Sitting of 12 March 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Disgavelling of Lands.
THE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any arrangements have been proposed to the New Zealand Government as to the proportion of the expense of the present Native War which is to be charged on the Colonial Treasury; and, whether there has been such an offer made as that the expenses of whatever local Militia may be raised should become a charge on the Colonial Treasury, but that all expenses incurred by the employment of British Troops should be borne by the Imperial Treasury?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,in reply, said, that no arrangement of the kind on the subject of the distribution of the expenses of the war had been made by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonial Department, with the Government of New Zealand. The despatch of the necessary forces was not made dependent upon any such arrangement. It would be utterly impossible to come to such an arrangement in the present stage of the proceedings. His noble Friend had taken the opportunity of conveying to the Government of New Zealand his repudiation of the idea contained in certain expressions which had come from that country, that the whole expenses of the war should fall on the Imperial Government. He also instructed the Governor to refuse to issue from the Commissariat Chest any further contribution to the expenses of the local force, except upon the condition of its repayment by the Colonial Government.

  THE ADMIRALTY.—SIR BALDWIN WALKER.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he wished to observe, in explanation of the question of which he had given notice on the paper respecting Sir Baldwin Walker, that Lisbon was within four hours' telegraphing distance from London, that at that moment there were several men-of-war, some of them very fast vessels, lying idle in the Tagus, that Madeira was within easy reach from Lisbon, the passage required being

  1797
  easily performed by a fast vessel within seventy hours, that vessels going to the Cape of Good Hope were in the habit of almost invariably touching at Madeira on their way out, and that, as Sir Baldwin Walker was reported by Her Majesty's ship Penguin to be off the Eddystone that day (Tuesday) week, he believed that if the Admiralty had not already acted on this suggestion there would be even now every probability, owing to the blowing and boisterous weather that we had experienced, and to anxiety to save fuel at the beginning of such a long voyage, that Sir Baldwin Walker would be intercepted. He, therefore, wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in reference to the search for Sir Baldwin Walker, Whether the Admiralty have telegraphed, or intend to telegraph to our Minister at Lisbon to send a fast ship from the Tagus to Madeira, in order to intercept the Narcissus when she calls there?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member, he had to state that the Admiralty had not telegraphed, nor did they intend to telegraph to our Minister at Lisbon to send a fast ship from Lisbon to Madeira to intercept the Narcissus, because they had no reason to believe the Narcissus would touch at Madeira.

WORKHOUSE OFFICERS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. LANIGANsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention of introducing (this Session) any Bill authorizing the Poor Law Commissioners to grant compensation to Workhouse officers who, having spent the best portion of their lives in the Public Service, may become, from old age or other causes, unable to discharge their duties?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the subject of compensation to retired Poor Law Officers in Ireland was one well worthy of consideration, and he had no doubt it would be well considered by the Committee on the Administration of the Irish Poor Law.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Commission on the Newfoundland Fisheries have pre-
  1798
  sented their Report, and whether any recent Correspondence affecting the settlement of this question has taken place between the Governments of England and France?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Commission on the Newfoundland Fisheries made their Report in August, 1859, and in March, 1860, a gentleman was sent to Paris with a view to his coming to some arrangement with the French Government on the subject. He stayed in Paris some time, and came to an arrangement with that Government, which had been all but completed, but there were two points upon which a difference prevailed. In November, Her Majesty's Government made a proposition to the French Government in regard to those two subjects, and they had not yet received an answer.

  IMPRISONMENT OF ENGLISHMEN IN NAPLES.—QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he rose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information of the liberation from confinement of five Englishmen, followers of Garibaldi, who had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment for stealing some fowls, by the Neapolitan Government, after they had been pardoned by Garibaldi himself.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the men had not been imprisoned for two years. [Mr. EDWIN JAMES: But they were sentenced.] They were sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He had inquired and found that they had been sentenced for pillaging and plundering. He was informed that all the five had been liberated, and that four of them had left Naples.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to move a Resolution, of which he had given notice, in the following words:—
  "That it is the opinion of this House that, immediately after the publication of the Census of the present year, it will he the duty of this House to lose no further time in giving such complete effect to the Act of the last reign, whereby reforms were made in the Representative system, as shall carry out the subsequent recommendations of the Crown, and fulfil the just expectations of the people."
  He wished, however, to ask the permission of the House to make an alteration

  1799
  in the Resolution as it stood on the paper. He proposed to omit the first clause, and the Resolution would then stand as follows:—
  "That it is the duty of this House to lose no further time in giving such complete effect to the Act of the last reign, whereby reforms were made in the representative system, as shall carry out the subsequent recommendations of the Crown, and fulfil the just expectations of the people."
  He had done that because he understood that some misconception existed, and that it was thought, if the Resolution were passed as it originally stood, it would interfere with the progress of two Bills which were before the House—one for extending the franchise in boroughs to houses of £6 by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, and the other for reducing the franchise to £10 in counties by his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey. Now his object was not to obstruct, but if possible to expedite, those Bills. He had, therefore, made the alteration. He begged to thank the two hon. Gentlemen for having introduced those Bills, and as far as his humble endeavours went, they might be commanded to assist in bringing the measures to a triumphant issue. When the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) introduced his Reform Bill last year he (Mr. Duncombe) took the liberty of predicting that it would create no very great enthusiasm throughout the country, and he also stated that he did not think the country would be inconsolable at its loss. Those predictions had been verified; but he must confess that he did not expect the subject of Reform was to be altogether abandoned. But at that moment it was at least indefinitely postponed; for it would be remembered that in the debate on the Address the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), when he was found fault with for not having promised a measure of Reform, twitted the House for not accepting his little miserable Bill of last year. Why, it was the fault of the Bill itself that it was not accepted. But the noble Lord went further. He not only twitted them with not accepting his Bill but snapped his fingers in their faces, and congratulated himself and complimented them on being satisfied with the Act of 1832. The noble Lord knew such was not the fact. He (Mr. Duncombe) would say that the question of Reform was in an unsatisfactory position; nay, he would say more—the position of the question was most humiliating to Reformers; it was discreditable to the Government, disrespect-
  1800
  ful to the Sovereign, and most insulting to the people. Then, if that were so, he thought something should be done for the credit of Reformers. So far from being satisfied with what the noble Lord called his Act—but which was no more the Act of the noble Lord than it was his—so far from being satisfied with that Act he (Mr. Duncombe) might state that within two years after its passing he, for one, submitted several Motions to the House to the effect that the Act was not sufficiently comprehensive. And it had now come to that point that the whole spirit of the Act had completely evaporated. What with ratepaying clauses and the complex machinery of registration, and what with the ingenuity of parties, the country had gone back in point of fact to the old plain, straightforward, unblushing, dishonest system of nomination which previously to the passing of the Act was prevalent at such places as Gatton and Old Sarum. Indeed, now some of the counties were no better than nomination boroughs. Well, then, how could the noble Lord suppose that Reformers could be or would be satisfied with the Act of 1832? It was perfectly true that this Parliament was not called together for the purpose of discussing a Reform Bill. It was the House of Commons of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). The Earl of Derby dissolved the then Parliament, and appealed to the country, and to do justice to the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), in his address to his constituents he said nothing about Reform; on the contrary, the whole subject was dropped, and he said merely that two Administrations had been unable to command the confidence of the country, and he called upon the country to comprehend the evil and to apply the remedy. The way they applied the remedy was by returning to that House a majority—a small one certainly—which enabled it to declare against the Earl of Derby's Government, and the noble Lord the present Prime Minister of the Crown then came in on the distinct understanding that they were to introduce a measure of Reform. Well, what was the first step after that? Several Bills on the subject of Reform were proposed by private Members, and leave was given to bring them in. He himself introduced one on registration, making it quarterly instead of annual. They were, however, asked not to proceed any further with those Bills,

  1801
  as the Government pledged themselves in the following year to introduce a Bill on the subject of the representation. The House was told now that it was inconvenient to pledge themselves to anything like Reform. Why the Government in 1859 pledged themselves, and the Bills which had been introduced by private Members were withdrawn on that understanding. He would next show that the conduct of the Government on this question was disrespectful to the Sovereign and insulting to the people. In 1852 the House of Commons agreed to an Address in which they
  "Thanked Her Majesty for the expression of Her opinion that this is a fitting time for calmly considering whether it might not be advisable to make such Amendments in the Act of the late reign, relating to the representation of the Commons in Parliament, as might be calculated to carry into complete effect the principles upon which that Act was founded."
  Now that was eight years ago. He asked what had been done? In 1854 what did they do? What was the pledge given by the Government then? In the speech from the Throne Her Majesty said—
  "Measures will be submitted to you for the amendment of the laws relating to the representation of the Commons in Parliament. Recent experience has shown that it is necessary to take all effectual precautions against the evils of bribery and corrupt practices at elections. It will be also your duty to consider whether more complete effect cannot be given to the principles of the Act of the late reign, whereby every just cause of complaint in the state of the representation of the people may be removed."
  That was in 1854. He asked had they removed "every just cause of complaint in the state of the representation of the people?" Then they came to 1860. And they then begged
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that measures will be laid upon the table for amending the laws which relate to the representation of the people in Parliament, and for placing that representative system upon a broader and firmer basis, and to assure Her Majesty that we will give our best consideration to that important subject."
  Now, he again asked, was the position of the Reform question satisfactory as regarded the Throne, and the expression of thanks which they had offered to the Throne for the consideration which the Throne had promised to give the subject? He repeated it was disrespectful to the Throne and insulting to the people. And who was responsible for that state of things? Why, nobody more than the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. And then this year, after all the declarations by
  1802
  this Whig Minister in favour of a reform of our representative institutions, not one word was said on the subject in the speech from the Throne. There were two ways of omitting so important a matter. When the leaders of parties proposed to make changes in their policy it was usual to call their adherents together and explain the reasons on which they acted. The least the noble Viscount could have done was to call his supporters together and tell them why Reform was to be altogether omitted from the Queen's Speech. Instead of which they were left in ignorance of the noble Viscount's intention until the last hour, when it became necessary to move an Amendment. The Liberal party was then humiliated by the manner in which the noble Lord made his exit as a Reformer. The Reform party ought to be rescued from such a position, and he should, therefore, take the sense of the House on the Resolution he was about to submit. No one, he repeated, was more responsible than the noble Lord the Member for the City of London for the present state of the question. The Liberal party for twenty years had constant contests with the noble Lord in endeavouring to break down his finality doctrine. Over and over again he had brought forward Amendments which the noble Lord opposed, and they (the Reform party) always divided from eighty to one hundred against three or four hundred, because the Whigs joined with the Tories upon those occasions, as he supposed they were ready to do again. The noble Lord went on in that way until 1838, when his (Mr. Buncombe's) hon. Colleague (Mr. Wakley) moved three Resolutions—one simply that it was expedient that the franchise should be extended; another in favour of triennial Parliaments; and the third in favour of the Ballot. The noble Lord then made one of his usual violent speeches against anything that at all interfered with the finality of the Reform Bill. But what occurred? In the debate it was asserted that there was a sort of compact made, from the manner in which the Reform Bill was passed in 1832, that it was not to be disturbed. But what occurred? Who came out on that occasion? No less a person than the Lord Chancellor of the Cabinet which proposed the Reform Act. And he was enabled to quote not only the opinion of the noble Lord with regard to finality, and that no such compact was entered into, but also what the noble Lord would consider a proper amendment of the Reform Bill. The

  1803
  noble Lord (Lord John Russell) at that time addressed a letter to the electors of Stroud, who were then favoured by having their representation in the hands of the noble Lord. Lord Brougham answered that letter. In that letter, which was addressed "Dear John Russell," and dated "May 4, 1839," the noble Lord denied the doctrine of finality, or permanence. He said the Reform Act had called into existence many boroughs with so few voters that great scope was given to jobbing and direct corruption. That learned Lord said that his remedy for this was not disfranchisement, but the extension of the franchise and the protection of the voter. That remedy, he added, would remove an evil far greater than jobbery and corruption— the exclusion of so many thousands who had as good, and in many cases a better, right to be represented than those who now possessed the franchise. The noble and learned Lord did not consider the possession of a house any test of fitness, and said that even if every householder had a vote he was far from thinking that enough had been done. What, he asked, could be a safer depository of political power than personal respectability and a good education? He said let the Government bring in a Bill like that without delay, and, if defeated, let them take a bold course and appeal to the people of the country. Let them not bring in such a maudlin measure as that of last year, but one founded on comprehensive principles, and then the people would stand by them. If they had not the courage to do this, then the Members of that House must go on fighting as well as possible with Bills like those of the hon. Members for East Surrey and Leeds, and must bide their time until there should be at the head of affairs men with stronger hands and stouter hearts, who would be prepared to do justice to the great, generous, and loyal people of this country. The hon. Member then moved the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is the duty of this House to lose no further time in giving such complete effect to the Act of the last reign, whereby Reforms were made in the Representative System, as shall carry out the subsequent recommendations of the Crown and fulfil the just expectations of the People."
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, whatever charges of inconsistency the hon. Member for Finsbury may make against the members of the Government for declining during the present Session to bring forward a Reform Bill, I think he must admi that
  1804
  he is obnoxious to a still graver charge of inconsistency in making the Motion now under the consideration of the House. As the notice originally stood, and as it remained until we came down to the House, it was, in fact, a Motion directed against the Bill of my hon. Friend, the Member for East Surrey, and against the Bill of my hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds. It called upon the House to abstain from action during the present Session, and pledged it to take no step in the road of Reform until the results of the census of this year had been published. Therefore it is quite clear that, according to my hon. Friend's original conception, the House was proceeding at too rapid a rate in the road of Reform; and that it had become necessary for him to interfere, in order to put on a drag and diminish the speed at which the Legislature was travelling, and to say, "Do not pass—do not even entertain — any measure upon the subject of the county franchise during the present Session." [Mr. DUNCOMBE: I did not say anything of the sort.] I am sorry to disturb the equanimity of my hon. Friend, but he perhaps will allow me to explain the way in which I understood— and I think I may venture to say every hon. Gentleman in the House understood — the notice which he gave. My construction of his Motion, as it originally stood in the notice paper, was, that it was to this effect—that the House is of opinion that, immediately after the publication of the census of the present year, it will be the duty of the House to lose no further time in passing a measure of Reform. That certainly meant that nothing was to be done until that census was published. Now the returns of the enumerators cannot be made until the month of April. I do not know what time will be necessary for collecting them; but I feel quite certain that this House will not be in possession of the results of that census until some time in the next Session. It is absolutely impossible that all that immense mass of figures can be collected and printed before the end of present Session. Therefore, I maintain that my construction was not only the obvious, but the inevitable construction of my hon. Friend's notice. He evidently meant to say, "I wish to arrest the course of the two Bills of the hon. Member for East Surrey and of the hon. Member for Leeds, with regard to the county and the borough franchise, until the House have the results of the census

  1805
  in their hands, and those results they cannot obtain until next year." If any Gentleman can put any other construction upon these very plain words, I confess I shall be greatly surprised, and I can only repeat what I have already said appears to me to be the true construction of them. Therefore, the House must feel that my hon. Friend so framed his notice in order to obtain a declaration from the House that the two hon. Members were making too rapid progress in the course of Reform. I suppose that circumstances have occurred during the last two or three days, or this morning, to change his opinion. I am, of course, unable to say what may have been the cause that induced him to shift his direction from north to south, and entirely box the compass with regard to this Motion; but it is clear that he now thinks it is incumbent upon him to call upon the House to proceed without further delay in the path of Reform. It seems to me that, having started with a Resolution which, whether expedient or not, was at any rate intelligible, he now proposes a merely superfluous and nugatory Resolution, because we have now before the House two measures of great importance and of great extent exactly complying with the definition given in this Resolution. They deal with the two great branches of the representative system— namely, the county franchise and the borough franchise. It is open to the House to read these two Bills a second time. It is open to the House to make any change they may think fit in those Bills consistent with their titles. I really do not see, if the House should carry the Resolution, what would be done in pursuance of it that has not been already done by private Members, unless any Gentleman should wish to introduce an extensive measure for transferring seats—for disfranchising some boroughs, and transferring their franchise to other boroughs. If my hon. Friend thinks that enough has not been done by the two measures which have been already submitted to the House, it appears to me that the more practical course would be for himself to lay upon the table an extensive measure for the transfer of seats. Whether he will be able to carry that measure during the present Session is, of course, a matter of uncertainty. At any rate, by introducing that measure he would complete the picture, parts of which have been presented to the House by the two hon. Gentlemen. The whole canvass would be then
  1806
  filled for the inspection of the House, but it seems to me that, if we were to agree to this Resolution, no advance would thereby be made in the cause of Reform; it is a mere formula leading to no practical result. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to go into the question how far the census is connected with the question of Reform. That subject is now withdrawn from our consideration. We are merely called upon to say that it is the immediate duty of the House to consider the question of Reform. Such a Resolution, however, is unnecessary, as the House, having given permission to the two hon. Members to bring in two measures embracing the whole question of the county and the borough franchise, has afforded facilities for the discussion to which this Resolution points. If any hon. Gentleman considers these two measures as insufficient in extent he has nothing to do but to propose an additional Bill. The Resolution seems idle and nugatory, without any practical result whatever, and for that reason I certainly shall not give my vote in favour of it.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he came down to the House intending to vote for the Motion as it originally stood, but he was also prepared to vote for it in its present form. He did so on a similar principle to that laid down by the late Mr. Henry Drummond for never voting against any Budget. He (Mr. Drummond) held that the prejudices and interests arrayed against taxation in all its forms were so formidable that those whose duty it was to contend against them deserved all the sympathy of the House, even when they failed to lead its convictions. Parliamentary Reform was now so unpopular, both in the House and elsewhere, that with his (Mr. Warner's) views of its necessity, he could not bring himself to vote against any proposition which might even seem to promote it. But the present Motion had something more than a mere negative claim upon the attention of the House. The present Government had been placed in power for the express purpose of carrying a Reform Bill, and the vast majority of both sides of the House were pledged to the principle of such a measure. When he observed the change which had taken place in the policy of the Government, and the altered tone of the great Leader of the Reform party—the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—from the boiling enthusiasm of opposition in 1859 to the cold irony of office in 1861, he thought it due

  1807
  to the reputation of the House, and the pledges which Members had given to their constituents to put on record their continued adherence to those principles which so many of them were sent there to advocate. The Motion was not certainly quite so clear as it might have been. The hon. Mover had failed to show any recognized incompleteness in the Reform Act of 1832 which would be established by a reference to the text of that Act, or to the speeches of those who took the chief part in passing it. He also thought the last phrase in the Motion, "the just expectations of the people," was too indefinite. It seemed to him that the whole difficulty of Reform had been to know what were the expectations of the people, and how far they were just. But he would not quibble about words. He supported the Motion because it recognized the duty which the House owed to the constituencies. He was glad that his hon. Friend had struck out the reference to the Census. He could never see how the results of a new Census could influence the principles of a Reform Bill. The most sanguine enthusiast in that House never dreamed of even an approximate equalization in the numbers of constituencies; and, except with a view to some such arrangement, the accurate results of a new Census had no hearing on the question. The House was not now called upon to do anything extravagant or to recognize any revolutionary doctrine, and he trusted the opportunity would not be lost of affirming its adhesion to principles of Reform. There was great danger in doing nothing on this subject, for, while such a policy offered no guarantee against violent change, it would throw further into the distance than ever all hope of a safe and durable settlement, it would encourage the movements of those who lived by agitation, and lead to unreasonable demands.
  MR. BRIGHT: I feel indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, not for the Resolution which he has submitted to the House, but for the speech by which it was prefaced. I think there is great truth in what he said, and I feel assured that the question of Reform has gained from every discussion that has taken place in the House upon it. But with regard to the Resolution, although I believe my hon. Friend's intention was to pledge the House again, and more especially the leaders on this side, perhaps on both sides of the House, to take this question up at some
  1808
  not very remote period, I am bound to say that I have never thought very much of official pledges, and on this subject at this moment I think they are, if possible, worth less than nothing. Therefore, I would not recommend my hon. Friend, even if he could see a prospect of being able to carry the Resolution, to put it to the House as being a thing of any value. The House will understand, and my hon. Friend will understand, that I should not value the pledge of the noble Lord, for example, the Member for the City of London, or the pledges of his colleagues with regard to this question. But looking at the Resolution as a matter of business before the House, it appears to me quite unnecessary, because the House has before it at this moment—that is so soon as they may come up in the progress of the business—two Bills of great importance upon this question; and if this Resolution were passed tonight, and if anybody, the Government for example, were to choose to bring in a Bill in consequence of it, that Bill could not come on in anticipation of the Bills now before the House. Therefore, it does appear to me that the passing of this Resolution would not facilitate the question at all; and, this being so, I should hope that my hon. Friend—having made the speech which he has made, and which was very much to the point—will be content not to ask the House to divide upon the Resolution — a course which practically will be of no value, for although it may be successful in extracting pledges from those who do not like Reform, can only tend, should they break these pledges—which the experience of the past shows to be a thing not at all improbable—to add to the other sins they might have committed. I would ask my hon. Friend, therefore, to be content with the discussion that has taken place, and not to ask the House to divide upon the Resolution.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stated that he thought this a nugatory Resolution, he had evidently overlooked certain words. If he had recommended that the question of Reform should not be proceeded with until the Census had been taken there might have been some point in the right hon. Gentleman's observation, but what he had said was "not to lose further time;" consequently he had at once stated that he considered the House —at the present moment—was losing time. His object, however, in bringing forward

