court, creditors come in and assert that the bankrupt is indebted to them; then questions arise as to the extent of the debt, the constitution of the debt, and the present liability—all these are points which at present are decided by the Commissioners, because the bankrupt will not incur the expense of an appeal, but which the Chief Judge under this Bill will at once decide.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: In London only.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, and in the country, too. If I had only had half an hour's conversation with the noble Earl over the Table of that Select Committee, I will lay my life that I could have converted him to my opinion. I will pay that tribute to the noble Earl's legal knowledge, to his apprehension, and to his candour. Suppose, now, that a creditor has a claim against a debtor of £500 or £600; the dividend, say, is not more than 4s. or 5s. in the pound, which brings the sum he has to receive to some £150 or £160. Suppose his claim is rejected by the Commissioner. The expenses of an appeal are about £60 aside, according to the evidence of the gentleman I mentioned before, and a creditor, therefore, will naturally think it a very unwise thing to buy a ticket in the lottery of litigation at the certain expense of £60. Though there may be a mistake made by the Commissioner, it cannot be set right without the creditors having to pay the expenses. Quicquid delirunt reges—the Commissioner being the reges here—plectuntur Achivi—the suitors are mulcted. But under this Bill if a Commissioner—in the country say—rejects a proof, the creditor may send his affidavit up to London by the same night's post, and a few shillings will probably suffice to set right the error committed by the Court below. Have my two noble and learned Friends ever attended the proceedings in bankruptcy? I will just give your Lordships another instance of the inconsiderate manner in which the Select Committee dealt with this Bill. There was a provision in this Bill originally that the Court below should employ a shorthand writer. Without a shorthand writer, when evidence is taken before a
  1610
  Court in London or the country, the examination is taken down, question and answer, by the clerk; and not only is the process of examination dragged out to an indefinite extent, but nothing like cross-examination is possible. Whenever your Lordships sit here judicially, you employ a shorthand writer; but though the practice is recommended by your usage the Select Committee struck the clause out of the Bill. I am obliged to speak strongly on these points, because I have a very strong opinion in regard to them. I have no object to serve in the establishment of this Chief Judge—indeed, what object should I have? My noble and learned Friend said that I had occupied myself with generalities. What I endeavoured to do was to give your Lordships accurately the facts and statistics on which my conclusions were founded. My noble and learned Friend who spoke second in this debate seemed to be under a very erroneous impression as to the amount of duty which would have to be performed by the Chief Judge. Surely he cannot be aware of the number of suits in Chancery arising out of bankruptcy cases; nor that one of the two Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, which is to be swept away by this Bill, sat for 150 days in a single year, while the other Commissioner sat for a very considerable number of days to despatch a large amount of business. I shall not trespass further on your Lordships' attention, but leave the matter entirely in your hands. The first question which I think it will be expedient to put to your Lordships for your decision, if it meets with your approbation, will be whether you will insist on your Amendments relating to the office, duties, and power of the Chief Judge. I believe that will be the most convenient form of putting the question, because it will comprehend a whole class of Amendments in one Vote.
  LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, before the Question is put I claim the indulgence of your Lordships while I briefly explain. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has brought against me what, as affecting one who has occupied the position now filled by the noble and learned Lord, was certainly a grave charge — namely, that I had attempted to mislead your Lordships on the important question, whether there did or did not exist an appeal to the Lords Justices. The noble and learned Lord referred to the enact-

  1611
  ments originally creating the appellate jurisdiction, and also to those which transferred that jurisdiction to the Lords Justices, and he then stated, as a proposition of law, that inasmuch as the clauses in the first Act were repealed by the schedule to the present Bill the jurisdiction vested in the Lords Justices by the subsequent Act was also repealed. If that had been the state of the law I should have incorrectly represented the result. In this House we are always in the habit of looking to the occupant of the Woolsack as pre-eminently the authority to declare to us what the law is. Now, I say that that would not in point of law have been the effect, even if the clauses in the original Act had been repealed. But, as a matter of fact, neither the clauses in the original Act nor those in the subsequent Act are touched by the schedule. I must, therefore, venture, in answer to the reproof which the noble and learned Lord, in not very courteous language addressed to me, to say that he was neither correct in his law, nor accurate in his facts.
  On Question, "Whether to insist? their Lordships divided:—Contents 80; Not-Contents 46. Majority 34.

  CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Romney, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Tankerville, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Ailsa, M.

  Dungannon, V.

  Bath, M.

  Exmouth, V.

  Exeter, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Normanby, M.

  Lifford, V.

  Salisbury, M.

  Melville, V.

  Winchester, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Berners, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Boston, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Derby, E.

  Churston, L.

  Devon, E.

  Colchester, L.

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

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Congleton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Denman, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Orkney, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Pomfret, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Powis, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Raglan, L.

  St. John of Bletsoe, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Tenterden, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wensleydale, L.

