Sitting of 29 July 1862

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Kirkcaldy District of Burghs, Roger Sinclair Aytoun, esquire.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Confirmation of Sales, &c.
3° Bankruptcy Act (1861) Amendment; Gunpowder Act Amendment; Burial Boards (Mortgage of Rates); Council of Medical Education; African Slave Trade Treaty (No. 2).

STANDING ORDERS REVISION.

  REPORT.
  Standing Orders of the House relating to Private Bills, read.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTEN, in moving the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee for the revision of the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills [Parl. Papers 444, 444–1.], and the adoption of the Revised Orders, said, that in the course of the examination of the Standing Orders the Committee had anxiously considered how far the expense of obtaining private Bills could be diminished by an alteration in the Standing Orders. They had first considered the table of fees of the House itself, and next the charges of parties who were engaged in promoting Bills. The latter were, however, regulated by Act of Parliament and were not within the con-
  980
  trol of the Committee, and they therefore determined that it would not be right to revise the fees of the House alone, because the revision of both schedules ought to take place together, and in connection with an investigation as to the mode in which the whole private business of the House was transacted. The Committee had made a Report in conformity with that opinion, recommending that an inquiry into the expediency of reducing the fees of the House and other charges on private Bills should take place as soon as possible. He should therefore move early next Session for a Committee to inquire into the great expense to which parties were subjected in passing private Bills through Parliament, with a view to its reduction. The alterations which the Standing Orders Committee had made pending their inquiry were chiefly with the view of assimilating the orders of that House with those of the other House, and of adapting them to the altered system under which private Bills were introduced into the other House of Parliament as well as into that House. As his duties as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee and Chairman of the Committee of Selection enabled him to judge of the manner in which the private business of that House was transacted, he could not allow the present opportunity to pass without bearing testimony to the very great sacrifice of time and labour on the part of several hon. Members of that House in discharging duties which, although no doubt secondary, were still very important. He wished also to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which the Chairmen's panel of Railway, &c., Bills conducted their investigations. He was sure the House and the public had very little idea of the time voluntarily devoted by private Members to the duties connected with private legislation. Among the Chairmen of Railway Committees during the Session, Lord Stanley had served 65 days; Mr. Adair, 56 days; Mr. Hassard, 47 days; Mr. Puller, 59 days; Mr. Scholefield, 35 days; Mr. Woods, 36 days; and Mr. Mowbray, 18 days. Although the expenses before Railway Committees were very great, the public were indebted to the panel of Chairmen for a great diminution in the cost under that head. Still, he was almost afraid to state the expense at which the private business of the House was conducted. Early during the present Session he moved for a Return of the expenditure incurred by railway companies

  981
  in the conduct of their private business before Parliament. The Board of Trade had rendered him what assistance it could in obtaining that return, yet, although it had been moved for in March last, not less than 100 railway companies had not up to the present moment furnished the required Returns. The Motion for the Return was in the form of an Address to the Crown, so that the House had no means of enforcing it. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would not lose sight of the subject, and that he would do all in his power to obtain for the House a Return of the exact sum spent in private Parliamentary business by the various railway companies. Early next Session, as he had stated, it was his intention to bring the subject under the notice of Parliament.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that he agreed that the subject ought to be considered by a Select Committee next Session.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the country were very little aware of the extent of valuable labour which was bestowed on the legislation of the country by the Committee over which the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Wilson Patten) so ably presided, as well as by the Committees generally, records of their proceedings not finding their way into the usual channels by which Parliamentary proceedings were made known to the country. At a great sacrifice of time, those Gentlemen devoted their talents and gave their attention to the conduct of a business which had nothing very attractive about it.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had hoped that the right hon. Baronet would have said something about the reduction of expenses in private legislation.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: The hon. and gallant Member says he will bring the subject forward early in the next Session; and that course is one which I entirely approve of.
  MR. ADAIR MR. ADAIR moved, that in the proposed Standing Order 136 A, page 47 of the Report, the words "forms part of the continuous route of such railway" be omitted, and the words "is required to connect portions of railway belonging to or proposed to be constructed by such company" be substituted.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders, 4, 11, 15, 24, 25, 26, 30, 62, 93,103,132,163, 165, 184, 200, 205, and 207, be repealed.
  Standing Orders relating to Private Bills, as reported by the Committee, with Amendments to several of them, agreed to, and made Standing Orders of the House.
  Standing Orders of the House to be printed, [Parl. P. No. 462.]

ROYAL ACADEMY.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT BURY(Treasurer of the Household) appeared at the Bar, and read the Reply of Her Majesty to the Address presented to Her by the House, on the Motion of Lord Elcho, with respect to the Royal Academy—
  "I have received your Address praying that a Commission may be issued to inquire into the present position of the Royal Academy in relation to the Fine Arts, and into the circumstances and conditions under which it occupies a portion of the National Gallery, and to suggest such measures as may be required to render it more useful in promoting Art and in improving and developing Public Taste.
  "And I have given directions that a Commission shall issue for the purposes which you have requested,"

ROAD ACROSS HYDE PARK.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If he will permit the temporary Road across the Park from Bayswater Road to the Queen's Gate, Kensington, to remain open for six months after the close of the International Exhibition, to allow time for consideration of the best plan for the permanent Road; and if it is not desirable to incur the small expense which would be incident to the cleansing the façade of the Marble Arch at Cumberland Gate?
  MR. COWPERin reply said, that on the occasion of the passing of the Vote for the temporary road it was distinctly stated that it was only to be continued while the Exhibition was open; and he did not feel justified in departing from that arrangement. But the experience they had acquired of the utility of the road must be very useful in any future consideration the House might bestow upon that subject. With respect to the Marble Arch, he had to state, that like other public monuments exposed to the atmosphere in London, it would require periodical cleansing. He had tried for that purpose the employment of water from a fire-engine, but without any decided success. He believed that before long it

  983
  would be necessary to cleanse the Marble Arch more thoroughly; and, indeed, he thought it ought to be subjected to that operation about once in every ten years.

  VACCINATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is the intention of the Lords of Privy Council, in consequence of the way in which the Compulsory Vaccination Act has worked, to permit gentlemen who have the diploma of the Royal College of Surgeons, and who have also undergone an examination in Vaccination, and have obtained a certificate of competency in Vaccination, to receive the appointment of Public Vaccinator wherever Boards of Guardians are disposed to make the appointment under such qualifications; and whether the Privy Council has not been made acquainted with the apparent necessity for some relaxation of the regulations with reference to the present mode of appointing Public Vaccinators?
  MR. LOWEsaid, that when Parliament established the system of compulsory Vaccination, it became the duty of the Privy Council to see that the system of Vaccination was as good as possible, and regulations were established under which persons properly qualified were enabled to contract with Boards of Guardians to perform the duty of Public Vaccinators. Inquiry was made into the state of instruction in vaccination, and it was found that of the bodies which gave medical and surgical degrees none took any care at all about the instruction of their pupils in vaccination; the consequence of which was that the Committee of Council established fifteen stations in England, presided over by persons whom they knew to be skilful vaccinators, and they required that every person who took his medical degree after 1860, who wished to contract with Poor Law Guardians, should produce a certificate of qualification in vaccination from one of these fifteen stations. Care was taken that there should be a station near every place of medical education in England. These were the precautions which were taken. He was now asked by the hon. Gentleman whether it was not considered right to relax these precautions in favour of gentlemen who have the diploma of the Royal College of Surgeons. He did not think it would be right to do so, and for this reason—the Royal College of Surgeons did not give instruction in vac-
  984
  cination to their pupils, nor did they take the trouble to examine them to ascertain that they were vaccinators; they only required that some certificate should be had from a medical practitioner that the candidate could vaccinate. He did not think that such an arrangement afforded sufficient security that a person was qualified to vaccinate, and the Privy Council would, therefore, persist in requiring a certificate of competency from some person who they could feel sure was qualified to give a decision in the matter.

THE ALLIES AT SHANGHAI.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What foundation there is for the statements in the China journals that the Allies at Shanghai had been obliged to relinquish all the cities and positions they had captured from the Taepings and retire upon Shanghai; that 400,000 rebels had suddenly appeared, and in exasperation for the allied attacks upon them, were desolating the neighbourhood of Shanghai; and whether a requisition had been made to the Indian Government for a reinforcement of troops?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that no information had been received by the Government which at all corroborated the statements in the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. The Allies had not been obliged to relinquish their positions in the neighbourhood of Shanghai, although the General in command had thought it right, for strategic or other purposes, to withdraw a portion of the troops from certain points. With respect to the 400,000 rebels, he believed they only existed in the imagination of the officer who had communicated with his hon. and gallant Friend. He did not believe there was anything like that number in the neighbourhood of Shanghai; and as regarded a requisition for reinforcements, he knew nothing about it, and he believed that nothing was known about it at the War Office.

  EMPLOYMENT OF SAPPERS AND MINERS AT THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report that a body of Sappers and Miners had

  985
  been marched into the International Exhibition Building and had forcibly covered up and hidden the stall of an Exhibitor, in consequence of such Exhibitor having placed on his own glass case a printed expression of opinion adverse to the decision of the Commissioners who had adjudged the Prizes, and that guards had been mounted over the same stall; and if this report was true, by whose authority had the military been thus employed?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he found, upon inquiry, that no guard of Sappers and Miners had been placed over any stall at the Exhibition. But one of those notices of adverse opinion having been put up at a stall, a Sapper caused the stall to be covered up, under the authority of the Commissioners for the Exhibition, as communicated to him by the superintendent of the class to which the stall belonged.

THE CURRAGH OF KILDARE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any and what steps have been taken to put a stop to certain proceedings that have taken place at the Curragh of Kildare, and what measures he proposes to adopt to enforce regularity within the camp? He also wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, if the Report of the Select Committee on Small Arms at Woolwich, relative to the fifty-two Small Arms sent in for trial in conformity with War Office Letters of

  June 1859,

  81

  September 6, 1861,

  81

  W

  GN°

  152

  256

  is yet received, and ordered to be printed?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Report had not yet been completed, but he expected it would shortly be presented. With respect to the proceedings at the Curragh, some general directions had been given.

THE PATRIOTIC FUND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that no Report of the Proceedings of the Royal Commissioners for managing the Patriotic Fund has been made since February, 1858; and
  986
  whether he has any objection to state if he has received any Special Report from the Royal Victoria Female Orphan Asylum of its management during the present year?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he understood that no such Report had yet been made, but that one would shortly be produced. He believed that it would contain some explanations with regard to the Asylum to which his hon. Friend referred. He would make further inquiry with regard to the administration of that fund; and if he should ascertain anything of importance, he would communicate it to his hon. Friend.

VOLUNTEER FORCE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When the Report of the Royal Commission upon Volunteers will be ready; and whether, if not laid upon the table before the end of the present Session, it will be delivered to Members during the recess?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he understood that the Report of the Commission upon Volunteers had been actually signed, and was likely to be presented before Parliament separated.

  THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHT AND MEASURE.—QUESTION.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Standards of Weight and Measure deposited at the Exchequer in the year 1825 have been used as tests of accuracy from that period up to the present time without being examined, adjusted, or re-verified?
  SIR GEORGE GREYwas understood to reply that the Standards had been examined; some adjustment was found necessary, and measures would be taken to have them re-verified.

