Sitting of 27 February 1862

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.— For Canterbury, v. the Honourable Henry Butler Johnstone, Manor of Northstead.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Gloucester City, Honourable Charles Paget Fitzhardinge; Berkeley; for Gloucester City, John Joseph Powell, esquire.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, When Westminster Bridge will

795
be completely open for public use, and when the houses on the south side of Bridge Street will be removed; and whether there is any objection to a Carriage Entrance from the foot of Westminster Bridge to the House of Commons?
MR. COWPER: Judging, Sir, from the present state of the works at Westminster Bridge, I think there is every reason to hope that it will be open for public use early in the month of May. The houses on the south side of Bridge Street are pulled down as they come into the possession of the Office of Works. I am not, however, able to state any precise date at which the whole of that number of houses will be in our possession. With reference to the proposal of the Member that carriages shall be allowed to enter New Palace Yard from the bridge, I can only state, that when the ground has been levelled which was previously occupied by the houses near the Clock Tower, there will be no difficulty I apprehend, as regards the ground, in admitting carriages. Whether it would be convenient to do so, as regards the approaches to the Houses of Parliament, is a matter on which I should be anxious to consult you, Mr. Speaker, before giving any answer.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether he has determined to allow the leases of those houses to run out?
MR. COWPER: The leases are for various terms— some for two years, some for a longer period. I am anxious, in deciding on the mode of dealing with the tenants, to consider both economy and utility. I am not at present aware to what use the ground on which the houses stand will be put, and therefore I should not be inclined to give any unnecessarily high price for the land. But negotiations are going forward both with regard to the freehold and also the interests of tenants in the houses.

INDIAN MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he desired to ask the Secretary of State for India, When his promise to place the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army upon a perfect footing of equality with the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's British Army will be carried into effect; and to inquire the reason why Medical Officers of Her Ma-
  796
  jesty's Indian Army have been so long deprived of Commission, Substantive Pay, Furlough Pay, and Retiring Pensions, according to their relative rank, but which have been granted to the Medical Officers of the British Army, both at Home and in the Colonies, ever since the 1st day of October, 1858.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was not disposed to admit the correctness of the statement of facts implied in the question of the hon. Member. A Warrant was some time since issued, putting the Medical Officers of both services on as nearly the same footing as to rank and social standing as possible. With regard to Pay and Pensions, they were totally different in the Queen's service and in the Indian Service. To put them on the same footing would be in some cases little advantage, and in others to the disadvantage of the Indian Service. Arrangements were in progress for assimilating the two services in this respect, but it was impossible at present to proceed further, as the Government was waiting for information which they expected from India.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (IRELAND) BILL.— QUESTION.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know whether it is intended to proceed with the Bill this evening.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had to express his regret that the Bill had not been delivered till that morning. But, as the subject had been before the House both in 1859 and 1860, he thought hon. Members would not object to the second reading.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he must remind the House that a pledge had been given by the Home Secretary the previous evening that the Bill would not be proceeded with.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I stated, Sir, that if the Bill were not printed it would not of course come on. But I told the hon. Member who asked the question that I thought he had better communicate with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
MR HENNESSYsaid, the House ought now to have some positive declaration of the intention of the Government.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, for the convenience of hon. Members, he would postpone the second reading to Monday next.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,

EDUCATION—THE REVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that he rose to ask the question of which he had given notice. If hon. Members were to judge from the letters, pamphlets, and other communications which had poured in upon them from all quarters, no topic had, for some time past, excited so much attention as the Revised Code of Education. He therefore wished to elicit from the Government the course which they intended to pursue on this important question. Some three years ago, to pacify the discontent then existing, a Commission on the subject of education was issued, and the Government so far acquiesced in its Report condemning the present system, as to propose a new one. That new plan had been brought forward at the close of last Session, but after six months' consideration the Government were so dissatisfied with their own former conclusions that at the beginning of the present Session they introduced another scheme. It might, therefore, be fairly admitted that the subject was one of the greatest difficulty and surrounded with the gravest doubt. The Government, however, announced that their latest proposition was intended to be a permanent arrangement, in substitution for the existing system, which they had regarded as only temporary in its character; and they also assumed an attitude towards the House which he ventured to think was most inconvenient. They did not propose, on their own part, to invite the House to consider the question itself except according to the usual and strictly formal manner of asking the House to vote the funds necessary to carry out the design. To any hon. Member who might desire to suggest any change in the existing system such a course was most unsatisfactory, because in Committee of Supply the only question which could be put from the Chair was "Aye" or "No" as to the granting of the money. It would not be competent to propose a resolution defining the exact mode in which the supply ought to be expended; the House would be asked either to endorse the proposition of the Government, or to refuse the supplies necessary to carry out their educational plan. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) had undertaken the difficult task and grave responsibility
  798
  of endeavouring to extricate the House from the embarrassing position in which it had been placed by the Government, and the course he had adopted was one that commended itself to the consideration and support of the House. He had not taken the personal and, he might say, selfish course of inviting the House to resolve itself into Committee to consider some plan or scheme of his own; but he had taken the more generous and more general course of inviting the House to resolve itself into Committee for the purpose of considering how the public funds ought to be appropriated in furtherance of education, leaving it open to any Member of the House to submit any resolution on the subject which might appear to him advisable. That was a course which he thought was marked by extreme fairness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman towards hon. Members. He thought, therefore, that the House was entitled to ask the Government what course they intended to pursue with reference to the proposition placed on the table by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge. It seemed to him that it was open to the Government to treat the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman either as one of form or one of substance. They might say that it was a question of form only, inasmuch as it was a proposition that the proper and legitimate course should be taken to enable the House to consider the subject to be brought under its notice—namely, that of national education. According to the forms of the House, they could not discuss the question of education except in a Committee of the whole House. They could not discuss resolutions in detail, and propose amendments in detail, except in a Committee of the whole House. The object of his remarks was to induce the Government to treat the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman as one of form, in common fairness to all the Members of the House who desired to take part in the discussion on national education. They might, if they liked, treat it as one of substance; but then on what footing must they put the question? They might say that, having revised and re revised the Minute, they were so satisfied with the document that they would stand by it as a whole; that they would have the Minute or nothing but the Minute; and that they would not allow the House to go into Committee for the purpose of altering it in

  799
  any way. That, he thought, would be a most unsatisfactory course, and one calculated to excite hostility to their position. Besides, it would be one totally uncalled for by anything that had occurred, and it could not be attended by any good result. It would be most unfair to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council, who had, on the floor of the House, gone into the question of education with detail and minuteness, and who seemed to have challenged the assent of the House, not to the Minute as a whole, but rather to the Minute in its minutest details. The right hon. Gentleman had even intimated that he would be prepared to accept amendments, and that he did not stand in the disagreeable position of demanding that the House should accept everything which the Minute contained. He would explain the reasons why he asked the course which the Government proposed to take—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that to invite a discussion on the course, to be pursued with reference to a Motion for which a day has, been fixed will be exceeding the bounds of order.
  MR. AYRTON, said, that he would ask the Government, Whether they were prepared to assent to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge—namely, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the best mode of distributing the Parliamentary grants for education administered by the Privy Council? If they did not wish to give an answer with reference to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, then he would ask them in more general terms what plan they intended to propose to the House? An assurance from the Government on that point would relieve hon. Members from the embarrassment in which they were at present placed. He had given notice of his intention to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, whether he would immediately lay on the table the resolutions which he intended to move in Committee; but he could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question till he knew what course the Government intended to adopt. Indeed, he should deprecate any Resolutions being laid on the table until they knew whether the House was to go into Committee. Such a course would be in the last degree unfair; for, if
  800
  any resolutions were laid on the table, hon. Members could not remove from the mind of the public who were not conversant with Parliamentary proceedings the impression that in voting for the Motion to go into Committee they were voting for the Resolutions themselves. The vote for going into Committee would be inseparably connected with the resolutions, though an hon. Member might be very anxious for the House to go into Committee, and yet not approve the right hon. Gentleman's propositions. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would give the House the information for which he now asked them.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, It is very inconvenient, on the order of the day for going into supply on the Navy Estimates, to enter upon a discussion as to the course to be taken with respect to a Motion of which notice has been fixed for, I think, a month hence; and I think it is manifestly inconvenient to ask the Government to state their intention as to propositions of which my right hon. Friend has not yet given notice.
  MR. WALPOLE: I have given notice of my Motion.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: But my right hon. Friend has not laid his Resolutions on the table. In a private conversation which I had with him the other night, my right hon. Friend asked me what course the Government were likely to take with regard to his Motion. Speaking only for myself, I stated that in my opinion that would depend on the nature of his Resolutions, and that I took it for granted he would lay them I on the table in sufficient time to enable us to consider them before the Motion came on. My right hon. Friend did not give me any ' decided answer. When my right hon. Friend lays those Resolutions on the table, the Government will be in a position to state what course they intend to pursue with respect to his propositions. If he does not lay them on the table before moving that the House resolve itself into Committee, the proper time for the Government to state what course they will take in reference to his Motion will be when my right hon. Friend has stated the reasons which have induced him to bring it forward.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Sir, I think that the confusion of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) complained has been created by his own mode of putting the question.

  801
  Before putting his question to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council of Education, the hon. Member should have first put the question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge; because it is quite evident that my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council of Education cannot give an answer until he knows the nature and purport of the Resolutions. I shall now, with the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Walpole's) permission, put the question of which I have given notice—namely, When the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the table of the House the Resolutions on the Revised Minute of Education which he contemplates moving in Committee of the whole House?
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, The question put to me by the hon. Gentleman renders it necessary for me to explain the reasons which induced me to give notice of the Motion in the form in which it now stands. In the first place, I believe I have adopted the form which this House has generally, if not universally, considered to be the best in reference to questions of this kind. In the second place, I put it in that form in order that the House might see that I did not wish to go into Committee on any specific plan of my own, but in such a way that every hon. Member might have an opportunity of putting forward his views on the subject. I think that, when the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council submitted his Revised Code, I suggested that it would he better to go at once into Committee of the whole House, in order that we might have an opportunity of considering this complicated matter in detail, and in order that such explanations might be given and such amendments adopted as the House in Committee might deem desirable. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department suggested that there were two courses open to us; the one was to submit the Motions which should be submitted on the new Code when the Estimate was moved for, and the other to move an address to the Crown on the subject, embodying in that address the alterations that I thought should be made in the code. Now, as to the first of these courses, I should have been precluded, and the House would have been precluded, from considering in detail a most complicated matter. As to the other course,
  802
  perhaps I feel rather strongly on it, because I succeeded in carrying an address to the Crown on the subject of national education in Ireland, and I was told as a reason why that address was attempted to be varied— although it was never rescinded—I was told by no less an authority than Earl Russell that it was very inconvenient to carry by one Motion an address to the Crown on so important a subject as that which I had submitted to them, without giving the House a second opportunity of reconsidering the matter. Now, observe, here is the question of education again. If the Government would only consider that they might go into Committee of the whole House for the purpose of discussing the question I have submitted— not the Revised Code, but the best mode of distributing the Parliamentary grant—that would enable the House to consider the question, first of all, in detail in Committee; secondly, to adopt such Resolutions as they might think advisable; and, thirdly, to have a Report on those Resolutions, with yon, Sir, in the chair, which would enable the House to confirm what the Committee had done. Those are the reasons that have induced me to take that course. The hon. Gentleman is aware that I have followed the precedents, as closely as the present stale of things have allowed me to do. Earl Russell, when he gave notice of his Resolutions on education generally, gave notice simply in this form —"Resolutions on Education, to be moved on such a day." He had to move twelve Resolutions. I do not recollect that the noble Earl gave notice of one of them. When the matter came on for discussion, what did the House do? Instead of appointing a day for considering the Resolutions with you, Sir, in the chair, the House pressed him to go into Committee of the whole House, that they might consider the Resolutions in Committee. Then on that day, the 6th of March, the noble Earl gave notice that on the 10th of April he should move to go into Committee of the whole House to consider the Resolutions in detail. What happened then? The Government were neither prejudiced by nor bound by them. The first question put was, whether the Chairman should leave the chair—in other words, whether the Resolutions should be adopted or not; and the House voted that they did not approve any of the Resolutions, and they therefore adopted the Motion that the Chairman should leave the chair. One

  803
  word more. If I were endeavouring to upset the Revised Code proposed by the Vice President of the Education Committee, I should have proposed, Sir, simply one Resolution for you to put from the chair—namely, that it is not expedient to adopt that Revised Code, leaving the Government to amend it as they pleased. But I am not prepared to make that Motion, nor do I desire to upset the Revised Code. If I were prepared to accept the Revised Code exactly as it now stands, I would not trouble the House with these observations; but as I sincerely believe that, without upsetting the Revised Code altogether, material and beneficial alterations and improvements may be inserted in it, all I intend to ask the House is, that on that day it will be kind enough to go into Committee for the purpose of considering the whole question of Parliamentary grants for education. That course will enable other hon. Members as well as myself to propose such alterations as they may think necessary. Under these circumstances, the hon. Member will see that, according to the established practice of this House, I shall not be able to give notice of the Resolutions until I know whether the House will agree to go into Committee. If the House agrees to go into Committee, I will give the amplest notice of the Resolutions I intend to propose, and I will take care that the House has full time to consider them before any discussion takes place.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he thought the House would be better able to debate the question in open Committee of the whole House. He felt a deep interest in the subject of education, and he trusted that the Government would accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), and take the Revised Code in detail.
  MR. LOWE: I fear, Sir, that some misunderstanding prevails in the House on this subject. If we go into Committee of the whole House, I apprehend there is no distinction between an open Committee and a close Committee. When we are once there, it is competent for any hon. Member to move any Resolution he may think proper. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman gives notice of his Resolutions, any other hon. Gentleman would not be precluded from moving any other Resolutions he might think desirable. The Government have not the least wish to avoid discussion, and, for my own part, I do not
  804
  think the subject could be so conveniently discussed as in Committee. The Government are anxious to meet in spirit the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) in every respect, but they think this will be best done by the right hon. Gentleman informing the House of the nature of the Resolutions he intends to propose for the purpose of amending the measure of the Government.
  MR. DISRAELI: I certainly think, Sir, that a misconception prevails on this point, although it appears to me exceedingly strange that it should have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says, it would be very convenient, before we go into Committee, that we should be in possession of the Resolutions about to be moved by my right hon. Friend or any other hon. Gentleman. Well, we all agree that it would be very convenient, if we go into Committee on the general question of education, that we should be in possession of these Resolutions of my right hon. Friend. But the question that does not appear to be settled is, whether we are to go into Committee? If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that it is not the intention of the Government to oppose the original Motion of my right hon. Friend, and that we shall have the great advantage of considering this important question in Committee of the whole House, I will undertake to say that my right hon. Friend will lay his Resolutions on the table in ample time, and we shall expect the same from any other hon. Member who may intend to bring forward a Motion on the subject. But I did not collect from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Education Committee, nor from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Government are prepared to grant the Committee; and unless they are so prepared, their observations are not founded on any solid basis. It is our opinion, and it is an opinion by no means limited to this side of the House, that it is absurd to make a party question of the most convenient mode of considering the complicated question of popular education in a Committee of the whole House. I think the feeling is general that it would be highly convenient to consider the question in Committee of the whole House. If it is to be considered in Committee, all that Gentlemen who have Resolutions to propose have to do is to lay them on the table in ample time for consideration. If the Government are