  1809
  the Resolution was to expedite, and not to delay, the passing of a measure of Reform. If, however, the pressing it to a division appeared to those who entertained views on the subject similar to his own likely to be of no practical utility, he should, with the permission of the House, withdraw it. He was aware that the present was an anti-Reform Parliament, and he, for one, was not anxious to afford hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of displaying their strength on the question under the present circumstances.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DWELLINGS FOR WORKING CLASSES.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to consider the means of improving the dwellings of the working classes in populous towns, and of obtaining for them air, exercise, and occasional recreation, so as to conduce to their health and comfort. The question was one of the utmost importance to a very large number of the inhabitants of this country, while the present moment, from the absence of party feeling, and the great attention which was beginning to be paid to the welfare of the humbler classes, was peculiarly favourable for the Motion. There could be no doubt that the condition of the working classes in all our great towns had been most lamentably neglected, and the cause of their crowded dwellings was to be found in a large measure in those changes which had proved beneficial to every other class of the community. We were no longer spending, as during the great European war, many millions every year for carrying on hostilities. Since the peace £300,000,000 had been laid out upon railways; but those great works, while they had conferred incalculable benefits on the community, had inflicted a great injury upon the lower classes in London and other large towns by destroying their dwellings, and thus forcing them to herd together within still narrower limits. During the same period no less than £200,000,000 had been spent in buildings for the upper, the middle, and perhaps the third class; but the lowest class of all, so far from reaping any advantage from that vast expenditure, were worse off than ever. Since his recollection, the Metropolis had seen added to it three great cities. The first extended from Camden Town to Paddington; the second was that called Belgravia;
  1810
  and the third Tyburnia; but of each the same thing might be said—it had covered fields in which the poor used formerly to enjoy air and recreation, and it had swept away numerous dwellings formerly inhabited by the poor. On the north east of London, namely, the district from Hackney to Somers Town, and in the western portion of the district south of the river, similar results had followed; besides all which, recent improvements within the Metropolis itself had greatly tended—as as had been so ably shown by the Earls of Derby and Shaftesbury in "another place" —to increase the discomfort of the humbler classes. For some time past the increase in our town population had been no less than 30 per cent every ten years, while there had been less room for the humbler class of dwellings. The working classes in too many instances had been driven by the overcrowded state of their dwellings into habits of inebriety, and they were now compelled to herd together in places where they were decimated by disease, and where their children were neglected. He believed that the Act for improving the health of towns — passed by the efforts of Lord Carlisle—had done a great deal of good, but the evils of overcrowding had gone on increasing, and up to the present time little or nothing had been done to remedy the mischief. The Report of the Committee on the Health of Towns in 1840, and the Report of the Poor Law Commission in 1842, testified even then to the necessity of something being done. The Report of the Health of Towns Commission in 1845, also showed the enormous evils that had sprung from the neglect of which he complained. Having investigated the state of fifteen towns and a sad part of the Metropolis, he could say that if hon. Gentlemen having a feeling of compassion for their fellow subjects would visit those spots, they would see necessity for endeavouring guardedly but firmly to mitigate those evils. It appeared from the Report of the Commission of 1845 that the Commissioners had visited fifty great towns with a population of three millions, and that the dwellings of the humble classes were destitute of necessary comforts, including ventilation and the supply of water, and that consequently they endured the greatest sufferings. The late Mr. Porter, the author of that well known work, The Progress of the Nation, said that the present defective arrangements of our large towns led to an immense amount of self-

  1811
  imposed taxation, in the shape of tobacco and spirits, that would otherwise not be consumed, but for which there was now an irresistible craving in consequence of the depressing effects of an unwholesome atmosphere. He had lately had placed in his hands a valuable little work by the Bishop of Ripon, wherein was pointed out with great force the moral, social, and economical evil to which the state of our towns necessarily gave rise. The subject had also been adverted to with great power in a recent debate in the House of Lords; but to that he would not further allude. The report of the health officers of the City of London stated that third class residences were being divided in order to be re-let to working men, so that their condition was worse than before. As to the cost of the system, it had been calculated that of the £4,000,000 expended in poor rates there might be a saving of £2,000,000; in the expense occasioned by crime there might be another saving of £2,000,000; and in the cost of hospitals and charities rendered necessary for this miserable class and their children there would be another saving of £2,000,000; making together an annual saving of £6,000,000. Besides all this, if the improvements he suggested were carried out, they might save £14,000,000 now spent in intoxication. Here, then, was an annual sum of £20,000,000 which might be devoted to improvements, and in the diffusion of the greatest blessings to the greatest number in the country. He now came to the remedies; and first as to improvement in dwellings. He suggested that a block of dwellings fitted for the humbler classes should be placed by different railways, and within a few miles of great towns, these classes being conveyed to and fro in say eight minutes, at 1s. a week, which would effect to them a saving of 2s. per week. The moment was propitious, because there was an immense amount of capital seeking investment at every side. During the last fourteen or fifteen years — particularly during the last ten—a great improvement had taken place in the condition of Ireland, and, comparatively speaking, very few Irish now came here to undersell the people in the labour market. In consequence of discussion, education, and of increased intelligence, the working people were ready for the most part to take advantage of any reasonable proposition to elevate their condition. They were willing to help themselves, and should enjoy as well as other classes the accommodation afforded by
  1812
  railways. If they were taken out only a few miles oh the different railways they would be able to have gardens and playgrounds for their children. They might have Sunday services, and on Sunday evenings enjoy the walks about their dwellings. It was also necessary to have some improvements effected within the towns. They should have a number of model lodging houses, properly divided and fitted and managed in a way to ensure the enjoyment amongst the inmates of all the comforts and decencies of life. He knew the site was a matter of difficulty, but let them carry up the buildings six stories, which would afford enormous advantages in a limited extent of space, and above all there should be a hoist or lift to save both time and cost in ascending to the higher floors. If the roof was flat covered with cement or lead and railed round there would be an airy playground for the children. Again, public wash houses were a modern invention, and the extension of them would be of the greatest use to women. Now, with regard to the means by which these improvements in the dwellings of the working classes might be carried out, he thought it could be done by means of that greatest of modern practical discoveries—namely, the combination of small sums for a great end, on the principle of limited liability. They had many recent examples of it among the rich and middle classes, and even the railways throughout the land had been carried out by this means. That magnificent hotel close by had been raised through this means, and he had seen in the enterprising cities of America some magnificent hotels, devoted to the accommodation of the middle classes, all of which had been raised by small shares combined with limited liability. Then why should not working men, with proper facilities afforded them, join in such a movement for the improvement of their own condition? He had received a communication made by Mr. Hill, the Recorder of Birmingham, in a letter to Lord Brougham, and which had been published in the transactions of the Social Science Meeting. It was there stated that in Birmingham, Rochdale, and many others of the large towns, a great number of working men, under the sanction of the Co-operative and Provident Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 30, which he had the honour of introducing into that House, were joining together, and under limited liability, and with small means at the commencement, were forming stores,

  1813
  buying in provisions, and then selling them again at good weight for ready money. They had also erected mills for the purpose of grinding corn, which ground per week many thousand sacks of wheat; and, lastly, they were turning their attention to erecting manufactories by means of joint capitals. One had been lately erected at a cost of £40,000, which had been paid by the working men. Further encouragement ought to be held out to those who had done so much for themselves; and if the wealthy and benevolent would invest their capital in the erection of improved dwellings for the labouring classes, they would obtain without risk a net return of at least 4 per cent, while they also conferred an incalculable boon on the humbler orders. He did not advocate that scheme as a mere charity, for his object was to hasten the day when the working men would become part owners, at least, of their own houses. To facilitate that end an enabling Act ought to be passed, empowering the holders of property that was strictly entailed to sell portions of their land in order to afford sites for all such improvements. Care might be taken in such measure that the proceeds of these sales should go to benefit the entailed estates. The Government ought likewise to turn its attention to the framing of a General Building Act, which should prohibit the construction of such human habitations as must be injurious to health, decency, and comfort. He thought, also, there should be some mode of regulating the outlets of towns, that there might be good avenues for the sake of health and of comfort. In the New Road for example, there were many places which within his memory had only gardens in front of them, but where now there were shops and dwellings rising up, narrowing the space, and that, as he believed, against, the law. There remained one other point, and that was, as to the means which should be adopted for affording to the humbler classes opportunities of taking more air, exercise, and occasional recreation. In this respect the condition of the children and parents in our large towns was most lamentable. Now, the Temple Gardens were open to the public at certain times, and he did not see why something of the kind should not be done with reference to Lincoln's-inn-Fields. He would ask if it was not practicable that that place could be open on Sundays under proper regulations; and for, say two hours in a morning early, and two hours in an
  1814
  evening of week days for all classes? With respect to the public walks in the vicinity of towns, he had the honour, in 1833, to move for the first Committee on this subject. The result of their recommendations was seen in Primrose Hill and Victoria Park, Kennington Green, Battersea Park and elsewhere near many large towns. In the neighbourhood of Birmingham the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Alderley) had given space for the humbler people to enjoy themselves. In Manchester and other large places similar things had been done. He hoped something of the same kind might be done with regard to the open spaces which were yet left near London. He had had the good fortune to propose and pass two Acts of Parliament 22 Vict. c. 27 and 23 Viet. c. 30, by which greater facility was given to persons to make giants of land to the public, and by which whenever half the amount required for obtaining such land was raised by donations, the ratepayers might tax themselves for the remainder. But he would appeal to gentleman there who had large and beautiful places in the neighbourhood of great towns, not to do that which was unfortunately too often done unthinkingly, namely, put high close fences round them, but to have open rails for small space with a seat for the humbler classes outside to enjoy the view and fresh air. Then, he thought, something should be done with respect to the footpaths in the vicinity of towns. He hoped that in the Highway Act, which was before the House, some clause would be inserted to compel he keeping of these footpaths in good order. They were as much the highways of the humbler classes as the carriage-roads were of the higher classes. How much they needed regulation might be seen by the state of the footpaths round town and near Hampstead, where the humbler people resorted in great numbers for fresh air on Sundays. They were in such a condition that no one could go on them after wet weather without the greatest discomfort. It would also be a great boon if a few seats were placed along the suburban roads. Then he thought great advantage would be derived from the establishment of pleasure fairs in the neighbourhood of large towns, say for two days at a time, in August or September, under due regulations. At the time of the accession of her most gracious Majesty, a pleasure fair was held

  1815
  for three days in Hyde-park, and there were no irregularities, or riots, or disturbances. The late and present Lord Dartmouth had lent land in the neighbourhood of Birmingham for such a purpose, and a similar thing was done by the late Earl of Ellesmere. He had thrown out these various suggestions as subjects for the consideration of the Committee if it should be appointed. Those hon. Gentlemen whom he addressed enjoyed the comforts of fresh air and comfortable dwellings, and had the opportunity of enjoying field sports, and he appealed to them individually and collectively to consider these subjects and to assist him to do justice to the labouring classes, whose health was their only property.
  MR. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the means of improving the Dwellings of the Working Classes in populous towns, and of obtaining for them air, exercise, and occasional recreation, so as to conduce to their health and comfort."
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Everybody who is acquainted with the character of the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House, and who has heard his former speeches on similar subjects, as well as the speech he has just delivered, must agree with me in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is eminently distinguished by benevolence. But when a Motion is made in this House, and we are asked to agree to a practical Resolution, it is necessary we should consider something more than good and kind intentions, and be able to trace a connection between the end and the means. I have listened with great attention to the interesting speech of my hon. Friend; but I do not see that it might not as well have been addressed to a Congress of the Social Science Association with as much fitness as to the House of Commons. It contained very many excellent ideas on the improvement of the condition of the working classes; and if a Bill were introduced, founded upon some of the recommendations, there would be something on which the House could pronounce an opinion. But I confess I fail to perceive how the appointment of a Select Committee would promote the benevolent objects my hon. Friend has in view. In the first place, he laid the basis of his recommendations on statistics that seemed to me somewhat adventurous, and that I must consider as resting more on con-
  1816
  jecture than proof. He said if the measures he proposed were adopted there would be a saving of £2,000,000 a year in the expense of punishing criminals; £2,000,000 a year more in the expense of relieving the poor, with a further saving of £2,000,000 in miscellaneous expenses; that there would be, in all, a saving of £6,000,000, by improving the dwellings of the poor and other similar measures. He then quoted a statement from Porter's Progress of the Nation, that the annual expenditure of the working classes in this country on spirits and tobacco amounted to £14,000,000, and he calculated that if the working classes were better lodged the whole of this expenditure would be saved.
  MR. SLANEYexplained. He had stated that a saving of that nature might be expected if improvements of the kind were carried out. Mr. Porter calculated that the saving would be much larger.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: That amounts exactly to what I have said; but limiting the assumed saving on spirits and tobacco to £14,000,000, a total economy of £20,000,000 annually would be the result of the improvements. Now, except in the calculations of Mr. Macgregor on the subject of free trade, I have never heard such large totals presented for the consideration of the House. And I must venture to affirm that the hon. Gentleman has drawn more on his imagination for his statistics than on arithmetical calculation. But what we have to consider is, really, the catalogue of proposals the hon. Gentleman has submitted to the House; and I am at a loss to see the necessity of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into these proposals, inasmuch as they admit of being brought before the House, not by a circuitous course, but in the shape of Bills. My hon. Friend says that one great means of providing accommodation for the poor would be to divert capital from investment in foreign countries, and promote the formation of companies for constructing new blocks of buildings as dwellings. But I do not see that new legislation is wanted for this purpose. In fact, a company is now forming, on the principle of limited liability, having this object; and I am not aware that any additional facilities are needed for its operations. It is clear that no compulsory law can be passed to prevent persons from transmitting their capital to foreign countries; nor can we compel them to invest their money at

  1817
  home in building dwellings for the working classes. This must be left to voluntary action. Another proposal is to establish large hotels, similar to the American hotels, for the use of working people. If the hon. Gentleman can show that such an investment of capital would be remunerative, and return 4 per cent, he will not have much difficulty in inducing capitalists to enter into the speculation. But the hon. Gentleman said that what he mainly required was an enabling Act to obtain sites for buildings in the neighbourhood of large towns. I assume that what he proposes is that a Bill should be brought in embodying some of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to be applied to this purpose; but why does not he himself introduce such a Bill to the consideration of the House? With regard to all these plans of improving the dwellings of the poor, the formation of parks, and other suggestions, they are all separate subjects, and I do not see any practical advantage likely to arise from appointing a Committee to inquire into them; all these proposals admit of being laid before the House in the form of separate Bills. Fully recognizing the good intentions of my hon. Friend, and repeating my assurance of it, if the House should think any practical object can be obtained by the Committee, I will offer no opposition to it. But the House will remember that a great many public Committees have been appointed lately; and many of the Members who take the most active part in public business are already nominated on two or three Committees, and there are also many Committees sitting on Private Bills. Not seeing my way clearly to any practical result, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Motion; but I would suggest that he should select from his various proposals some of those most likely to meet with success, embody them in the form of Bills, and in that way submit them to the House. I am sure anything that offered a fair prospect of carrying his benevolent intentions into effect would receive a patient consideration.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, that after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, he would not press the Motion; but he hoped that some of the measures he had proposed would be well considered by Her Majesty's Government, and that some younger men would take up the subjects, and persevere till they were carried.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had to beg the House to remember that the Resolution he was about to move was designed to ensure greater security to the lives and limbs of the great mass of Her Majesty's subjects. If he should show that additional precautions could be taken to ensure greater safety in railway travelling, he should, he believed, establish a case with which that House might be fairly called upon to deal. He admitted, however, that the subject was surrounded with considerable difficulty. But he was sure that the House would be prepared to deal to the best of its power with that difficulty if he should be able to prove that the loss of life which frequently occurred on railways might be diminished by the adoption of precautions on the part of the companies which they had not hitherto practised, although they had been recommended by the highest authorities upon questions of that description. Three years ago he had had the honour of moving for a Select Committee on railway accidents; and the House having assented to that Motion he had secured for the Committee the valuable services of many Members of the House peculiarly conversant with railway matters. Out of the eleven Members of the Committee not less than six were directly connected with railway companies. He had also obtained the valuable aid of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe); and he could assure the House that the Committee had been animated by an earnest desire fairly to investigate the subject referred to their consideration, while the conclusions at which they arrived were of a nature for which he had not himself at the commencement been in the least prepared. Two reasons had been adduced against any interference on the part of the House with the action of railway companies or investing the Government with any power in that matter. The first of those reasons was that they would thereby diminish the responsibility of the directors of the different companies, and thus remove one of the best possible precautions against danger in railway travelling. He was not prepared to deny that there was considerable force in that argument; but he believed he could show that many of the most frightful accidents which had occurred on railways were owing to the absence of precautions which had been recommended by

  1819
  the most competent authorities, hut which had never been adopted on the principal lines in the country, and Parliament might surely require that those precautions should he taken without in any way diminishing the responsibility of the respective companies. The second reason put forward against interference was that the number of railway accidents was very small as compared with the number of railway travellers. But that was a very singular, and, as it appeared to him, a very ineffective argument. It amounted to this: if ten men out of a million travellers were maimed or killed they had no right to grumble, because the percentage was small, and they had no right to ask for legislation on the subject, even if by legislation that percentage could be reduced. With the permission of the House he would refer to a few of the paragraphs of the Report of the Committee over which he had had the honour of presiding, for the purpose of showing what were the principal measures that might be taken with a view to ensure greater security in railway travelling. The first question to which the Committee had directed their attention was that of speed; and upon that subject, after having examined a great number of witnesses, among whom were all the principal railway officials of the country, they had arrived at the following conclusion:—
  "Your Committee is of opinion that a rate of speed considerably in excess of what is considered safe, in the opinion of the great majority of the witnesses examined, is sometimes attained on many of the lines."
  Now, if it could be shown that an excess of speed had been the cause of many of those frightful railway accidents they had of late had to deplore, it was manifestly desirable that there should be some means of preventing that excess. The next question which bad engaged the notice of the Committee was the irregularity in the departure of trains; and upon that point they had arrived at the following decision:—
  "That the evidence taken further tends to show that such excessive speed has arisen, not so much from the average speed required as advertised by the railway time-tables, as from the want of strict punctuality in the time of the departure and arrival of trains from each station, which leads to an excess of speed for the purpose of endeavouring to make up lost time."
  Again, if it could be shown that the irregularity in the period of the arrival and of the departure of trains had been a main cause of railway accidents, that was evi-
  1820
  dently a reason why an authority should be vested in some public body for the purpose of preventing that evil. On the subject of excursion trains, the Committee reported—
  "That your Committee is of opinion that it should be made imperative on railway companies to advertise a sufficient time before-hand the exact hour of departure and arrival of each excursion train at each station."
  It must be obvious to every one that if, with their already enormous traffic, they had the power of starting excursion trains at all times and on all occasions, sending them out like comets in eccentric orbits, they must disturb the regular arrangements of the line, and the largest staff would not be able to deal with the confusion which would ensue. The next point on which the Committee reported had reference to the important matter of establishing a communication between the guard and driver. With respect to this improvement it was clear that the Government should apply for more stringent powers than they yet possessed. No one could say that such a precaution was not necessary. It was one which could be attained without any possible inconvenience or hardship, and if it had been adopted it would have prevented some of the most fearful accidents which the public had had to deplore. It was a simple precaution and a cheap one, and would conduce most materially to the comfort and safety of the passengers. What he contended for was that in the event of fire or of a train going off the line the guard should have power to arrest the progress of such train. The Committee reported on this head that
  "They are also of opinion that it should be imperative on every railway company to establish a means of communication between guards and engine drivers."
  Yet the majority of lines were entirely without such a precaution, and the very fact of it not having been more generally adopted was one of the strongest arguments in favour of conferring additional powers on the Board of Trade. On another point the Committee laid great stress. They reported that
  "They had received much evidence with respect to the advisability of enforcing a system of telegraphic communication, and the utility of enacting that trains should not be dispatched without having ascertained by such communication that the line was clear."
  It had been clearly shown that some of the worst accidents on crowded lines had oc-