ADMIRALTY REFORM.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOrose to move as a Resolution—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government, during the recess, to prepare a measure for Reform in the Naval Administration."
  He said, I feel that I owe an apology to the House for bringing this question forward. It has been submitted to their notice in

  987
  former years by more influential Members than myself—by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), and by the gallant Admiral the Member for the East Riding (Admiral Duncombe). I have hoped throughout the Session that one or other of them would have called the attention of the House to the subject, and it is only in consequence of their default that I have felt it a paramount duty not to allow the Session to terminate without making an endeavour to obtain an expression of opinion on matters of the gravest importance to the country.
  Sir, let us inquire how this question stands? I think I may fairly assume that there has been growing discontent not only in this House, but in the country, ever since the war in the Crimea, with the naval and military administration of the country. We have had Committees and Commissions on almost every department of the navy, on gunnery, on gunboats, on harbours, on pensions, on dockyards, on promotion, on the manning of the navy, on the Estimates of the navy, and lastly on Admiralty administration. These have been so many expressions of want of confidence in the present naval administration of the country. The time of the House, during the last Session, was taken up to an immense extent in the discussion of every branch of naval administration. On the very first night of the Session of 1861 the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich gave notice of a Committee of Inquiry, which he subsequently abandoned. On the 28th of February the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth gave notice of a series of Resolutions, which commenced with a declaration that "the mismanagement of naval affairs is due to the inefficiency of the present means of naval administration." Those Resolutions led to an interesting debate; and they were only withdrawn on a proposal of the Government to agree to a Motion of the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for the East Riding, for a "Select Committee on the Naval Administration of the Country." That Committee was appointed, although there was great difficulty in nominating it. The discussions on the appointment of the Committee opened up the whole question of naval administration. In the course of the debates the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth stated that "with the present system of naval administration it
  988
  was wholly impossible for the affairs of the navy to be carried on with efficiency." The hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch said, "the country was thoroughly dissatisfied with the constitution of the Board of Admiralty," and the gallant Admiral the Member for Devonport said, it was "quite clear that some change was necessary to meet the complaints of the unsatisfactory manner in which the business of the Admiralty was conducted." All this related to the Board of Admiralty itself, but expressions were made use of showing the state of opinion in the navy with regard to this matter. The gallant Member for Christchurch spoke of "the discontent which had long been smouldering in the navy," and the Secretary to the Admiralty "admitted that there was dissatisfaction." The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth said—
  "The bounty had brought utterly unfit men into the navy; it had collected the scum of the seaports—men who were both morally and physically incapable of forming good seamen, who required punishment to keep them up to a proper state of discipline, but whose enfeebled and diseased bodies were unable to bear that punishment." [3 Hansard, clxi., 1126.]
  And Sir Michael Seymour said—
  "Every attempt recently made to man our ships or to form a reserve had been a failure. The bounty had not succeeded, and the measures adopted upon the Report of the Manning Commission of 1853 had produced only a comparatively small addition to our force of seamen. At present we had actually not the means in reserve for manning a single ship." [3 Hansard, clxi., 1159.]
  The gallant Admiral the Member for the East Riding said—
  "There could be no doubt that there was widespread dissatisfaction on board our ships. … It behoved those who had the management of the navy to devise a scheme which would induce seamen to enter the service, and to make them more satisfied with it when they had entered it." [3 Hansard, clxi., 1243.]
  Even the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax, who had been a First Lord of the Admiralty, admitted "the necessity of inquiring into the ground of these complaints;" and another First Lord, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, expressed his "strong opinion of the unsatisfactory position of the Department generally."
  After, Sir, such expressions of opinion as these, the Government had no choice but to consent to the appointment of a Committee. There was much difficulty, as I before observed, as to the members to serve on it; but at length a Committee

  989
  was appointed. The Committee met, and examined thirteen witnesses. Of those witnesses five had been civil First Lords, three had been naval Lords, and five were independent naval officers. The Committee made no Report: they contented themselves with laying on the table of the House the evidence they had taken. No one who has looked through the evidence will feel the lenst surprise that the Committee should have taken this course. Most of the witnesses were themselves members of the Committee, and of the eight witnesses who had filled office it may fairly be said that no two of them agreed upon any one point connected with the administration of naval affairs. Such diversity of opinion has probably never been before exhibited by the chiefs of any one profession. It was most extraordinary. But what was still more singular was, that whilst all the official witnesses differed hopelessly, all the non-official witnesses agreed at least as to one all-important fact—namely, that our present system of naval administration is irredeemably defective.
  Now, Sir, as I fear that there are comparatively few Members of this House who have waded through the 1,000 closely-printed pages of evidence which was taken by this Committee, I shall venture to submit to their attention an analysis which I have made of the evidence, which, I think, will convince the House of the propriety of the Motion I have now the honour to submit to it. I am sure that the House will be both informed and amused if they will give me their attention whilst I read to them the evidence of the various First Lords. The first witness examined by the Committee was His Grace the Duke of Somerset, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who discussed the present state of naval administration pro and con., Summing up his views as follows:—
  "A Board has many advantages, and some disadvantages. I will state shortly what I consider its advantages. I think, in the first place, that it affords to the Minister, on his first appointment to the office of First Lord, great facilities for becoming acquainted with the details of business. It gives him an opportunity, if he feel doubt upon any point, of raising a discussion, and hearing the question argued by naval men with different views. I think the Board also constitutes an excellent tribunal to judge of many personal questions that must arise in the management of the navy, such as differences between naval officers, applications for special allowances or exemptions, the propriety of ordering a court martial, the review of sentences of courts martial, the remission of
  990
  punishment, and the propriety of ordering prosecutions in some cases. All these are questions for which I think a Board forms an excellent tribunal; and I think there would be very great difficulty in performing that duty well, except it were performed with the assistance of something similar to a Board or council. I think, again, that a Board offers to its members opportunities of proposing a great variety of change in the regulations connected with the navy. All matters connected with the comforts of the sailors, and all questions connected with improvements in the fittings and armament of ships may be brought forward by any member of the Board and discussed there. I think that is a great advantage. I think a Board has a further advantage in one respect, that it increases the responsibility of the First Lord, if he should determine to act without consulting it, or hastily to overrule its opinions. I think that that is a great security which the country derives from having experienced naval officers at a Board to consult with him. I think, again, that a Board places at the disposal of the First Lord naval officers whom he can ask to act as a Committee to inquire into many professional subjects which arise, and upon which he would wish to have a special report; and he can ask any two officers of his Board to look into it, and having examined into it, to report to him. I think, again, that a Board affords great advantages to naval officers themselves. I think officers who have served as members of the Board, and who may be afterwards employed in great commands abroad; for instance, Admiral Milne, who is in the command of the North American station, must derive great advantage from the knowledge of political and professional questions that have been brought under his notice while he was at the Board of Admiralty."
  That was his Grace's opinion as to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. When he came to speak of details, his Grace admitted that "there were great anomalies in the formation of the Admiralty." For example—
  "The signature of the Secretary and two Lords is sufficient to order any description of vessel to be built, although the other members of the Board, even including your Grace as First Lord, might not know anything about it?—It would be done in the board-room. It is quite true it might be done when two members of the Board, or three members of the Board were absent, and two members might then perform that act, as they might any other act, with the signature of the Secretary. But that would be a very unusual course; I think they would not do it unless they thought they were acting generally with the concurrence of the Board."
  "I believe that on various occasions papers may go and have the signatures of two Lords and the Secretary, and therefore make them Board orders, but that the actual effect of those orders has never been discussed or decided by the general Board of the Admiralty?—The signatures to all documents of the Admiralty seem to me to be in somewhat an anomalous position. There are some orders that require the signatures of two Lords and the Secretary; there are others that require the signatures of two Lords; there are some, I believe, that require the signature of