  805
  prepared to tell us they consent to the Committee, all misapprehension will be removed, and it will be in the power of the Government themselves to understand the question.
  MR. CARD WELL: Sir, I think the matter stands thus—the Motion to be made on the 25th of March is, that on a future day the House will resolve itself into Committee; before that future day arrives, the right hon. Gentleman has stated that he will lay his Resolutions on the table of the House.
  MR. WALPOLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to explain? My Motion is, that the House should go into Committee on a future day, in order that there may be an interval between my Motion and the Committee, during which lion. Members may consider the Resolutions. If the Government will state that they do not intend to oppose the Motion for going into Committee to consider the Parliamentary grant, I will alter my Motion, and, instead of moving that the House go into Committee on a future day, I will move to go into Committee at once.
  MR. CARDWELL: There can be no objection to the first Motion, that the House will on a future day resolve itself into Committee, because there will be an opportunity on that future day of debating the question whether the House will go into Committee or not. As I understand my right hon. Friend, he proposes that a subsequent day shall be named for the express purpose of enabling him to lay his Resolutions on the table, and giving the House and the Government an opportunity of considering them. That being so, the first Motion will be merely formal, and there will be no objection to its being made.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has by no means made the state of the question clearer. I cannot understand how there can be any misconception on the subject. It appears to me that there never was a plainer question before the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge has given notice that on the 25th of March he will move that the House go into Committee on a future day, to consider certain Resolutions on the Revised Code. The Government have been asked the most simple question—namely, whether they will or will not assent to that Motion. Will they give a
  806
  plain answer to a plain question? The course of my right hon. Friend is perfectly clear. If the Government will say that they have no objection to go into Committee to consider the Resolutions on the subject of the Revised Code of Education, then my right hon. Friend will alter his Motion, and instead of moving to go into Committee on a future day, he will move to go into Committee at once; and before he makes that Motion he will give ample notice of the Resolutions which he will be prepared to bring forward. Surely that is clear enough, as one alternative. What is the other alternative? If the Government say, "No; we have given you our Code; this is our plan, and we shall resist the Committee," then the House will not see my right hon. Friend's Resolutions until the Motion for going into Committee is first disposed of.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I understood my right hon. Friend to say, that if the first Motion were agreed to, he would then give notice of his Resolutions, and there would be a preliminary debate if necessary. If that is so, there will be no objection.
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I have no objection to either of these two alternatives. I would let my notice of Motion stand as it is, and on the 25th of March move that on a future occasion the House should go into Committee on the question. Supposing the House assent to that Motion, it would become an order of the day for the House to go into Committee on the day appointed, and in the interval I would give notice of the Resolutions which on that future day I would submit to the Committee. But, in consequence of this discussion I am prepared to say, that if the Government find it consistent with their duty to say, that, without affirming or disaffirming any of the Resolutions, they will not object to go into Committee for the purpose of considering only this question of the distribution of this Parliamentary grant for educational purposes, I will alter my Motion, and instead thereof move, on the 25th of March, that the House at once resolve itself into such Committee; and, in that case, I will give at least a fortnight's notice of the Resolutions which I intend to submit.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, the question was most important, and one in which the House took the greatest interest. He feared that the course which had been taken in the House would have

  807
  an unfortunate effect in the country. Hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House were anxious to approach the question in the fairest and most impartial manner, and without party feeling; but he was afraid that when the present discussion went forth to the public, it would be supposed that the Government were so deeply attached to the Revised Code that they had even hesitated about allowing it to be discussed. He hoped, however, that the difficulty was now cleared up.
  Lord JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I wish I could agree with the hon. Baronet, that the point is cleared up. Though my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge has stated, in the most clear and distinct terms, his readiness to adopt either of the alternatives he has proposed to the House, up to this moment the Government have not replied to his offer, by stating that they will adopt either the one or the other. I hope some Member of the Government will state whether the House is to be allowed to go into Committee of the whole House on the question of education or not.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I rose at the same time as the noble Lord to state the view of the Government upon this subject, which seems to me to have given rise to an unnecessary amount of debate. I admit the fairness of the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and the fairness of spirit in which the House has met the question, and I will at once state that the Government are ready to accept the first alternative.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: Sir, I wish it to be understood whether it is the first or the second alternative that the Government propose to accept. I understand the notice is to be left as it stands. Is that so? I ask the Government to tell us, in distinct terms, what is the plan they accept, No. l or No. 2.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I may perhaps be allowed to explain that of the two alternatives stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Government are quite ready to accept the first. If hon. Members do not understand that which appears to me to be very clear, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to repeat his proposals.
  MR. HENLEY: Sir, taking the variorum statements of the Treasury bench, I think they amount to this:—That my right hon. Friend has a notice to move on a given day, that the House will on some other given
  808
  day go into Committee on the distribution of the Education Grant, and the Government, as I understand, adopt that alternative. The Government have coupled therewith rather an ominous kind of condition, by the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who said, "When we come to that second day, then we can move that the Speaker do not leave the chair." So that, in point of fact, it will be a kind of game at cards, saying with the one hand, "We will let the House go into Committee;" that is, "We will assent pro formâ that the House go into Committee in a month or fourteen days hence; but when the time is up, we will with the other hand refuse the Committee." I do not think that is a desirable state in which to leave the question. I wish to approach the question in the most dispassionate manner. It is to the public advantage that it should be so approached, and I believe it can only be fairly discussed by going into Committee. I implore the Government not to play with the forms of the House and thus create a disturbed feeling amongst us, owing to which this subject may not be debated in the dispassionate manner which we all think so desirable. It is clear that so complicated a question can be sufficiently discussed only in Committee; and I hope the Government will, without circumlocution, say, "We will go into Committee of the whole House, and then discuss the question."
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
Mr. Massey in the chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £170,832, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the Vote under consideration was increasing at a very rapid rate; it was upwards of £170,000, and it had increased by £36,000 within the last few years. It was proposed that five new appointments should be made. There was to be a librarian at £150 a year, there was to be an acting constructor at £800, there was to be a Deputy Accountant General at £900, a new chief clerk in the storekeeper's department at £850, and an officer and secretary to con-

809
trol the transport service at £2,000. If once those Votes were passed, they became fixed and could not be got rid of. With regard to the transport service, if the Government really intended to consolidate it, taking in the Colonial and Indian departments also, he would have no objection to the Vote. But if they intended to make no greater change than a separation of the transport from the victualling department, the new appointments would be created without effecting any useful object, and he should oppose the Vote. He did not consider £900 per annum to be too much for a chief constructor; but having that officer and also a constructor, what did they want with an acting constructor, with a salary of £800? Was it intended that the latter should do all the work? He was satisfied that the appointment was totally unnecessary, especially at the present time, when no more wooden ships were being built. Then with regard to the Deputy Accountant General, whose salary was to be £900, he held that new office to be very questionable, as it would divide the responsibility. Great complaints had been made as to the manner in which the accounts of the navy had been kept; and although a Committee had been appointed to consider that subject, nothing whatever had been done to provide a remedy. Therefore before the Committee sanctioned the Vote, he hoped that at all events the noble Lord would state whether anything had been done, or was contemplated, for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Commission on Dockyards with reference to the accounts. The intentions of the Government on that head ought to be known before the staff was increased. With regard to the Admiralty clerks generally, he must remind the Committee that there were no fewer than 460 employés at Somerset House and Whitehall, out of which 160 or 170 were in the Accountant General's office, besides a vast number of clerks, surveyors, and builders at the dockyards. It seemed to him that the Admiralty had servants enough to spend even £24,000,000, instead of £12,000,000; and however unpleasant the task might be, some Member must endeavour to stem, if possible, the torrent of lavish expenditure. The pleas on which Liberal Members had obtained the support of their constituents, as against hon. Gentlemen opposite, had always been retrenchment, economy, and reform. Let them not, then, allow the two first to
810
become as the last had been, a laughingstock on the Treasury benches. He would not divide the Committee against the £2,000 to which he had referred, it being clearly understood that the Indian and Colonial Transport Boards were to be amalgamated with the Admiralty; but he would move that the Vote be reduced by £2,550, namely, £800 for the acting constructor, £900 for the deputy accountant, and £850 for the chief clerk in the store department.
Motion made,
"That a sum, not exceeding £168,282, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863."
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he thought there was great force in the hon. Member's observations. He hoped that a satisfactory explanation would be given for the appointment of an Acting Constructor. They were about to substitute an iron fleet for a wooden one, and as many of the large iron vessels would be constructed in private yards he did not understand why another officer in the Controlling Department was needed, unless, indeed, that officer was intimately acquainted with the construction of iron ships. With regard to the item for transports, the affair must be a sham if two great Departments were excluded from the arrangement. He thought that the item had better be deferred until the Indian and Colonial Departments consented to form part of the Transport Board. With regard to the Deputy Accountant General, he should not object to the appointment, if it were made a temporary one, only to endure while the accounts were being brought into a proper state, and to cease when that result was attained,
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that the Vote exceeded that of the last year by about £9,700, and unless the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty gave a satisfactory explanation for the augmentation, he should be inclined to move the reduction of the Vote by the whole of that sum. He observed that the Vote included payments for a large number of temporary clerks, but he thought it would be a better; plan for the Admiralty to engage permanently as many clerks as were needed.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know, whether any means had been devised by which the Members of the Board of Admiralty were brought in

811
more direct contact with the several departments, in order that a distinct responsibility might rest on the shoulders of each individual Member? He was desirous to have a reply to that question, because, unless those who were theoretically responsible were made really so, nothing for the advantage of the public service would have been effected. Who, for instance, was responsible for the expenditure of the navy? or had any change been made which would bring that department of the service under the more distinct control of an individual Lord of the Admiralty, subject to the general superintendence of the First Lord?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHremarked, that while the sum asked for the purposes of the department in 1852 was £134,000, it had amounted in 1858–9 to £140,000, to which latter sum it had only reached during the Crimean war. In the Estimates before them there was a further increase of more than £30,000. The causes of the great increase under that head within the last five years he attributed in a great measure to the number of clerks, especially temporary clerks, employed in the department. That observation applied to every department of the Admiralty. He hoped that the Government would state that it was their intention to deal with the question. There were 333 persons upon the establishment for the present year, while in 1858 they amounted only to 270. Ten years ago there were only 235. Now, taking into account the temporary clerks, they had a force of 452 persons. There were also probationary clerks, and he should like to know what were the rules in accordance with which the Members of that particular class were appointed—whether by nomination and competition, and whether, when persons were nominated, they came on in their turn? For his own part, he regretted that a larger reduction in the Vote had not been proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the question of the employment of temporary clerks, alluded by the hon. Member, concerned as well the War Office as the Admiralty. He had moved for returns of the sums expended during the last five years on that class of clerks, and he hoped the House would soon be furnished with the information which those returns would afford. When that information was obtained, it would be seen that the amount
812
was very large—so large as to disturb very much the distribution of the money voted for the Estimates presented to Parliament. The expenditure on the Admiralty Office had for several years been £5,000 or £6,000 above the sum voted by Parliament; and he believed the excess was due to the, large number of temporary clerks employed. The whole subject was one which appeared to him to require consideration. Indeed, when the late Government were in office it had occupied their attention, and it had been taken up by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on his accession to office; and a Committee, of which he had himself been a member, was appointed to consider the question. It was, however, a matter of difficulty in more ways than one. The idea which suggested itself to the gentlemen with whom he was associated was, that there should be a central office, unconnected with the War Office or the Admiralty, which should comprise a regular staff of temporary clerks, and that those clerks should be at the disposal of any of the Government offices which might require their services. He did not mean that the work should be sent out to be done in the central office; but, on the contrary, that the departments which required assistance should send to the central office for any number of clerks they might want. Such an arrangement would not only do justice to both the temporary and the permanent clerks, but would also lead to considerable economy and improvement in the service. The proposal had slept for some time. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was under consideration, and that it would be necessary to consult the heads of departments. He did not know whether the consultation had taken place, but he took that opportunity of mentioning the subject again, because he hoped it would not be altogether forgotten. It was worthy of serious consideration, and he trusted the Government would lose no time in seeing whether anything could be done.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought that those hon. Gentlemen who had been remarking upon the increase in the Estimates hardly bore in mind the simultaneous increase in the amount of work to be done, which he believed to be the true answer to the greater part of their criticisms. He was not prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, because he believed that the

813
Secretary to the Admiralty was justified in asking the Committee to grant the additional assistance required by the Accountant General and the Constructor of the Navy. The appointment of an acting constructor was demanded by the increased business, while the appointment of a deputy Accountant General was still more imperatively required. Full justice had been done by the hon. Member for Sunderland to the great acquirements of the Accountant General of the Navy, but the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the health of that officer had broken down under the pressure of the increased business in his department. The increase of the power of the navy had been attended by an increase of accounts, and he believed, moreover, that the proposed appointment of a deputy Accountant General was only the revival of an office which existed at a time when the expenses of the navy, and, consequently the accounts, did not exceed one-half their present amount. There was one entry in the Vote, however, upon which he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would offer some explanation. He referred to the sum of £2,000 for an officer to control the transport service, and a secretary. How was the appearance of that item to be reconciled with the fact, that setting aside the sum required for the transports now on their way home from Canada, the transport Vote stood at a much lower figure than last year?
MR. LAIRDsaid, he should support the Vote. The officers to whom it was proposed to give assistance had been much overworked for many years, and he could state from personal experience and observation that they were gentlemen of the highest character and ability. He could not see how the appointment of a deputy Accountant General could be objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They wanted, in future, an accurate and detailed account of the cost of each ship, including, of course, a statement of the wages paid and the prices of materials, and also a proportionate share of the expenses of each dockyard. Such an account could be obtained, but it must double the number of clerks and lead to a large increase in the business of the Accountant General, as well as necessitate a thorough revision of his system. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very fond of contrasting the cost of ships built under contract with that of vessels constructed in the Government
814
dockyards. So far from it being true that ships of war could be built for £15 or £20 a ton, he believed they must cost at least £30 per ton; and he trusted the country would not allow itself to be led away with the idea that the ships built in the Government dockyards cost 30 or 50 per cent more than they really did.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was glad to hear the voice of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, and hoped he would often give them the benefit of his knowledge and experience in naval matters. If his hon. friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had been in his place on Monday, he would have heard him (Lord Clarence Paget) distinctly state what was going on in the dockyards as to the rectification of the accounts. He would not trouble the Committee with a repetition of that statement; but he might say generally, that the Accountant General expressed his expectation of being able to render the general accounts as perfect as the personal accounts of the seamen. His hon. Friend said he disapproved of the deputy Accountant General. He (Lord Clarence Paget) could assure his hon. Friend that the Accountant General could not do the work that was assigned to him. No amount of industry would enable a man to get through it. It was simply impossible, owing to the great increase in the navy which had taken place of late years. The Accountant General must under the new system of accounts visit the dockyards for the purpose of examining and checking the accounts; but how was he to do that and attend to his daily business at Somerset House as well? An additional officer was imperatively required, more especially when all desired to see more correct and detailed accounts of everything connected with naval expenditure. So with respect to the appointment of an acting constructor. The Admiralty had over and over again been found fault with because the Controller of the Navy sat in his office at Whitehall and did not inspect the dockyards; but the simple answer was that he could not visit the dockyards unless he could leave an officer behind him at Whitehall to carry on the daily business there. It had been said that they were building ships by contract, but the fact that the work was being done in private yards, was an additional reason why it should be properly inspected and checked by a Government officer. The appointment of au additional first-class