  1821
  curred from the multiplicity of trains starting within five minutes of each other. The Committee spoke strongly on this point also. They said—
  "Your Committee is not prepared to define the distance at which such telegraphic stations should be placed, but it is of opinion that a recourse to this system would be a most effective means for the prevention of railway accidents, the largest proportion of which arise from collisions."
  Now, he was informed that the Directors of the North-Western Railway, which, with its many branches, was one of the principal lines of the Kingdom, had become so convinced of the indispensable necessity of this precaution, that they had recently carried it out on a great scale, and it was their intention as soon as they could to extend it to all the lines under their control. Such a system would not have been introduced by that great company if they had not been convinced that it was absolutely required for the safety of the travelling public; and if so, his right hon. Friend ought to have the power of enforcing it on every other line, though he did not mean to diminish or impair the present responsibility of the railway companies themselves. On these grounds the Committee had wound up their Report by saying—
  "That your Committee is, therefore, of opinion that it is incumbent on the Board of Trade to apply to Parliament for such further powers as may enable that department to carry out the above recommendations, which, in the opinion of your Committee, would tend greatly to diminish the number of railway accidents."
  He would remind the House that the great majority of the Gentlemen who sat on that Committee were largely connected with the management of railway business; that they had examined the officials of all the principal lines of railway in the Kingdom, and that they had arrived at the conclusion to which he had now called attention. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would, he thought, admit that the Government would incur a grave responsibility if they declined to look into this question. No member of the Government could assert that these precautions were not indispensably necessary, or that the neglect of them imperilled the lives and limbs of millions. He trusted, in conclusion, that the right hon. Gentleman would not lose sight of the points now pressed on his attention. He repeated his only object in submitting these Resolutions was to attain additional security for the lives and limbs of the population who travelled on railways, and upon
  1822
  the Government would rest the responsibility of declining to deal with a subject so important.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That in consequence of the great number of Railway accidents which have recently occurred, some of which have arisen from the non-adoption by Railway Companies of precautions recommended in the evidence given before the Railway Accidents Committee by many of the principal Railway officials in the country, it has, in the opinion of this House, become desirable that Her Majesty's Government should introduce further legislation on the subject of Railway traffic, with a view to enforcing the adoption, by all Railway Companies, of those precautions, which, by the general testimony of Railway officials, have been shown to be desirable."
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he could bear testimony to the able and impartial manner in which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had discharged the duties of Chairman of the Committee on Railway Accidents. In all his experience of Select Committees, he seldom remembered a case in which the Chairman had gone into the inquiry with such a disinterested desire to get at the truth, and nothing but the truth. Scant justice had been done to the Committee by the manner in which its recommendations had been pooh-poohed by the Government. As an old railway man of twenty-five years' experience, though not now connected with their direction, he had felt any interference of the Government with their management to be a nuisance. But if they were to interfere at all they should do it effectually. At present, however, they did nothing at all. If the Board of Trade undertook to discharge certain duties, let those duties be discharged. The whole railway world was at sea. There was a Government authority over all railway companies existing, and instead of guiding the companies the Government allowed them to take their own course. Indeed they did more. Although it was said that high rates of speed conduced to accidents, they had the Post Office offering a premium to railway companies to increase the speed of mail trains. There was not a man at the Board of Trade who had ever made a mile of railway. How, then, could it be expected that eminent civil engineers would respect the opinion of such persons, when they were sent to certify that a new line was perfect, that tunnels could be safely passed through, and that bridges would carry the weight required? When the inspectors had acquired a certain knowledge about railways, they were removed to other appointments.

  1823
  Captain Galton, one of the best of them, was sent to superintend the building of barracks. His successor was sent to China to be shot at, and another gentleman was now in his place. But the Royal Engineering was not civil engineering, and the present inspector had still to learn his business. A more honest inquiry was never made than that which was instituted by the Committee of which the lion. Member was the chairman, and there was but one feeling in the minds of the witnesses who were connected with railways, namely, that proper supervision, so as to compel all the companies to act upon one common plan, would tend to the safety of the public. Hundreds of railway tires had broken during the late frost. Why could not the Government have appointed a Committee of Royal Engineers, civil engineers, and scientific men to inquire into the various classes of iron used in the manufacture of tires? It was said, "Let the railways do it." But if the railways were to do it, they might as well do away with the Board of Trade altogether. They only produced a compilation of accounts, and he would undertake to find a man to do the whole business for £200 a year. Railway servants risked their lives as well as railway passengers, and he was sure the railway companies were as anxious for inquiry as the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Resolution or any member of the Government could be. He hoped the Government would declare what was their position—whether it was one of responsibility or one of non-responsibility. If it were one of responsibility, let them take action. If it were one of non-responsibility, let them throw the responsibility on the railway companies, and should the law at present not be strong enough make it so. But the Government ought not to allow the lives of the public to be endangered by a want of union between the Board of Trade and the railway companies.
  MR. THOMPSONhad listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for West Norfolk, and although he agreed with him that all practicable means ought to be adopted in order to reduce railway accidents within the narrowest possible limits, he dissented altogether from the conclusion at which he arrived that Parliament should undertake to decide on the best means of prevention and enforce them by legislative action. He believed that it would be a grave mistake for the House to
  1824
  take any such course, as it would inevitably diminish the responsibility which now rested on railway companies to adopt all practicable means of averting such catastrophies. If any special preventive machinery were selected and enforced by Act of Parliament, on the occurrence of an accident the attention of juries and Government inspectors would be too much confined to the single point of ascertaining whether the standard preventive was in an effective state instead of rigidly criticising every part of the machinery and system of management of the company on whose line the accident had occurred. Much stress had been laid on the importance of a communication between the guards and drivers of trains, and as he had lately received a Return showing the results of the adoption of a communication of this kind on the railway of which he was chairman, he would state to the House the leading facts of that report. The system of communication consisted of a cord which ran the whole length of the train, and which when put in motion by a wheel and axle in the guard's van, rang a bell on the tender close to the driver of the engine. This machinery though simple was, he believed, the most efficient yet discovered. It had been approved by a Committee of the Railway Clearing House specially appointed to examine and report upon it, and the Board of the North Eastern Railway adopted it in the year 1855. It had consequently been used on that company's lines for the last six years, and trains having this communicating cord had travelled seven millions of miles. During that time four casualties to trains had occurred of a kind in which such a communication might be expected to be useful. On two occasions the tire of a wheel broke and the train was stopped speedily by means of the machinery in question. On a third occasion the tire of a wheel of the van broke and the van was thrown off the rails and tossed about so violently that the guard was unable to get hold of the wheel to signal the driver. After running about a mile the driver discovered that something was wrong and stopped the train in time to prevent further mischief. The fourth casualty also arose from the van getting off the line, by which the guard was thrown down. On recovering himself he found that the driver had already discovered the accident and stopped the train. It thus appeared that in two out of the four mishaps, the guard was unable to use the re-

  1825
  medy though close at hand. In the other two he succeeded in quickly stopping the train and possibly preventing an accident, had the drivers not, as on the other two occasions, discovered what was wrong for themselves. The contrivance might occasionally be of service, and therefore it was right to continue its use; but the House must not be led away by the idea that communication between the guard and driver would have any great effect in diminishing the number of railway accidents. The most efficient means of prevention were—First, To use the best materials in the construction of the permanent way and rolling stock. Secondly, To engage the most careful and skilful servants. And thirdly, To adopt a rigid and unflinching discipline, under which any one guilty of carelessness or neglect would be at once dismissed. It might be asked by what means these measures could be enforced enforced upon railway companies. He believed that the existing system under which the whole responsibility in cases of accident was thrown upon the directors and managers, was the best that could be adopted. Directors of railway companies whatever might be said to the contrary were fully impressed with the grave character of that responsibility which was enforced not only by heavy pecuniary pecuniary penalties, but still more strongly by that natural regard for life and limb which was common to all human beings and if these considerations would not induce proper precautions no amount of legislation would produce the desired effect.
  MR. H. BAILLIEremarked that the responsibility of accidents was thrown upon railway companies at the present moment, but that it did not prevent them. The Government had no right to wash their hands of the matter and leave the public to take care of themselves. The proportion of railway accidents in England to those in Germany was nine to one, and to those in France seven to one. The rarity of accidents on the Continental lines could not be attributed to their superiority either in construction or materials. It was due to the efficient surveillance of the various Governments, who took care that there was a proper interval between the starting of each train, and that due precautions against accident were observed. At home these matters were left entirely to the railway companies who looked only to their own immediate interests.
  MR. DUTTONmaintained that railway
  1826
  directors were animated by higher motives than were imputed to them by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The safety of the public was the great object they had constantly in view. It was the subject of their most anxious thoughts. Considering the vast extent and complicated relations of the railway systems of the United Kingdom, he did not believe that it was possible for the Government to exercise proper supervision over it. There was no difficulty in establishing an efficient communication between the guard and driver of a train, for it had been done for years on the line with which he was connected—the South Western; but he was not aware that it had ever proved of any service. Certainly it could not have prevented the recent lamentable accident in which Dr. Baly lost his most valuable life. It was to be regretted that the cause of that sad catastrophe had not been discovered. The engine-driver, however, stated that the engine and train were in the most perfect order when he started. He believed it would be fraught with danger to allow drivers to rely upon any other guidance than was afforded by semaphore signals. Accidents always occurred in direct proportion to the speed attained. Railway directors had no interest in maintaining a high rate of speed, because nothing was so prejudicial to their lines; but they were compelled to adopt it by the public, who always gave the preference to the railway that ran the fastest trains. As to accidents on the Continent he had to remind the hon. Gentleman that they did not receive the same publicity there as in our own country. He admitted, however, that they were not so frequent abroad as at home, the reasons being that fewer trains were run—in many cases only three or four a day on a main trunk line—and that the rate of speed was much less—only thirty miles an hour being allowed for la plus grande vitesse. But the English public would never tolerate such things. He thought that the management of the lines had much better be left to the railway companies themselves. An accident was a most costly affair—involving a loss of from £10,000 to £60,000—and caused great pain and anxiety to the whole staff. The officials were most careful in ascertaining that every train was in proper working condition before it started, for their own lives were at stake. The railway companies had a deep interest in preventing accidents; and he did not believe that

  1827
  the public would derive any further protection from the supervision of the Government.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he should not have taken any part in the discussion but for the fact that Mr. Labouchere, when President of the Board of Trade, bad appointed him first Inspector General of Railways. A Committee composed of Sir James Graham, the late Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Somerset, Mr. Labouchere, the late Lord Granville Somerset, and other distinguished men, after carefully considering the matter, resolved that no Government supervision of railways beyond that which then existed should be exercised. The most eminent engineers, including Mr. Brunei and Mr. Stephenson, and several railway secretaries, were examined before that Committee, and they all strongly expressed their disapproval of the Government being allowed to exercise any further control over the railways than they did at that time. He had bestowed much study and reflection on the question, and it was his belief that the management of the railways would be much better in the hands of the directors of the several companies than of the Government. The chief witnesses examined before the Committee were all of opinion that the only effect of Government supervision would be to relieve directors from responsibility which they bore at present. All that could be done to increase the safety of travellers would he to limit the number and speed of trains, and he did not think that the public would tolerate any diminution in either respect. Mr. Brunel, when before the Committee, spoke of trains going not only at sixty, but even at 100 miles an hour, and expressed his belief that the public would never be satisfied till they obtained that degree of speed. The directors were certainly not desirous of running rapid trains, because they injured the lines very much. He at one time proposed that there should be an interval of fifteen minutes between each train, but the railway companies laughed at the idea, for they said the public would never tolerate it. Putting aside his own case, he believed that the Board of Trade had always selected the most able officers of the corps of Royal Engineers to act as railway inspectors. The duty of those officers was not, however, directly to establish regulations that would have a tendency to prevent accidents, but to see that the lines were so constructed as that accidents were not likely to occur
  1828
  from any fault of construction. The management of the lines was left to the directors; and he believed that the general desire on the part of Boards of Direction was to do all in their power to make their lines safe. It was only natural that they should be so, because in endeavouring to prevent such casualties, they were not only doing what humanity suggested but also that which was best for the pecuniary interests of their shareholders.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Norfolk deserved the thanks of the House and the public for having brought this subject under discussion. Reference had been made to the recent accident on the South-Western Railway; and an hon. Gentleman connected with that line had said that it was impossible to account for it. It was also said that the engine driver had examined his engine before he started. No one doubted that the engine was in good order, but the hon. Gentleman had said nothing about the tender. He (Colonel Gilpin) believed that the accident might be attributed to the imperfect condition of the tender and the excessive speed at which the train was traversing a complete net-work of rails. There was conflicting evidence on this point, because the company brought officers from other companies to support their view of the question; but the jury, though puzzled on that account, could not avoid commenting on the state of the wheel of the tender. He was in the train at the time of the sad occurrence, and he was free to admit that a communication between the engine driver and guard would not have been of any use; but still such a communication might prove of the greatest service on other occasions.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had totally failed to show that the House and the Government ought to interfere more than they did at present with the management of railways. He (Sir Joseph Paxton) had for a long time been a director of one of the largest railways in the kingdom, and he knew from experience that when an accident occurred the directors, officers, and every one connected with the line was in the greatest consternation. An accident had several effects. In the first place, if many lives were lost, there was a great deal of money to be paid by way of compensation. He had known as much as £20,000 to be expended in that way. It was, therefore, for the interest

  1829
  of the directors and shareholders that every precaution should be taken in order to ensure the safety of the passengers. Accidents did occur occasionally; but he believed that no other system had ever been brought to the same state of perfection in the same period of time as that of railways. They all knew that in Germany and France great pains were taken to ensure safety on railways; but in those countries there were only two trains a-day on many of the lines. It was only on great lines that there were four. The train was generally a long one, and the speed was slow. It was a mistake to suppose that railway directors were fond of fast trains. A coal-train from one of the collieries in Derbyshire, coming with a good load of coal, paid a company better than the best express. Neither were the officers anxious for fast trains, for they knew that such trains caused much more wear and tear to the permanent way and in locomotives than was caused by slow trains. Expresses were demanded by the public. He had expected some reference to the late accidents on lines between London and the North. He had no doubt that these had been caused by the rigidity of the iron and the speed at which the Post Office required the trains to travel from Holyhead and from Scotland. In the yard of the Midland Company, at Derby, two tires broke without the carriage being moved, and apparently the wheels had been as good as any in the establishment. The company instantly called on other companies to join with them in having an inquiry, with a view of ascertaining the best metal for wheels; and they had called on Mr. Fairbairn to aid them in determining the hest kind of iron to be used in the construction of wheels. He could assure the House that railway directors had as good consciences as other men. As to excursion trains, though some accidents had been sustained in them, he thought they were a great advantage to the working classes. The company with which he was connected continued to use a means of communication between the guard and the engine-driver, but accidents occurred so suddenly that any communication between those officers was impossible. The English public would not consent to give up the present high speed; but, if they came to look at the accidents on railways as compared with those on sea, the number was really very small. The Board of Trade officers
  1830
  were of little use, because they were so constantly changed. Almost as soon as an officer was appointed and beginning to be acquainted with his duties he was removed by the Government to some other situation. He protested against the appointment of civil engineers as officers of the Board of Trade. Every Gentleman who had sat on a Railway Committee must have seen the varieties of opinion that prevailed among civil engineers, and he hoped they would not he introduced as officers of the Board of Trade. If the House attempted to enforce an uniform mode of railway management they would fail in effecting any good, and would only cripple the railway system. Signalling by telegraph was no doubt an excellent plan. On the Midland Railway a train never entered a tunnel without telegraphing the fact, but there were many railways where the system was not called for, and to enforce it on all the railways in the kingdom would be to entail upon them vast and unnecessary expense.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished, before speaking to the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, to say a word or two on what fell from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Jackson) as to the composition of the railway department of the Board of Trade. Certainly the hon. Member's description of the railway department of the Board was not of a kind likely to encourage the House to invest that department with greater powers, or to hand over to it almost the entire executive management of the railway system. But his hon. Friend was mistaken in supposing that no one who understood the construction of railways was employed by the Board of Trade. The inspectors of railways, whose duties led them to report on new lines, were thoroughly competent persons, and in all respects conversant with the construction of railways. The only reason why there was no permanent engineering officer at the Board of Trade was that there would be no adequate duties for him to perform. At the commencement of the railway system, when new works of great magnitude were undertaken, the Board required the constant advice of an able engineer, but now that railways were constructed on a recognized system all that the Board required to know was that new lines were not inferior to a known standard. Questions of science did not now often arise; and besides that, when railways com-

  1831
  menced Parliament had not decided on the amount of interference which Government should exercise over them, hut the repeated inquiries of both Houses through Committees had led to the understanding that there should be no increase in the control exercised by the Government; and under those circumstances there was really now no duty of sufficient importance to engage the whole time and services of a valuable officer like Captain Galton.
  With regard to the Resolution of his hon. Friend it was not very definite, because it called upon them to pledge themselves to some kind of legislation or other, but it did not say precisely what, in order to make railway travelling more secure, and to prevent the recurrence of accidents. There was no indication in the Resolution as to what they should do. He said they should "adopt those precautions"—that is to say, they should legislate to enforce the adoption of those precautions—"which by general testimony of railway officials have been shown to be desirable." Upon looking over the evidence given before that Committee, we scarcely found a single point on which it could be said there was that general agreement of testimony amongst railway officials to enable the House to adopt it with confidence. Take the question of the rate of speed. On that point various witnesses were examined, who differed materially as to what amount of speed could be undertaken with safety. With one exception he did not believe a single witness went the length of saying that Parliament should indicate a maximum speed, which should not be passed, in order to secure the safety of railway travelling. The witnesses differed so much upon every point that it would be found very difficult upon such an instruction for the Government to draw any Bill at all. If they were called upon by the House to legislate on the Report of the Committee itself it would be a somewhat easier task, but still one of great difficulty. That Report stated that the main causes of accidents on railways might be divided into three classes:— 1. The inattention of railway servants. 2. The defective nature of the material used in the construction of the permanent way and the rolling stock. 3. The excessive speed of railway trains. He contended that the House could not practically deal with advantage with any one of these three causes. What legislation, for example, could they adopt to insure greater vigilance on the part of railway servants?
  1832
  And how could they lay down rules in an Act of Parliament to regulate railways, as to the quality of the iron and other materials they were to use in the construction of rolling stock? It would puzzle the ingenuity even of his learned Friend the Attorney General to draw a clause that would define the kind of material to be used. Then, as to fixing a maximum speed beyond which no railway train should go, that would be found very objectionable. But was there to be no redress? Were persons to be injured in limb, and have their lives risked or destroyed without redress? Certainly not. They had redress under Lord Campbell's Act, and if the jury were satisfied that loss of life had ensued from negligence or causes that might have been avoided large damages were given under this Act. He held in his hand an account of the damages given during the ten years previous to the sitting of the Committee for injuries resulting from accidents on various railways:—The London and North-Western, £60,000; London, Brighton, and South-Coast, £44,000; South-Eastern, £61,000; Great Western, £19,000; Great Northern, £20,000; Eastern Counties, £46,000; Caledonian, £13,000; Great Southern and Western of Ireland, £25,000; North-Eastern, £43,000; making a total of £331,000. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Were these amounts paid under verdicts or compromises?"] He could not answer that question. The sums were given in the evidence taken before the Committee. He regretted to say that during the last few months there had been a great many accidents. But with the permission of the House he would first read the number of accidents during each of the last five years, the loss of life, the number injured, and also the number of passengers carried during each year. It appeared from the returns and reports made to the Board of Trade, that the number of accidents which occurred to passenger trains during the last five years were as follows:—-In 1856, 60 accidents occurred, by which 7 passengers were killed and 281 injured out of 129,315,196 who were conveyed during the year. In 1857 there were 62 accidents to passenger trains, by which 24 passengers were killed and 626 injured out of 138,971,239 conveyed. In 1858, 49 accidents happened, by which 24 passengers were killed and 416 injured out of 139,141,135 conveyed. In 1859, 56 accidents happened, by which 4 passengers were killed and 371 injured out of