  991
  three Lords; and there are others that require only the signature of the Secretary."
  "Equally making it a Board order?—Yes. The most important orders may be sent out from the Board of Admiralty, and only signed by the Secretary. I believe orders may be sent to all commanders abroad signed by the Secretary alone."
  So that it appeared from the evidence of the First Lord of the Admiralty himself, that the Board of Admiralty was not, in point of fact, a Board at all, but something very different. Such was the evidence of the present First Lord. The next most important witness was Sir James Graham, who was First Lord of the Admiralty from 1830 to 1834, and again from 1852 to 1855. The following is a summary of Sir James Graham's evidence relating to a Board:—
  "The Board of Admiralty never could work unless the First Lord was supreme, and exercised constantly supreme and controlling authority. If that supremacy be shaken in time of war, it would be impossible that the system could work, and in time of peace I do not think it would work satisfactorily. The powers of the First Lord are exercised not under the patent, but by usage and prescription. Objects to any attempt to make the patent more in conformity with usage. Thinks an entire change of the Board with every new administration inexpedient. Objects to the Secretary being a naval officer. Thinks it much more advantageous that the First Lord should be a Member of the House of Commons. The First Lord should consult the opinion of his colleagues, but decide for himself. Admits that the Junior Lords do not exercise the powers which the law has given them. Thinks they should be regarded as without official power to contravene a decision taken by the heads of the Board. Objects to measures calculated to elevate their position."
  Those were the views of Sir James Graham relating to the working of the Board. But when he came to speak concerning details, it was quite clear, from Sir James Graham's evidence, that the state of affairs at the Admiralty under the existing system was most unsatisfactory—
  "Are you of opinion that there is a want of harmony and concert between the chief departments of the Admiralty?—I have already admitted that I see traces of it with sorrow, and I have endeavoured to explain what I thought were the causes of it."
  "Am I correct in supposing that you would not recommend any change in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty?—If the supremacy of the First Lord be admitted, and be not contradicted, I think that it is right now. If, in consequence of all these inquiries and commissions, the strict terms of the patent of equality be insisted upon, and the supreme power of the First Lord be shaken or negatived, I think the system is brought to an end, and must be changed. On the other hand, if the supreme power of the First Lord, as it has been exercised for centuries, be maintained inviolate, then I think it can work well as it is."
  992
  "I think you say this: 'I am for giving him the largest powers, but I am at the same time, for concentrating responsibility upon him; and if his powers be not sufficient (and there is some ground to doubt whether it be so now), then, I say, that the whole question of the command of the navy must be considered, because you must have a responsible Minister?—I adhere to that distinctly; and you must permit me to say, that the doubts to which I refer there partly arise from some suggestions in questions which were put to me of a state of affairs which I did not think possible."
  "Is it not clear that the whole state of the Admiralty and the Navy, so far as they are questions of valuation, are not in a satisfactory state?—I have given you a statement, as strong as I can put it, and from which I do not recede, that the state of the accounts with regard to labour and materials is in a most unsatisfactory state, and calls aloud for immediate remedy.
  The next witness is Sir Francis Baring, the Member for Portsmouth. He said—
  "He was First Lord of the Admiralty from 1849 to 1852. Thinks any change in the constitution of the Board would be inexpedient. Sees nothing better than the present system. Admits, however, that it would be very inconvenient for a First Lord not to have colleagues to work with him. He should have found much difficulty in effecting reductions which he was obliged to effect without the cordial co-operation of every Member of his Board. He could only have overcome such a difficulty by removing it (that is, removing the unwilling colleague). Considers it absolutely necessary that the First Lord should have power to form 'a Board' without summoning any other member. A Board, in official language, means almost anything."
  It appeared, however, that the right hon. Baronet was himself scarcely sure as to what "a Board" really meant; for in answer to the question, "Is it not generally considered that a Board means a Board to the meetings of which it is necessary that the different members should be summoned?" he replied, "You may attach that meaning to it, but I was not aware of that meaning." The next evidence to which I will call attention is that of the present Secretary of State for War, who was Secretary to the Board of Admiralty from 1835 to 1839, and First Lord from 1855 to 1858. Sir Charles Wood was—
  "In favour of a Board as at present constituted; but always, when First Lord, deferred to the opinion of his professional colleagues upon purely professional questions; obtained their concurrence in all appointments and promotions; disapproved of any permanent members. The First Lord 'has quite as much power as he ought to have.' In extreme cases he must be supreme, and must make his Board subordinate to his will; but such cases should never arise. Dissents from the opinion that a Board only works well when the head of it makes it as unlike a Board as possible. Never read his patent, but was guided