815
clerk, to which the hon. Member for Sunderland bad objected, was more a matter of rank than of emolument, and did not involve any increase of expense. He had been asked to state what was the responsibility of the Lords of the Admiralty—whether it was individual or general. That was a very large question, but it had been carefully considered by the Duke of Somerset, who had done his best to give a defined responsibility to each member of the Board. It was confidently expected that one result of bringing together all the navy departments under one roof, would be to place the principal officers in more frequent and more convenient communication with the Lords of the Admiralty. An inquiry had also been made with respect to the probationary clerks. They were gentlemen who had received appointments as paymasters' clerks, and who, before being appointed to ships, underwent instruction at Somerset House, under the direction of the Accountant General. He would not express any opinion upon the plan sketched out by the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), but would state the course which the Duke of Somerset had pursued with regard to the temporary clerks at the Admiralty. Formerly permanent clerkships were looked upon as entirely separate from temporary ones. Now, however, when a vacancy occurred in the department, the Duke of Somerset sent up three of those gentlemen to compete for it. They underwent an examination; the successful candidate became a temporary clerk, and the temporary clerks filled up any vacancies in the ranks of the permanent ones. The appointments to which the hon. Member had objected were in part designed to secure the more perfect keeping of the accounts in the dockyards, and he therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, his vote would be determined by the answer which the noble Lord might give to the following question:—What had been the previous pursuits and the course of education of the gentleman appointed as acting constructor? It was of the highest importance in the new order of things with regard to shipbuilding, that the Constructor should be a gentleman of great practical experience. They all knew that Sir Baldwin Walker, the Comptroller of the Navy, had advised that the whole of the joints of the Warrior should be tongued. Now, every
816
practical man knew that in so doing, Sir Baldwin Walker not only weakened the plates, but he did something worse, for he rendered it necessary, if any damage occurred to a single plate, before it could be repaired, to remove all the plates above it. Such was the present condition of the Warrior. It was necessary that the man appointed to the proposed office should be a man of thorough practical knowledge and not a mere theorist.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he feared that some of the opponents of the Vote conceived retrenchment and economy to be convertible terms, but they were not so in all cases. If the people knew what an amount of money had been wasted under the name of economy, they would be perfectly startled. Nothing was so productive of injury as being short-handed. The real ground in the present discussion was that of responsibility, the main difficulty in dealing with anything connected with the Admiralty being to determine with whom the responsibility lay. But that was the fault of the constitution of the department, not of those who at present filled its offices; and until the House was ready to remedy the root of the evil—the constitution of the Board—they were bound to leave the decision of all these details of expenditure to the Board as it at present existed. He should for these reasons give his support to the Vote.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that though he quite agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) that retrenchment was not always economy, he would venture to remind the House that expenditure was not always efficiency. He also thought that if the balance was struck between the loss arising from what was spent unnecessarily and that arising from mistaken retrenchment, the balance would be against the former. He was perfectly satisfied with the proposed appointments, and with the explanations given by the noble Lord respecting them. He believed that the increased expense of keeping the accounts would be amply compensated for by their improved efficiency.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTremarked, that he also thought increased efficiency would be the result of the Vote, and he should therefore support it. He approved of the present form of presenting the estimates, as tending to a more watchful supervision of naval works.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, there were two great sources of expenditure—wages

817
and materials—with regard to which the Accountant General's duty was merely to see, in one case, that the authorized rates were not exceeded, and, in the other, that the charges were in accordance with the terms of the contracts accepted by the Board. For the information of the Committee, he would shortly state his own practice. When he went to the Accountant General's office, he found there the accounts to be passed; and as it was impossible for any one with other duties to go through them all in detail, it was the duty of the Accountant General to raise any point as to which there could be doubt, or which was not authorized by distinct practice. If his attention were not called to anything specially, it was his practice to pass the accounts, reserving only some few, chosen at hazard, to be carefully scrutinized in detail. It was the duty of the Accountant General to call attention to any point, however small, requiring explanation; and whenever doubt arose, or where there was a payment likely to be drawn into a precedent for further expenditure, to refer the matter to the superintending Lord. He could not quite agree with the answer given by the Accountant General to the Committee, that he had only to procure the initials of the superintending Lord to relieve himself from responsibility, because it must he obvious that, although his advice might be acted on, he was responsible for any advice which he gave. For his own part, he did not believe that the system worked inefficiently or badly.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that on questions of wages it was sufficiently plain sailing; but when they came to deal with that portion of the Votes which was expended on materials for the Dockyards, he believed there was no real responsibility chargeable on any one at the Admiralty Department. He had no doubt of the necessity of the other appointments, but with regard to the increase of £2,000 for the heads of a Transport Board no explanation whatever had been given.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the point had been so fully discussed on a recent occasion that he had not thought it necessary to refer to it. The appointments which the sum of £2,000 was intended to cover had been made in consequence of proceedings before the Transport Committee of last year. The naval officer and his secretary were intended to form the nucleus of a Transport Board, which at present was to manage the transport of troops to all our
818
colonies except India, but might ultimately embrace that dependency within its sphere of operations. He was bound to add, that although last year a great many reasons were given why the shipping business of the Emigration Office should be placed under a Transport Board, he had since heard strong grounds urged against such a change at present. It was proposed to make the Transport Department independent of the Controller of the Victualling; otherwise, if the country were engaged in hostilities, great confusion and needless expenditure might ensue. The acting constructor was a well known man, possessed of great intelligence, and perfectly capable of giving an opinion on the construction of iron ships.
In reply to Sir MORTON PETO,
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the officer to be appointed was Mr. Abethell, one of the master shipwrights in the dockyards.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that his objections to the appointment of an acting constructor had not been removed by what had fallen from the noble Lord. What, he would ask, would the chief constructor and constructor have to do when this acting constructor was appointed? In every dockyard there was a master shipwright, receiving a salary of £600, and two assistants, receiving salaries of £400 per annum; therefore there was no want of hands to conduct the works. If they had too many heads, there would be divided responsibility, and when anything was wrong, they would be unable to place their finger on the person who bad committed the error. He should press his amendment to deduct £2,550 from the Vote. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), he would observe that it was stated that the building of ships at Deptford cost £37 a ton. No one knew better than the hon. Member that the hull of a ship under 1,000 tons would not cost one-half the sum of £37 per ton.
MR. CORRYsaid, that, in explanation of the statement of the Royal Commission as to the cost of constructing ships at Deptford, he might observe that a great many of the ships built there had been built originally as sailing vessels, and afterwards converted into screw ships. Besides, the expense of repairing a 36-gun frigate had been included in the charges for building at Deptford.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked,

819
whether the gentleman proposed to be appointed as acting constructor was not an old man, beyond the age at which the Government could force him to take a retiring pension.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he was a most zealous and active officer.
Motion made, and Question put,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 114: Majority 92.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £297,602, Coast Guard Service, &c.
MR. R. HODGSONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for the Admiralty whether any scale of remuneration for shipping masters had been settled?
SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know whether the opportunity of entering the Royal Naval Reserve was to be extended to the Channel Islands. There was a valuable body of seamen both in Guernsey and Jersey, who ought to have an opportunity of volunteering for the Royal Naval Reserve.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, it was scarcely possible to overrate the services rendered by the shipping masters at the various ports in the formation of the Royal Naval Reserve. He trusted the Admiralty would deal with them liberally, and consider whether they might not receive some distinguishing badge or honorary rank.
MR. LAIRDsaid, the noble Lord would do well to make some arrangement by which the crews of steamers, boatmen, lightermen, and others of that class, might be drilled so as to be available for the defence of their several ports. If a large number of men who were unwilling to enter for foreign service joined together for the defence of the ports, a greater number of others would become free for foreign service, and this would add very greatly to our naval resources.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, they were called upon to give great credit to the shipping masters for the position in which the Naval Reserve then stood. They had performed an amount of labour which it would be well for the country to recognise. He did not think that the officers of the merchant service deserved all the praise which had been given them. They were at first as much opposed to the Royal Naval Reserve as the men; but as light dawned upon one it fell upon the other, and he believed that in the future progress of the Reserve the officers of the
820
merchant service would be of very great assistance. He quite agreed with the lion. Member for Tynemouth that the shipping masters were entitled to some honorary distinction, and it was only right that they should be paid for the extra time which they devoted to the business of the Reserve, and which took up one-third of their time. He was quite prepared to second a proposition that the shipping masters should receive substantial rank as paymasters of the reserve, and that that distinction should be accompanied by due remuneration. With regard to the maintenance of the Reserve, he would urge the Government to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Naval Commission in regard to school ships, because unless they provided for the admission of boys as well as adults to the force, the scheme must break down. Each boy in the Royal Navy, before he was reckoned as an ordinary seaman, cost the country £123, whereas under the schoolship system he would only cost £38. He would then pass to the merchant service, and the shipping master at the port would be able to enlist him in the Naval Reserve.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to inquire whether any commissions had as yet been issued to the officers of the mercantile marine who had joined the Naval Reserve?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he desired to know whether any alteration had been made in the rates of payment for the officers of the Naval Reserve?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was happy to inform his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Alderman Salomons) that they had made a commencement in granting appointments to officers of the Naval Reserve, and that the first commission had been conferred on Mr. Judkins, the officer who with so much ability had commanded the steamer that carried our troops up the St. Lawrence. Mr. Judkins had passed the age for active service, but he had been made an honorary lieutenant, to mark the sense which the Government entertained of his services. The item of £5,000 for lieutenants and sub-lieutenants of the Naval Reserve was to reimburse them for travelling expenses, board, and so on, when they were away from their vessels undergoing instruction —the lieutenants to receive 10 s. a day, and the sub-lieutenants 5s. He could not go quite so far as the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James El-

821
phinstone), that to the shipping masters alone they owed the present efficient state of the Naval Reserve. In his opinion, Captain Browne, the registrar-general of seamen, was the man to whom they were most indebted for his services in that respect, and next to him the naval officers of the several depots. There was no doubt, however, that they were greatly indebted to the shipping masters also. A new scale of pay had been just arranged between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade with regard to the salaries of the shipping masters, who, he begged to state, were no longer shipping masters, but were henceforward to be called "Registrars of the Royal Naval Reserve." These gentlemen would for the future be paid according to the number of men they were instrumental in enrolling, and also to the amount of correspondence they had to carry on on account of the Naval Reserve. They would thus receive a very substantial addition to the allowances which they already received. The highest amount for the past year that had been received by any of those gentlemen was £180. No doubt, as the Reserve increased, the work which the registrars had to perform would also increase, and so would their pay.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he thought that "Paymasters of the Royal Naval Reserve" would have been a better title. He wished to know whether the £180 went to the deputy registrars, or was it to be divided among their clerks?
MR. CORRYobserved, that there was an increase of 150 men in the number of the coast-guard on land service, though he should have thought that since the establishment of the Naval Reserve the importance of the coast-guard would have diminished.
SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURsaid, he wished to learn the number out of the 10,000 men in the reserve that might be immediately available for service if required?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETstated, that £180 was the highest amount that any of the registrars had received. Of course, certain clerks were to be paid, but that was to be done before, and the £180 was a substantial addition to the income of the registrars. As to the number out of the 10,000 reserves that might be immediately available, their present position was this:—According to the la test returns in last December, the number of reserves on long voyages was 669, on
822
short voyages 2,359, and the number in the coasting trade and at home was 4,756; but since that return there had been a considerable increase in the force.
SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURinquired, how far the arrangements with regard to the Naval Reserve extended to the Channel Islands?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the seamen of the Channel Islands were as much interested in the reserve as the seamen in the home ports. Several of them had been already enrolled.
In reply to Mr LINDSAY,
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the fees of the shipping masters were £2,000.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £68,045, Scientific Departments of the Navy.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to call attention to the excess of expenditure in past years over the sums voted under this head. In 1859 they voted £61,000, and £68,000 were expended; in 1860 they voted £64,000, and £73,000 were expended. Would there be any objection to a return giving a list or index of the charts published by the hydrographical department during the last ten years?
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, it would be useful to know what progress was made in the coast surveys. The Astronomer Royal, one of the most able mathematicians and astronomers in England or the world, had never had an increase of his pay. It was only £1,000 a year; and for a man of his science and attainments an augmentation was desirable.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he did not think that it would be easy to make an index of the charts of all the surveys of the world; but if the hon. Gentleman would move for an index of all the published charts, there probably would be no objection raised to the Motion. As to the Astronomer Royal, he was an excellent officer, and he might add that that year the Admiralty had somewhat improved the position of some of his assistants.
Vote agreed, to.
(4.) £176,624, Naval Establishments at Home.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, they had given up building wooden ships, except those of small size. The pay of master shipwrights was £650 per annum, and of master smiths £250 per annum. The increase of iron ships would throw extra work upon the master smiths, and he sug-

823
gested that their pay should he increased, while in all future appointments the pay of master shipwrights should be reduced.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHexpressed his full concurrence in the observations made relative to the master smiths, but he did not think it advisable that the salaries of the master shipwrights should be reduced.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £33,610, Naval Establishments Abroad.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the great disproportion between the expenditure for the superintending staff and the number of men at the Malta establishment. The item in the Votes for that establishment amounted to £7,819, and he dared say the salary and emoluments of the Admiral Superintendent would probably swell the amount to £10,000. That appeared an extravagant sum to pay for the superintendence of only 487 men, whose yearly wages scarcely exceeded £22,000.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETremarked, that he could only say that the Malta station was of great importance in respect to the Mediterranean service, and, besides being a great store and victualling depot, and therefore requiring a smaller proportion of artificers, large works were going on there. Malta, therefore, could not be considered, as regards officers and men, in the same light as the home dockyards.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £1,147,678, Wages to Artificers, Labourers, &c, at Home.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wished to call attention to the position of the hand-sawyers in the dockyards, who, for the last thirteen years, had been at job and task work. In the mean while the wages of other mechanics, who were paid by the day, had increased 3d., 4d., and 6d. per day. The sawyers were now being put on day work at the same wages as they had been paid up to the time they were put on task and job work, which was thirteen years ago, instead of being paid at the advanced rates of the present day. They were, moreover, obliged to find their own tools. That appeared to be an unjust arrangement, as it affected not only their daily pay but their superannuation allowance.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to have some explanation with respect to a paper placed on the table, entitled "An account, showing the expenses incurred on Her Majesty's
824
ships—building, converting, repairing, fitting, &c.—during the financial year 1860–61." The ship Howe was there stated to have cost £192,877; and the expenditure for the Victoria was put down at £187,129. What he wished to know was, whether this paper of accounts was trustworthy, and whether any Member in that House might safely rely on the figures given in it? He did not put these questions idly, for he had reason to believe that the accounts were not of that accurate character on which a deliberative assembly could rely in discussing financial matters. It was said that a change was to be made which would show the exact amount expended on each ship, and that this system was to be commenced on the Achilles, now building at Chatham. He should like to hear from the noble Lord whether that was to be construed into an acknowledgment that the present accounts were not to be relied on?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the defect of the present system of expense accounts was that large sums were attributed in them to one service which, in truth, belonged to another. For instance, in the account items were put down under the head of "Docks," cranes, and various matters connected with the dockyard, which ought to be attributed to the ship which was being built. The hon. Baronet, however, was aware that it was those very defects which the Admiralty were in process of remedying, and for the future to every individual ship would be credited under the new system every particular item which belonged to it. Thus, by a system of double entry, the exact cost of each ship would be shown. By that time next year the returns probably would show accurately the exact cost of every one of Her Majesty's ships.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wished to know whether the timber was charged in the returns at cost price, or whether any addition was made to the expense of the ship on account of the length of time it had been in the yard?
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wanted some explanation with respect to the statement regarding the Vote, to the effect that it was intended to reduce the number as vacancies occurred to 9,261.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that it was intended to reduce the number of permanent men in the dockyards to the extent laid down in an Order in Council in