  Wynford, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Belper, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Carew, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Sutherland, D.

  De Tabley, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Bristol, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Airlie, E.

  Fortescue, L. (V. Ebrington.)

  Caithness, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Slenton.)

  Cowper, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Harris, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Manners, L.

  Granville, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Minto, E.

  Saint German's, E.

  Portman, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Rossie, L.(L. Kinnaird.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Sandys, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Torrington, V. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Carlisle, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Their Lordships' Amendments relating to the Chief Judge were, therefore, adhered to.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the next class of Amendments referred to the official assignees and the creditors' assignees. With the permission of their Lordships, he would, without detaining them with any further argument, put the next Motion in a similar form to the last.
  Then it was moved not to insist on the Amendments relating to Office and Duties of the Official and Creditors' Assignees, to which the Commons have disagreed.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, it was not his intention to divide their Lordships on this point. It was one of eminent importance to the commercial community; but one on which opinion was more divided than any other. Some desired that the official assignee should have absolute con-

  1613
  trol over the administration of the bankrupt's estate; others that the creditors' assignee should be allowed a very considerable authority over it. The official assignees were first appointed by the Bill of Lord Brougham in 1831; and when originally appointed they were officers of great importance. He believed that for many years their time was principally occupied in making creditors' assignees refund the money they had received. He believed that the official assignee would have been popular had it not been that they were paid by a percentage on the value of the estates, and this, of course, was a heavy charge on the assets. The consequence was a desire to give the creditors' assignees increased powers. He had given much consideration to this matter; and he had come to the conclusion that it was desirable, as much as possible, to facilitate arrangements out of Court. That was done by this Bill. But when parties were brought into the Bankrupt Court he thought it necessary there should be some controlling authority. There was a strong opinion in the mercantile world in favour of the creditors' assignee; and the Bill was originally framed according to that view. At present when a person was declared bankrupt, the whole of the estate vested in the official assignee, who at once commenced the collection of the assets. That duty, he believed, the official assignees had discharged most faithfully. But by the Bill it was proposed to take away a considerable part of the duty they had to perform, and to give the creditors' assignees more power than they possessed at present. The mode resorted to was this—when a creditors' assignee was appointed the estate originally vested in the official assignee became vested in the creditors' and the official assignee jointly. It was now proposed that the estate vested in the official assignee at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy, when the creditors' assignee is appointed shall become vested in the creditors' assignee solely. There would be considerable inconvenience in this bandying about of the bankrupt estate, and some of the clauses, he thought, could not possibly work. As to the provision that the creditors' assignee, when appointed, should "forthwith" make a return of the debts and assets of the estate, to make a balance-sheet of a large concern might require weeks, or even months; and to enable the assignee to begin to collect the debts at the same time it would be neces-
  1614
  sary to have two sets of books, one for the creditors, the other for the official assignee. This was impossible. He thought the official assignee should be the principal administrator of the bankrupt's estate; but opinion was divided on the point, and he did not think the question was so completely settled as to justify them in resisting the desire of the House of Commons by insisting on their own Amendments.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought their Lordships would agree with him that the most prudent course in reference to a Bill relating to the interests of the public, would be to leave the question to the decision of the trading community itself. The official assignee was introduced into the administration of the bankrupt law in order to secure the proper realization and distribution of the assets. That remedy, however, went beyond what was necessary. The proper function of the official assignee, in his opinion, was to act as an auditor and check on the creditors' assignee's accounts. As to the appellate jurisdiction, by the 75th Clause it was provided that if no appeal were presented within twenty-eight days from the date of the decision of the Court, such decision or order should be considered to be final; but the clause regarding appeal depended upon the enactment in Clause 244, which declared that all Acts, or parts of Acts, inconsistent with the above provision should be repealed.
  LORD CRANWORTH: I am at issue with my noble and learned Friend, and say that the existing appeal is not repealed by those clauses.
  On Question, Whether to insist?
  Resolved in the Negative.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the 118th Clause of the original Bill gave a discretion to a majority of the creditors as to whether anything or nothing should be allowed to the bankrupt out of his estate until he passed his last examination. This power their Lordships had amended, giving this power to the Court. The Commons, however, had rejected their Lordships' Amendment. He thought it would be unfair to leave the bankrupt so completely at the mercy of his creditors, who might be influenced by angry feelings towards him, to deprive him of the smallest means of support.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the property belonged to the creditors, and not to the bankrupt. It was, therefore, only fair