  993
  entirely by prescriptive usage. Thinks the naval Lords should be in Parliament, but that the Secretary ought to be a civilian."
  So much for the right hon. Baronet's views. It will be seen that he differed in many important matters from his colleagues. But I now come to the evidence of a First Lord who differs from all the other living occupants of that office. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich gave the strongest evidence against the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He commenced his evidence by comparing, greatly to the disadvantage of the Admiralty, the business as transacted by the Colonial Office and the Admiralty. Whilst at the Admiralty, he said that he never felt that he had either the knowledge, the control, or the responsibility which the head of such a Department ought to have.
  "A Board," said the right hon. Baronet, "is not a good machine for conducting the administration of a great Department. It is a feeble and unsatisfactory mode of administering the navy. He had serious and painful differences with the naval Members of his Board—the first respecting a change in the position of the medical officers of the navy; the second respecting an improved system of promotion and retirement. Was prepared to overrule his colleagues and act on his own responsibility on both occasions. Attributes neglects at the Admiralty to the system. The forcible exercise of supremacy by the First Lord is a painful proceeding, and is not wise, and is inconsistent with the view that the supremacy is unquestionable. A Board of Admiralty is a bad arrangement, and does not work well for the public service. The supremacy of the First Lord is nominal rather than real, and a sole Minister with sufficient advisers is better than the cumbrous machinery of a Board."
  The right hon. Baronet explained at length the causes of his serious and painful differences with the members of his Board; and, if I remember rightly, there was another and a further painful difference, which caused the retirement of one, if not of two, members of his Administration, during his tenure of office. All these facts show that the present system does not work. The evidence of the several first Lords has, Sir, come to this:—The Duke of Somerset thinks the present system has advantages and disadvantages, the balance being in favour of the former. Sir James Graham is in favour of the existing system, if the First Lord is rendered an absolute despot; if not, he thinks the system had better be broken up. Sir Francis Baring is in favour of a Board, "which means anything," except, it would seem, that any members should be summoned to it. Sir Charles Wood is for the existing system, with
  994
  power to remove the Junior Lords, and to abolish a Naval Secretaryship. Sir John Pakington, on the other hand, is opposed to any Board whatever, and is most anxious for an entire revision of the existing system. Well, then, I submit, Sir, that in the evidence of these great authorities my case is proved, and that it is the imperative duty of Her Majesty's Government to apply themselves to consider, during the recess, the present position of naval affairs, with a view to measures which will provide for their more efficient and economical administration. Having considered the opinions, or rather the conflict of opinions, respecting the office of First Lord amongst those who have filled that office, I now come to consider the evidence of another class of witnesses—the naval Lords. I will first quote the evidence of Admiral Bowles—
  "Was a member of the Board of Admiralty from 1844 to 1846. He was in favour of a Board. Thinks the present number of members would be totally insufficient in time of war. Even now thinks that the Comptroller of the Navy should have a seat at the Board. Thinks that the Board interferes too much with minor details, and that the Lords of the Admiralty should confine themselves more than they do to their peculiar business. Thinks that they waste much of their time in interfering with the duties of port admirals. Thinks that since the abolition of the Navy Board there is no sufficiently serious means of bringing the state of the fleet under the notice of the First Lord. Thinks our fleet was in a very imperfect and dangerous state when the Syrian war threatened in 1840. Thinks the Russian fleet sent to the Baltic the worst fleet ever sent to sea by Great Britain since our naval history commenced. The men were entirely new, but few seamen amongst them, and the ships were in a much less fit state to go into action than the British fleet ever was before. They were totally unfurnished with mortar vessels and gunboats, or with any of those appliances which a Baltic fleet should have. Attributes the defective state of the navy, &c., to the frequent political changes at the Admiralty. Thinks the Junior Lords have too little to do, the Senior Lord too much. Thinks the arrangement of a Board should rest entirely in the discretion of a first Lord. Nobody would accept the situation of First Lord of the Admiralty, and at the same time have fixed upon him a set of men he disapproved."
  The next witness was Sir Maurice Berkeley, now Lord Fitzhardinge, who had been eighteen years a naval Lord—
  "He was in favour of a Board, although he had not always been able to carry out his views, and had, on one occasion, resigned his seat at the Board in consequence. Formerly wrote a private letter to Lord Auckland, complaining, as a member of the Board, that he had no responsibility and nothing to do. The members of the Board have now more to do, but the Board does not work so smoothly as when he was on it. Great disad-