825
1850; therefore when any additional work was necessary, they adopted the plan of hiring men instead of adding to the permanent staff.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that if the accounts of the expenditure of the navy were to be presented in detail they ought to show the whole cost of each ship. Was anything, for instance, taken into consideration for depreciation, or insurance, or losses? He could not but complain of the unsatisfactory and confused manner in which the accounts were presented to the House. He should like also to know whether there was any alteration made in the system of task and job-work.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, he would admit that the accounts, as they then stood, did not show the whole debtor and creditor account; but an improved system was in operation, and he trusted that next year the fullest details of the cost of every ship would be given. There was no task I or job-work then going on in the dock-yards,
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that he understood that there was a system of measurement in operation under which, if a man did not do an amount of work reaching a certain standard, he was paid less than the average wages; while if he did an amount beyond the standard, he was not paid more than his regular earnings.
MR. WHITBREADobserved, that the system was known as the "check-day pay," and answered very well. It simply insured a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(7.) £66,801 Wages to Artificers and Labourers Abroad.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,741,181, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of Naval Stores, for the Building, Repair, and Out fit of the Fleet, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863."
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask what steps had been taken by the Admiralty to remedy the evils complained of by the chief engineer of Chatham Dockyard before the Dockyard Inquiry; Committee, respecting the deteriorated quality of copper obtained for copper sheathing in the navy? He also desired to be informed whether there was any intention on the part of the Admiralty to manufacture their own plates in any of
826
the dockyards? Such a proceeding, he thought, would be a mistake.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had always heard that the deteriorated quality of modern copper was to be attributed to its admixture with foreign ore. His noble Friend would acquit him in his remarks of all desire to use captious language, or introduce party feeling. It was really for the purpose of obtaining information that he wished to refer to some particular items in the Vote. One of the most important questions of the day was the respective merits of the various descriptions of iron plates for sheathing vessels; in fact, the naval supremacy of this country was to some extent dependent on the goodness of those plates. He had heard within the last few days rumours in certain influential quarters which, if they had any foundation, ought to be brought to the notice of the Admiralty; but which, if they were not correct, ought to receive an authoritative contradiction from the Minister in his place in Parliament. He had heard that all the experiments tried went to prove that hammered plates were vastly superior to rolled plates; that the experiments tried on the target constructed like the side of the Warrior showed very strongly the superiority of the hammered plates. Then, again, he was told that it was the intention of the Government to fit the Royal Oak, the Achilles, and the Black Prince with rolled plates. That was a very serious question indeed, for unless the Admiralty were thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the rolled over the hammered plates, it would be one of the greatest pieces of folly in the world to cover the sides of those ships with the rolled plates. If sufficient experiments had not been made upon hammered and rolled plates, further experiments ought to be made regardless of expense, so as to set the question of the relative merits of the two at rest. It would be much better economy to spend a certain number of thousands of pounds in experiments than to build iron-plated vessels concerning which the authorities of the Admiralty might entertain doubts. As the maritime supremacy of the country really depended on the superiority of the iron plates employed for their ships, he asked the noble Lord to give them his best opinion on this point. Another question he had to put was with regard to the contractors. He had been informed on good authority that the contractors for

827
building the large iron frigates had in several instances failed to complete their contracts. He wished to know if that were the fact, and, if so, whether the penalties to which the contractors were liable had been enforced? He had been told that the contractors for the Valiant, the Black Prince, the Defence, and the Resistance were in the position he had mentioned. There would appear to be some ambition to obtain these Admiralty contracts, which was not on account of the pecuniary advantages resulting from them. It was well known that when the contractors failed to fulfil their contracts, great pecuniary loss was entailed on the Government, as they were compelled to obtain additional assistance to complete the work. Sufficient inquiry, he thought, was not made into the solvency of persons who tendered for the contracts, and the practice of not enforcing the penalties was a premium to unqualified persons to tender for contracts. The next point he wished to touch upon was with regard to Trotman's anchors. He wished to know whether, recently, when one of those anchors was tested at Woolwich, Mr. Trotman desired to have a double test, and the authorities declined without a special order from the Admiralty, as the machinery might be injured; and that on Mr. Trotman offering to bear any expense, he was unable to obtain the sanction of the Admiralty? The last point to which he wished to direct attention was the coaling of Her Majesty's ships. That was a most important question. He had been told that the means of coaling both at Plymouth and Portsmouth were not what they ought to be in the case of an emergency, when it might require to be done with great rapidity; and, if they were not of that opinion, he (Mr. Bentinck) wished to know whether they intended to propose any improvement.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would ask whether the small vessels, corvettes, and gunboats the Government intended to be built, were to be built of wood or iron?
MR. LAIRDsaid, it appeared to him a question, after the discussion that took place on a former evening, whether it was desirable to go on building large ships of wood and iron combined. He doubted, also, whether they ought to carry out the "plan entertained of converting several wooden-built ships into iron-plated vessels without a previous experiment to test their efficiency when so converted. The addi-
828
tion of the weight of the iron plates, for which they were not originally laid down, would make them unseaworthy and dangerous if they carried their full complement of guns. He believed that the addition of 800 tons of iron plates above the whole weight these vessels were intended to carry, would soon shake them to pieces if sent to sea. He hoped therefore no further progress would be made with the five wooden ships to be converted, till some more experiments had been made as to their fitness. At least, the Government might finish one and send her to sea, as a trial. He believed that the ships the French Government had built of wood and plated with iron had shown signs of weakness. It was quite clear, as the hon. Member for Finsbury stated the other night, that for large ships there was no material but iron. Let them look at the ships of the Cunard Company, of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and the vessels of other private companies; they would not think of building their ships of wood. The wear and tear of wooden vessels were so great that no private company could make them pay. Some companies, who long adhered to the wooden-built ships, had at last been compelled to give them up. He knew that some of the largest shipowners in the country, who long adhered to wood as the material, had now adopted iron. By using iron the cost of the wear and tear of the ships was greatly reduced. It was with that view that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood), in spite of prejudice, introduced iron as a material of construction into the navy, and the vessel that was then built was still in existence. He would also name his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Corry), the late Lord Herbert, and Sir George Cockburn, who, in 1843, came to the conviction that iron was the best material for ships of war. But in that case, as in so many others, the force of prejudice and of various interests was opposed to the change they commenced; and the consequence was that the adoption of iron was thrown back for many years. He believed, from his experience of twenty-five or thirty years as a shipbuilder and shipowner, that till the Government adopted iron generally, and not merely for large ships, and followed the example of other Governments that were building gunboats of iron, they would never see the present large Navy Estimates reduced.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that

829
in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) whether the Vote for timber had reference to the building small vessels and gunboats, he had to state that up to that time they had not found any good substitute for wood in the construction of small vessels. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) was probably better acquainted with the comparative merits of wood and iron than most people; but the service required of mercantile vessels was a very different thing from that required of men-of-war. Men-of-war ships had to be sent to all parts of the world, and they remained abroad for three or four years, and had often to lie in ports for months together, whereas merchant ships merely made the voyage out and home, and it was well known that vessels constantly moving fouled their bottoms less than stationary vessels. Every practical sailor knew that a vessel with a foul bottom would neither steam nor sail, and became utterly use less as a man-of-war. We had not yet got over that difficulty in iron vessels. That it would be eventually overcome he had no doubt, but as long as it existed it would be unwise for the Government suddenly to abandon the building of our smaller ships in wood. Copper-bottomed vessels were good for two or three years without going into dock. That would not be the case with iron ships. He believed that with iron ships they would require docks all over the world; and, upon the whole, he thought they could not do better than continue the construction of small wooden vessels. An hon. Gentleman had said that the Admiralty had done wrong in cutting down fine wooden line-of-battle ships and turning them into iron-cased vessels. He admitted that these vessels would not be so strong as iron ones, although great pains had been taken to strengthen them in every possible way; but what would hon. Gentlemen, particularly those who grumbled at the amount of the Estimates, have said if, instead of taking advantage of vessels already in existence, the Admiralty had asked the House for £380,000 or £400,000 each for five iron ships? The whole question was, in fact, one of time and expediency.
The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) had called his attention to the report of the chief engineer at Chatham with respect to the quality of our copper. It was true that the chief
830
engineer had stated to the Dockyard Commissioners that our copper had of late very much deteriorated in quality, and that it did not last so long as formerly. The Admiralty had taken specimens of; various kinds of copper from all the ships that had recently come home, and had sent them to Dr. Percy, who was with Sir R. Murchison at the head of the Museum of Economic Geology, with a request to test them in every possible way, and to state the results in a report. It was a curious fact that the; purest copper was not the most lasting; on the contrary, it was rather soft, and was not so durable as other kinds. Of course, the Admiralty could do nothing until they had ascertained the result of the experiments made by Dr. Percy; but he could assure the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich that they had no intention of establishing smelting works at Chatham any more than of purchasing a copper mine.
The first question of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) related to the comparison between hammered and rolled iron. There was a great controversy going on as to the respective merits of these two methods of preparing armour-plates. He was bound to say that his own opinion was that the superiority, if any, was as yet on the side of the rolled; plating. Rolled plating had resisted the effects of shot better than hammered I plating. He admitted, at the same time, that there had been a specimen of hammered plating prepared by the Thames Iron Ship Company, which showed a great superiority over all the other kinds of plating that had been tried. That, however, was a single specimen, and upon the whole, the balance of advantage was rather in favour of rolled plates. There was no appreciable difference with respect to cost. Under these circumstances, the Admiralty had no other course to pursue than to take the best material they could get, and he could assure the Committee they had adopted even excessive precautions for that purpose. Every contractor who tendered to supply plates, and whose tender was accepted, sent his plates and the officers of the Admiralty chose out of the lot one or more to be experimented upon. If the plates offered a proper resistance, the Admiralty accepted them; if they failed, they rejected them. He thought the hon. Member for Norfolk had been mis-

831
led by the result of an experiment made last year at Shoeburyness with a section of the Warrior. The plates were hammered, and they resisted a vast force of projectiles thrown against them; but the Admiralty had no reason for believing that rolled plates would not hare been equally successful under the same conditions. The hon. Member for Norfolk had also asked a question with respect to the terms upon which private builders should be allowed to contract for our large iron vessels, and had stated that there was a report in circulation to the effect that several contractors had altogether failed in their engagements, and that the Admiralty had abstained from enforcing the penalties provided for such cases. He could assure the hon. Member that the only case in which as yet a contractor had altogether failed in performing his contract was that of the Valiant. During the progress of that vessel the contractor became involved in great pecuniary difficulties. He stated that the cost of the ship would be much more than he had anticipated, and, in fact, sued the Admiralty in formâ pauperis, to be released from his engagement. It was obviously the duty of the Admiralty, when large iron vessels were greatly wanted, to do everything in their power to carry on the construction of the Valiant. They had consequently no other alternative than to take the vessel out of the hands of the contractor, to make him a certain allowance for the work already performed, and to place the ship in other hands. That, he repeated, was the only case in which a contractor had altogether failed; but partial failures had occurred in other instances. Some contractors, for example, had failed in delivering the vessels at the stipulated time. He must say, however, that the contractors as a body deserved a great deal of indulgence. There had been an earnest desire on their part to fulfil their engagements, but they really had not known what they were undertaking, and their difficulties had been great. Perhaps the new system with regard to contracts would be a better one than that hitherto pursued. First of all, smaller penalties would be fixed, so that they could be practically enforced; and it was the determination of the Admiralty in all future cases that there should be a full infliction of the penalties to which the contractors rendered themselves liable. The very novel subject of Mr. Trotman's anchor had also been adverted to. He had
832
not heard that they had refused to give Mr. Trotman's anchor an extra trial at Woolwich; but this he knew, that the Admiralty had some months ago ordered an anchor of Mr. Trotman, and he was not aware that it was yet supplied.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that the noble Lord's answer raised a question of grave importance. He announced it to be the intention of the Government to build these smaller vessels of wood, as they could not as yet see their way to the use of iron. His hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, had adverted to the use of iron gunboats in the Indian navy; and he himself could state that when, some years ago, he raised the question of the use of iron for gunboats, he referred to the evidence of the commanders of the East Indian boats, who came forward and testified to their being in every particular superior to wood. Captain Hall, of the Nemesis, spoke decidedly at to the superiority of iron gunboats when pierced with shot, or, having struck upon a rock, the damage being more easily repaired. He summed up in these words "I should give the preference to iron over wooden vessels, as a commander, under every circumstance." Captain Charlwood gave the preference to iron, and said that his vessel never received an injury which the engineer on board could not repair with an iron plate and a few bolts. Captains Proctor, of the Harpy, and Filden of the Lizard, gave similar testimony With regard to cleaning the bottoms o iron ships, no doubt there were grave difficulties in the case of large ships; but with respect to small vessels, his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland could be a witness to the facility with which they were cleaned in any part of the world. Hi repeated, the question was of great gravity as the country would not go on spending twelve millions a year on the navy. Hi could not understand how it was, that with the number of vessels they had out on contract, the labour in the royal yards we constantly increasing; but what he wished principally to call attention to was, that eight years we had spent £29,000,000 in these yards, and allowing £8,000,000 for the addition to the navy at the averag cost per gun, there remained an averag of nearly £3,000,000 a year, principally for repairing the wooden fleet. He argued for iron gunboats on the ground of economy. Wooden gunboats could not be relied on for any time if laid up but iron vessels would be as good if