  1615
  that they should have the option in this matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that this matter were better left to the creditors.
  Then it was moved not to insist on the remaining Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, there was one Amendment on which he thought their Lordships should insist. One of the effects of this Bill was to abolish the distinction which had hitherto existed between traders and non-traders. He did not want to go into a discussion on the propriety of establishing such a principle as that, but he wished to direct their Lordships' attention to what might occur if the clause stood as it had left the Commons. In abolishing this distinction their Lordships had introduced a qualification which he thought a very just one. Immediately on the declaration of bankruptcy, the whole estate of the bankrupt was to be sold. Their Lordships' Amendment provided that the reversionary interests of the son of a tenant for life should not be sold without the consent of the Judge. It was evident that the greatest hardship would be worked by a strict application of the rule. The value of such a reversion had been valued by actuaries at no more than two and a half years' purchase.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, these interests were at present saleable in the Insolvent Court. But he was willing to agree, if it would meet the objection of his noble and learned Friend, that the sale of the reversionary interest ought not to take place without the consent of the Judge.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaw no objection to the proposed modification, but doubted whether it was competent to their Lordships to amend a clause which they had already sent down to the House of Commons, and which was objected to by them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the provisions of the Bill would be found to be sufficient as they stood.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEobjected to the clause permitting the employment of a shorthand writer.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the employment of a shorthand writer would in many cases be found both convenient and economical. Shorthand writers were employed when their Lordships were sitting on judicial business, and with-
  1616
  out their assistance cross-examination would be difficult—almost impossible.
  On Question, Whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORinformed their Lordships that the Bill had come from the House of Commons with some additional Amendments which had been made by that House. Those Amendments were all of them, he thought, either verbal or in harmony with the Amendments which had been made by their Lordships.
  Then it was moved to agree to the additional Amendments made by the Commons.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DERBYbelived that, according to the forms of the House, it was necessary that a Committee should be appointed to prepare a statement of the Reasons why their Lordships insisted on their Amendments, and moved accordingly.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments to the said Bill to which the Commons disagree; the Committee to meet on Monday next, at half-past Four o'clock.

  PAROCHIAL AND BURGH SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbegged to repeat what he stated on the last occasion, that the Bill was a compromise, and if either of the two Amendments which had been suggested were agreed to, he should feel himself compelled to abandon it altogether. The salaries of schoolmasters in Scotland were notoriously insufficient, and there was no provision for their retirement. There was a nominal discipline, but the powers of the authorities were practically nugatory. On the whole he admitted that the education of the country had been tolerably satisfactory; but it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the changed circumstances of the times. The amount of religious division had unhappily become such that it was impossible to procure the assent of the other House to the alterations which were required, unless the schools gave up something of their exclusive character. The compromise which had been agreed upon was to abolish the exclusive test, but to retain a declaration which was in conformity with the opinions of all the Pres-

  1617
  byterian bodies in Scotland. His noble Friend (the Earl of Minto) said that this was only giving up one test for the sake of substituting another. Formerly, the test consisted in signing the Confession of Faith, which contained articles on the subject of civil government; whereas the Shorter Catechism which was to be substituted for it was a purely religious document. His noble Friend seemed to argue that if they had a test at all, the more absurd it was made the better, and on that ground he preferred the old test to the new one. Perhaps that was the meaning of his noble Friend; but he felt certain that their Lordships would prefer a test that was as moderate and reasonable as possible. What was now proposed was merely that the schoolmaster should sign a declaration that he was willing to give moral and religious education in conformity with the Shorter Catechism, a document which was received by almost every ecclesiastical body in Scotland except the Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians. The measure was generally approved by the heritors, on whom the increased taxation would fall. It must be recollected that an extensive system of schools in connection with the Privy Council had sprung up; and as these were in many cases better than the national schools, they were running them very hard, and, in some cases, beating them on their own ground; but he appealed to their Lordships to pass a Bill which would tend to put a stop to a rivalry so wasteful and so absurd.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  LORD KINNAIRDshould like to know how the compromise referred to by the noble Duke had been brought about. The truth was, Members of the other House had been threatened with a more stringent measure unless they agreed to the present. He denied also the noble Duke's assertion that the heritors were in favour of the measure. It was said that the House of Commons would not agree to any Bill which did not destroy the Church of Scotland. But they had never been tried. His own opinion was that the present Government with the aid of the party opposite could carry a very different measure. He (Lord Kinnaird) was not a member of the Church of Scotland, but of the Church of England; and he thought that members of the latter body ought not to stand by and see an attempt like the present made upon a sister Establishment.
  THE EARL OF MINTOmoved an Amendment, to leave out from ("the") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("shorter catechism, referred to in the Bill, be laid upon the Table of the House.")
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it might endanger the progress of the measure.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
  Then the Original Motion was agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Parochial Schoolmasters not to be required to sign Confessions of Faith or Formula, but to make a Declaration and to undertake to conform to the Shorter Catechism),
  THE EARL OF MINTOmoved to omit the new Declaration.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLopposed the Amendment; and, after some discussion,
  Amendment negatived.
  On Question, Whether the said Clause shall stand Part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 37; Not-Contents 28: Majority 9.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past
  One o'clock, A.M., to Monday
  next, Eleven o'clock.