  995
  vantage results from the constant changes of the First Lord and other members of the Board. Thinks a naval Lord should be substituted for a civil Lord, and that the naval Lord should be in Parliament. Complains of interference of the Secretary with the province of the Lords. Had the whole management of the manning of the navy under his control for many years. Thinks the frequent changes at the Admiralty have a tendency to interfere with the proper manning of the fleet."
  The third naval Lord examined was Admiral Sir George Seymour, who was a naval Lord under Lord Haddington—
  "He approves of the whole system of the Board of Admiralty, but considers that the Board should be more administrative and less executive. A First Lord who is a civilian must have professional advisers. It would be an advantage if the Board were appointed for five years, and did not change with the Government. There should be another Lord, who should be Comptroller of the Navy, and have power over the dockyards. Too much work is thrown on the naval First Lord. A high engineer officer should also be added to the Board, who should take the department of works and consider inventions. Another naval Lord should entirely devote himself to manning and reserves. It would relieve the Admiralty, if more latitude were allowed to port admirals. Is of opinion that the First Lord has too much power, and that the professional element at the Board requires strengthening. Lord Haddington did not exercise supremacy. He submitted to the opinion of Sir G. Cockburn on all professional questions. All professional questions should be decided by a majority of votes."
  The House will observe that the tendency of all the evidence of the naval Lords is in favour of vesting more power in the naval authorities, and is entirely opposed to the supremacy of the First Lord, which all the First Lords insisted on as essential to the well-working of the existing system. Here, then, is another argument in favour of my Motion. If the views of the First Lords are not only in conflict with each other, but also in conflict with the opinions of the naval Lords, it is quite clear that the duty of the Government becomes imperative to review a system which is open to so many and grave objections.
  I now come, Sir, to consider the evidence of another class of witnesses, the independent naval officers who were examined by the Committee. The five witnesses thus examined were, unquestionably, the highest officers in the profession unconnected with the Board. The first witness was the distinguished naval officer, Admiral Sir Thomas Cochrane, Commander in Chief, at Portsmouth—
  "He deprecates the whole system of the Admiralty. The constant changes at the Board
  996
  constitute a crying evil. Nothing can be worse than the existing system. When a man has acquired any knowledge, he is turned out of office. Complains of the whole system of patronage as grossly unjust. Complains of the system of nomination for naval cadetships. The whole system is one of favour, and the annoyance is that boys are introduced into the navy who have to be educated at the public charge."
  In his evidence, Sir Thomas said—
  "There are cramming masters at Portsmouth and other places, where they go and learn just sufficient to enable them to pass, and then you send them on board ship after they have passed. At the age of fourteen, I know by experience that a boy ought to have navigation entirely at his fingers' ends. In the last frigate that I commanded, they sent to me from college four of the finest boys that ever came out of that college. I had them on board my ship, and I put them in my cabin to work a common day's work, and to work a double altitude, and a lunar, and so on, and not one could do it unless they had Dr. Inman's book before them to study from. I had, at the same time, a boy of the ago of fourteen, from the Bluecoat School, and that boy had everything at his fingers' ends, and I had to put these four boys under him to be instructed."
  Sir Thomas complained also of the interference of the Admiralty in petty matters. In answer to Question 1818, "If an officer wanted a week's leave, there was a correspondence with the Admiralty, was there not?" He said—
  "Yes; and if there were half-a-dozen officers wanted leave, half-a-dozen letters would have to be written; and I think the Admiralty gave themselves trouble which might have been avoided."
  Sir Thomas Cochrane objected in conclusion to the political character of the administration of the navy. The next witness was Captain (now Rear Admiral) the Hon. Joseph Denman, C.B., who commanded the Queen's yacht from 1853 to 1861—
  "Strongly objects to the constitution of the Admiralty. The head of departments should be permanent. Believes it is absolutely impossible, under the present system, for any gentlemen, however great their abilities, to administer the affairs of the navy so as to gain the confidence of Parliament and the country. The officers of the navy do not regard the growing power of the principles of administration with respect. There is a very great absence of confidence in the system. They do not feel that in cases of difficulty they will be fairly and liberally treated. Officers who have promises from one Board are commonly told that a now Board does not recognise any promise of a previous Board. Very often an officer does not know what orders to obey. He is often greatly confused by the multiplicity of the circulars."
  Admiral Elliot and Vice Admiral Sir Michael Seymour gave corresponding evi-

  997
  dence. The latter was a cautious witness. He said that he knew nothing of the interior working of the Admiralty. He had beard and read much of its sins, and he thought the First Lord ought to be made wholly and solely responsible. Captain Sullivan, however, one of the most practical and efficient men in our navy, fiercely condemned the whole existing system—
  "He complains that the service suffers greatly from the present constitution of the Admiralty. The whole system of promotion is one of favouritism; the Board itself composed of men brought in from family and political connection. Very strong feeling in the navy upon this great abuse. The same names that have ruled for thirty or forty years continue to rule to this day. The higher appointments and the promotions made on the same grounds. Improved measures urgently needed for manning. Our best seamen resort to the American and other services. Our Baltic fleet would have been utterly ruined in consequence of bad manning had it been opposed to the Russian and French combined fleets."
  Such then, Sir, is the evidence of the best officers of our navy who have never been connected with its departmental administration. I submit to the House that it shows a general opinion that the existing system cannot and ought not to be maintained. When the House considers that in thirty years, from 1829 to 1859, there have been no less than seventeen changes in the office of First Lord, the average tenure of a First Lord's office having been one year ten months and two weeks, and that in the same period there have been no less than 103 other changes of Lords and Secretaries, I am sure it cannot doubt for a moment that the existing system needs revision. During the last eight years, there have been no less than four general changes of the Board, five changes of First Lords, and thirty-four changes generally. Can any system work which involves such rapid alterations, not only of individuals but of principles and policy?
  Sir, in April 1861, a Commission which had been appointed by the Government to inquire into the working of our dockyards made a most important Report, containing a variety of recommendations. The Report was referred to the Committee, whose evidence I have analysed, and up to this hour no step whatever has been taken on it. I wish the Government to consider if our naval yards are to remain in their present position. For the last fourteen or fifteen years the firm with which I am connected have been engaged in transactions amounting to £49,000,000 sterling.
  998
  I may therefore be supposed to know something about the organization of large establishments. Well, Sir, I have visited all the dockyards of this country, and I declare that I think I should find it impossible to conceive anything worse. Upon this point, however, I am able to cite the opinion of one whose judgment will carry more weight than my own. I quote the following from the evidence of Sir James Graham:—
  "I think, in the War Department at Woolwich, there are very large establishments, very much of the same kind as the vast establishments of the dockyards; did you not find that to be the case?—They are becoming frightfully large, both in the military and naval yards, and I regard them with the greatest fear and jealousy.
  There are immense manufacturing establishments now growing up in both Departments?—Immense. When I look at the Army Estimates, I find they have 12,000 labourers on day pay. Then also as to the navy; if this large manufacturing principle is to be extended, and labourers on day pay, almost without stint, are to be employed, a system of account, accurate as any manufacturer's account, or any shipowner's account, is becoming indispensable, for the public will never be able to check that expense unless they have the means of contrasting the public outlay with the outlay in private establishments, by accounts kept clearly and on the most accurate principles. And now, with respect to the Royal Navy; if these manufacturing establishments are to be maintained, the time has arrived when, at any cost, these accurate accounts must be provided."
  Now, I only ask hon. Members to contrast for a moment the administration of our naval affairs with that of the French Government. The present Emperor, when he was elected President of the republic, lost no time in appointing a Commission of Inquiry into the condition of his navy. He put the matter into the hands of the ablest men in France, who drew up a programme both as to the constitution of dockyards, the completion of the works at Cherbourg, and the number of vessels of which the fleet should consist. That programme has never been departed from. After the experiment of the floating batteries before Kinburn, the French Government saw that the whole history of naval warfare was changed. What was the course they pursued? They built one iron-cased ship, they tried it; and when they found it answer, they ordered others of the same kind. After Lord Derby's Government, however, ordered the Warrior and the Black Prince, the present Government ordered ten or twelve new ones to see which was the best. The French iron-