833
taken out at the end of twenty years as when first built. What he wanted to press on the Admiralty was, that they should not continue building wooden vessels, but that the noble Lord should pledge himself to a careful inquiry into the comparative merits of the two materials before he built any more of these vessels. He did not contemplate armour plates, but iron vessels of ⅞ plates, which Sir Howard Douglas had said were sufficiently strong to resist shell.
MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that practical experience enabled him to corroborate what had fallen from the noble Lord. Iron boats were good for home, but certainly not for foreign service. He had been on the South American station for five years, and during that time there were two iron gunboats attached to the squadron. One of them, the Harpy, was, when she came out, an efficient vessel; but after five years she could not move two knots an hour through the water. There were no means of docking her out there, and she took 110 days to come home; in fact, every one thought she was lost. She had to consume her own bulkheads and everything wooden on board to keep the engines going. The other, the Trident, took three months for the homeward voyage. He himself came passenger, whilst a friend who came home in a merchant vessel made the passage in three weeks. Therefore, until further experiments had been tried, he I hoped the noble Lord would not build our vessels entirely of iron. For purely fighting purposes iron, which would keep out shells, was no doubt desirable, and iron frigates ought to take the place of wooden line-of battle ships; but he did not think that the day had arrived for replacing wooden by iron ships on foreign stations.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to point out, that if iron vessels were sent to distant stations where there were no docks, they would in course of a little time become unserviceable. It was on that account that so few iron merchant ships were employed in the Indian trade. He saw there was a reduction in the amount asked for paint. There was a general complaint in the navy that no sufficient allowance of paint for ship use was made, and first lieutenants had often to put their hands into their own pockets in order to keep their vessel in good order. He would ask why the Vote was reduced?
MR. CORRYsaid, he had examined the Report of the Commissioners as to the cost of building ships at Pembroke Dockyard,
834
and he found it was a mistake to put the cost at £37 per ton. The cost, in fact, was £33 3s. 3d. per ton.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that he could state from his own experience that he had found no difficulty in cleaning the bottoms of iron ships in any of the chief ports of the world. As to durability, there was no comparison between iron and wooden vessels. He was just opening out an iron vessel which had been built for ten years, and the iron was as good as on the day when the ship was built. He need hardly say it would not have been so with a wooden vessel. He would probably have found the dry rot in her, and been only too glad to close her up again and sell her as soon as possible. There was one item in the Vote upon which he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee. The Vote for timber upon an average was, before last year, about £400,000. Last year £940,000 was voted, upon the ground that it was wanted to replenish the stock of timber. This year, although they had given up building wooden line-of-battle ships, the amount asked for was £160,000 above the average. He should move to reduce the Vote by £100,000. He also wished to ask whether one firm continued to enjoy the monopoly of supplying anchors and chains to the navy? There were surely more firms than one in the country whose manufacture could be depended upon, and a little competition might produce economy without impairing efficiency. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100,000.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he doubted very much whether there existed on many foreign stations those facilities for cleaning iron ships which his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland imagined. His hon. Friend had said that an iron vessel was much more durable than a wooden one, but that maxim was not of universal application. If an iron vessel went ashore upon a sandbank, she would hang on there a long time; but if she went upon a stony or rocky shore, she would go to pieces like brown paper. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell them whether it was true, as reported recently, a gunboat had run into the bows of a line-of-battle ship—the Defence, he believed—and stove in a plate. He ventured to say that no gunboat would ever have gone through the bows of one of the old line-of-battle ships. He was very glad to hear that the Admiralty had resolved on exacting for the future the full amount of the penalties from defaulting contractors. He believed that that

835
resolution, by causing the fulfilment of contractors' engagements would lead to a considerable saving of public money. He was also convinced it would be a source of great saving if the Board of Admiralty would devote a good round sum of money to experiments upon the relative qualities of hammered and rolled iron to resist shot, before proceeding further in the building of iron-cased vessels.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask whether the Admiralty authorities had turned their attention to any of the patents for diminishing the consumption of coal used for marine steam-engines?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in the second section of the Vote he had taken a sum for making experiments upon iron plates. With regard to the modern processes for economizing fuel in steam-vessels, the Admiralty were fully sensible of the importance of those improvements, and were submitting them to a practical test on board of some of their vessels.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the item of £560,713, for Timber, Masts, Deals, &c., be reduced by the sum of £100,000.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 21: Noes 39: Majority 18.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) £1,453,561, Steam Machinery, &c.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he desired to ask for information as to the probable cost of the three vessels ordered during the last year. Having himself last Session stated the cost of the large iron-cased ships at half a million sterling apiece, he had been told that he had alarmed the country, and that the actual cost would only be £300,000. Now the Warrior had cost £354,000, and the increased size of these vessels would bring the outlay to nearly £400,000 for each of them before the masts and rigging were put up. If their cost would be so great, it became a serious question how many such vessels they ought to build. With the improved armament now put on board our ships, a much smaller class of vessels would suffice. The experiments made at Eastbourne proved that the Armstrong gun produced an effect nearly three times as great as that of the old armament. In other words, a vessel of 10 guns was now as powerful as one of 30 guns used to be.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not give the exact cost of the vessels. He must defer any precise statement
836
on that point till next year, when the vessels would be completed.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £464,170, New Works, Improvements, &c.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he wished to know whether the items in the Vote for new machinery in several of the yards were intended as the commencement of plant for the building of iron ships? He had opposed the Vote last year for iron shipbuilding at Chatham. It was, he believed, a great mistake.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, the reason of the increase was to provide machinery at five of the yards for bending iron plates to the requisite form for building, the plates themselves being manufactured outside the yards in question.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he observed that £10,000 was taken for dredging the bar of Portsmouth harbour. He wished to know whether the dredging operations hitherto carried out had not produced three feet additional water on the bar; whether any line-of-battle ship could not go in and out of the harbour at any time; and whether the Defence did not, last Saturday, pass in there drawing one foot less than the Warrior, at dead neap tide; also whether the harbour was not accessible, on any day of the year, to ships of the line at high water; and whether the £10,000 worth of dredging proposed would not enable ships to pass in and out of the harbour two hours before or after neap tides?
MR. BENTINCKasked, whether any Vote would be proposed for facilitating the coaling of men-of-war at Plymouth Sound?
MR. LAIRDsaid, he was rather surprised, looking at the increased size of the ships now building, and the very inadequate number of graving docks, that a larger sum was not taken to remedy the existing state of things. There was scarcely any graving dock that could take those vessels in. At Portsmouth there was only one, and he wished to know what steps were to be taken to provide the requisite accommodation.
MR. CORRYobserved, that it was stated in the House a few nights since that the water on Portsmouth Bar was so shallow that large ships could not enter the harbour, and it had been even suggested that in consequence of this Portsmouth ought to be abandoned as our first naval arsenal. In the course of the last two years, how-

837
ever, at an expense of about £28,000, the water on the bar at the entrance to Portsmouth had been raised to the depth of nearly 27 feet at neap tides and 30 at spring tides, so as in smooth water to admit the largest ship in the navy; and he thought that they might for another £28,000 or £30,000 nearly double the depth already obtained. Having obtained an addition of 5 feet, they might by the expenditure of a similar sum deepen to the extent of 10 feet; which would be two or three feet more than would admit the largest ship in the world at neap tides. There was no reason, therefore, to abandon Portsmouth as our great naval arsenal. At the same time he thought it very important to increase the dock accommodation there as much as possible. From the enormous length of our new iron ships there was hardly a dock that could hold them. Between 1841 and 1844, when Sir Robert Peel was in power, they had plans for a great dock at Portsmouth of 400 feet long, which would have been constructed if the Admiralty had continued in office; but, from motives of economy, the plan was abandoned by the succeeding Board. At Cherbourg, a great naval arsenal exactly opposite Portsmouth, there was great accommodation for large vessels. There were no less than seven docks with a depth of 27 feet over the sill. At Portsmouth, however, there was only one such dock, and it was necessary that that state of things should be altered. He therefore wished to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the question. It was absolutely necessary that it should be looked at in a large spirit, with the view of obtaining additional dock accommodation for large ships either at Portsmouth or elsewhere. At Portsmouth there existed all the means of obtaining the accommodation required. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty said that in 1864 there would be sixteen large iron-cased frigates ready for sea, and there were only two docks at Portsmouth which would contain vessels of that size, and as iron ships fouled so rapidly, more accommodation was absolutely necessary. He was glad that the Admiralty had adopted a plan which he recommended in 1844, and that they were constructing extensive docks and basins at Chatham; but Chatham, although a good place for the repair of the fleet in reference to operations in the
838
Baltic and North Sea, was inconveniently situated for general purposes. He should be glad to see £100,000 voted next year for docks at Portsmouth, and about £900,000 or £1,000,000 subsequently to complete the works.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, there bad been an absolute gain all over the bar at Portsmouth of a good four feet. He believed it was nearer five feet But the Admiralty wished to wait and see whether the depth would be maintained, or whether the excavation or bar would fill up, before they expended any more money at Portsmouth. By the last soundings it appeared that there had been a little filling up on the western side, but the bar had extended itself a little to the eastward, and there was no loss at present. Further soundings would be taken in April, and if they were satisfactory, the Admiralty would deepen the entrance further with the money which he hoped the Committee would rote in the Estimate. Before doing anything to extend the establishments at Portsmouth, they ought to be certain that the entrance would be efficiently maintained; and the Committee must remember, that if they made a large basin at the end of the dockyard, it would detract to some extent from the tidal water, and lessen the scour out of the harbour. The hon. Gentleman had rather understated the accommodation which they would have in 1864. They were making a dock at Portsmouth known as the North Inlet Dock, and they were lengthening No. 8 Dock at Portsmouth. At the end of the present year one dock at Devonport would be finished, and they were extending and deepening the lock into the basin at Key-ham, and also lengthening one of the docks at Keyham; so that by 1864 there would be five docks capable of containing vessels of the largest size, those at Key-ham and Devonport receiving them at any high water on any day in the year. With regard to the works at Chatham, for the next year or two they would consist mainly of excavations and piling, for which convict labour was admirably adapted, and therefore the amount of money voted would not represent the full amount of progress which would be made. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Norfolk with respect to the coaling, it was a most important matter, and would not be lost sight of. One of the best plans seemed to be to coal from barges on either

839
side. That was a plan largely adopted by merchant steamers, and he did not see why the Admiralty should not resort to it.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that as the water flowed two hours later out of Langstone harbour than out of Portsmouth harbour, it would be easy to direct any amount of scour out of the latter, even if the dock which he proposed was made. He therefore considered that if the Government applied steam power in dredging at Portsmouth, they would be able to remove all the obstructions, although the bottom of the harbour was one of a rocky character. An impression prevailed that vessels could only enter Portsmouth harbour at certain seasons, but he had information that there was no time of the year when vessels could not enter Portsmouth harbour with anything like a favourable wind. Last week the Defence entered Portsmouth harbour at neap tide, and she drew only one foot less than the Warrior. The Trafalgar, drawing twenty-seven feet, went out at the dead of the neap, at eight o'clock on Saturday morning. There was no difficulty in dredging away the difference of level between the Spit Buoy and the gullet of the harbour.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that notwithstanding the information of the very highest authority which had been given to the Committee, he was still of opinion that, if they removed the bar at Portsmouth, the travelling shingle would fill it up again. He (Sir Morton Peto) adhered to what be had said before, that there were not above five days in the month when the Warrior could cross the bar of Portsmouth harbour.
MR. CORRYsaid, he had received reliable information that the Warrior could go over the bar in Portsmouth harbour for twenty days in the month. With regard to the harbour itself, if it was possible to deepen it five feet at a cost of £28,000, a fortiori it must be easier to maintain that depth, and the outlay requisite for that purpose would be economy itself compared with the expense of removing the whole establishment to another place.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to know why the Government did not make their own gas at all the dockyards, as it would be economical to do so? He found that while they expended for gas at Deptford only £250 where they had their own works, they paid for gas at Woolwich, £1,138; at Chatham, £900; at Sheer-
840
ness, £700; and at Portsmouth, £1,650 a year. If gas works had been erected at those places, there would have been a considerable saving to the country, and he hoped the re-echoing of the question would in the end have the desired effect at the Admiralty.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(11.) £66,000, Medicines and Medical Stores.
(12.) £98,708, Naval Miscellaneous Services.
(13.) £702,308, Half-Pay, &c.
(14.) £194,282, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
(15.) £481,036, Military Pensions and Allowances.
(16.) £188,650, Freight of Ships.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would again take occasion to express his belief that the possession of a larger number of troop-ships would conduce to the benefit of the public service, and would be productive of true economy. Cases would likewise occur where, with hired transport ships, very awkward consequences might ensue; the captain of a merchant vessel might object to land troops under fire, alleging that by so doing he would peril his insurance.
MR. LINDSAYdenied, that the owners of a merchant vessel would suffer if the ship were lost under the circumstances supposed by the hon. Member for Norfolk. He was convinced that in the last resort the Government would take care that they should not be losers. With regard to the alleged expediency of constructing additional transports, he might refer to the evidence given by Sir Alexander Milne, one of the ablest public servants of the Admiralty, who showed conclusively that hired merchant vessels cost exactly half as much as Government troop-ships. He therefore thought it was sound policy to keep as many troop-ships as would be required in time of peace, and in time of war to depend on the merchant service. These Estimates had been got through with a speed and at a period of the Session unparalleled in his experience. Knowing the many burdens to which the country was exposed, he could not bring himself to believe that voting away £12,000,000 in two nights was a course likely to commend itself to general approbation.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he must maintain, with all deference to Sir

841
Alexander Milne, that the country ought to have ten more troop-ships. Vessels had been taken up and chartered as transports which ought never to have been sent to sea if they had better ones to put in their places. As for the alleged economy of employing merchant vessels, he knew that when he was carrying troops for the Indian service years ago the charge was at the rate of £15 per man. He observed that £15 per man had recently been paid for sending them to Halifax.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

OFFICERS COMMISSIONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill of which I have given notice. This Bill is purely of a technical nature, but it is right that I should explain to the House the precise effect which I wish it to have. The House may not be aware of the exact form now adopted with respect to the commissions of military officers. In every case—whether it be that of a first commission or that of the promotion of an officer—a "submission" is made by the Commander-in-Chief to the Queen. He states the name of the officer, together with the rank in the army which it is proposed the officer should hold. If the Queen approves it, Her Majesty signs her name at the top of the submission paper, and also signs a direction at the bottom of the paper to the Secretary of State to prepare a commission according to the name and the degree stated in the body of the document, and the latter is then returned to the Commander-in-Chief. It is sent by him to the War Office, and then it becomes the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare a commission according to the directions contained in the paper. This commission runs in the name of the Queen—that the Queen grants certain rank in the army, and certain powers to the officer named in the document. When made out, the commission is sent by the Secretary of State to Her Majesty. Her Majesty writes her name at the top of the document. It is countersigned by the Secretary of State, and then it is complete. The House will see, therefore, that in order to enable an officer to obtain a commission in the army it is necessary
  842
  that Her Majesty should sign her name three times. By the present custom the sign manual is repeated three times for that purpose. That rule applies to all the land forces. With regard to the marines, the practice of the Admiralty is to send the commission of every officer of marines, to the Queen, and Her Majesty signs it in the same way as those of the officers in the army are signed. It is also necessary that the commissions of Quartermasters General and Adjutants in the militia should be signed by the Queen; and they are sent from the War Office in a similar manner. I may also observe to the House that all officers in the store department of the War Office are to receive commissions, and these commissions they will receive from the Queen. Again, the change made in respect of the Indian army brings the whole of that army on the Home establishment; and, according to the present practice, all the commissions in the Indian army will require the signature of Her Majesty. I am told that the number of these commissions will be 6,000; and the commissions of officers in the storekeeper's department of the War Office—which will be very numerous—will also require the sign manual. I think the House will see that this repetition of the sign manual gives no particular security; that by the attachment of the Royal signature to the "submission" paper the officer himself has a complete assurance that this commission from the Queen has been directed by Her Majesty. There is no advantage to the officer himself from having the sign manual placed on his commission; and, it appearing that no advantage arises from what, under present circumstances, may be termed pressing on the Queen this mechanical labour, the object of the measure which I am about to propose is to give power to Her Majesty in Council to determine what class of commissions should be attested by the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War without the sign manual being attached to the body of those commissions. I shall therefore conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to enable Her Majesty to issue commissions to the officers of her Majesty's land forces and Royal Marines, and to Adjutants and Quartermasters of Her Militia and Volunteer Forces, without affixing her Royal sign manual thereto.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the Bill was of a very unusual character,

  843
  involving what appeared to be an invasion of the Royal prerogative. He had no inclination to oppose the introduction of the measure, with the understanding that he was not thereby committed to its approval.
  MR. HENNESSYasked, how it happened that the power of attaching the Royal sign manual did not already exist? He believed that the House was trenching on the royal prerogative in proposing to pass a Bill to give certain powers to the Queen in Council; and he believed that the Queen had full powers at present to delegate her sign manual.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the Royal prerogative of the sign manual was exercised "as had been the custom." If that custom were departed from, questions might arise as to the legality of the sign manual. It was therefore prudent and constitutional to make the alteration by an Act of Parliament.
  MAJOR PARKERsaid, that when the Indian army was under the Court of Directors only the highest officers in it held commissions under the Royal sign manual.
  Leave given.
  Bill to enable Her Majesty to issue Commissions to the Officers of Her Majesty's Land Forces and Royal Marines, and to Adjutants and Quartermasters of Her Militia and Volunteer Forces, without affixing Her Royal Sign Manual thereto, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE LEWIS and Viscount PALMERSTON.
  Bill presented, and read 1o; to be read 2o on Monday next, and to be printed.

