Sitting of 12 June 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Harbours Transfer.
3° Inclosure; Elections for Counties (Ireland); Elections (Ireland).

THE "CIRCASSIAN."—QUESTION.
MR. CLAYsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Fenwick), he would beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the repeated interference of United States cruisers with British vessels trading to the West Indies, and particularly to the case of the steamer Circassian in neutral waters, when bound from St. Thomas's to Havannah, and within twenty miles of that port; and what steps it is intended to take in consequence?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that as the case of the Circassian was now before the Law Officers of the Crown, he could not give an answer to the question.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.—QUESTION.
LORD DUNKELLINsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government have considered the Memorial of the Royal Atlantic Mail Company; and if they have determined on renewing postal communication between Gal way and North America?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, a representation was made by the Company, and is under the consideration of the Government. The Government have not as yet come to a decision upon the subject.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord when it is likely the House will have the decision of the Government on this question. Large expenses are being incurred in making preparations to carry out the contract in the event of its renewal.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is impossible to say beforehand what the decision of the Government on the subject may be.

LAW RELATING TO COAL MINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Government to introduce any measure to amend the Law relative to the working of Coal Mines?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, a Bill was in preparation which would be ready in a few days, the object of which would not be so much interfere with the general working of mines, as to provide for the construction of a second shaft, in cases where that was practicable.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AND QUEEN'S COLLEGES IN IRELAND. — QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the only Candidates who obtained the degree of LL.D. at the last examination of the Queen's University in Ireland were at that time Professors in the Queen's Colleges and Examiners at the University; whether Charles P. Reichel, whose name appears in the recent Report of the Queen's University, page 23, as receiving the degree of M.A. in 1861, is the same Charles P. Reichel whose name appears at page 20 of the same Report as receiving the same degree (M.A.) in 1860, and whose name appears at page 26 of the same Report as the Examiner in Latin to the same University; and whether the same gentleman has not been since 1849 a Professor in Queen's College, Belfast?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the Government had nothing to do with the granting of degrees and diplomas in any of the chartered Universities of England, Scoland, or Ireland. The granting of degrees was wholly regulated by Statute. With regard to the degrees of LL.D. at the last examination of the Queen's University, it was true that the three only persons who took that degree were professors—two at the Queen's College, Belfast, and one at Galway. But it must be remembered there were two sorts of degrees, one of which was conferred upon students and the other upon distinguished persons who had taken degrees elsewhere, and who were desirous of becoming graduates of the Queen's University in Ireland; and the gentlemen in question were of the latter class. There was a clerical error in the Report with regard to the repetition of the degree of Mr. Reichel. That gentleman took a degree of M.A., he believed, in Trinity College, Dublin, in 1860, and afterwards an ad eundem degree of M.A. was granted to him in 1861 by the Senate of the Queen's University.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DOCK ACCOMMODATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CORRYrose to call the attention of the House to the necessity of increased
  468
  accommodation for docking Her Majesty's ships of the larger classes at home and abroad. The hon. Gentleman regretted that he had been prevented from bringing forward the Motion for a Select Committee of which he had given notice for the 13th of last month, more especially as his absence from the House on that occasion had been connected with the expression of certain opinions which had been expressed on that (the Opposition) bench with respect to the amount of our Military Estimates. He wished to state that there was not the shadow of a foundation for such a report. The sole and simple cause of his absence was his inability to attend in his place in consequence of a severe cold; and finding that he could not come down to the House, he placed himself in the hands of his friends, who thought that at that already advanced period of the Session the course he was now adopting was the most advisable for him to pursue. He trusted the answer he should now receive from the Government would be satisfactory to those who concurred with him in thinking that the subject was one which deserved the earnest consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers. The question was one in which he had long felt a great interest, having taken an active part in respect of it many years ago, When he served as a Lord of the Admiralty, having the superintendence of the Department of Works, in the Government of Sir Robert Peel; but he was almost afraid, that at a time of financial pressure like the present, and when the opinion of Parliament had been expressed in favour of applying as large a portion as possible of the means available for naval purposes to the construction of an iron-cased fleet, some hon. Gentlemen might think that he had chosen a very inopportune moment for proposing the provision of further dock accommodation, and deem it to be a question of secondary importance which might he considered at a more convenient season. But he was speaking in the presence of many Gentlemen who were practically acquainted with the wants of a steam navy, and more especially of a steam navy built of iron; and he was sure they would agree with him that it was the necessity of increasing our iron-cased navy which invested the question with its most pressing importance, and that unless they took it up in time, the money spent on our gigantic ships of war would be found in the hour of need to be, perhaps, one half of it thrown away.