  1833
  149,757,924 conveyed. In I860, 68 accidents happened, by which 29 passengers were killed and 479 injured out in a number conveyed which may be estimated at about 160,000,000. No doubt, it was much to be regretted that so many accidents should occur; but still, comparing the casualties with the number of passengers conveyed, they were not in such a very alarming proportion. Well, after all the evidence taken by the Committee, what did they recommend? The whole of the representations they made resolved themselves into two definite recommendations. Although they mentioned an occasional excess of speed, and noticed the value of telegraphic communication between station and station, they did not recommend legislation on either of these subjects. There was also mention of the desireableness of providing sufficient break-power, so that trains might be stopped in time to avoid collision. Yet, although the Committee admitted the importance of this power, the question of enforcing its employment was a matter so complicated that they felt it could not be dealt with by legislation, and they accordingly recommended it to be dealt with by the railway companies. Well, what were the definite recommendations of the Committee? The first was that the Board of Trade should come to Parliament for power to inquire into railway accidents, to report them to the House, and to have, he presumed, the power of examining witnesses on oath, and the other necessary consequences of an authorized judicial inquiry. His answer to this recommendation was, that although it was true the inquiries by the inspectors of railways were not authorized by law, and although the information afforded by the companies was given by their own free-will, yet the Board of Trade had not suffered from the absence of legislative powers to conduct these inquiries. The inspectors of the Board of Trade after every accident went to the scene of the disaster, and he could most positively say after due inquiry on the subject that they had never found on the part of any company any disposition to conceal the facts connected with the accidents; on the contrary, the companies invariably manifested a desire to throw daylight upon the matter and assist the inspector in arriving at the cause of the accident. If it had happened that the companies concealed the facts, and if the inspectors were unable to make a satisfactory and searching inquiry in consequence of the unwillingness of the railway officials to assist them, he should
  1834
  not hesitate to come to Parliament and ask fur the powers recommended by the Committee. But as these investigations were conducted to the satisfaction both of the inspectors and the company, as their reports were laid on the table and thus became privileged communications, it would be superfluous in the Board of Trade to ask for powers the absence of which they bad not felt. The other recommendation made by the Committee was that it should be rendered compulsory on railway companies to have a means of communication between the guard and the driver. Well, many things are very desirable, yet it did not therefore follow that it became their duty to make them compulsory by an Act of Parliament. He presumed the Committee did not contemplate calling upon the Board of Trade to decide as to the most efficient means of communication, but that they only recommended Parliament to enact that there should be some means of communication. He did not attach quite so much importance as the Committee to this preventative, yet he would admit it was desirable, and further he believed that its adoption would be easy and inexpensive. He could not, however, come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to pass any Bill on the subject. The Board of Trade had urged the adoption of some means of communication upon the railway companies through their inspectors. The following companies had already introduced upon their lines a means of communication between the drivers and guards:—the Great Northern, North-Eastern, North British, Midland, London, Brighton, and South Coast, South-Eastern, the London and South-Western, and a few others. The London and North-Western were making preparations for effecting the same object, together with a system of continuous breaks; still the greater number of the companies were deficient in both these means for preventing or lessening the effects of accidents to railway trains. He believed that before long the plan would be generally adopted, but it would not be desirable for the Board of Trade to interfere by legislation. The subject of railway tires had lately attracted much attention, and Captain Tyler, one of the inspectors of the Board of Trade, had made an elaborate report on the subject, which had been sent round to the various railway companies, and would, no doubt, be productive of great advantage. The advantage of a means of communication between the guard and engine-driver had also been

  1835
  urged on the companies, and with a like beneficial result. He thought the House had better not attempt to become railway directors, or to settle by enactment what exact precautions the railway companies ought to adopt for the security of the public. One interference would necessarily lead to another, till eventually they might find themselves in a position of the greatest difficulty. Every redress which legislation could fairly afford was obtainable, he thought, under the law and under Lord Campbell's Act, giving damages against the companies wherever neglect on their part was proved. He did not say that exceptional cases might not arise, and in that event he should not be deterred from coming to Parliament, but from all the information which he had obtained, and having consulted persons of great experience in railway matters, he had arrived at the conclusion that it would not be judicious for the Government now to ask, nor for Parliament to give, any increased power of controlling the management of railways.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he felt inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that there was very great difficulty in legislating upon so difficult a subject; but he (Mr. Edwin James) ventured to think that the catalogue which the right hon. Gentleman had read to the House of the amount of damages which had been paid by railway companies for that which juries had found to have been the result of the most scandalous neglect on the part of the railway companies, justified the House in having entered upon the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman was very much mistaken if he thought that the Return which he had read of the sums that had been paid by railway companies for the results of accident was anything like the real amount. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), with the quickness that belonged to him, had asked whether these amounts were paid in consequence of verdicts, or as compromises. He (Mr. Edwin James) could say of his own knowledge with regard to the case of some companies which had been mentioned, and which had been before courts of law, that that Return did not narrate one-half the amounts that had been paid by these companies. What a catalogue of neglect it was on the part of the railway companies! He was aware that the railway interest was very strongly represented in that House; and
  1836
  he knew that the Motion of the hon. Member for West Norfolk had excited great interest, but he was forced to say that cases had come before the public indicating scandalous neglect. [Sir JOSEPH PAXTON: No, No!] It was all very well for the hon. Member for Coventry to say "No," but he was speaking of the result of cases which had undergone public investigation in courts of justice. Acts of Parliament, he believed, would be ineffective in inculcating caution until they required that in every case a director should sit upon the tender. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had said that, when any railway accident occurred, everything was done to elicit the causes of the accident. He (Mr. Edwin James) would be divulging nothing which came to his knowledge in his capacity of an advocate when he mentioned what happened in the case of the accident which took place on the Eastern Counties Railway by which seven persons were killed and fifteen seriously injured. The cause occupied five days in hearing, and what was the result? The inspectors of the Board of Trade reported that the company had been guilty of scandalous negligence in not having sufficient break power at the end of the train. Engineers were called on the part of the company, and two whole days were occupied in taking their evidence, to the effect that such break-power was unnecessary; and a verdict in favour of the company was returned. What was done? A few days afterwards a rule was issued by the Eastern Counties Railway Company that in future break-power should invariably be placed at the end of their trains. He asked was not that strong evidence of negligence on the part of the company in not having break-power at the end of the train? In another case an action had been brought against a railway company for having permitted a train to leave the station with the carriages fastened only by a hook without coupling chains by which an accident occurred. The Lord Chief Baron tried the case, and stated publicly that it was scandalous that companies should waste their funds by calling engineers and contesting cases of the kind. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and within twenty-four hours afterwards a rule was issued that no train should leave without having the coupling-chains attached. These were instances in which some cautionary measures were necessary, and although it might be difficult for the Board

  1837
  of Trade by legislative enactment to interfere in this matter, yet it required the greater caution on the part of the companies, and he thought the House and the country were indebted to the hon. Member for Norfolk for directing the attention of the House to the subject.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he had no intention of defending railway companies where blame really attached to them, but, believing that no good would be obtained by passing an abstract Resolution containing no suggestion of a practical character, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk, having called attention to the subject, would withdraw his Motion. If it were possible for legislative enactment to prevent those lamentable casualties which nevertheless must occur at intervals from the state of the weather and other disturbing causes, Lord Campbell's Act would have had that effect. He saw in the instances given by the hon. Member for Marylebone a different spirit from what his remarks would suggest, for as soon as experience had proved that a particular precaution was desirable, no time was lost in adopting it. He believed it would not be advisable to relieve railway directors from their present feeling of responsibility by establishing a supervision by any one department; and the precaution of having a communication between the guard and engine-driver might give rise to an argument in mitigation of damages—namely, that the guard had pulled the bell.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he should be very sorry to see additional power given to the Board of Trade. There was, however, a want of responsibility in the direction of railways, and what was required was that the Government should adopt some measure by which the responsibility should be fixed somewhere. Boards of direction generally consisted of a number of persons— and they all knew that there was great impunity in number. Many of these individuals, moreover, were quite incompetent to discharge the duties with which they were intrusted, having been appointed by friends to secure the emoluments of office. He knew several cases in which there were directors who might or might not be ornamental, but they certainly were not useful. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had declared that sufficient protection was given to the public by the damages under Lord Campbell's Act; but, unfortunately, these fell on the wrong persons—the innocent stockholders,
  1838
  who were not at all to blame, while the directors, who were most frequently in fault, escaped altogether. To establish the real responsibility of boards of direction it would he necessary to make their negligence a penal offence, and if a director were hanged occasionally it would he astonishing how the number of accidents would diminish. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade objected to the conferring of additional powers on that department, as they would be very troublesome to exercise; but in the analogous case of travelling by water it had been found expedient that the Board of Trade should ascertain whether vessels going to sea were provided with proper anchors and cables of sufficiently good iron, with an adequate number of men for purposes of navigation, and so forth; and be was unable to see any difference whatever between the two cases. Many accidents during the winter had been attributed to the severe frost; but he, being acquainted with frosts more severe than were experienced in this country, said it was a mistake to attribute the accidents to the frost. They were rather attributable to the bad quality of iron and bad materials. The risk was run for the sake of the saving. In many cases the directors were incompetent for the position they filled, but they ran the risk, and then if an accident happened the blame fell upon their subordinates, while the directors were allowed to escape altogether. The unfortunate men were punished for their want of skill instead of the directors being blamed for the badness of the materials which they allowed to be used. He thought it high time for some protection to be afforded to the lives of Her Majesty's subjects travelling on railways, and the Government should fix responsibility on the directors by making them amenable to the law.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYobserved, that it had been admitted by the majority of the hon. Members who had addressed the House that some such authority as that proposed was necessary for the control of railways. He had entertained the same opinion for many years. He was on the Committee which had investigated the matter, and a minority of that Committee came to a conclusion that there ought to be a Commission which should exercise a certain authority over railway companies. If the opinion of that minority had been carried out there would have been but one gauge on English railroads, and many

  1839
  lives would have been saved. It was said that one great source of accidents was travelling at too great a speed, and, if that were so, there ought to be some authority on the part of Government to put a stop to travelling at a dangerous rate. What was required was punctuality in railway travelling, the want of which was a great cause of inconvenience and danger, and there ought to be some power to whom individuals could apply who thought the arrangements of railways not convenient for local and general traffic. Very often the object of railway companies was not so much to accommodate the public as to fight and damage one another, with a view of obtaining for themselves the whole railway traffic of particular districts. He thought the House ought to feel obliged to the hon. Member for Norfolk for having brought forward the Motion, and he hoped he would not allow it to drop without obtaining from the Government a promise that they would seriously consider the whole question.
  MR. BENTINCK,in reply, said the first hon. Gentleman who had addressed them admitted that there might be some use in having communication between the guard and the engine-driver, and thus disproved his own arguments. The hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Dutton) told them that the railway directors were anxious for the safety of the public. That was a fact he had never denied; but what he said was that the mode in which they exhibited that anxiety was not sufficient to satisfy the public. One hon. Gentleman had admitted that great speed was one great element of danger, and he went on to say they could not interfere with it because the public would have it; but if it could be shown that a certain amount of speed was the cause of risk to railway travellers, and that some persons were sufficiently insane to wish to run that risk, then the Government ought to provide for the protection of persons so clearly bereft of reason; but from all he had been able to ascertain he thought his noble Friend was mistaken in his views on the subject of speed. Men of business did not desire great speed; all they wanted was punctuality; and the persons who desired to travel at the rate of sixty miles an hour were generally those who had nothing on earth to do when they got to the end of their journey. One of the causes of trains running at great speed was to enable one company to compete with another
  1840
  in respect of time, when the one went by a shorter route than the other, but both ran to the same district. One hon. Member (Sir Joseph Paxton) connected intimately with railways had let the cat out of the bag when he told them candidly that it was a matter of expense. He admitted that telegraphic communication along the line would be a great element of safety, and added that it was all very well for the London and North-Western to have it. They could afford it, but the small lines could not. But what did that statement amount to but that the profits of railway companies were to be pitted against the blood and bones of the people? He now came to the remarks of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade. He had exhibited all the eloquence for which he had always been celebrated, and all the official dexterity which he appeared to have acquired since he had occupied a seat on the Government benches, for he had entirely blinked the question; he had entirely misconceived the letter and the spirit of the Report. His right hon. Friend began by telling the House that repeated inquiries by Committees had been made into this question, and that they had all condemned legislative interference in the matter. That was perfectly true; but he had forgotten that those inquiries were made many years ago, when railways were comparatively in their infancy, and that therefore now the whole position of the matter was altered, and that though at that time Government interference was unnecessary, now nothing but that would secure the safety of the public. One Committee, however, had been appointed on this subject, over which he had the honour to preside, and which was composed of several gentlemen who had had much experience in connection with railway matters. That Committee, however, his right hon. Friend entirely ignored, and fell back on those which sat some years ago. His right hon. Friend said that the witnesses who had been examined before the last Committee differed greatly from one another upon many questions, and more especially upon the question of speed. But his right hon. Friend laboured evidently under a misapprehension upon that point. The fact was that, with the exception of a single official connected with a line which had to run its trains at an unusually rapid rate, as it had to compete with another company which had a shorter distance to traverse, the witnesses had all given it as

  1841
  their opinion that the high rate of speed frequently maintained was one of the principal causes of accidents; and he (Mr. Bentinck) had to add that he had never known a case in which evidence had been of so uniform a character as that which had been delivered before the Committee in question. His right hon. Friend, however, sought to prevent them from adopting the Motion by stating that if travellers were maimed, compensation could be recovered from the companies. But what the public wanted was, not that juries should award damages when necks were broken, but that precautions should be taken against the recurrence of such a calamity. He might add that, if any further proof were wanting of the necessity of Government interfence in the case of railways, it was to be found in the large sums awarded by juries for accidents which had taken place—sums which amounted, however, to not more than one-third of the money actually paid under that head, inasmuch as the question of damages was in the greater number of instances settled by compact between the parties, and his right hon. Friend under these circumstances was, he thought, bound officially to take an active part in dealing with the subject; but, while that was his opinion, he would not, in deference to what appeared to be the wish of the House, press his Motion to a division.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  RELATIONS WITH CHINA.
  COLONEL SYKES: On rising to call the attention of the House to that portion of the papers laid before the House upon China affairs relating to events at Shanghai, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what line of policy it was intended to pursue in our future relations with the Taepings or national party in China, and to move an Address for any further papers that may have been received relating to events at Shanghai— said, that upon a proper understanding by the House of Commons of the relative positions of the two great contending parties in China, it depended whether or not we should maintain permanently military garrisons along the coasts, and armed fleets upon the interior waters of China, at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. In the year 1644 the Manchoo Tartars had been called in as auxiliaries by the Emperor of China to assist in putting
  1842
  down a rebellion, and they had put down the rebellion and the Emperor also. They spread over the country and had seized its Government, but they had never fully amalgamated with the Chinese. Most of the cities were garrisoned by Tartar troops, who lived apart by themselves in a portion of the city walled off from the Chinese inhabitants, and almost all offices of trust and dignity were filled by Tartars. In consequence there had been numerous rebellions, and many secret societies had been formed, the last of which were known as the Triads, in hostility to the Government. In the year 1849 a rebellion broke out in the province which adjoined that of Kwantung, or Canton, under the direction of a loader, who assumed the name of Taeping. The rebels advanced to Canton and besieged that place, but being disheartened by demonstrations of English war-steamers they were repulsed, and retired to the neighbouring province, whither they were pursued by the Tartars. Whenever these Tartars came to a village which had not resisted the rebels they burnt the place, and put the inhabitants to the sword. Commissioner Yeh was said to have beheaded no less than 60,000 people in one yard in Canton, which became a mass of gory mud, and an American gentleman who called on him on Saturday last told him that he had been a witness to the necessity of straw being laid down before an execution. Notwithstanding those 60,000 executions, the chief of the Taepings made head. He went from province to province, and in 1853 he and his followers were found to be in possession of Nankin, having traversed from south-west to north-east, half the diameter of China, and possessing themselves of six of the finest provinces of China. In that year Sir George Bonham and Mr. Meadows went up the river to Nankin, and discovered for the first time that there was a religious as well as a political element in the movement, and that the religious element was in favour of the introduction of Christianity into China. They also found that the chief of the Taepings had been instructed in one of the missionary schools at Hong Kong, and had acquired there a certain amount of knowledge of Christian principles and Christian history. He had made his followers believe that he had been taken up to Heaven, that he had seen God, and had seen Christ, and that he had been commanded by the Father and the Son to propagate Christianity in China, and to extir-

  1843
  pate idolatry. The Taepings maintained themselves in Nankin from 1853 to 1858, apparently doing little, and an impression began to prevail that the movement was in a state of retrogression. At length the Tartars collected troops round Nankin, invested it upon three sides, and reduced the Taepings to great extremities. It was expected that the rebel party would become extinct, or would be driven again to the south-west, and the soldiers became so disheartened that their chief to restore their confidence composed a kind of hymn for them to sing—
  "Our heavenly Father, God, mightily reigneth; Therefore, the Celestial Dynasty shall stand for ever.
  and for ever. Our heavenly elder Brother, Christ, mightily bears our burden;
  Therefore, the Celestial Hall is full of glory, for ever full of glory!"
  Shortly after this verse was commenced to be sung by the besieged, two Taeping armies which had been out in the north and the west, suddenly returned to Nankin, and on the 3rd of May took place the utter defeat of the Tartar troops, who threw down their arms and dispersed themselves over the country, burning and plundering wherever they went. They tried to enter Soochow, but were repulsed by the inhabitants, and in revenge plundered and burnt the suburbs of the city, and eventually they made their way with their plunder to Shanghai; but the Tartar governor of that city plundered the plunderers, beheaded a great number of them, and turned the remainder out into the country. The rebels considered their being enabled to raise the siege of Nankin a miraculous interposition, and the verse or hymn is now engraved upon the dynastic seal, but the real cause of the renewed vigour of the rebels was probably owing to Hung Jen, the present Prime Minister, having joined them, an able man who had been educated by missionaries at Hong Kong, and had become a convert and preacher of Christianity. Upon the defeat and dispersion of the Imperial troops the garrison of Nankin followed in pursuit, making their way to Soochow, which they took possession of on the 26th of May. Soochow is about 100 miles from Shanghai. They remained at Soochow until early in August last, courteously receiving visits from Europeans of all nations, mercantile men, missionaries, and others. Early in August they wrote letters to the various consuls at Shanghai, stating that they were coming to take possession of that
  1844
  place on behalf of the national party. Consequent upon the receipt of these and former letters Consul Meadows wrote to Mr. Bruce on the 27th of July, stating that—
  "Mr. Grew, of Shanghai, brought to me a Chinese despatch, addressed by the chief authority of the Taepings, in occupation of the city of Soochow, to the Plenipotentiaries of England, France, and United States. I recommended him to deliver it to yourself directly, and I accompanied him to introduce him and interpret. On that occasion you were pleased to decline receiving the despatch; the knowledge of which fact makes me deem it proper to apply to you now for instructions."
  "A foreign cover has just been handed to me, on opening which I found a Chinese envelope, addressed from Soochow by Hung Jen, holding the rank of Prince and Military Councillor to Messrs. Smith, Edan, and Meadows, the three consuls. He is a relative of the Heavenly Prince, the introducer of Christianity, and is the author of a book upon the principles of Christianity."
  On the 31st of July Mr. Bruce wrote to Consul Meadows—
  "With reference to the letter addressed to you in common with the Consuls of France and America by one of the leaders of the insurgents, I am clearly of opinion that it is both inexpedient and objectionable, on principle, that Her Majesty's consuls should hold any communication with the insurgents at Soochow, and I have therefore to instruct you to take no notice of it."
  A letter from the insurgents was also sent through Mr. Jenkins, the interpreter of the American Consulate, to the three consuls; and Mr. Bruce, writing to Lord J. Russell, says—
  "It is very undesirable, in my opinion, that the consuls should enter into communication with the rebels, and I accordingly instructed Mr. Meadows to that effect. I also directed him in future to decline receiving any letter addressed to himself or others."
  On the 1st of August the English missionary, Edkins, was invited by Hung Jen to visit him at Soochow. Mr. Bruce, after a personal conversation with him, writes to Mr. Edkins—
  "That it was very undesirable that he should visit the rebels, although other people went there for traffic."
  On the 17th of August Mr. Bruce wrote to Lord John Russell—
  "I think the insurgents will come owing to visits and sympathy of foreigners so openly expressed by them, that if they appear in force we may be persuaded to give up the town to them."
  In consequence of Mr. Bruce thinking that the rebels would come to Shanghai, he arranged with General de Montauban to de-