COPYRIGHT (WORKS OF ART) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to copyright in works of fine art. The law on that subject was at present in a very imperfect and anomalous condition. Copyright had been created in books and other subjects. With respect to the fine arts, two series of Acts had been passed, giving a copyright of a limited and special nature. In 1735 an Act was passed at the instance of the celebrated Hogarth, giving a copyright in prints and engravings, but awarding no protection to the pictures from which they were taken. In the present reign that protection was extended to lithographs. Another series of Acts gave copyright to sculp-
  844
  tures, models, and casts. That was the extent to which works of fine art were protected in this country. It might appear a singular thing, that while an engraving enjoyed protection, the picture from which it was taken should be without of any protection at all. Yet that was the present state of the law. This, the principal evil he proposed to remedy, was almost peculiar to England. In most European countries the principle of copyright extended through the whole range of the fine arts, and especially existed in regard to pictures; and if we had a similar copyright, the benefit of the laws of the different countries with whom we had connections under the International Copyright Acts would be obtained by our artists. The periods for which copyright were given in this country varied rather arbitrarily. He had taken as the period of copyright for pictures, drawings, and photographs the period of life and seven years beyond. That was one of two alternative periods adopted in Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's Act giving a copyright in books. He believed that such a limited protection for life and seven years beyond would be satisfactory to artists, and that protection would extend to every painting, drawing, and photograph now in existence, or which might be hereafter made, and which had not already been sold or disposed of. He had not thought it expedient to make the Act retrospective, so as to give a copyright either to the painter or the purchaser of pictures, &c, already parted with. The Bill did not propose, when a picture was sold, to give any copyright as against the purchaser, unless the copyright were especially reserved by the author at the time of sale. He did not propose to extend the protection beyond paintings, drawings, and photographs. The Bill would give the ordinary legal remedies and penalties to secure copyright. Another object was to put a stop to a considerable trade which had grown up in spurious pictures, the manufacturers of which counterfeited the marks and monograms of artists of eminence, whose reputation suffered from the fraud while the public were imposed upon. The Bill proposed to make that offence a misdemeanour and to protect artists against frauds. The Bill differed considerably from that of last year. It was simplified, and some of the more questionable provisions of the measure of last year were omitted. In the previous Bill

  845
  there was a provision that even in cases where there was no subsisting copyright, and where any one was at perfect liberty to engrave a work, the name of the anther should not be affixed to any copy or engraving. That did not appear to him a reasonable provision, and he had not retained it. In other respects the Bill was much simplified. The penalties would be found to be not so severe as before, some having been omitted and others modified. It was of considerable importance in the present year that such a Bill, if the principle was approved by the House, should be passed with despatch; otherwise foreign artists, who had a copyright in their own country in those works which we were most anxious to see in the Great Exhibition, must either withhold their contributions or expose themselves to the danger of having their rights invaded. He begged to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, he regretted that the Bill did not include any provision with regard to works of plastic art.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that protection was at present afforded by law for fourteen years at all events, and if the author were living, for a further similar period, making altogether twenty-eight years after the first production or publication to works of sculpture, casts, and models. The natives of countries which have treaties of international copyright with England enjoyed the benefit of that protection.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYobserved, that the present state of the law was most unsatisfactory both to the professors and patrons of that branch of art.
  Resolved,
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for amending the Law relating to Copyright in Works of the Fine Arts, and for repressing the commission of Fraud in the production and sale of such works."
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill for amending the Law relating to Copyright in Works of the Fine Arts, and for repressing the commission of Fraud in the production and sale of such works, presented, and read 1o.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Qualification for Offices Abolition; Lunacy Regulation.
2aLaw of Property Amendment.

ITALY.—PROCLAMATION OF COLONEL FANTONI.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Your Lordships will remember that I gave notice the other night that I should ask a Question of the noble Earl the Foreign Minister respecting the issue of a certain Proclamation in the territory of Naples. The answer that I then received, or rather the statement which the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs then made, that he had not himself any knowledge of the document to which I referred, and that he could not obtain any information upon it in the Foreign Office, took me rather by surprise, and renders it necessary for me to alter somewhat the form of the Question which I am about to put. As the noble Earl has now in his possession the paper containing the proclamation, I hope that his answer will be such as will be satisfactory both to your Lordships and to the country. Immediately after quitting the House on Tuesday night, I sent the noble Earl a copy of the paper in which the original Italian proclamation appeared, and also a copy of the French newspaper L'Union into which it was translated. Although I could wish that there was no possibility for doubt as to the authenticity of the proclamation, I am afraid there can be very little question about it. I think I heard upon the evening when I first mentioned this subject a sort of soft and incredulous laugh on the part of some of your Lordships, and I was not surprised at it, because I can well understand that it was difficult to believe in the reality of
772
the proclamation. I have a literal translation of the document in question, and with your Lordships' permission I will read it to the House. I may say that, though it is issued by a commandant of a detachment of infantry, it professes to be issued by the direction and under the orders of the Prefect of the province—an officer directly responsible to the Government. It is as follows:—
"Order of the Commandant of the Detachment of the 8th Regiment of Infantry in Lucera.
"In consequence of orders received from the Prefect of this province, with the view of arriving by all the most effective measures at the prompt suppression of brigandage, the undersigned gives notice—
"1. That from henceforth no person shall set foot in the woods of Dragonaro, Sta. Agata, Silva Nera, Gargano, Santa Maria, Pietra, Motta, Volturara, Volturino, Sammarco, Alonza, Carlantino, Macchione di Biccari, Vetruscelle, Case Rotte.
"2. Every proprietor, agent, or farmer, immediately after the publication of this notice, must withdraw from the said woods, all the labourers, shepherds, goatherds, &c, and all the cattle now therein, destroying the hovels and cottages occupied by them, and by the persons engaged in tending them.
"3. No one from henceforth may carry from the villages provisions for the use of the farmsteads, nor may these last possess more of these than may be absolutely necessary for one day's sustenance for the number of persons attached to the said farmsteads.
"4. All persons contravening this order (which shall have full effect two days after its publication) shall be treated, without exception of time, place, or person, as brigands, and as such shot.
"In publishing this order the undersigned intimates to proprietors to give early notice to their dependents, in order that, avoiding as far as possible the application of the above rigorous measures, they may effect the object which the Government proposes to itself; warning all persons at the same time that the measures themselves will be applied with the utmost stringency."
Now, my Lords, I will not insult your Lordships by making a single comment upon the terms of this proclamation. I lay it before you and before the world in all its native atrocity. The only remark that I will make upon it, is that it is a proclamation emanating from a Government which professes to have been accepted by the country of which this district forms a part, unanimously and by the test of universal suffrage, which claims to be recognised as a deliverance from tyranny and oppression, and which has been telling you for months past week by week that it is putting down without difficulty the slight remains of insubordination, disorder, and revolt which prevail in certain districts. I will not inquire into the character of the revolts against the con-

773
stituted authority of the country. I will not say whether these revolts arise from political feelings derived in any degree from attachment to the exiled family, I will not say how far their abettors may be governed by less worthy and respect able motives. I think it very likely that they may be something of a mixed character—that they may be political, and there may be something like brigandage in them; and therefore I do not complain that the Government in possession should endeavour by all legitimate means to put an end to such a state of rapine and disorder. But I say proclamations of this tendency are a disgrace to humanity itself. Every mind must revolt against a measure which seeks to pacify a country by desolating a whole district, stripping it of in habitants, cattle, and houses, in point of fact, creating a desert and calling it peace; and which subjects an unoffending peasant only for having in his house more food than is absolutely necessary for the supply of the daily wants of his family, to suffer death without a trial at the hands of a baffled and infuriated soldiery. The document is now in the noble Earl's hands; and I have that confidence in the genuine love of freedom which has always distinguished the noble Earl, that I am quite sure I do not feel more indignant at the tone of the proclamation than the noble Earl himself. Upon former occasions I believe the Emperor of the French has remonstrated in strong terms against the brutal ferocity with which affairs have been conducted in the Neapolitan territory by both parties. In another case, of perhaps much less importance, where, as in this case, civil convulsions are going on, and where we have only diplomatic relations with the Government in actual authority, the noble Earl himself has remonstrated. The noble Earl felt it necessary to remonstrate with the Government of the United States upon the sinking of stone ships at the mouth of a harbour, as an extraordinary and unjustifiable proceeding. But what comparison is there between sinking stone ships at the mouth of a harbour and such atrocities as are set forth and commanded by authority in this proclamation? This country, if it has persevered in a system of non-interference in the affairs of Italy, has, at all events, given to the Italian cause largely of its moral sympathy. It has winked very hard indeed at proceedings which it would be difficult to reconcile with political mo-
774
rality; and I think Her Majesty's Government have a legitimate claim to appeal to those in authority in Italy, and to warn the Italian Government against a course of conduct which must be revolting to every man possessed of ordinary humanity. I am satisfied, and I am sure the j noble Earl will agree with me, that a proclamation of such an infamous character must tend more than anything to alienate the sympathies of Europe, by which the Italian cause is supported, and to retard a cause which we know the noble Earl has at heart. I wish to ask, whether the noble Earl has received any information from Sir James Hudson, to whom this proclamation must have been known? I wish to know whether Sir James Hudson has communicated it to the noble Earl, and has expressed any opinion upon it; and, whether Sir James Hudson has taken upon himself to represent, in a friendly way, to the Government of Turin the effect which will be produced upon the feelings of this country by the appearance of such a proclamation? I wish also to ask, as the noble Earl is now in possession of the proclamation, and docs not deny its authenticity, whether he is prepared to call on Sir James Hudson to explain why he has not taken any notice of it (if he has not), and whether the noble Earl will instruct Sir James Hudson at once to represent in the strongest terms to the Government of Italy the feelings with which this Government views such a course to put down revolt; with the assurance, which may fairly be given, that nothing can tend so far as measures of the kind to defeat the object I of a great majority of this country, to obtain for Italy whether united Italy or not—after so many centuries of misgovernment the advantages of a limited and temperate monarchy and constitutional liberties for the people?
EARL RUSSELL: In answering the noble Earl, I will first address myself to I the character of the notification or proclamation which he has brought under your Lordships' notice. I entirely agree with him in all he has said of the character of that proclamation. 1 think nothing can be more cruel, more barbarous, than to issue such a proclamation—involving the innocent with the guilty, spreading desolation over a large district of country, interfering with the pursuits of industry, and making the Government a terror even to all well-disposed inhabitants. I should add, also, that I think such a proclamation

775
would be most impolitic. This is not the manner in which a country can be pacified. This is not the manner in which the inhabitants of a district can be conciliated to the rule of the Government which is put over them. But, my Lords, with regard to its authenticity, I must say I have no evidence. At first sight it would seem that no persons would venture to publish in a newspaper circulated at Turin, whatever its politics might be, a document of this nature which was not genuine—a document casting upon the character of the Italian Government an imputation which, if just, would be most calamitous. The newspaper in question is the Armonia. It is a newspaper well known for its strong political and ecclesiastical opposition to the Government, and it is a newspaper which on those subjects has great influence. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to mention a conversation which I once had with the late Count Cavour, which bears upon this subject. I stated to Count Cavour that an opponent of the Turin Government had said that they laboured under great disadvantages, for while the Liberal newspapers which were guilty of libel were always acquitted, the newspapers which defended the cause of ancient institutions, as they were called—the cause of despotism, or the cause of bigotry as I should call it—in Italy were invariably condemned. That is a charge, I said, which is made against you by your political opponents. Count Cavour said, "It is perfectly true. The newspapers on our side are generally acquitted, and certainly when the Opposition newspapers have been brought before the tribunals, they have generally been condemned. But this unfairness has struck me so much that I have given an order that no Government prosecution shall be issued against those newspapers. They may say exactly what they please. They may libel me as much as they like. I am determined they shall not be prosecuted for anything which they may say." This may, perhaps, in some degree account for the licence to which those newspapers have given themselves up. I have heard of instances in which documents published in those newspapers have been afterwards found not to be genuine, and I trust that this is one of those instances. I am confirmed in that hope by the absence of testimony on the one hand, and by what I have heard in conversation on the other. In the first place, this proclamation,
776
which was published on the 19th of February at Turin, has not been noticed by our Minister at Turin in any manner, and has not been noticed by Her Majesty's Consul at Naples, though it would naturally come under his observation. And, in the next place, I have been told that the proclamation bears a strong resemblance, if it be not a literal copy of a proclamation published in 1810 by the then Government of Naples. This, I confess, gives me great reason to doubt the genuineness of the document. For the sake of the Italian Government, and as the noble Earl has said for the sake of humanity, I shall be glad to find that it is not genuine, and that no such notification has been issued by any officer of the King of Italy. There has been, no doubt, in other instances great severity of treatment of those who are brigands, and who are disturbing the southern provinces of Italy. But I must state that the present position of the Government of the King of Italy in the southern provinces is put to a very hard trial. There does not exist, as the noble Earl would seem to imply, any civil war in Italy. The parties who are found committing murders and robberies are parties generally of from ten to twenty persons. They rarely exceed that number, although sometimes perhaps forty or fifty have collected. They come into the country. They occupy these woods. They are attacked by the regular troops of the King of Italy. In some instances they are dispersed, and the country is for a moment freed from them. They fall back into the territories of the Pope. At the frontier of those territories the Italian troops are stopped. These men are disarmed by the French troops who occupy those territories; but these men who have been committing robbery and murder go to the Government of the Pope, are reclothed and rearmed, and in a few days the whole work has to be done over again. Of course, it cannot be expected that the Government of the Pope should have much friendship towards the King of Italy. But, in the common course of conduct between neighbours, it might be supposed that peace would be preserved. These men, as I have said, are not men carrying on civil war. In the time of Francis I. they committed robbery and murder, and took the name of carbonari, or any other name, to cover their designs; at the present they take the name, and I do not think they do much honour to it, of Francis II. I know that the sub-