  999
  cased vessels could all sail together. Not so our fleet. When the Resistance and the Defiance were laid down, I ventured to point out that they would not be able to sail within three or four knots an hour of the Warrior and the Black Prince. The noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) told me with the greatest possible politeness that I knew nothing about it; but the result has turned out pretty much as I predicted. The new ships cannot sail so fast as the Warrior by two or three knots, and their carrying capacity is only two or three days. Lord Derby passed the greatest of all censures upon the Admiralty. He had actually appointed a sort of new Board—a Committee of the Treasury—to inquire into the condition of the navy. That Committee reported—
  "France will also have four iron-sided ships, with engines of 800 or 900 horse-power. It is stated that these iron-sided ships, of which two are more than half completed, will be substituted for line-of-battle ships. Their timbers are of the scantling of a three-decker. They are to have 36 heavy guns, most of them rifled 50-pounders, which will throw an 80 lb. hollow percussion shot. They will be cased with iron; and so convinced do naval men seem to be in France of the irresistible qualities of these ships, that they are of opinion that no more ships of the line will be laid down, and that in ten years that class of vessels will have become obsolete."
  Nevertheless, despite this Report, the Government immediately ordered ten first-class ships of wood, at a cost of no less than three millions sterling. Such a system of naval administration surely is not calculated to inspire public confidence. It is rather calculated to call forth public execration. Sir, the whole evidence taken before this Committee shows that there is no science whatever at the Board of Admiralty. Sir Baldwin Walker, when he was appointed Comptroller of the Navy, admitted that he had no knowledge of the construction of ships; and Rear Admiral Robinson, the present Comptroller, has, I believe, no real control. There is a strong feeling prevailing that the scientific element is needed at the Board: that the Admiralty ought not to be constituted, as it now is, for political objects and objects of patronage, but that, at a time when our fleet must undergo entire reconstruction in order to meet the advance of science, the Board ought not to be without men possessed of practical scientific information—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were
  1000
  not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS.—1a African Slave Trade Treaty (No. 2); Bankruptcy Act (1861) Amendment; Burial Boards (Mortgage of Rates).
2a Polling Places (New Shoreham, &c.); Militia Pay.
3a Savings Banks (Ireland); Weights and Measures (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses); Thames Embankment; Parochial Assessments; Companies, &c.; Confirmation of Sales, &c.; Divorce Court.
Royal Assent.—Transfer of Land; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Duchy of Cornwall Lands (Completion of Arrangements); Leases, &c. by Incumbents Restriction Act Amendment; Declaration of Title; Highways; Lunacy (Scotland); Pier and Harbour Orders
974
Confirmation; Inclosure; Elections for Counties (Ireland); New Zealand; Parochial Buildings (Scotland); Merchant Shipping Acts, &c. Amendment; Naval and Victualling Stores; Jurisdiction in Homicides; Petroleum; Sheep (Ireland); Copyright (Works of Art); Harbours Transfer; Mutual Surrender of Criminals (Denmark); Indemnity; Jamaica Loan (Settlement); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Windsor Castle (Bakehouse).

PIRACY IN THE INDIAN ARCHIPELAGO.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, he desired to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to an extract from a newspaper called the Singapore Free Press, which related to a transaction of considerable interest and some importance; so much so, that seeing the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty in his place, he took the opportunity of making an inquiry on the subject. The Singapore Free Press made the following statement:—
  "The Sarawak screw steamer Rainbow, Captain Hewat, which arrived here on the morning of the 2nd current, from Sarawak, brings us tidings of six of the large Llanun pirate prahus that have of late been doing so much mischief on the coasts of Celebes, Borneo, and Java, and which managed to elude the vigilance of all the war steamers sent out by the Dutch authorities in search of them. A condign punishment has, however, overtaken them, and probably at a moment when they thought themselves beyond that part of their route where danger of opposition was to be looked for. To Captain Brooke and his small force is due the sole credit of having given the only effectual check of late years to the career of these formidable pirates, who for some seasons past have been making desolating cruises throughout the Archipelago, in spite of the exertions of the Dutch men-of-war, and with entire forbearance towards them on the part of the British navy."
  The noble Lord, having related the particulars of the destruction by the Rainbow of a squadron of six pirate boats, which had taken several prisoners from Muka and the neighbouring villages, read the following passage from the Free Press:—
  "The rescued prisoners state that another Llanun squadron, consisting of five boats, separated from the one destroyed, and went in the direction of Billiton and Banca, and it would, no doubt, soon make its appearance among the islands in the China Sea, and on the coast of Borneo. Her Majesty's steam-ship Scout, now in this harbour, ought at once to proceed in search of this squadron, and do something to relieve the English navy from the slur which the continued apathy of naval authorities to the existence of the Llanun piracy so near our doors is calculated to bring upon it. All honour to the little Rainbow and her gallant commander, Captain Hewat, and the other brave men who accompanied him."

  975
  He wished to know from the noble Duke, Whether any information had been received on the matter to which he had called attention, and what steps would be taken for the suppression of piracy in the Indian Archipelago?
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had received information with reference to the proceedings of the Rajah of Sarawak against the pirates, from an officer who had taken part in the proceedings, but the details were rather meagre. It was quite true, however, as was stated by that officer, that it was useless to attempt to overtake the pirates with a vessel of 1,400 tons, because they had vessels of very light draught, and the moment they were pursued by a vessel of war they sought the protection of the shoal water, where the large vessels could not follow; and it was necessary, therefore, that small gunboats should be provided to follow them. It was quite true that for the last two years piracy had been very rife in the Indian Archipelago, and Her Majesty's Government had called the attention of the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of Spain to the matter, with a view of organizing a proper naval force to put down piracy, and it was expected that an arrangement would shortly be come to between those Powers with that view. The only way in which that could be done was by means of a fleet of gunboats which had but a shallow draught of water. He believed that the officers upon the station had done their duty as far as they could to clear the seas of those pirates, but it must be remembered that the difficulties with which they had to contend had of late years very much increased. Hong Kong used to be the head-quarters of the Admiral, and from thence it was easy to send down ships of war against the pirates; but now the station had been removed to the northward, so as to take in Japan, and the coast to be overlooked by our naval force had considerably extended. Besides this, the necessity of affairs in China of late had withdrawn many of the small vessels which would otherwise have been employed in the suppression of piracy. He hoped, however, that in the course of a short time arrangements would be made in connection with the other Powers claiming property in the Archipelago, by which all difficulties would be removed, and piracy effectually suppressed.