  1845
  fend the city, although we were at war with the Tartar Government and the foreign settlements were not in any danger, as they were outside the suburbs of the city and well barricaded. On the 17th of August, the day before the Taepings arrived, Mr. Bruce resolves with the French General to intimate to the rebels that Shanghai will be held militarily, and on the evening of that day, Friday 17th, sends the Kestrel and the French steamer Hong Kong up the river to deliver some documents to the insurgent chiefs, if they were to be met with, as was supposed, in the neighbourhood of Sung Kiang. Scarcely had the steamers reached the village of Ming Hong and got out of sight of Shanghai than the rebels appeared and took Zee-ka-Wei, four miles from Shanghai, and afterwards stormed a camp and redoubt mounted with cannon, two miles from the walls, and chased the imperialists into the city, and tried to get in with them. We had previously manned the walls, and Captain Cavanagh, on duty then, ordered the bridge over the moat to be destroyed, and gave the insurgents a rather warm reception from the city wall with rifles and canister. The rebels took shelter in the south suburb, got into a missionary's house, but finding his avocation left his house and himself untouched. A sharp fire was then directed against a body advancing with the flags they had captured from the imperialists. The firing from the walls both from cannon and rifles was excellent. As soon as canister was useless the foe were treated to shell, thrown time after time into the very middle of their flags. When driven from the south-gate Lieutenant 0'Grady, who was waiting for them with a piquet at the southwest angle, gave them another dressing. Captain Maxwell, with the Sikhs at the little south-gate, inflicted no small loss. There was a European killed amongst the rebels, and others were seen. Parties were then sent from various parts to burn down such houses in the suburbs as could afford shelter to the enemy, and the fires raged outside the west and south gates during the whole of Saturday night. Thus ended the first days' work, with no small loss to the enemy, but without a single casualty to report on the foreign side. Sunday morning broke on a scene of conflagration and destruction. During the night the rebels worked round almost to the French quarter, and had planted some flags in the Temple of the Queen of Heaven.
  1846
  The French fired the suburb, which was the residence of the wealthy merchants. The flames sprang up with fearful grandeur, particularly where a sugar warehouse caught fire. About two o'clock the Kestrel and French steamer came back, not having found the rebels up the river, and not having, therefore, delivered their proclamations. The narrative speaks of fine rifle practice, and twenty men are said to have fallen to Lieutenant O'Grady's rifle. On Monday, the 20th of August, the rebels returned in greater force than ever. A heavy fire was kept up on them, to which, strange to say, scarcely a shot was returned. The Pioneer vessel of war went up the river and dropped 13-inch shells wherever clumps of banners were seen. On Tuesday, the 21st, the rebels had retreated out of range. The conflagration raised by the French in the water suburb was still raging, and it was melancholy to see warehouse after warehouse full of valuable goods falling a prey to the devouring elements. On Wednesday, the 22nd, Mr. Forrest volunteered to take to the insurgent camp the despatches which the steamers had failed to deliver. He rode to the camp and was civilly met by an officer, who complained of the resistance that the foreigners had offered to them, asserting at the same time that the insurgents had been invited to Shanghae by the foreigners of all nations, and Mr. Forrest was pressed to go to Zee-ka-Wei to see the chief Wang, the commander-in-chief. No damage was done in the English or French settlements. The above details are extracted from a narrative published in The North China Herald, dated 25th August, 1860. Mr. Bruce wrote to Lord John Russell, dated Shanghai, 28th October, 1860, that he had demanded payment for the expenses of defending Shanghai and the pay of the troops and their rations, &c. Mr. Bruce refused to admit of an Imperial garrison of 3,000 men into Shanghai, because it was held by the Allies. Previously the Tartar authorities being pressed for funds to meet the insurrection, had asked the consuls to aid them in collecting the Customs' duties. European inspectors (Mr. Lay one of them) were given them, and on the 26th of October, Mr. Bruce, in a letter to Lord John Russell, says that in one year the revenue doubled itself; and in 1859 was 2,902,377 taels or £900,000 sterling. Mr. Bruce, on the 4th of September, wrote to Lord John Russell—
  "On Sunday, 2nd September, a letter was

  1847
  brought to me by a chairbearer of the American Consulate."
  "Le, the loyal prince, &c, to the three consuls. Previously to moving my army from Soochow, I wrote to you acquainting you that it would soon reach Shanghai, and that if the residences of your honourable nations and the mercantile establishments would hoist yellow flags as distinguishing marks, I would give immediate orders to my officers and soldiers prohibiting them from entering or disturbing them in any way; as you would consequently have received and perused my letter, I supposed you would act according to the tenour of it."
  "But though the past is done with, precautions can be taken for the future. My army is now about to proceed directly to Shanghai; and in the towns and villages through which it will pass, should there be churches, I earnestly hope that you will give orders to the people of them to stand in the doors to give information that they are churches, so that there may be no mistake in future. As soon as I personally arrive, I purpose personally discussing with you all other business. —10 year, 7 moon, 9 days."
  A second letter was sent from Chung Wang, 10 year, 7 moon, 12 day, to the three Consuls. It says—"
  "The foreigners, contrary to agreement, have made arrangements with the Imperial Officers to protect Shanghai. That the foreigners, particularly the French, had invited him to Shanghai."
  It also says—
  "The French, having broken faith, will not be permitted to enter Taeping territory.
  "I came to Shanghai to make a Treaty, in order to see us connected together by trade and commerce. I did not come for the purpose of fighting with you.
  "Should any of your honourable nations regret what has occurred, and hold friendly relations with our state to be best, they need have no apprehensions in coming to consult me; but if you continue to be directed by imps, follow their lead in all things without reflecting on the differences between you. You must not blame me if hereafter you find it difficult to pass along channels of commerce, and if there is no outlet for native produce to pass along channels of commerce.
  "I trust you will favour me with a reply.
  "Hence I shall for the present repress this day's indignation, and charitably open a path by which to alter our present positions towards each other."
  That the chiefs were sincere in these professions is shown by the courteous reception of Mr. Forrest, and that European establishments were spared is shown by Lieutenant Pricket who went with an escort to the Jesuit College at Zee-ka-Wei on the 31st August. Two French priests showed them over the church, which was in a state of filth and confusion, but no great damage had been done, and The North China Herald—no friend of the Tae-pings—said the rebels in their retreat had not destroyed the crops round Shanghai.
  1848
  The noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, with the consistency of character which belonged to him, had ordered his subordinates in China to remain neutral in the struggle between the Tartars and the Taepings; but the extracts he had just read showed how little attention had been paid to those instructions; and he needed now to pause a moment to picture the extraordinary and humiliating position in which the authorities had placed the British at Shanghai. We were at war with the Tartar Government, and at the very time that our army was advancing upon Pekin, and that British officers were being tortured to death with the sanction of the Emperor of China, we were, by means of our own officers, collecting the customs' duties of the port of Shanghai, amounting to about;£900,000 sterling and even more per annum, and handing them over to Tartar officials, to be employed in the war against ourselves and against the national party. We manned the walls of the Imperial City of Shanghai, and repulsed the attacks of the rebels with great slaughter; who asserted that they had been invited to come to Shanghai by the foreign communities, and which Mr. Bruce himself admits, and we had not the justification of self-defence, as the foreign settlements were free from the city and suburbs, and prepared for resistance; moreover, we had demanded from the Tartars payment for the services rendered by our troops in the shedding of blood—making our troops mercenaries—a proceeding which left an almost indelible stain upon our honour. This strange anomaly of fighting for our enemies and killing our would-be friends would seem to find an explanation in the opinions Mr. Bruce entertained of the rebels, as expressed in a letter to Lord John Russell, dated—
  "Shanghai, September 4.
  "Every day shows more strongly that no principles or ideas of policy animate its leaders. Even the extermination of the Tartars, the only principle put forward, seems rather a pretext for upsetting all Government and authority, and enabling the stronger to pillage the weaker, than an object necessary of itself as a step necessary towards establishing a more national Government. The framework of society is entirely broken up in the districts occupied by them, by the flight of the educated and respectable classes, &c, &c."
  And, again—
  "But as the chief is an ignorant fanatic, if not an impostor, and the bulk of his adherents are drawn from the dangerous classes of China, the result is the rule of the sword in its worst form and the pillage of large districts, &c."

  1849
  Again—
  "Their system differs in nothing, as far as I can learn, from the proceedings of a band of brigands organized under one head."
  And Mr. Bruce "Looks upon Hung Jen's book as a crafty device to conciliate the missionary body." These opinions would seem to have been founded upon statements made by Europeans who were in the pay of the Tartar Government, as inspectors of customs and collectors at Shanghai, and upon a private letter from an American missionary of the name of Holmes, printed in the North China Herald; several other private letters from American and English missionaries not being noticed nor transmitted to the Foreign Office with Mr. Holmes's letter. Now, he was not the apologist of the rebels, and he did not doubt but that the waste of life, the plunder, the burnings, and the anarchy spoken of by Mr. Bruce really occurred; but in civil wars, exasperated by religious fanaticism, where the feeling is "to kill, or submit to be killed," to attribute to one side only all the crimes committed, is to forget history and become a partizan. At all times and amongst all peoples such wars have the same lamentable accompaniments. The Jews extirpated the Canaanites; the polished Greeks put the populations of cities to death, as in the case of Miletus. At the Sicilian Vespers, in 1272, nearly 8,000 Frenchmen were massacred, and every Frenchman in Sicily sought out and put to death. The Constable of Bourbon, when he sacked Rome in 1527, inflicted greater evils upon the inhabitants than even the Huns had done. The dungeons of Naples have recently appalled us in their revelations, and in the Abruzzi the most revolting outrages are being now committed. Add to the civil, the religious element in strife, and we find that Gibbon tells us that the difference of a dipthong in two Greek words, implying a difference in religious belief, occasioned bloody contests amongst Christians in the fourth century; he tells us also that the enthroning of Bishop Macedonius cost above 3,000 lives; that the Latin Christians were massacred at Constantinople in the fifth century, and that in the Iconoclastic schism, in the seventh and eighth centuries, thousands perished. The massacre of St. Bartholomew, in 1572, and our own Smithfield fires testifyunhappily to the virulence of religious rancour; and we shudder at the massacres now perpetrating in Syria.
  1850
  The Taepings profess to have a command from God to extirpate idolatry and to introduce Christianity into China, and to expel their foreign rulers the Tartars. It is war to the knife, therefore, between them and the Tartars, and though the Chinese Buddhists are now Idolaters, yet they are not zealots, and Buddhism is not the State religion of China; nevertheless, all the Ecclesiastical establishments will be hostile to the Taepings. Idolatry was no part of original Buddhism, and it was not until more than 100 years after the death of Buddha, and after the first convocation at Rajgriha in Behar in Bengal, in the fifth century before Christ, to settle the dogmas of Buddhism, that an image of Buddha was set up, and this innovation in the process of time has led to Buddhist temples being filled with images of imaginery beings, but without much reverence being paid to them. Buddhist belief, therefore, is not likely to oppose great obstacles to conversion, and the destruction of the images in the temples, which is complete in Nankin, seems not to have had much effect upon the minds of the Chinese. Mr. Bruce states the rebels create a desert wherever they go; but for ten years past they have overrun six of those provinces which produce tea and silk, and the official returns of the exports from Shanghai indicate that this production has not been interrupted. In 1844–45, the export of tea from Shanghai was 3,800,627lbs; in 1859–60, it was 53,463,7711bs, and the export of silk rose from 6,433 bales to 67,874 bales. In 1854–55, two years after the rebels had been in possession of Nankin, the export of tea was 80,221,2451bs. and 53,965 bales of silk; and in 1856–57 the export of silk rose to 92,160 bales. The rebels are now in possession of Soochow, the Paris of China from its art manufactures; and a leader in the North China Herald of the 15th December last, says:—
  "News has reached the city authorities from Tangkow near Soochow, to the effect that the gentry and people anxious to return to their homes have given in their submission to the rebel authorities, and agree to pay tribute. They also agree to collect tolls from all vessels passing. This submission to the insurgents is becoming pretty general now, and a more settled form of Government is beginning to develope itself at Soochow and other places occupied by Chang-maos.
  "A person named Hsiung is at present in command at Soochow, the Chung Wang having gone to Nankin."
  The Rev. Mr. Griffith John, an English missionary, in his narrative of a visit to Nankin in November last, says—

  1851
  "Everywhere they are busy in rebuilding the place."
  And Nankin, he says, is—
  "As inhabitable as any other Chinese city I know of."
  And, he adds—
  "There is no public tobacco and opium smoking, nor spirit drinking in the city: all these are strictly forbidden."
  In a letter dated 21st December, 1861, sent to the North China Herald by Mr. B. Jenkins, the interpreter to the American Consulate, he states the "animus of the Imperial Government is plainly adverse to religious toleration;" and he encloses a letter from the Rev. Messrs. J. W. Lambuth and Y. I. Allan, who visited Hang Chow in proof of it—the soldiers refusing to receive religious books, while the rebels gladly took them—
  "We reached Kaze on Monday at noon, and were detained at the rebel custom house awhile. We distributed Christian books to the soldiers, answered all their inquiries concerning religion, and sang for them, as we should have been glad to do for the imperialists if they had permitted it.
  "We heard that in this city there were four foreigners who had been attacked by imperial soldiers on their way to Shanghai, robbed of more than a thousand dollars, and stripped of everything. The rebels were treating them kindly, and were going to send them to Shanghai by way of Soochow."
  And in contradiction to the assertion of the universal devastation caused by the rebels, Messrs. Allan and Lambuth say—
  "The Tartar officers in charge of the gates would not permit us to enter the city; but a couple of our servants were allowed to enter. They represented the Tartar city to be in ruins as far as they went, which was to the Mahommedan Mosque.
  "At the village of Vung Ka Gyan, 30 li from Ka Shin, the people were very quiet, buying and selling silk, and a rebel tax-collector in their midst receiving tribute; they pay him about 700 taels every fifteen days. His presence did not appear to be disagraeablo to the villagers. The great city of Hang Chow we reached on Thursday, December 13. The villages in the neighbourhood of Hang Chow are all in ruins."
  Here, at least at Vung Ka Gyan, the framework of society was not so much broken up as in the Tartar city of Hang Chow. Mr. Bruce says the rebel-leader is an "ignorant fanatic if not an impostor," and that the books printed and published in Chinese by Hung Jen, now a prince of the rebels, was a "crafty device to conciliate the missionary body." He (Colonel Sykes) held in his hand an analysis of that book, which comprised
  1852
  not merely the chief points of the Gospel clearly stated, but also questions of political, commercial, and social economy. In one chapter he advocates the introduction of railroads, steamers, life and fire insurances, newspapers, and other western inventions. These are described, and the advantages stated. Who knows but that ere many decades shall have passed over our heads, this noble country—vast in its extent, and exhaustless in its resources, will be penetrated and intersected by railroads, and startled into life by the rattling of the fire-carriage, and the flashing of the electric stream? Foreign nations are to be treated on terms of equality; and foreigners are never to be called by any opprobrious names. Missionaries will be at liberty to go everywhere to preach the Gospel. We have since learnt that Hung Jen is extremely anxious that a number of missionaries should proceed forthwith to Nankin to teach the people, as most of them, he says, are very ignorant. The Rev. I. J. Roberts, a missionary who has been thirty years in China, bears testimony to the honesty of the professions of the rebels in the following letter:—
  To the Editor of the China Mail.
  "Soochow, 26th September, 1860.
  "Dear Sir,—I have the pleasure of informing you that I arrived safely at this place on the 20th inst. I have had an interview or two with Chung Wang, the faithful king, who is commander-in-chief of the army that took Soochow and had thoughts of taking Shanghai, but had no intention of fighting with the foreigners there! He received me with all kindness and courtesy, and the probability is will accompany me to Nankin in a few days. Kan Wang returned here about seven days before I arrived. This King, Chung Wang, has no disposition to get into collision with foreigners; hut, on the contrary, wishes to maintain the greatest friendship and cordiality, both in commerce and religion. He is greatly at a loss to know how two nations worshipping the same great God, like the Western Powers, and Taeping Wang can fall out and fight: he is not inclined to be caught in such an inconsistency ! He wishes to speak to the western kings on the subject. I told him if he would write a letter to the English Ambassador, I would translate and circulate it through the newspaper system, so that the western kings should see it, and their subjects too—the very thoughts of his heart which he wished to communicate should be spread far and wide, and have their due effect in moulding public opinion in reference to him and his doings. This seemed to be a new idea to him, at which he rejoicingly laughed heartily, and agreed immediately to do so. He has written a letter, which is now before me in course of translation, and will be ready for the press before I leave thin place. My health is very good, spirits fine, and prospects promising. I have preached once to the King and his councillors, and to about a hundred of his highest offi-