777
jeet has been one of great anxiety to the Government of Italy. Not very long ago I received a communication from Turin stating that Baron Ricasoli, the head of the Italian Administration, had said that though during the winter these robbers and brigands, not finding any very secure refuge, had been put down to a great extent; yet, as they could more easily obtain food and shelter in the spring and summer, it was to be feared that these disturbances would again arise. I must say, however, that the issuing of such proclamations as that which has been quoted is not the way to support the King's authority. While, on the one hand, it is terrible that such a proclamation should be issued—if it really was issued—by any person bearing the honourable scars of regular warfare, and acting under the orders of a regular Government, it is, on the other hand, equally frightful that the cause—for it is said to be a cause—of the dispossessed Sovereigns of Italy should be maintained, not by regular warfare against the King of Italy, but by small bands of brigands let loose from time to time merely in the hope that an argument may be raised against the Government of Italy, so that it may be possible to say, "You see how incapable that Government is of governing according to law, and reducing the country to order," But in spite of all these difficulties I have the greatest confidence that there will be established in Italy a Government combining liberty and order. I confess here, as I have confessed elsewhere, that I have the greatest admiration of the noble attitude of the Italian people. When we compare the conduct of that Government and people with the conduct of other peoples and other assemblies in times of revolution, they have no reason to be ashamed. I think they have shown that they are worthy of the liberty they seek, and I trust that their independence will, before long, be acknowledged by all nations.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl has made a very eloquent and impassioned speech, but he omitted altogether to answer any of the questions which I put to him. My object was not to obtain from the noble Earl an expression of opinion with respect to the general conduct of the Italian Government and people, but I want to know whether he received any information respecting this supposed proclamation from Sir James Hudson? On Tuesday last I made the noble Earl acquainted with the existence of this docu-
778
ment, and if he entertained any doubt of its genuineness, he might have received a telegraphic communication from Italy upon the subject before this day. But now that the alleged proclamation has been placed before the noble Earl, under a form in which I hardly think that any newspaper would venture to insert it if it were not genuine, with the name of the officer by whom it was understood to be issued, and affording the Government an easy opportunity of contradicting it if it were unfounded, I have to ask the noble Earl whether he has called, or whether he intends to call, on Sir James Hudson to explain why he has not forwarded the document to the Foreign Office; and to ask him further, whether, supposing the document to be authentic, it is his intention, on the part of her Majesty's Government, to address to the Government of Turin those representations which the nature of the case seems to me to demand?
EARL RUSSELL: I thought I had stated that I had received no information on the subject from Sir James Hudson or the consul at Naples with respect to this document, and I stated the reasons why I suspected it was not genuine. The first thing was to ascertain whether it was genuine or not. I did not telegraph to Sir James Hudson until yesterday, and I have not yet had an answer. If I should ascertain, contrary to my expectation, that the document is genuine, I shall then make such communications on the subject as I think are fitting to the Government of the Kingdom of Italy. They must be such communications as we may consider fitting, because the case is not on a level with that of the stone fleet, and I shall hardly notice it otherwise than in the most friendly manner, and for the sake of the Italian Government.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I hope I may be permitted to suggest to the noble Earl that if he finds this document is genuine, and if he also finds that his agents in Turin and in Naples, have not sent it to the Foreign Office, and have not made any representations on their own parts to the Government of Italy, the noble Earl should express his opinion to those agents with respect to their conduct. It is impossible to ascertain in this country what is taking place in Italy. There is so much exaggeration in the statements upon both sides in that coun-

779
try that it is impossible for the English people or the English Government to learn what is the absolute truth unless through the faithful report of our own agents in that country.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: These homilies, I think, would come very much better after it has been ascertained that the document is genuine. But I have reason to believe that it is not genuine. I happened last night to be in company with an Italian gentleman—as well known in English as in Italian society—who has just come from Turin, and I asked him whether he had seen any proclamation of the sort. He told me that he recollected having heard a short time ago that such a proclamation had appeared in the Armonia newspaper, and that it came to the ears of the Italian Government by that means for the first time. Upon strict inquiry it was found to be an entire falsehood—a rechauffé, in fact, of an old proclamation, published under the Government of Murat, when that Government was engaged in putting down brigandage. I myself passed through Turin within the last few weeks, and I heard there many complaints from various persons of what they considered the extreme laxity of the Italian Government in taking steps to put an end to brigandage. I should regret very much to find that such a proclamation was genuine; but, from the private information which I have received, I sincerely hope that it may be found not to be the case.
THE EARL OF DERBY: It is a great pity that the noble Earl did not communicate his information to the Foreign Secretary.

LUNACY REGULATION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:—My Lords, I rise to call your Lordships' attention to some matters relating to the Law of Lunacy which appear to me to require revision and also to some defects in the procedure. It continually happens in this country, where our legal system is the growth of ages, imperfections are naturally to be found which are patiently endured until some event occurs which places its defects so flagrantly before us that we set ourselves at once to the duty of remedying them. And that is the case with the subject which I am now about to bring under your Lordships' consideration. We have had a trial in lunacy extending over
  780
  the unexampled period of thirty-two days. The subject of that inquiry has vindicated his right to be considered sane at an expense, I am credibly informed, of not less than £15,000; and the expense of the parties on the other side, the petitioners, must have equalled if not exceeded that sum. That is an event which unquestionably suggests that the rules which govern trials in lunacy probably require revision and alteration. I say the rules, because I have no ground whatever to blame the professional conduct of those proceedings, still less the manner in which it was directed and presided over by the learned Master in Chancery. There is no officer in the Court over which I preside more able to discharge his duty efficiently than that learned gentleman. Neither can I complain of the conduct of the legal gentlemen who were engaged either for the alleged lunatic or the petitioners. But the vice lies in the system. Our mode of dealing with such subjects is at once cumbrous and incomplete. We have taken a cumbrous machinery, which was originally intended for a different purpose, and have applied it as an instrument of judicial proceedings; and the Master, who is the judge on such occasions, has less authority than he ought to have considering the importance of the questions he frequently has to decide. I will trespass on your Lordships' time for a few moments to state the history of the law, that you may follow more readily the course we propose to adopt. By the law of the country the Sovereign is entitled to the custody of those who are unfortunately bereft of reason. That prerogative of the Crown was declared long ago by a statute passed in the reign of Edward II. In the procedure in cases of lunacy we have retained the old cumbrous jury of twenty-four; we have also retained the practice of traversing; and, altogether, the procedure in these cases is wholly cumbersome, expensive, and ill-adapted to all the exigencies of public justice. I therefore propose, in the first place, in cases of lunacy to substitute for the present commission a writ to one of the Judges in Westminster Hall, directing these cases to be tried precisely in the same manner as any other question of fact, or as a criminal question would be tried, according to the ordinary rules of evidence. That this is the most necessary alteration to be made I think your Lordships will agree when I inform you of what has lately occurred with regard to disputed cases of lunacy.

  781
  I have here some instances from the most important trials that have recently taken place. I find that in one trial that preceded the last the expenses amounted to £6,941. That was the case of Sir Henry Meux. In the case of Mrs. Cummings, whose insanity was manifested the moment she appeared before the jury, the costs were £2,500. In an antecedent ca9e the expenses were £1,909, of which £250 were the costs of the medical witnesses alone. It is impossible that anything can be more objectionable, as affecting both parties, than the present system. But a mere change of procedure would be of little advantage unless it were accompanied by various other alterations. I now invite your Lordships' attention to the alteration in the mode of taking evidence and the nature of the evidence to be taken. According to the present mode of procedure the examination of the alleged lunatic is generally postponed till after all the other evidence has been given. I propose that, subject to the discretion of the Judge, the lunatic shall be seen and examined by the Judge and jury before they enter on the reception of evidence. This proceeding would in many cases have prevented the necessity of any further evidence being taken at all. He is also to be examined at the close of the proceedings before the jury consult as to their verdict. But there is another cause that lies at the root of much of the expense of these inquiries; that is, the amount of medical testimony adduced, and the different theories of these medical authorities as to insanity. The common course is to produce certain medical witnesses, and they give the jury their own particular theories as to lunacy. Sometimes, in order to support these theories, the inquiry into the insanity of the alleged lunatic extends over his whole past life; in this case a vast amount of evidence is necessarily prepared. For the purpose of checking this investigation, sometimes extending over a whole life, that leads to such an extraordinary expense, I propose, in the first place, to introduce a rule that any testimony given in regard to the acts, conduct, and demeanour of the alleged lunatic shall not be carried back to more than two years before the date of the commission. We have just seen the necessity of such a rule. Those who have attended to the details of the recent trial must have observed the mode of procedure, The case presented to the jury was alleged to be one of what is termed congenital
  782
  idiotcy. The evidence to support this allegation went back over many years, while the real point at issue was the state of the alleged lunatic's mind at the time of the inquiry, or for a short time antecedent to it. I propose, therefore, to limit such investigations to two years previous to the commission directing proceedings. This is an ample period within which to ascertain the state of the lunatic's mind. But the alteration does not stop there. I object to the judicial attention being so particularly directed to the medical testimony. It is a radical error to deal with these cases as if the subject were to be inquired into physiologically, and not like every other question. If the inquiry were whether the brain is in a state of disease, then it might be right to prosecute the matter as a question of physical science, and to regard it as we regard any other fact in philosophy. But a jury should only receive evidence by which ordinary men can arrive at the fact of the state of mind as they would arrive at any other alleged fact—such evidence as every man can understand. The evidence should he of what has been done or said, to prove conduct or demeanour, and ascertain whether the person is competent or incompetent to manage his own affairs. I beg your Lordships to observe the injurious effect of producing and admitting into inquiries of this kind a description of scientific evidence on which a jury is not competent to form an opinion. The conclusion they ought to arrive at should be unprejudiced by any consideration of scientific testimony respecting which they are incompetent to judge. Such testimony is the proper mode of arriving at a different result—namely, an answer to the question whether there exists bodily disease; but it does not apply to cases where you have to inquire whether the individual has proved himself unfit to be trusted with the government of himself and with the management of his property. The principle of law is wholly in accordance with the view I am now taking. According to that principal, scientific evidence is admitted when the subject is removed from the ordinary sphere and knowledge of common men. But when, the subject is one upon which a man of ordinary understanding is competent to judge you do not open the door for the reception of scientific evidence. I particularly desire, therefore, to introduce into the judicial inquiry affecting lunatics the same rule which prevails at present in

  783
  all other inquiries—namely, that scientific evidence shall only be admitted in cases where, according to the rule I have described, it may be received. The more you dwell upon this particular part of the subject the more, I think, your Lordships will become convinced of the justice and the propriety of the principle which I have laid down. Remember that you are not at all warranted in coming to a conclusion of this kind, which may involve the liberty and the property of an individual, unless you found that conclusion upon things of which you are convinced as being actually existing and certainly known. But here you have a medical man presented, who tells you that, according to his experience, the existence of cerebral disease is shown by certain bodily symptoms; while another medical man, or half a dozen, meet his theory with a direct negative, and tell you that in their experience the particular symptoms relied on by the former witness as a criterion of mental disease may be easily accounted for in another way, and present no certain indicia of its existence. Between these learned doctors, who is to determine? An inquiry terminating in results little short of those with which you visit a person charged with a serious crime ought to rest upon some more certain basis than this. The only question is—has the individual charged with lunacy said or done such things as show him to be a person whom it is dangerous to leave at large, and to whom the conduct of his affairs and the management of his property ought not to be left? At that conclusion you must arrive upon moral and not upon speculative grounds. The conclusion should be a judicial one, not a conclusion of natural science; but to derive it from the opinions of medical professors is to base it upon mere matter of speculation, instead of upon matter of moral certainty. No one can have attended to the evidence of medical men without observing that all their reasoning upon a subject of this kind is open to palpable objection as being insufficient altogether. If you want to form a general conclusion which shall be applicable to all conditions of men, it ought to be founded upon observation of such a number of cases as will furnish you with sufficient premises for your conclusion. But, according to the statements of those who have written most learnedly upon the subject, it is the habit of medical men to jump to conclusions upon half a dozen
  784
  instances met with in practice, and upon this limited number of cases they give unqualified opinions. Hence it is that the experience of one medical man does not coincide with that of another, because their theoretical speculations are not conducted on the same principles, and the consequence is contradiction and uncertainty throughout all the medical evidence given in these cases. Now, if I could emancipate lunacy cases from speculative inquiries and evidence of this kind, I think I should place the condition of persons charged with lunacy upon a basis of much greater security than at present, and should rescue the whole of these proceedings from the reproach to which they are subject when the matter is rightly examined. At all events, I submit the subject as one deserving of grave consideration. If your Lordships agree with me that the evidence in these cases ought to be assimilated to that given under ordinary rules of law, I venture to promise that the abuses and enormities which have been found to exist under the present mode of procedure will almost entirely disappear. These are the principal subjects of enactment in the Bill as far as it relates to the form of procedure, and the amended mode of inquiry.
  With regard to its other provisions, they are of an immediately practical nature, and, I hope, will be found to introduce a wholesome remedy for the evils which now exist. Unfortunately, it happens in the case of a great number of judicial proceedings affecting lunatics that the remedy is too costly and too prolonged to be effective, and accordingly the evil often goes unredressed. It appears that, even under the greatly-amended process of the Bill of 1853, no commission of inquiry in lunacy can be had at a less expense than £60, and this in uncontested cases. In a great number of instances the property of the unfortunate subject of the proposed inquiry cannot be obtained by him without an inquiry, and yet this property is so small that it would be nearly exhausted by an application to the Court or by a commission in lunacy. One case now before me is that of a poor man who had saved £96 which he had placed in a savings bank at Bath. It was felt to be an absurd thing to go to the Court for the purpose of obtaining a commission of lunacy, which would certainly eat up £60 out of the £96, and give rise every year to still further expense during the life of