VOLUNTEER FORCE COMMISSION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROsaid, that some time ago the Government were made aware that the funds of several corps of the Volunteer Force were not by any means in a sound state, and that unless they received some aid from Government there was little hope of those corps remaining in their present strength or condition of efficiency. Suggestions were made from time to time as to the mode in which aid might be afforded, but the Government paid little or no attention to those appeals; and at last a deputation waited on the Government, to request that a Royal Commission might inquire on the subject. A Commission had been appointed, but no Report was as yet forthcoming. He hoped it would be published before the end of the Session. There were one or two points on which they required reliable information. Certain departments of the Volunteer Force were not in proportion to the others. The Volunteer Engineer force, for instance, was not commensurate with the Rifle or Artillery regiments. He was also of opinion that the Artillery force should be trained to the practice of movable field guns, and not confined to mere garrison duty. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, whether the Report of the Commission had yet been received?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that although the Royal Commission had not yet sent in their Report, he believed they would do so within the next few days, and he hoped that it would be laid before Parliament before the Session closed. The noble Lord appeared to be of opinion that there had been unnecessary delay on the part of the Government in issuing the Commission. He could assure his noble Friend that that was by no means the case. It was in March that an influential deputation waited upon the Government, and the Government promised that a Commission should issue. The selection of Members was not free from difficulty, because it was desirable that the various interests concerned should be represented, while it was also necessary that the body should not be too large for practical purposes. Some little delay was unavoidable on that account; but by the 16th of May all formalities had been gone through, and on that day the Commission was issued. The first meeting of the Commissioners was on the 21st of May, and since that date they

  977
  had examined fifty-one witnesses, and 1,488 circulars had been despatched to the commanding officers of Volunteer corps, and 1,212 answers had been received. It was evident, then, that the Commissioners had evinced the utmost diligence in the discharge of their duty. If, then, the Commission should report before the conclusion of the Session, it would be impossible for any one to accuse them of want of diligence, considering both the magnitude and importance of the question with which they had to deal. Whatever might be the recommendations of the Commission, the Government could not take any step without the fullest consideration. It must not be overlooked, that if the Government should come to the resolution to propose to Parliament to give to the Volunteer force additional aid, the character of that Force would be materially changed from that by which it had been originally distinguished—which was, that it cost the country nothing. With regard to the Artillery branch of the Volunteer service, they had always been treated with peculiar favour; and while it might be desirable for the sake of drill to allow them the use of 18-pounder guns of position, he did not think Volunteers could have time to give to the complicated and difficult drill required for field artillery. The Volunteers were peculiarly adapted for garrison artillery, and he was sure their desire would be to fill that position in which they would be most valuable and useful to the country.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he could assure the noble Lord (Lord Truro) that the Commissioners had approached the subject with a very deep and strong sense both of the importance and delicacy of the question submitted to them, and were impressed with the importance of a speedy decision. In the course of two months they had examined a large number of witnesses, they had gathered a great deal of information, and their Report was agreed upon that day, and was only waiting for the filial signatures of the Commissioners. The inquiries of the Commissioners had strengthened their sense of the value of the force, and of the depth of the public spirit and the general union among all classes on which the movement was based. They had every reason to believe that that public feeling would remain unimpaired, and that, with a moderate assistance from the Government, any number of Volunteers needed might be enrolled. They had the
  978
  most satisfactory evidence, that if an emergency should arise, Volunteers might be relied upon to come forward in any numbers to accomplish still further that noble purpose for which they were originally enrolled—the maintenance of the confidence of the country in its own resources, and the exhibition to the world of a united kingdom. The services of the Volunteers in any numbers might be confidently relied on whenever the honour and interests of the country were menaced.

GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF LONGFORD.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLErose to appeal to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Leitrim) to put off a Motion of which he had given notice for returns in reference to the arming and discipline of the constabulary force in Ireland. The Notice had only been placed on the paper on the previous evening; and as the Returns could only be obtained from Ireland, he must refuse them if the noble Earl pressed his Motion at that time.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, his object was to draw the attention of the House to resolutions of the grand juries of Longford and Roscommon, finding fault with the present organization of the constabulary force, and expressing dissatisfaction at information being withheld from the justices by the police. The noble Earl then moved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for,

  1. Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Grand Jury of the County of Longford, expressing their Opinion of the Necessity that some Change should be made with regard to the Arming and Discipline of the Police in Ireland; and all Correspondence connected with that Resolution:

  2. Copy of the Informations taken by any of the Justices of the Peace for the County of Longford against William Clarke and Patrick Clarke of the County of Longford, for the alleged Crime of soliciting to Murder:

  3. Copy of the Indictment against William Clarke and Patrick Clarke for the Charges brought against them at the late Summer Assizes:

  4. Copy of the Verdict of the Jury at the late Summer Assizes for the County of Longford in the Case of "The Crown v. William Clarke and Patrick Clarke" under such Indictment:

  5. The Amount paid to the Informant Bryan Young, alias Ross, by the Police, or by any Order of the Government, either previous to or subsequent to the above Trial:

  979

  6. The Total Cost of the above Trial, either in Fees of Counsel, Expenses of Police, or any other Expenditure relative to this Trial, under whatever Heads the Money may have been paid:

  7. Copy of all Correspondence connected with this Trial.

  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he did not think that the Government would be doing its duty to the public if they published the mass of papers for which the noble Earl asked, merely for the purpose of supporting the vague charges which he was in the habit of making against the Irish police force.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMconsidered that he had done his duty in bringing the subject forward, and should always, notwithstanding the imputations the noble Duke had cast upon him, bring before their Lordships any abuses that came under his notice.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Four o'clock.