  1853
  cers by invitation, and received from all every attention and courtesy that I could ask.
  "In haste, yours truly,
  "I. J. Roberts."
  The Rev. Griffith John, in November, 1860, obtained at Nankin from the Taeping King an edict for the complete toleration of Christianity, and he had conversations with the King Chang, whose vague ideas of the Gospel had shocked Mr. Holmes; and he said to Mr. John—
  "You foreign brethren have had the Gospel for more than 1,800 years, but we have had it as it were only eight days. Your knowledge must be correct and extensive, ours must necessarily be imperfect and limited. You must bear with us for a season and gradually we shall improve."
  The letter alluded to by Mr. Roberts was a manifesto of the Taeping King, addressed to the Governments of England, France, and America, a copy of which was printed in the London Times, also in Paris and New York. Mr. Bruce considers that the forces of the rebels are greatly over estimated, and that having once sustained a signal defeat, the country people would dispose of the fugitives, and the rebellion would disappear. But the Rev. Mr. Roberts, in a letter dated Tau Yung, October 8, 1860, and printed in the North China Herald of the 17th November, gives proofs from personal observation to the contrary. He says—
  "Tau Yung, Oct. 8th, 1860.
  "Mr. Editor,—This place is the capital of a district called A-Hin, about thirty miles from Chin Kong, called by foreigners Chin-kiang-foo, at the point where the Grand Canal crosses the Yang-tszo River, and about sixty miles from Nankin. We arrived here on the 7th instant, having left Sooehow on the 4th. On the way we had little worthy of note; passed two, this making the third walled city since we left Soochow; all of which are garrisoned by the revolutionists. When told in Soochow that Chung Wang had more than a hundred thousand soldiers under him, I was at a loss to know where they were: but now I have no reason to doubt but he has more than that number, as these places and Soochow are garrisoned by them, while he is marching a large army of fifty or sixty thousand, they say to attack and retake Chin-kiang-foo, which is now in the hands of the imperialists. We saw a great number of them marching on their way as we came up. We found it to be a fact, in the temples on the way, and those I have seen in this city to-day, that the Revolutionists make havoc among the idols of past days. We here met another King, ChongWong, from Nankin, who had come down to consult with Chung Wang—hold a council of war, I presume, in relation to the present expedition against Chin-kiang-foo. He also received me with the same courtesy and kindness by which I had been received by Chung Wang, and invited me to dine with him, which I did with pleasure. Having little or nothing to do to-day, Chung Wang kindly granted me a horse, conductor, and
  1854
  waiting man, to go around and take a good look at the city, before I proceed to Nankin, which is now called Teen-king; and, as a borrowed horse rides free, I went all over the city as near as I could, visited two or three temples, one ancestral hall, a pawnbroker's shop, and the places between. Found all in a sad condition, the idols broke down, and temples, too, outside of the city; the tablets in the hall, removed, shattered, forlorn, and the shop quite gutted of its many bright and costly robes. Of the original inhabitants, consisting perhaps of fifteen to thirty thousand, few are now here, hut the place is garrisoned with some ten to fifteen thousand revolutionists. The idea, while riding through this city and Soochow, kept running through my mind—' The nation that will not serve Thee shall perish.' This is literally fulfilled in this case, and the people seem mad on making their own destruction sure. Some cut their own throats, and others act as foolishly in fighting the revolutionists, and making them cut their throats, when they would save them alive and protect them, if they would only act like people with half common sense, attending to their own business with quietness and prudence. But I verily believe, if it must take such a scourging as this to wean them from their idolatry, and break it off, the sooner they get it the better.
  "The flowery flag is quite popular up this way; most of the vessels trading with the revolutionists, of whatever nation they be, carry it as evidence of its popularity !
  We speak of kings among the revolutionists, but these titles are only about the same here as lords and dukes in England, and when one of them is commander-in-chief, as in the case of Chung Wang, of course it increases his power if not his dignity; as in the case of Lord Elgin when appointed Ambassador; but each is accountable to his own Queen or Emperor, as much as any other subject under like appointment. But as we are told in the Scriptures, that kings shall become nursing fathers in the Church of Christ. I would fain hope that these are the ones alluded to, and that that prediction will become as literally fulfilled as the destruction of their idols: nor do I think this improbable ! And as to the revolution, I verily believe it will go on to consummation. If it be of God no device of man can put it down; if not more than likely it would have gone down ere this !
  "I. J. R."
  The Rev. Messrs. Allan and Lambuth, in a different quarter, bear similar testimony. On their way back to Shanghai from Hang Chow in the possession of the Tartars, they say—
  "They left Hang Chow on Friday, the 14th December, 1860, at noon, after a stay of twenty-four hours, returning by the grand canal. At noon, on Saturday, we passed Za Mung, which appeared to be abandoned to the crows, like several other places which we passed.
  "An imperial force of about three hundred was stationed in the neighbourhood. On the morning of Sabbath 16th, when about forty miles from Hang Chow, we suddenly and unexpectedly perceived the rebel banners waving in the distance. Considering an advance better than a retreat, on we went; and the rebel forces opened on the right and left, to capture us; but as soon as they discovered we were foreigners, some cried 'foreign

  1855
  devils,' and others ' foreign brethren,' and at once dropped their flags and spears, and had a hearty laugh. We anchored for two hours, hoping that the force would soon pass by, but seeing there was no end to it, we determined to go a-head. For the distance of twenty miles the grand canal was densely crowded with rebel boats. Had we remained stationary it would have taken a day for the force to pass us by. They represented the number of boats to be more than ten thousand; on board some we counted twenty-seven men, on others not more than three. A Cantonese opium-smoker carried off from our boat without leave a nice opera glass which we hope they will return when convenient. A large number of boats were armed with three and six pounders. This force was under the command of General Liau. We visited General Lee, and were kindly received. He told us that Chung Wong had gone North and the Kan Wong to Nankin.
  "We saw that war had desolated the country in many places, that large and small bodies of rebels ravaged the country extensively on their foraging and looting expeditions; and often saw sickening sights, which the rebels, as well as the imperialists, must avoid if they would gain the good opinion of civilized nations.
  Now, if an average be taken of ten men per boat, the missionaries passed through an army of 100,000 men, and as the rebels have garrisons in many cities and other armies in the field, it is plain their military power must be very considerable. Now the whole of the above communications are in absolute contravention of the opinions expressed by Mr. Bruce, but it would seem we are to risk a contest with the rebels. An expedition is ordered up the Yung-tze-Kiang. Merchant vessels are to be armed, and to have passes from the consul on the condition of not visiting the cities or towns, occupied by the insurgents. Upon the merchant vessels arriving abreast of a rebel battery on shores in the possession of the rebels for some hundred miles up the river, a shot will be fired to bring her to; she replies, and the battery opens, and either sinks the vessel or drives her back. Our ships of war are called upon to avenge the indignity; the battery is silenced, and thus commences a war with the Chinese as a successor to the war with the Tartars. Such is the present state of the contending parties in China and our relations with them. On the one hand, an insurgent national party, holding one third of China, pledged to the expulsion of the Tartars, the extinction of idolatry, and the introduction of the Christian religion. On the other hand a feeble, foreign Tartar despotism, which has proved faithless to treaties with European nations, and is inimical to Christians, both parties being engaged in exterminating each other.
  1856
  The English professing neutrality, nevertheless, interfering and defending Tartar cities against the national party, and collecting customs duties for the Tartar Government, in the case of Shanghai particularly, handing over nearly a million sterling per annum to be employed by the Tartars against the insurgents, and to prevent the introduction of the Bible into China, and now proceeding hostilely up the Yung-tze-Kiang. He asked the noble Lord how long this policy was to be continued, which would involve the maintenance of permanent garrisons on the coasts of China, and armed fleets on its inland waters at the expense of the taxpayers of England. The noble Lord has obtained the gratitude of the Italian people by the moral support he has given to their struggles against despotism, and the noble Lord also directed non intervention between the contending parties in China; but while the noble Lord, with the consistency of his political life, was upholding a great principle in Europe, his subordinates in China were greeting the same principle with salvos of shot and shell and the destruction of its supporters. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would be able to assure the House, that for the future in China, he will not permit his subordinates to blow hot and cold in the same breath, to play fast and loose with the principle, that peoples are justified in their attempts to shake off a cruel despotism, and that our position will be one of absolute neutrality. He begged to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any further Papers that may have been received relating to events at Shanghae."
  MR. BUCHANANseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: It is very difficult to deal with the observations of the hon. and gallant Member, as I cannot quite perceive to what object they tend. I do not consider a proper subject of discussion here the question of what may be the religious doctrines held by these rebellious armies in China. But I am bound to admit that it is a question for this House whether or not Mr. Bruce and Mr. Meadows behaved properly during the events at Shanghai. The last part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech was directed to that question. After the example set by the hon.

  1857
  and gallant Member I do not wish to read any lengthy documents; but I must give Mr. Bruce's account of the rebel expedition against Shanghai. In a despatch dated August 17, 1860, he says—
  "Shanghai is menaced with a serious attack from the insurgents. It appears that they feel the advantage they derive from the contest now being carried on in the North, and they declare they will not lose this opportunity of making themselves masters of the city.… The accounts received are not very clear as to the position of the rebel expedition, but they show the merciless character of their proceedings. Two gentlemen who came down the river yesterday from the silk districts describe it, above Sung-kiang, as full of corpses; most of them had their arms tied behind them and their throats cut, showing that they had been murdered in cold blood. The native trade on the river is stopped, and the country is full of trembling fugitives who have abandoned their homes on the approach of the forces. Looking to their previous doings and to the acknowledged inability of. their chiefs to restrain the excesses of the plunderers who swell their army, I am little inelined to attach weight to their assurances of respecting foreign persons and property, or to allow them, if it can be helped, to obtain possession of the city, where, with the arms and ammunition they would obtain, they would completely command the settlement in the event of any misunderstanding, or should circumstances lead them to wish to plunder."
  That is the opinion of Mr. Bruee with respect to the rebels. Mr. Meadows said in apprehension of an attack—
  "Shanghai is a port open to foreign trade, and the native dealers residing therein have large transactions with the foreigners who resort to the place to carry on their business. Were it to become the scene of attack and of civil war, commerce would receive a severe blow, and the interests of those, whether foreign or native, who wish to pursue their peaceful avocations in quiet, would suffer great loss."
  These are the plain and practical considerations which influenced Mr. Bruce and Mr. Meadows, and determined them to resist the attack of the rebels. My hon. and gallant Friend says no notice of our intention was given to this rebellious army; but Mr. Bruce says quite the contrary, and adds that Mr. Edkins went to the place where they were gathered in large numbers, and informed them that their attack would be resisted. They, therefore, had plenty of notice, and I conceive that our Minister and Consul were fully justified in resisting their attack. Everybody knew that at Nankin and other places the rebels had murdered a great number of the inhabitants; that they had laid half the town in ruins, and had made the country a desert; and our Minister did not choose that Shanghai, which was an important
  1858
  commercial station, where our merchants transacted business with the native traders, should be desolated by these people, who considered it their duty to murder the "imps," as they called the Imperialists, and to lay waste the country. That was the view taken by our representatives, and I told Mr. Bruce that Her Majesty's Government entirely approved his conduct; that we did not wish to interfere between the Imperial Government and the rebels; that we meant to be entirely neutral; but that we could not remain neutral when the town where the English and foreign merchants were established was attacked by the rebel forces. I may say that the first advance of these forces did not give a favourable impression of what their conduct would be if they had taken possession of Shanghai. We are told of Jesuit priests who were at the head of a number of Chinese youths whom they were instructing. One of these priests was dressed in Chinese costume, and the rebels, according to their custom of murdering everybody who obeyed the Emperor of China, murdered him, and cut off the heads of these poor children. Was not that a sign of the barbarous conduct which might have been expected from these rebels if they could have got possession of Shanghai? I do not wish to enter into the question of their religious opinions and doctrines. Whoever wishes to know what their opinions are, and how totally their conduct is at variance with their professions, may obtain full information in the account furnished by Mr. Holmes, an American Baptist missionary, who lived some time among them and became entirely disgusted with them. Their doctrine is really a blasphemous parody on Christianity. They have added to the tenets of our faith an idolatrous religion of their own. Some among them claim to be the sons and brothers of Christ, and, governing according to their own cruel and profligate fashion, they call this Christianity. I have nothing to do with any comparison of their religion with that of the Tartars and Chinese; but when my hon. and gallant Friend asks me to back up these men because they are the national party and the disciples of Christ, I must say that there does not appear to be a word of truth in such a statement. They are really idolaters, and are no better than the Chinese idolaters whom they profess to despise. With regard to our policy the only course we can take is that of perfect neutrality, at the same time not allowing the towns where

  1859
  our merchants are congregated to be destroyed, simply because some persons in this country have a false notion that they are a national party and that we ought to support them. As to the only practical question before the House, I say that Mr. Bruce and Mr. Meadows have done no more than their duty in the course they have pursued, and I do not think the House will be of opinion that they are open to censure. I cannot agree to the terms of the Motion with which my hon. and gallant Friend concluded, but if any further papers arrive which will throw a light on this question, I promise that they shall be produced.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY—COMMITTEE—NOMINATION.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEmoved the nomination of the Select Committee on the Board of Admiralty.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir James Graham be one of the Members of the Committee on the Board of Admiralty."
MR. BENTINCKsaid, the course which he was about to take might be somewhat unusual, but he had not decided on taking it without sufficient grounds. He was glad that the first name on the list was that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, because if his right hon. Friend had been present—and they must all regret his absence, and still more the cause of it— he would have confirmed the statement that from the long and intimate friendship which subsisted between them there could be no possibility of his (Mr. Bentinck) being actuated by personal motives in objecting to his name. When the gallant Admiral moved for the Committee he then took the liberty of stating that one of the principal questions for its consideration would be whether civilians and men distinguished only for their Parliamentary career should or should not be placed at the head of the Admiralty. Now, if the right hon. Baronet, who had more than once been at the head of that Board, and on each occasion had done all that great talents and abilities could enable a man to do, were appointed on the Committee, he would be at once both judge and jury in his own cause. Another objection to the composition of the Committee was that the official element was so represented in it as to give it a preponderance. The House well knew that the great experience of official members and their
1860
familiarity with details often enabled them to decide the opinions of a Committee even where their numbers were small. He fully admitted that the Admiralty should be fairly represented; hut it would have been sufficient to nominate the present Secretary to the Board (Lord Clarence Paget), the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), who had already filled the same position with credit, and one of the Lords of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread). For these reasons he thought that the name of the right hon. Baronet ought to be struck out.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he would be occasioned considerable regret should he be misunderstood or expose himself to any misconstruction in the few words he was about to address to the House. He emphatically declared he was actuated by no personal hostility, private feeling, or party spirit. He rose upon an occasion of national importance when an inquiry by a Committee of the House was about to be instituted into the working of a large executive department of the Government, to express his honest convictions which led him to protest against the nomination of any ex-First Lords of the Admiralty upon the Committee, important their evidence doubtless would be as witnesses, but not sitting in a judicial capacity. If this Committee was to impart satisfaction to the country—if it was to prove of permanent advantage to the naval service—it must be composed of Members upon whom not a breath of suspicion could rest that they had been actuated by selfish bias. Every professional witness should absolutely be convinced when called before the Committee that no possible injury could be inflicted upon him in having given his evidence honestly; but if the Committee was to he composed of the Members to whom he now objected, the result would not he satisfactory to the country or the naval service for the reasons he had named.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that without going so far as to say that no ex-First Lord ought to be on the Committee, he could not but find serious fault with its composition. Out of the fifteen Members, seven were, or had been, connected with the Admiralty, and it was but natural to suppose that Gentlemen who had served in that department would have a natural bias in favour of it. He was afraid that even the hon. and gallant Admiral who had moved for the Committee (Admiral Duncombe) had not shown himself so free from bias as a man ought to be who

1861
was about to undertake a searching inquiry into the shortcomings of the Admiralty. On a former occasion he had told the House that he did not think it necessary to have Sir Baldwin Walker as a witness before the Committee, and he gave a most curious reason for that opinion. It was because Sir Baldwin Walker had recently given evidence before a Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of the dockyards. But the present was not a Committee to inquire into the dockyards; it was a Committee to inquire into the mode of doing business at the Admiralty; and surely there could not be a more competent witness than a gentleman who for a period of fourteen years had been the chief executive officer of the Board. Then the gallant Admiral gave another most extraordinary reason for not wishing for the presence of Sir Baldwin Walker. He told the House that the Admiral was a most cautious man—that he never gave his evidence without dwelling maturely on every word. That was the very reason which would make him the best evidence. The Committee did not want witnesses who would give their opinions without consideration. They wanted men who would give their opinions after mature deliberation, and then they would he able to place implicit reliance on their evidence. On a former occasion he had expressed his opinion that the Committee was not likely to lead to much result. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that this Committee, without Sir Baldwin Walker, would be like the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted — by particular desire. What had occurred had only confirmed that opinion, and he was afraid the labours of the Committee were not likely to be brought to any satisfactory termination.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It might almost seem unnecessary for anybody sitting on this bench to mix himself up in a difference of opinion which seems to prevail on the other side as to the Committee which has been moved for by the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite, and which is now objected to by an hon. Gentleman sitting two benches below him; but at the same time I think that the objection which has been taken to the name of Sir James Graham, and which is also applicable to the names of Sir John Paking-ton and Sir Francis Baring is not founded on any good reason. If this were a Com-
1862
mittee appointed to inquire into the personal conduct of those who have been First Lords of the Admiralty for any series of time, if it were a Committee of incrimination, I could perfectly understand that those who were the subjects of a personal charge ought not to be put upon it; but, as I understand it, this is not a Committee to inquire into any personal demerits or delinquencies, it is one to inquire whether the present organization of the naval department is or is not the best adapted to the public service, and whether it would be advantageous to the public service that the Admiralty department should be constituted in a different manner from the present. It appears to me that to appoint a Committee to inquire into the structure and working of a complicated department, and to put upon it men who are totally ignorant of the working of that department would not be a method by which the Committee would be likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It must be advantageous that there should be on the Committee persons taken from different sides of the House, who at different periods have been at the head of the department, the organization of which is to be the subject of inquiry, and so far from thinking it an objection to have upon the Committee three gentlemen who have successively, and under different circumstances, superintended the administration of the Admiralty Department, it appears to me that they are precisely the persons who would be useful in directing and assisting the other Members in the inquiry. The same argument applies, in a lesser degree, to those who have held other appointments at the Admiralty, but the hon. Member opposite states that he did not object to those who had been Secretaries of the Admiralty and to my hon. Friend who is now a Lord of the Admiralty. But it appears to me that when the subject to be inquired into is the internal working and construction of a department, those who have been at the head of it, and who have the greatest and most complete knowledge of all the internal workings of the system, would be the most useful Members. It is said that they would be very useful witnesses, and so they might be; but for witnesses to be useful those who examine them ought to know on what points the questions are to be put. But it is impossible that those who have not themselves conducted the department, and who do not know all the complicated relations of the

1863
different parts of the machine to each other can direct the examinations of First Lords in a manner most likely to bring out the truth and to arrive at a satisfactory result. I humbly submit, therefore, that the objection urged is not one which ought to guide the House, and I think the House would not be appointing a Oommittee really satisfactory and useful for the purposes for which it is intended unless they put upon it those three names which are objected to.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Sir, I am the last person to take exception to the name of Sir James Graham as a Member of the Committee. But I object altogether to the appointment of this Committee. I consider that by nominating it the Government are abdicating the functions of the Executive. The shortcomings of the Admiralty have been exposed on many occasions, and by no one in stronger or more emphatic language than by the noble Lord the present Secretary to the Admiralty. The Government have given way without saying a word in defence of the Admiralty, but although I acknowledge that there have been some shortcomings, I never will go so far as to concede the truth of the charges against the Admiralty which have been made by the noble Secretary; and I shall show presently that from the noble Lord and his appointment all the abuse and misconstruction which have been heaped on the Admiralty have emanated. The sins of the Liberal man in opposition have descended upon the Secretary in office. The noble Lord in his vain attack on the Admiralty said that no naval man could enter the building without trepidation. The country understood that when the noble Lord was put in his present situation a great naval reformer would overhaul the department, yet strange to say not one change has been made in the Administration. The noble Lord said it would be a great boon to the navy if there were open competitions for cadetships— both naval and marine—that no youth could get into the navy except by begging, and that it was time an end was put to such a system. I, for one, do not approve the system of competition. I have never approved it. But when it was brought forward the other day by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) the first person who opposed the Motion was the noble Lord. The noble Lord commenced these attacks en the Admiralty in 1858. In 1859 he made a most elaborate Motion and a speech as full of details as the speech
1864
which we have heard to-night from the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes). And what were his charges? He said there had been a system of extravagant expenditure pursued, which he maintained ought to be thoroughly looked into, and that in the statement which he was then about to make the figures which he should have to quote perfectly appalled him. He accused the Admiralty of having left unaccounted for £5,000,000 of money. To this day no contradiction that I am aware of has been given to that statement, and to this day we are left to believe that £5,000,000 of money have been wasted by the Admiralty. I am not surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite should have proposed a Committee; but I am surprised that the Government in the teeth of these statements by the noble Lord the Secretary should abdicate these functions and not reform a department which so much needs reform. The noble Lord in that famous speech impugned the whole constitution of the Admiralty. "He had no intention," he said," of attacking any individual whatever"—no one, by the way, ever has—[laughter]—"he attacked the system. Lately they had heard a great deal about reconstruction; and he was fast coming round to the opinion of the hon. Member for Norfolk and the gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark —that they wanted a little reconstruction of the Admiralty." The noble Lord has taken his seat as Secretary, and I want to know what has become of the reconstruction? The Department has become so perfectly odious that Parliament is obliged to overhaul the Executive, and to enter into nightly squabbles whether Sir Baldwin Walker ought to be retained or not. With reference to whether Sir Baldwin Walker ought to be retained to give evidence, I must say I think his evidence is positively necessary. This Committee opens the whole subject of Committees appointed in this House—a quiet arrangement—from which all Members are excluded except the Member who moves for the Committee and the Gentlemen on the Treasury bench. On this Committee, of which five are to be a quorum, we have seven members of the Admiralty. I must say that I think in all conscience three members of the Admiralty are quite enough. I have no objection to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Paking-tou) who has come out in the character