  785
  the unfortunate lunatic. In another instance property to the amount of £230 could not be obtained for a similar reason; and in all these cases the lunatic is deprived of his property. The Bill therefore proposes to enact that whenever it shall appear, upon satisfactory evidence, that the I property of the lunatic does not exceed £1,000, the Lord Chancellor shall be empowered to effect by a summary order the same object as would have been effected under a commission in lunacy, thus saving the expense which would he otherwise incurred. Then, again, there is the case of criminal lunatics. There are numerous instances in which persons are acquitted on the ground of insanity, and are sent into confinement, but, of course, no pro vision is made as to their property or the business which they may have been carrying on at the time of the accusation against them. I propose to deal with these cases, also, in an equally summary way. I now pass on to a very important subject—that of the visitation of Chancery lunatics, who are under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. It has been a subject, of anxious consideration to discover in what way we can best secure to the lunatics under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chan cellar the same effective visitation which is enjoyed by those lunatics who were under the superintendence of the Board of Lunacy Commissioners. In a report made by a Committee of the House of Commons it was recommended that the visitation should, in each case, he one and the same, and that the duty of visiting the Chancery lunatics should be added to the other duties of the Lunacy Commissioners. I was very anxious to adopt that recommendation; but upon communication with the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Shaftesbury) I was satisfied that it would not be possible, consistently with an effective discharge of their other duties, for the Commissioners to undertake the visitation of Chancery lunatics. Great care would be requisite in allotting such additional duties to the Lunacy Commissioners, and there might be a possibility of some conflict or difference between the rules usually adopted by them and those prescribed by the Lord Chancellor. Upon consideration, therefore, and after consultation with the noble Earl, I have determined upon the propriety of giving to the Lord Chancellor more extended powers for an effectual visitation of the unfortunate lunatics under his control. No small amount of power
  786
  will be adequate to enable a complete visitation to be made, and therefore I propose that the Lord Chancellor shall appoint two medical visitors and one legal visitor, who shall devote themselves exclusively to the performance of the duties. It is most essential that each lunatic should be visited at least twice a year, and it is most essential that such visitations should not be made at stated periods which should be previously known and provided for, but the medical and legal visitors should have power and be under the obligation to so time and vary the periods of their visits that every person having charge of lunatics should be always in expectation of them. I think your Lordships will agree with me that with the great body of persons requiring this superintendence we cannot have that duty effectually performed unless the Lord Chancellor shall have under his control at least three persons whose time shall be exclusively devoted to this service, and for whose remuneration a small graduated charge upon the incomes of lunatics would amply provide. I will not fatigue your Lordships upon other details which are in this Bill, which, although less important than those I have already specified, will, I think, be found a salutary amendment of the law. The necessity for these changes is shown by experience, as the existing law was an improvement upon the state of things which previously existed. These alterations are, I believe, greatly required at present, but in no respect so much as in respect to the form of procedure which I have ventured to propose for all contested cases of lunacy—that the ordinary rules and principles of evidence adopted in all other cases should be followed, instead of allowing lunacy cases to be an anomaly in our judicial procedure. I think even that the nature of the subject requires an adherence to the rules of evidence more urgently than in other cases of judicial inquiry. I will not further trespass upon your Lordships, and I trust that the observations I have addressed to you will not be found unacceptable to your Lordships' judgment.
  The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill to amend the Law relating to Commissioners of Lunacy and the Proceedings under the same, and to provide more effectually for the visiting of Lunatics, and for other Purposes.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he must express his satisfaction that the noble and

  787
  learned Lord had taken up this subject, which undoubtedly was one requiring notice. He had always taken a deep interest in the subject, and wished to make a few observations, although he had not yet seen the Bill. He was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack speak in favourable terms of the manner in which the late case, which had attracted so much attention, had been tried. No doubt such prolonged proceedings required a remedy; but, upon behalf of his learned Friend who presided at that trial, he felt bound to notice an opinion that had been generally expressed, that he was wrong in not allowing Mr. Windham to be examined immediately after the petitioners had closed their case. There could be no doubt, that had that been done, and if the result had been favourable to the young man, a great part of the enormous expense of the trial would have been saved; but the ground upon which his learned Friend went—and which he (Lord St. Leonards) thought was a proper ground—was, that if the weight of evidence that had been laid before the jury, travelling through the whole of the young man's life, and in many parts telling strongly against him, had been left unanswered, and Mr. Windham had at once been examined, in all probability he would have been found incompetent to manage his affairs. Everybody who read from day to day the evidence in reply must have exclaimed, as he did, "How the petitioners' case is breaking down!" and therefore he thought the learned Master had pursued a perfectly proper course, and one which led to the right result. Whether Mr. Windham was ruined or not was not a matter for the Court; all that it could regard was the due administration of justice. A verdict against him might have saved him from further ruin, but that circumstance could have no weight with the jury who, to save him from ruin, must on their oaths have found him of unsound mind, so as to be incapable of managing himself and his property. His noble and learned Friend had proposed that when a person's sanity was impeached, and a jury was called for, the cases should be tried before a Judge in the ordinary form of procedure. Without wishing to disparage the Masters in Lunacy, he (Lord St. Leonards) could not help thinking that a common law judge, with his experience in the exercise of his functions before juries, and
  788
  sitting with all the solemnities of a court of justice, would have a greater control over the cause and counsel than any Master in Lunacy, however able. Questions of lunacy were questions of fact, whether the alleged lunatic was not sufficiently sane to take care of his property—and the question should be tried as one of fact. The Bill of 1853 did not require unanimity in the jury, but only that twelve out of the twenty-three should agree, and the majority decided the case. Even by the Bill of 1853 power was given to the Lord Chancellor, if he thought fit, to issue a special commission in any case, directed to any person he chose to select. In ordinary cases the jurisdiction of the Masters was attended with great advantage. The Bill of 1S53 provided for that which had never been provided for before, because, in order to prevent improper trials of lunacy, it required the Lord Chancellor to see the alleged lunatic in any case of doubt; and if the Lord Chancellor believed from his own inspection that the fact of lunacy was beyond all question, he was not compelled to send the case before a jury. Thus, the present law already furnished one great safeguard against useless expense. A case like that of Mr. Windham, where, although the young man had many vicious habits and was addicted to low society, he moved about the world with the ordinary evidence of sanity, but where his family desired that he might be found a lunatic, was obviously a case which would lead to an enormously costly contest, a vast waste of public time, and a great deal of public scandal. If the alleged lunatic in a case of that kind demanded a jury, he could not be refused one; but in nine cases out of ten there was no difficulty, the person concerned being either manifestly subject to delusions or utterly incapable of managing his own affairs. One of the propositions of his noble and learned Friend was somewhat startling—namely, that by which he proposed to limit the inquiry into the capacity or incapacity of the person in question to the period of two years; and this proposition, he ventured to think, would require great consideration—it was very doubtful whether two years would not be too short a period for many purposes. The continuing the inquiry in the case of Mr. Windham from the time of his infancy down to the time when the inquiry took place was an abuse

  789
  such as ought to be stopped; but in many cases where a man was found insane it was necessarily a question for the jury how far they carried that insanity back. Sometimes the great contest was whether a will was to be supported or destroyed; and in such a case the question was not simply what the jury thought of his state of mind at the time of the inquiry, but what was his state as to sanity six or seven years before, when he made the will. Such a finding, it was true, would not be binding in reference to the property, because afterwards the question might be tried by those having an interest in it but still the finding was a guide to the Lord Chancellor how to deal with the matter. What would require still more consideration was the proposition of his noble and learned Friend that the alleged lunatic should in the first. instance be examined by the Judge before whom and a jury the question of his sanity was to be tried. At present the Lord Chancellor could see the alleged lunatic who demanded a jury, and see whether his was a fit case for inquiry or not so that the Lord Chancellor already had power to prevent the expense of trial being incurred where it was not necessary but the present proposition went so far as to include every case where a man demanded to be tried. It would be a very singular proceeding, if before a Judge and jury had heard a single word of evidence a man who had his liberty, his property, and everything he held dear at stake, should be called into Court, and examined in the manner proposed. It must also be borne in mind that the accusation must be brought forward upon affidavits which satisfied the Lord Chancellor that there was a prima facie case for inquiry so that the accused went to trial marked as a man charged with lunacy upon affidavits. In the case of Mr. Windham there might have been a doubt whether he was simply a young man of vice and folly, living in the worst possible taste; or whether he was insane. The affidavits before the Lord Chancellor would, of course, show all the circumstances but the jury would, at the commencement of the inquiry, know nothing except the charge against the person. He was not giving any decided opinion in reference to this Bill, but only throwing out a few observations which occurred to him upon hearing the matter stated for the first time. His noble and learned
  790
  Friend proposed to a certain extent to exclude the doctors from giving evidence and he (Lord St. Leonards) agreed that nothing was more dangerous than that I their theoretical opinions should be applied to the given acts and deeds of any I man, and then to try him upon the application of the theory of the medical man to the acts proved. Doctors very often differed; there was opinion upon both sides, as in the case of Mr. Windham, who was said to be almost an idiot upon the evidence of some medical men, whilst others said that they believed him to be sane. It was dangerous to trust to such evidence, and the common law Judges had often told scientific men who ventured to express their theoretical opinions in the witness-box that they were not examined to state their opinions dogmatically, but to give their evidence upon matters of fact for the guidance of the jury. His noble and learned Friend desired to draw a line marking the cases in which this scientific evidence should be received, and those in which it should be excluded; but it would be exceedingly difficult to draw any such line. In the celebrated case of Mrs. Cummings, he himself, when Lord Chancellor, saw her alone, and found her, so far as conversation was concerned, perfectly rational; he told her the expense of having a Commission, and explained the matter to her, and she appeared perfectly to understand it; but when she said that she was determined to traverse the allegation of insanity, he could do nothing but allow the case to go to a jury. His noble and learned Friend, in other parts of the procedure, appeared to contemplate rather an extension than an alteration of the Bill of 1853. He must remind his noble and learned Friend, that if he succeeded in his present effort, he could not expect an eternity of success. The Bill of 1853 had been brought forward during the time the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was at the head of the Government; he (Lord St. Leonards) had carried it through after his noble Friend left office. And he congratulated the House that the measure then introduced had proved to be the most perfect scheme of administration in lunacy which had ever existed in this country. His noble and learned Friend proposed certain relief in cases where the capital or income of lunatics was very small but even now the Lord Chancellor had the power of remitting the fees, and of af-

  791
  fording summary relief where the capital or income was small; therefore the proposal of his noble and learned Friend in this respect was rather an extension of the Act of 1853 than a new rule. With regard also to the visitation of Chancery lunatics, his noble and learned Friend called for an increase in the number of visitors; but already, under the Act of 1853, he had the exact number of visitors he proposed now to have. Of course, if it was necessary that the medical visitors should devote more of their time to the examination of the class of patients called Chancery lunatics, he would be the last man to wish their duties to be perfunctorily and not properly performed. The whole subject was one to which both here and in Ireland he had given much attention, and he could not allow the Bill of his noble and learned Friend to be read a first time without making a few observations. He entirely sympathized in the common object of doing all that could be further done for the amelioration of the unhappy patients themselves and lessening the expense of procedure.
  LORD GRANWORTHsaid, he did not think this a subject which it was possible for their Lordships to discuss adequately—he might say safely—until they had the detailed measure before them. However clearly his noble and learned Friend always stated every case, it was impossible to follow his statement with sufficient accuracy to be able at once to give an impartial opinion on the subject. That being so, it was quite unfit that any noble Lord should commit himself on a matter upon which, when he looked into the Bill in a printed form, he might regret that he had pronounced a decided opinion. He rather agreed with some of the suggestions just made by his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord St. Leonards). As to medical testimony, he could not think it possible by any enactment to exclude it. How common was this occurrence? During a great portion of the evidence a person appeared to be of perfectly sound mind, but then came a witness familiar with the subject, and before ten sentences were uttered the alleged lunatic was seen to be insane. A non-medical man did not know how to make the patient display his insanity. Medical men did. The danger was, if the trial was presided over by a person not quite competent—and he by no means meant to express such an opinion as to the learned person who had recently
  792
  presided over a tribunal of this kind—but unless the Judge who presided was very much on his guard, he might allow the jury to give too much weight to the medical testimony, which, nevertheless, must be admissible. His noble and learned Friend proposed that these trials should be presided over in future by one of the ordinary Judges of the land; and, probably, without any disrespect to the Masters in Lunacy, they would be better able to conduct those inquiries. He was very much inclined to concur with his noble and learned Friend that it was desirable prima facie to have some limitation as to the time to which they should carry back these inquiries; but it was impossible to limit the period strictly, or to lay down any absolute rule. There might be a case in which a man might have been insane down to the commencement of the two years, and become sane immediately afterwards; or the object of the inquiry might be to ascertain whether a particular will, three or four years ago, was made by a sane or insane person. The circumstances which had recently happened fully justified his noble and learned Friend in introducing some measure with the view of improving the law; but he was far from thinking that the slightest slur could thereby be intended to his noble and learned Friend opposite or to his Bill of 1853, which was one of the greatest improvements that had ever been introduced into the law on this subject.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he also was exceedingly glad that his noble and learned Friend had taken the subject in hand; it was, however, one of such difficulty as well as importance that it was impossible properly to enter fully upon the discussion at present. The circumstances connected with a recent trial, the length and expense of that investigation, had naturally called public attention to the state of the law, and his noble and learned Friend had felt it his duty to propose an alteration in it. Now, with regard to the circumstances connected with that inquiry, it did not appear to him that his noble and learned Friend attained any great advantage by changing the tribunal from a Master in Lunacy to one of the Judges of the superior courts. A circumstance, indeed, occurred on the recent inquiry which he could not help regretting, and here he differed in opinion from his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards),

  793
  because he always thought that where an inquiry of this kind took place, where a petition was presented and a commission of inquiry was issued, the production of the alleged lunatic was a part of the petitioner's case, and he ought not to be allowed to conclude his case without presenting the alleged lunatic for examination by the jury. His noble and learned Friend said that in the inquiry into the sanity of Mr. Windham, evidence having been given strongly denoting unsoundness of mind, it would have been an unfair thing to produce him immediately after that evidence, because the jury would naturally be prejudiced by it, and would have formed a conclusive opinion against him. But they surely would not have come to a conclusion without having first heard the alleged lunatic's case; and if, on the other hand, their opinion had, at that stage of the examining his numerous witnesses would of case, been in his favour, all the expense have been spared. How could a Judge of a superior court prevent the expense in such a case as that of Windham? He might, no doubt, have more authority over the counsel than the Master in Lunacy, but it was impossible that he could check the amount of evidence to be produced on one side or the other, nor the speeches of counsel. The appointment of such a Judge to deal with the matter would also limit the choice as to the place of inquiry. It was constantly necessary to hold an inquiry at the residence of the alleged lunatic; but if this matter were to be tried by a Judge of the superior courts, it would be difficult for him to find a proper place for him to erect his tribunal. At present, if the inquiry were deemed unsatisfactory, an application might be made to the Lords Justices, who might quash the whole proceedings, and direct a fresh inquiry. There had recently been passed an Act empowering the Judge in equity to inquire into both the law and the fact of the case before him; but that Act was only permissive. It was probable, how ever, that in a very little time they would; have a Bill before them proposing to make it compulsory upon the Judge in equity to decide upon the law and the fact, and, if necessary, to summon a jury in order to effect that object. If such a Bill should, pass into a law, he saw no reason why the Lords Justices, who directed the commission, should not themselves undertake the trial of the important question at issue. If the Lords Justices should try the ques-
  794
  tion, it would be final, and thus all the expense of a renewed investigation would he prevented. It therefore appeared to him necessary that the Lord Chancellor should consider that point before he moved the second reading of his Bill. He thought it would be difficult to limit the time to which the inquiry was to refer, or the evidence that was to be given by the medical witnesses. It was no unusual thing to see medical men of the highest character giving opinions of a totally different kind; but this was also the case in regard to the evidence of surveyors, the evidence in patent cases, collisions at sea, and other questions of mere opinion. Those points, however, would be the subject of consideration hereafter. He could only say that he was anxious to afford his noble and learned Friend all the assistance in his power to render the Bill as perfect as possible, but it would require the most careful consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he deprecated nothing so much as suitors being bandied from one side of Westminster Hall to the other; but he thought that the Lords Justices could not fail to derive an impression from the antecedent inquiry which determined whether there was a primâ facie case, which would render them scarcely the proper tribunal to conduct the subsequent trial. In limiting the nature of the medical evidence, he did not intend to cast any reproach on that profession. He only wished to exclude those loose speculations which were most improperly called testimony, and which ought never to be received as such.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.