1865
of an Admiralty reformer, but I would not put on the Committee the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. God knows what awful reform he may propose, if he is to carry out the speech of 1859. The noble Lord ought not to be put on the Committee, because naval officers and the navy will look with great trepidation at the sweeping measure of reform which may emanate from him. It is time the House should take the matter into its own hands, and if it does grant a Committee let it be a real Committee, whose Report shall not only give satisfaction to the Treasury bench, but to the country. I must say I have no confidence in the construction of this Committee. They will consume the whole Session. A large blue-book will be produced, and we shall hear no more of reform. I believe that Admiralty reform can be simply and easily managed by the Government themselves. Eliminate the political element from the Board. Do not make the naval Lords change with every Administration. Put the Surveyor of the Navy at the Board, and let him have a real voice there. The only accusation which the noble Lord the Secretary can substantiate is that the ship building of the navy is completely managed by the First Lord in a private room with the Surveyor. We have heard a great deal about a Dockyard Commission. We have heard very little about their Eeport. Why was it not laid on the table when Parliament met? We are told that Sir Baldwin Walker gave important evidence before the Commission, but I have never heard of anybody who has seen it. I should like to hear something about that Commission. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Ricardo) was the first chairman, and I have never heard why he resigned in a hurry. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was the next chairman, and he was Boon transferred to the Treasury. This Commission, which originally consisted of five members, dwindled down to three, and what their Report is we do not know. If there is to be a real Committee, we must recall Sir Baldwin Walker wherever he may be. Whether we send the Avon to intercept him or a faster vessel, he must come before the Committee. But before we decide that point let us look at the Report, and see what his evidence is, and whether it opens out disclosures which I believe Sir Baldwin Walker will make. I believe the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty
1866
was also examined before the Commission, and failed to substantiate the charge about the £5,000,000 of money—at all events, I am told so. I hope some hon. Member of the Commission will tell us the state of the Report, and when it will be laid before the House; because as to appointing a Committee to inquire into the construction of the Admiralty, it is positively wasting time and deceiving the public. I hope the House will take the matter into its own hands, and not allow a sham Committee to be nominated by the hon. Gentleman and the Treasury bench. Let us have a real Committee. Let us have men upon it pledged to a searching inquiry, and I believe the Admiralty will come out of it much better than it was represented by the noble Lord in his celebrated Opposition speech. For the satisfaction of the country let it be a fair Committee. I have not the least objection to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich. He seems likely to take it up in a very good terrier-like spirit. But do not let us have the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty on the Committee; do not let any one serve on the Committee who has prejudged the question, and I have no doubt the Admiralty will come out of the inquiry much better than is expected.
THE EARL OF GIFFORDsaid, that as a member of the Dockyard Commission he felt bound to inform the House that they had sent in their Report for the previous day. He begged to correct the hon. Member for Inverness-shire. The Controller of the Navy was not the chief executive of the Admiralty with regard to the navy; but with regard to the dockyards, Sir Baldwin Walker had been examined, and he thought when hon. Members had read his evidence they would be perfectly satisfied it was not necessary to recall him.
MR. DISRAELI: — Sir, I agree with the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) that it is much to be regretted that the Government have not taken up this question themselves instead of remitting it to a Committee. When it was first mentioned last year I expressed my opinion that the task proposed to be assigned to a Committee was one which the Government ought to perform, and that we ought not to diminish injuriously the responsibility of the Government by delegating their duties to a Committee of the House of Commons. The House will forgive me if I remind them of what they have done in that way. We have now

1867
been sitting for little more than a month. It ha3 been said that the month has not been distinguished by any remarkable events; but such an opinion could only be expressed by those who have not vigilantly observed what has taken place in this House. In the course of that month we have delegated to six Committees of the House of Commons an examination into the whole administration of the Poor Laws; into the consolidation of the entire criminal law; into the military expenditure of the colonies—and, if I understand rightly, the Committee on this subject will be called on to settle even the amount of colonial garrisons; into the administration of the Admiralty; into the principles upon which the chief arm of our direct taxation is established, and upon which at this moment £12,000,000 of taxation is raised, and into the conduct of our diplomatic service. No doubt, at first sight, it may appear very gratifying to the House of Commons to feel that they are appropriating to themselves the functions of the Executive; but I beg to remind the House that while they obtain some of the power of the Administration they are really accepting all the responsibility. It is quite possible — this is not a personal matter, as the hon. Member for Liskeard has observed, and, therefore, I can refer to the hypothesis—it is quite possible that a Government with a very weak and unsatisfactory system of government at home might be carrying out a very violent and dangerous policy abroad, and with complete impunity, because, all the important questions of finance and administration having been remitted to Select Committees, the ready answer of the Government when called to account on such matters would be, that the House must be perfectly aware of everything connected with this or that branch, because at that moment it was under investigation by a Committee upstairs. Hon. Members would thus be precluded from proposing any Motion of censure or inquiry on important questions, such as I have mentioned, which have been remitted to Committees. Therefore, I think it would be well for us, as we are yet in the early part of the Session, to reflect upon the course into which we have so precipitately entered, and to endeavour, as far as possible, to retrace our steps and revive in its full force and salutary vigour the responsibility of the advisers of the Crown. If there are deficiencies in any department it is for the Ministers of the Crown to sup-
1868
ply that deficiency. If there are errors it is for the Ministers to correct those errors. It is for them to revise and improve the various branches of the Administration. If the House of Commons has a strong opinion, founded on the facts in its possession, that any branch requires alteration, then the constitutional and proper course for hon. Members to pursue is not to demand a Committee of Inquiry, but to move a Resolution upon the subject. When the House has arrived at that Resolution, it is for the Government to accept or refuse it. If the Government refuse the Resolution, we know the consequences; if they accept it, then they are strengthened by the opinion which the House of Commons has given, and, aided and abetted by that opinion, have the power of effecting those changes and reforms which are required. The particular question before us refers to the name of a right hon. Gentleman who has long been an eminent Member of the House, and who possesses the respect of all parties. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk appears to me to tend not so much against the admission of Sir James Graham to the Committee as against intrusting the inquiry to a Committee of the House of Commons. If there be anything in the objections of my hon. Friend to the name of Sir James Graham and to the names of the other two Gentlemen who follow him in the list and who have filled the same office, it merely proves that the House of Commons is not the proper means of effecting such an inquiry, since the primary step is to deprive it of the services of some of its ablest Members, who on this question possess the best information and the greatest experience. Therefore it is clear to me that if the House believe — as I do not believe — that an inquiry is necessary, the proper instrument of which we should have availed ourselves would have been a Royal Commission, and not a Select Committee of the House of Commons. As it is the duty of the Ministry to select the men who are most qualified to inquire into the subject, the responsibility of the investigation would thus remain with them, and the objections to the present Committee would be obviated. I wish the Government would consider this point well. There is another Committee closely connected with this question which the Government intend to ask the House to rescind. I own frankly that I dislike very much to see the House rescind

1869
a Resolution to which they have once agreed. But when I take into consideration all the circumstances of the Resolution which was passed the other night, and the propriety of which the Government are now going to impugn after dividing against it, I cannot but regret that the House of Commons adopted that Resolution. At least, I think they ought not to have done so without a graver and more prolonged debate. This, however, is to be said in excuse for the House of Commons, that during the five weeks of this Session they have been assuming or proposing to assume, the duties of the Executive without any resistance or even remonstrance from the Ministers, and have, of course, been encouraged by their success in that direction. That is to be remembered as a reason why at a late hour, and in a thin attendance, the House was induced to pass a Resolution which, after the calmest and gravest consideration, I feel is by no means advantageous to the public service. Of all the Committees proposed this Session only one was really opposed by the Government, and that under circumstances which rendered defeat almost inevitable. The Committees on the consolidation of the criminal law, on the administration of the Poor Law, and on the diplomatic service were not opposed. The Committee on the income tax was virtually not opposed, because last Session the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that, though he was not prepared to propose a Committee on that question himself, yet if any hon. Gentleman chose to propose it the Government would not resist the Motion. [The CHANCELLOR of the Exchequer: No !] I regret to say that such is the impression prevalent in the House. It has been men tioned to me by Gentlemen on both sides, and it was under that impression that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hubbard) brought forward his Motion—a Motion, I may say, which I did not sanction and for which I did not vote. Then the Committee on the Admiralty was decided on by the Government without the knowledge of the House, and the Committee on the Military Expenditure of the Colonies—one of the most objectionable questions that could be intrusted to a Committee—was also not resisted. I was in my place perfectly prepared to resist the Motion for it; but the noble Lord rose and gave up any resistance and, therefore, to speak against it would have been useless. After acceding
1870
to that Motion, with what chance of success did the Government think they could resist a similar proposition with respect to naval affairs made later in the evening? Therefore, I say, the Government has made no resistance to the appointment of these Committees, which, I think, have been granted on somewhat unconstitutional grounds, and which, though at first sight, they may appear flattering to the pride and power of the House of Commons, will, in reality, only render the Ministers irresponsible. The course which I should propose— I wish the Government would agree to it— is this; that we should not press to-night for the appointment of this Committee, which is now so much objected to; but that, instead of a Committee on the Admiralty, the Government should have a Royal Commission, and that to the reference on the subject of the Board of Admiralty there should be added an addendum containing that portion of the reference in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, to which the Government appear to make no objection; but excluding that portion which relates to the pay and position of the several classes of naval officers. That plan might, under existing circumstances, prove useful; though I might still prefer that the duty should be performed by the Government itself. There is no reason why the point now under discussion should be pressed rusher. Indeed, the present proceeding seems somewhat irregular, because it is felt that it is not the question of naming particular individuals in which the House is interested, but that of the general scope of the policy of this Committee. A rumour of a circumstance which I deeply regret has reached me. It is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) does not intend to serve on this Committee in consequence of the addendum proposed by the Government, and of the absence of Sir Baldwin Walker. I have no authority to make the announcement; but if the hypothesis turn out to be a fact it will be an additional reason for the course which I suggest, for if we are to be deprived of the services of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), one of the ablest and most experienced men that ever sat in the House of Commons; and if we are to be deprived of the assistance of his distinguished colleagues who follow on the list, and if my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, to whoso efforts on this Committee we look

1871
with so much confidence, is not to grant us his invaluable services, it appears to me that we shall get into the very unsatisfactory position of having a weak Committee to deal with a strong subject. In my opinion nothing tends so much to degrade our proceedings as dealing with a strong subject through a weak Committee. This being my conviction I would myself move that the debate on the Motion for the nomination of Sir James Graham on this Committee be adjourned.
Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that there appeared to be considerable difference of opinion among hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down agreed with the noble Lord, the Prime Minister, in his desire to rescind the order for the Committee obtained by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Portsmouth; and, if he rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman, he also wished to rescind the order for the appointment of the Committee on the reconstruction of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman said, he thought this was a matter that ought to be dealt with by the Admiralty. ["No."] He supposed he meant by the Government, fie agreed with him that these were not matters that ought to be left to a Committee of the House of Commons; hut he wanted to know what hon. Members were finding fault with in the construction of the Committee, if Committee they were to have at all. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed a Royal Commission. For his (Mr. Ricardo's) part, he must say that a Commission was very much the same as a Committee. He could not see much difference. It had been his misfortune, a few days before, to sit on a Commission on one of those matters; and he found that in some respects they would have been able to deal better with it if they had been a Committee of the House of Commons. It had been asked why he resigned the Chairmanship of the Commission to inquire into the state of the Dockyards. He had no objection to state the reason. It had been said that it was because he could not have it all his own way. He was bound to say that there was a good deal of truth in that assertion. It was because he could not have his own way that he did not think he could serve on it with advantage to the subject which the Commission had to investigate.
1872
He should, however, much rather not go into that question in detail at present, because when the Report was presented to the House he should have an opportunity of stating the reasons of his resignation. He was, however, bound on the present occasion to state that one of the reasons was that after examining the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Admiralty, on his speech made in a former Session, in which he asserted that £5,000,000 had been wasted under the Admiralty, he thought they were bound to hear what Sir Baldwin Walker had to say in refutation of what had been said by the noble Lord who had been under examination for three days. His colleagues did not, however, think that the time was come when such a refutation ought to be made. He was of opinion also that a different line of examination ought to have been taken, and a different course of investigation pursued. He had, however, no doubt that his colleagues were right, and that they had very good reasons for what they did; and that they would produce a much better Report than he could have drawn up. Returning to the question before the House, he wanted to know what right hon. Members had to assume that right hon. Gentlemen who had been First Lords of the Admiralty would have any motive for obstructing or preventing inquiry into the subject? He wanted to know what motive could his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, be supposed to have for preventing Sir Baldwin Walker from giving evidence before the Committee? Why was a cry raised on that point, and why was his noble Friend called to account for not stopping Sir Baldwin Walker and bringing him back to give evidence at any inconvenience to the public service? When the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oxfordshire, said that he would not serve on the Committee unless Sir Baldwin Walker were brought forward as a witness, why did not the right hon. Gentleman propose to delegate to Sir Baldwin Walker all that was to be done? ["Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen only had the patience to wait until they read that gallant Officer's evidence before the Commission on the Dockyards, they would see that there was no one question which he could be asked by the Committee on the Admiralty that he had not already been asked by the Commission. Why did any hon. Member say that the fact of the right hon. Baronet, the Mem-

1873
ber for Carlisle, having been First Lord disqualified him from serving on the Committee, when every right hon. Gentleman who had filled that office had in his own mind a perfect consciousness that there was something wrong in the construction of the Admiralty? He could not vote with the hon. Member for Norfolk, as he was anxious to see persons upon the Committee well informed as to the business of the Admiralty.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had, unintentionally no doubt, somewhat misunderstood what he stated on Friday night, when he asked his hon. and gallant Friend to postpone the nomination of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had an advantage which he had not. He knew what was the evidence given before the Dock Commission, which he (Mr. Henley) did not. [Mr. RICARDO: No.] Then the hon. Member was in the same position with himself—he was ignorant of the evidence. He did not know what Sir Baldwin Walker had said in his evidence, or whether it might have told against some one who had no opportunity of meeting it; nor did he know but that in the Committee now proposed things might be said against Sir Baldwin Walker, and as a member of the Committee he would have been unwilling to hear allegations brought against him in his absence, when he had no opportunity of replying to them. He told his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Duncombe) on Friday night that he would consider till the beginning of the week whether he would or would not be a member of this Committee, His hon. and gallant Friend asked him last night if he had made up his mind. His reply was that if matters had stood as they did last week he could have gone into the Committee on the understanding that if he found any of the inconveniences which he expected would occur he should be at liberty to withdraw from it; that he had added that things did not now stand on the same footing as they did last week, for a notice had been put on the paper by the Government, which would add to the inquiries of the Committee a new and a very large subject—namely, the promotion and the retirement of the officers of the navy. He had voted against that subject being referred to any Committee, and that was an additional reason which operated upon his mind in determining not to be a member of the Committee. Many persons had said, with re-
1874
ference to this Committee, that it was entering upon inquiries which would not end in one Session; while some said it would probably go through two Sessions. There might be some exaggeration in that; but certainly no Committee could hope to consider the wide subject of the promotion and retirement of the officers of the navy and the large question of the constitution of the Admiralty in one Session. He had, therefore, come unwillingly to the conclusion to ask his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his name from the Committee. As to the question brought before the House by his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), he thought it would be a misfortune not to have those members on the Committee who were best informed as to the affairs of the Admiralty; but, at the same time, looking at the fifteen members of which the Committee was to be composed, he thought the Admiralty element was a very large one, and he should like to see it somewhat lessened.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has made several observations on this subject with which I cannot but agree. I am ready to admit that there is great public inconvenience in the appointment of a great number of Committees, and especially when any of these may be said to interfere with the functions of the Executive. At the same time, it is to be observed that there is nothing which makes a Government be odious as opposing itself to inquiry. It is always said in such cases that there is something to conceal, that the Government is conscious of some faults in the performance of its duty, and, therefore, is anxious to resist inquiry. On the other hand there is nothing so agreeable to the House of Commons as the nomination of a Committee of inquiry, because at the same time that it affords a prospect of additional information it in no degree pledges the House to any particular course of conduct. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire seems to infer that the Government have too easily or too willingly given in to the appointment of certain Committees that have been lately agreed to by the House. The first Committee proposed was one on the income tax, the object of which was to lighten the burden on trades and professions and increase it on the land. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed that Committee. He had given no pledge, as the

1875
right hon. Gentleman supposes, to support such a Committee. All he said last Session was that if it was the general wish of the House to have a Committee this year he would not stand in opposition to it. There was another Committee proposed with respect to colonial military expenditure; that was not an unprecedented proposition. I remember that a similar Committee was appointed when the Earl of Derby was Secretary to the Colonies. I sat on that Committee with the Earl of Derby. It was named with the consent of the Government, and for two Sessions entered into every detail of military expenditure in the colonies. Now, though it would be objectionable in principle to have Committees year after year sitting on such subjects and inquiring into the conduct of the Executive Government, yet an inquiry from time to time into particular departments of the Government, and after a considerable number of years has elapsed, cannot be regarded as an unconstitutional course. It appeared to be the general wish of the House to have a Committee on the army expenditure of the colonies, and it was not opposed by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said nothing against the appointment of that Committee, though my noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) took care to state, before agreeing to it, that it was not likely to be of any public advantage. Then there is the Committee the order for which my noble Friend proposes to rescind to-night. That Committee was opposed by the Government, and they divided the House upon it. Now with regard to the Committee which is under our consideration at this moment, I have always understood that it was the wish of the House generally, and of the public generally, that there should he an inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty with a view to consider not the merits of any particular person who has served on that Board, but for the purpose of ascertaining whether its constitution was such as enabled it usefully to superintend the naval affairs of the country. The right hon. Gentleman says the inquiry ought to be by a Royal Commission. But if the Crown had been advised to appoint a Royal Commission, every one would have said that the Government had condemned the construction of the Admiralty, and that no other question but the best substitute for the present Board of Admiralty could occupy the Royal Commission. I for one could not have
1876
given that advice to the Crown. The Board of Admiralty, I daresay, have faults like other Boards; but I have not been convinced that we could have a better machinery for the performance of the duties of the Admiralty. It may be that there is some mode by which the navy may be better governed. If the House entertains that opinion, I can understand that the Government should he willing that an inquiry should take place—an inquiry, however, which has nothing to do with the exercise of the executive functions, but only as to the constitution of the body that shall exercise the executive functions. The hon. and gallant Admiral proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed "to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the various duties devolving thereon; also as to the general effect of such a system on the navy." Now it is quite obvious that a general inquiry into the system and constitution of the Board has nothing to do with the merits of the particular persons who have served upon that Board. I think I am right in supposing that the right hon. Gentleman would not have objected to such a Committee if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had moved for it. If so I do not see why he should object to the Committee when moved for by the hon. and gallant Admiral. The Committee is not appointed to inquire into the conduct of past First Lords. All the right hon. Gentlemen named upon it are able men, and their opinion will be much more valuable than that of Members who have had no experience. I say that those who have been First Lords of the Admiralty ought above all others to be named upon such a Committee. Nor do I see why we should not name the Committee at present, or why the debate should be adjourned. If the House of Commons had chosen to address the Crown to appoint a Royal Commission, then the objection which I have named to such a Commission would not exist, for the appointment of a Commission would not, then, be the spontaneous act of the Crown, but would he made at the desire of the House of Commons. The House, however, has chosen to have a Committee; and it, therefore, seems to me very desirable that the three right hon. Gentlemen whose names come first on the list should especially be on such a Committee.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that as the debate had taken a different turn to what

1877
he had expected, he would take the liberty of offering a few remarks. In the first place, then, it seemed that everything he heard on Friday he had to forget on Monday, for when he had cause to complain of want of courtesy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) said, "Do not visit your indignation on him, but on myself, for it was at my instigation that my right hon. Friend gave notice of his intention to move for such a Committee." Now it seemed a Committee was wrong, and that a Commission ought to be appointed. Now ho, for one, had no great confidence in Royal Commissions. He believed that a Committee of that House, properly constituted, was a much more efficient tribunal. The hon. Member (Mr. Baillie) said he had no confidence in him, and that the Committee would be a sham. The hon. Member must be of a different constitution from himself if he would take so much trouble for what was to be a mere sham after all. There were so many applications to be on such a Committee, and the disappointment to those whom the mover was unable to put upon it was so great, that he was by no means disposed to undertake so much trouble in vain. If the Amendment were carried the Committee would be virtually shelved, and if the House adopted it he should beg to be absolved from sitting upon the Committee. He ought, perhaps, to apologize to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), but the truth was that he did not understand his refusal to serve upon the Committee to be quite final, and he was so anxious to have the assistance of his right hon. Friend that he did not quite like to take upon himself the responsibility of removing his name, when, perhaps, he ought to have done so. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) said that the manner in which Committees of that House were proposed was by a very questionable arrangement. He believed that the appointment of Committees ought to be quietly arranged among the various parties in the House; for nothing could be more unseemly than quarrels, such as were now taking place, over the names of particular Members. He deprecated the admission of party feeling into a Committee of this description. He was, therefore, glad that the noble Lord (Earl Gifford) who was upon the Dockyard Commission had borne him out in saying that the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker was not necessary. If
1878
Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence was necessary, why not that of Admiral Milne and Admiral Martin equally so, both of whom had formerly been on the Board? He believed that there was ample material at present in this country for conducting the inquiry with advantage.
MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I rise to protest against the theory of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bucks, that the House has not a right to inquire into the administration of any or every department of the Government. When the Government happens to be not very competent to perform its duties, we usually have many Committees, and I recollect that no Government conceded Committees more freely than that of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. If there is a single Member of this House at the present time who doubts that it is desirable to have an inquiry into the constitution of the Admiralty? It maybe matter for consideration whether that inquiry shall be conducted by a Commission, or a Cabinet inquiry, or a Committee; but I have heard from high officials of the Admiralty that it is just that sort of government where there is not a particle of real responsibility, and that, although it was a Board responsible for £12,000,000 of expenditure, yet that no one could put his finger on the man who ought to have arrested waste or directed expenditure to more profitable channels. If, then, an inquiry is to be made, I agree with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that it is impossible to have a tribunal more efficient and more competent than a fairly chosen Committee of this House. But the question is whether this Committee is likely to be such a body. I agree with the hon. Member for West Norfolk that it is not so constituted. I do not object to the name of Sir James Graham. He is not here, and, therefore, I have the less hesitation in saying that there is no man more competent to be of service on this Committee than Sir James Graham. He does not always do what I think he should do on Committees, as happened in a Committee on which I sat with him last summer. But he knows as much as any one on this particular subject, and he will be anxious to have it adjusted to the satisfaction of the House. But, not content with Sir James Graham, we have two other First Lords on the Committee, and four other Members who have been in that particular branch of the service. And it is known to every hon. Member of this House, and

1879
I have seen repeated instances of it, that when you get half a dozen men together who have been connected with a particular department there is a strong bias among them, I will not say to defend any one, for here no one is attacked, hut to defend the general system which they have been concerned in working. I think, therefore, that it has got much too large an infusion of the Admiralty element. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite in viewing this question without the slightest feeling of party, and I hope these are questions which we can approach without anything of that kind. It appears to me that the noble Lord will have discovered, from what has been said to-night, that there is no indisposition to the appointment of a Committee, hut that a general feeling does exist that these names are not the best that might have been chosen, if it be intended that we shall have an honest inquiry and a real amendment. I have no objection whatever to the names of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Carlisle, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Droitwich, but I would put on that Committee no other man connected with the Admiralty — none of what are called" the subs," who look up to their superiors in the service" as a maiden looks up to the hand of her mistress." Those right hon. Gentlemen can put the pertinent questions, and can lead the Committee to the proper materials for forming a correct judgment. The noble Lord proposes to rescind the Resolution that was passed the other night. I am told that, if the Committee were to report in favour of the view held by the hon. and gallant Memher for Portsmouth, it would put the country to very considerable expense, and I am, therefore, not disposed to feel very favourably towards it; but, if the noble Lord was disposed to get rid of that Resolution, I think it would have been better to do it openly, and not to have mixed it up with an entirely different question, and to have shelved it by a side-blow which will deceive nobody, and which must he rather offensive to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth. I would recommend that, in case the House thought this Resolution ought not to be carried out, it should be distinctly rescinded; and the Committee now to be appointed should be confined to the purpose—amply sufficient for any Committee—with which its nomination was originally sanctioned. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckinghamshire, has proposed that the debate he ad-
1880
journed. That it should be adjourned merely for the purpose of getting rid of the Committee I think would he an injudicious and a weak proceeding on the part of this House; but if the adjournment be with a view of enabling the Government to frame a revised list of members of this Committee, although I do not think I ever before seconded anything which the right hon. Gentleman proposed, I shall be glad to do so on the present occasion.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I must protest against the imputation on the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty and myself of desiring the absence of Sir Baldwin Walker, which was cast by the hon. Member for Stoke.
Mr. J. L. RICARDOsaid, his noble Friend had fallen into a most extraordinary error. In his remarks he had rather defended the noble Lord from such an imputation.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I am very sorry that I should have misinterpreted the expressions of the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly did understand, at all events, some hon. Member to say that we had sent away Sir Baldwin Walker, and were rather glad of his absence. I can assure the House that the noble Duke was most anxious from the first to keep Sir Baldwin Walker at home, and even communicated with him with a view to recommending him to Her Majesty for a command at home. The hon. Member for Liskeard seemed to accuse me of having been the firebrand who originated all these complaints against the Admiralty. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!] I can assure him that he entirely wrongs me. I never accused the Admiralty, or any representative of that department, of anything save with regard to the expenditure on shipping. I think he said that I was in favour of a reconstruction of the Admiralty, and had stated so to this House. [Mr. B, Osborne: Hear, hear !] I deny that I ever said anything which could bear this construction, except on one occasion, in allusion to a former notion of my gallant Friend, the late Sir Charles Napier, for a Committee for the reconstruction of the Admiralty, at the end of a speech which I made with regard to naval expenditure, I made use of the expression that I was fast coming round to the opinion that the Admiralty wanted a little reconstruction—I think those were my words. That was by no means a direct statement that I was in favour of his views. My proceedings towards Sir

1881
Baldwin Walker have been very much misrepresented. In the remarks I made I had no personal feeling towards him or any gentleman. I merely called attention to a vicious system, and to the want of proper supervision of the accounts. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: The five millions?] The five millions had reference to a statement which I made as to the expenditure on shipbuilding, and what in the absence of all accounts I conceived it ought to have been after calculating the number of vessels built during four years and the proper cost of those vessels. I may mention that when the noble Duke the first Lord of the Admiralty came into office, he immediately agreed to the issuing of a Commission to inquire into the shipbuilding accounts. I know no more of what the Report of that Commission contains than the hon. Member for Liskeard, but we shall have it before us, and I am content to abide its terms. If it should state that the accounts are satisfactorily kept, I shall admit that I was wrong; but if the contrary should prove to be the fact I shall have no reason to regret having called the attention of the House to the subject. I positively deny that in doing so I was actuated by any other motive than that of a desire to benefit the public service.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, my name is one of those involved in the Motion, and I would not have intruded myself on the House were it not for what has fallen from the noble Lord, Her Majesty's Secretary of State, with reference to the second inquiry proposed to be delegated to this Committee, and I think that the House will feel that that proposal influences very much the question of the names to be put upon the Committee. I would only say that my hon. Friend, the Member for Norfolk, has put his Motion in a manner which deprives it of any personal feeling, and puts it entirely on public grounds. With regard to myself I should be much obliged if I were exonerated from serving upon this Committee. Considering the comparatively short time I was in the Admiralty, I think whether I am on the Committee or not is not a matter of much importance. With regard to the immediate question, whether Sir James Graham should be a member of the Committee, having regard to the estimation I hold of that right hon. Gentleman's position in the House, and his knowledge of the subject, I think that if this Committee was appointed without Sir James Graham as one of its members, and
1882
without Sir Baldwin Walker as one of its witnesses, it would become an absurdity which this House would do well to avoid; and, moreover, I have so strong an opinion as to the way in which Sir Baldwin Walker was allowed to leave that I reserve to myself the right, should I find his evidence necessary to the proper conduct of the inquiry, to retire from the Committee. As to what has fallen from the noble Lord as to the other Committee, the duties of which it is proposed to transfer to the Admiralty Committee, it has been said that the Government propose to rescind the Committee; in point of form that is true, but in point of substance it is not so. The Government propose to rescind the portion which refers to the pay of the navy, and to transfer to another Committee the more important part, namely, that which relates to promotion and retirement in the navy. I think a Commission would have been the best mode of conducting this inquiry. I am free to confess that there is a constitutional difficulty in referring to a Committee of the House of Commons the question of the pay of the navy. I hope, there" fore, that when the noble Lord makes the Motion which stands in his name the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth will not object to it; but on the other hand I could not in any way be a party to the rescinding of the other part of the Motion, which relates to the questions of promotion and retirement. I do wish that instead of referring that inquiry to the Committee on the Board of Admiralty the Government had proposed it in the shape of another Committee or a Royal Commission to make a separate inquiry. I think the House will agree with me that if the question of promotion and retirement in the navy is to be referred to the Admiralty Committee it is desirable that in the appointment of the Committee some regard should be had to the duty to be imposed on it. In the first place I express my earnest wish that the House will consent to a postponement in order that her Majesty's Government may consider if this matter, even now, cannot be referred to a Royal Commission; but if the Government persevere in their preference for a Committee, I strongly press upon them the necessity for taking further time to consider the names of the Gentlemen to be appointed on it.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not see that a sufficient ground has been shown for adjourning this debate; the House is very full, and is in as perfectly good a po-

1883
sition as it can be on any future day to decide the question as to the composition of this Committee. Under the present circumstances it would not he consistent for the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into a subject with regard to which we did not originate inquiry or think it necessary that any reconstruction should take place. With regard to the names my opinion is that the names selected are those of persons competent and well adapted to conduct the inquiry. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Liskeard that Committees ought to be appointed in a discussion in a full House, that is an impossibility. The only way in which the names of a Committee can be well selected is by communications out of the House between the different parties interested. It has been stated that the official element is too strong on this Committee, but this can be easily remedied by adding to it some three or four Members, so as to alter the proportions between the official and non-official elements. As to the Motion of which I have given notice, which is to follow this, it appears to me that it is the general opinion that any inquiry into the pay of the officers of the navy is not one that the House ought to undertake, and I, therefore, anticipate the general concurrence of the House in my Motion for discharging the order to which we agreed somewhat hurriedly a few nights back. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) thinks the question of promotion and retirement of the navy too great an addition to the labours of the Committee, but, even if this is found to be so, it will only cause the re-appointment of the Committee necessary next Session; and the matter is not one of that urgent importance which renders it necessary that there should be an immediate Report. At the same time I do not see that the Committee will have any difficulty, if the House should agree to the proposition, in reporting before the end of the present Session.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I will not press the Motion I have made. I am perfectly prepared to support the Government on the Motion for the discharge of the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, and I hope he will not object to that course. I, therefore, will, with the leave of the House, withdraw my Motion for an Adjournment.
MR. JACKSONsuggested that the Government should give the House an op-
1884
portunity of reading the evidence as well as the Report of the Dockyard Commission before they proceeded with the nomination of the Committee. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had read Sir Baldwin's Walker's evidence he would modify his present views as to the importance of re-examining that gallant officer; and both he (Mr. Jackson) and many hon. Members about him were most anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should sit upon the Committee. Nothing could be done before Easter, and he urged the Government to give hon. Members an opportunity of reading the evidence during the recess.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That Sir James Graham be one of the members of the Committee on the Board of Admiralty,"
Put, and agreed to.
Nomination of the Committee was then proceeded with.
The names of Sir FRANCIS BARING and Sir JOHN PAKINGTION BARING were agreed to.
On the name of Mr. HENLEY being read,
MR. HENLEYexpressed a wish that his name should be withdrawn, for, as another subject was proposed to be added to the labours of the Committee, he might not feel equal to the second inquiry.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would allow his name to remain, and if he found more to do in the Committee than he could undertake he could at any future time withdraw his name.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that on that understanding, he was willing to allow his name to remain in the list.
Sir FRANCIS BARING,' 'Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. HENLEY, Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Mr. CORRY, Admiral DUNCOMBE, Sir HENRY WILLOUGEBY, Mr. BEAMISH, Mr. FINLAY, Mr. BENTINOK,, Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. PHILIPPS, Mr. WHITBREAD, Sir MICHEL, Mr. AUSTIN BRUCE, Mr. DEEDES, and Mr. CLAY, nominated other Members of the Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

NAVY (PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.)

  ORDER FOR COMMITTEE DISCHARGED.
  Order [5th March],
  "For the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the present system of Promotion and Retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of Naval Officers, and to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of the Naval Service, read,"
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he rose to move "That the order (5th of March) for the appointment of a Select Committee," be discharged. The House seemed so fully agreed as to the inexpediency of appointing a Committee to inquire into the pay of officers, that it was hardly necessary for him to repeat the reasons which could he alleged against such a course. It was evident that if the Committee were to resolve to recommend an increase of pay for naval officers, an application would then be made to increase the pay of sailors, and an increase in the pay of the Navy would lead to an increase in the pay of the Army and then of all the civil branches under Government. Thus the House would be launching upon a sea of additional expenditure, the end of which could not be foreseen. No doubt, these officers might deserve upon their merits greater remuneration than the state of the finances could afford, but it must be remembered that part of the reward which the gallant defenders of the country receive for their devotion to the public service consists in the estimation in which they are held in their position in society, and in the respect which individually attaches to them. Knowing the opinion which the great majority of the House entertained with regard to the vote come to the other evening, it was unnecessary for him to urge more arguments in support of the Resolution he now moved. He quite agreed that it was an exceptional case to reverse upon one night a decision come to on another; but, in a matter involving such grave consequences to the public interest, the House was justified in discharging the order which had been made. With regard to the other part of the inquiry, respecting promotion and retirement, the Committee just nominated to inquire respecting the Admiralty could extend their investigation to that matter if the House thought fit.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that on the previous evening the hardships of the naval service were so well understood that the Government could not keep a House to defeat his Motion. Now, however, the noble Lord had mustered his forces and fell back upon a constitutional principle, which he had not previously urged against this Committee. lie should submit to the dictum of the House, because, as a private Member, he had no power to oppose it; but at the same he did not see how the Committee which was to be appointed could inquire into questions of rank
  1886
  and retirement without to some extent dealing with that of pay. The inquiry into the constitution of the Admiralty had been brought before the House in a most extraordinary manner. He, in common with many others, thought that an inquiry of so important a character ought to have been mentioned to the House upon the first day of the Session. So far was that from being the case, however, that it was not until his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) placed his notice upon the paper, that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for the East Riding (Admiral Duncombe), of which he had given notice last year, was brought forward. Had not that delay taken place the inquiry might have been commenced early in the Session. The Committee would then have had the advantage of the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker, who had now been conveyed from the country in a rather doubtful manner. He should do his duty as far as he could as a Member of this Committee: but he did not believe that constituted as it was it would have the confidence of the country. He was glad to hear that Members were to be added to it, and he should claim the right of proposing those Members. The Committee for which he had moved and which he had carried had been merged in that of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the East Riding, and he, therefore, claimed the right to name four Members of the Committee.
  MAJOR EDWARDShad voted in the majority the other evening for the Committee of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, and although that vote was about to be rescinded he saw no reason to regret the course he then took. Although this was essentially a naval question, it, nevertheless, materially concerned every Member of the House of Commons, involving as it most assuredly did an act of gross injustice towards a distinguished body of officers in Her Majesty's service. He alluded particularly to the 100 captains on the Reserved List, whose commissions were identical with those on the Active List, and whose post rank was given them for distinguished services, with this understanding, simply, that although they were still liable to be called upon to serve their country at any time they would not be required except on some great emergency; not so the commissions of commanders retired with rank of captain. In their commis-

  1887
  sions it was distinctly stated that they were to receive the lowest half-pay of captains. These gallant officers on the Eeserved List took their post-rank as a boon for meritorious services, never consenting to relinquish their claims to the emoluments of the profession or to sacrifice the pay of their respective ranks as they rose by seniority to their flag. It was to advocate the cause of these officers that he rose at that late hour of the night, and he could truly say that if justice were denied to men who deserved so well at the hands of their countrymen—many of whom had fought and bled for their Queen and country long before most of the present Board of Admiralty were born—it would shake the confidence of the service in all future Boards of Admiralty, and paralyze the zeal of its officers, he would vote for the Committee of the noble Viscount, in the hope that it would devote special attention to the case of the 100 gallant post-captains upon the Eeserved List, with whom faith had been broken, and who had, in fact, been so basely betrayed by the Admiralty.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that the majority obtained by the hon. and gallant Baronet the other evening arose from the fact, not as he appeared to suppose, that the Government could not get a sufficient number of Gentlemen to vote against a popular Motion, but that a large number of Members left the House because they thought it unlikely that the hon. and gallant Baronet would divide, and impossible that he should find a majority to support him. So strongly was the unconstitutional nature of his proposal, to refer the question of paying the navy to a Committee, felt by a great number of Gentlemen on that side of the House that it was decided that a Motion should be made to discharge the order, and, with the sanction of many of his friends, it was his intention to have proposed such a Motion. That intention he only abandoned on the previous evening when he found that the noble Lord had undertaken the task. Had the matter remained in his hands he should, with the concurrence of his friends, have moved the discharge of the whole order, and not of only a portion of it.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that as one of the majority the other evening he thought that the hon. Members who voted for the Committee of the hon. and gallant Baronet were justified in that course by the language of the Government. The grievances of the navy were not denied, and no
  1888
  hope was held out that they would he redressed.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he was sure the officers of the navy would be disappointed if the House were to rescind the Resolution at which it arrived the other evening. He trusted that, at all events, the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth would be allowed to nominate four additional Members to serve on the Committee.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not press the second Resolution of which he had given notice, because, if he did, the House might lose the services of two of the most efficient Members of the Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would accede to the proposal now before he House on the understanding that the noble Lord was acting in good faith with respect to his second Resolution. Unless he received an assurance to that effect he would not consent to the present Motion.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he also would ask for a clear intimation from the noble Lord of his intention?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by asking whether he was acting in good faith. The right hon. Gentleman had not condescended to explain. It was his intention to move the second Resolution of which he had given notice, and he hoped that both the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord would support the Motion.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would beg leave to apologize to the noble Lord for having used the words "good faith." It was far from his wish to give offence to the noble Lord. All he had meant to say was that he felt some doubt from certain expressions used by the noble Lord, as well as from the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding, whether the noble Lord might not have been persuaded to abandon his second Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Order be discharged."
  Put, and agreed to.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY COMMITTEE.

  INSTRUCTION,
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would then move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the constitution

  1889
  of the Board of Admiralty, and the various duties devolving thereon, also as to the general effect of such system on the navy, to consider the present system of Promotion and Retirement in the Royal Navy, and to report their opinion thereon."
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he understood, if this proposition were made, that two right hon. Members of that House (Mr. Henley and Sir John Pakington) would decline to serve on the Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had never intended to express his unwillingness to serve on the Committee.
  Question put, the House divided—Ayes, 96; Noes, 33: Majority, 63.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

Preamble
The House met:—And having gone through the business on the paper.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.