  469
  In confirmation of this view he would venture to read to the House the opinion of Admiral Robinson, who, in reply to a question put to him by the Chatham Dockyard Extension Committee, said—
  "I do not hesitate to say it is a national danger we are incurring in being so badly provided with dock and basin accommodation for our large steamships. After a naval engagement the country that can first repair its ships damaged in action thereby doubles its force. In that case, one ship with proper dock and basin accommodation is equivalent to two."
  He (Mr. Corry) therefore hoped the House would not think that he was occupying its time upon a matter of little moment. He had no intention whatever of imputing the smallest blame to the present Board of Admiralty. It would be extremely unfair in him to do so, considering that the deficiency in such accommodation had been accumulating for many years, during which, as Admiral Robinson said—
  "Although great efforts have been constantly made to keep pace with the increased size of our ships, yet the magnitude of the ships has gone on so much more rapidly than was anticipated, that the dock and basin accommodation, although it has been year by year increased, falls infinitely below the necessities of the service."
  He must, however, observe that although the increase in the length of ships of war within the last three years had been greater than during the previous sixty years, yet smaller provision had been made for docks and basins in the three Estimates proposed by the present Government than in any Estimates since the year 1845, when the growth of the steam navy first compelled the Government of Sir Robert Peel to give attention to the subject. Not only had a smaller amount been taken for new works, but a smaller proportion of the sum voted had been applied to the construction of docks and basins. His noble Friend would find, that in 1845, 1846 and 1847, for the two former of which years he had himself moved the Estimates, one-half the money voted for works was expended on docks and basins. In the years 1860, 1861, and 1862, the proportion had been less than one-sixth, and he confessed that this suggested two questions to his mind—first, whether sufficient importance was attached to the subject by the present Board; and, secondly, whether, by postponing works of less pressing importance, as in 1845, a much larger amount might not be applied to the construction of docks, even without any increase in the aggregate amount of the votes for works? His noble Friend
  470
  might tell him that the present Government had given sufficient proof of the importance they attached to the subject by the plan they had proposed for the enlargement of Chatham Dockyard; but he must say the Admiralty did not appear very eager to give effect to their intentions in that respect, for the Navy Estimates for this year provided only £20,000 towards that work, the entire estimate for which amounted to £900,000. Besides, however important it might be to provide basins and docks at Chatham, it was in the Channel where the want of proper accommodation for the repair of our large ships would be felt the most sensibly in the event of war, and he trusted he should not hear from his noble Friend, that the Admiralty had nothing more comprehensive in their mind in respect of the Channel dockyards than the conversion of two short docks at Devonport into one long dock, and the completion of the north dock out of the steam basin at Portsmouth—which formed part of the original plan, so long ago as the year 1846—for which works provision was made in this year's Estimates. He doubted whether it was generally known how unsuitable to our present navy our dockyards were, even at so recent a period as 1849; from which year he dated the complete success of the screw propeller as applied to the larger classes of ships of war (as instanced in the trials of the Arrogant, 46 gun frigate, and the block ships), and the great increase in their length which had resulted from it. In 1849 the length of our two longest docks was 264 feet, one at Chatham and one at Woolwich. We now had wooden frigates of 280 and 300 feet long; so that in 1849 there was no dock in existence which could contain even the largest wooden frigates of the present day. In that year there were only five docks of 240 feet and upwards in the whole of our dockyards combined, and these were all in the Medway and the Thames. The longest dock at Portsmouth was 228 feet, and at Devonport 234 feet. Since then, iron-plated ships had been built up to 380 and 400 feet, and we now had built, or building, 22 ships of the line, 25 wooden frigates, 17 iron-plated ships, 6 troopships, and 1 yacht, or 71 vessels altogether, which could not have been docked at all at Devonport or Portsmouth in 1849. In short, the reconstruction of our docks ought to have been carried on as

  471
  energetically as that of the navy itself since that period; but so slack had we been, that at Keyham, where the works were begun in 1845, one half of the north basin remained to this moment incomplete; and the Estimates for this year contained provision for a dock at Portsmouth, which formed part of the plan in connection with the steam basin adopted sixteen years ago. Before the introduction of the screw navy we had twenty-one docks for our two largest classes of vessels, thirteen for line-of-battle ships, and eight for frigates. Now we had built, building, and enlarging, nine docks of 300 feet and upwards, and one of 280 feet, the size of the Defence, which was the smallest of our sea-going iron ships. Out of these ten, four were unfinished; and it must be borne in mind, that not half of these docks would be available for the repair of casualties, such as those to which Admiral Robinson's evidence referred, as a large proportion of the docks was required for vessels undergoing thorough repairs, which frequently occupied from twelve to eighteen months, or even a longer period. The pressure of these thorough repairs had not as yet been felt in the case of our ships of the larger classes, because they were nearly all new ships; but the time was fast approaching when they would require to be repaired far more frequently, and more extensively, than the ships of our old sailing navy, because the wear and tear of steam ships was far greater than of sailing ships, and the heat of the engine rooms was known to occasion premature decay. Even iron ships were often in dock for six months at a time, undergoing extensive repairs. In respect of casualties in time of peace, the calculation was that a sailing ship would run five or six years without being docked, but that steam ships required, on the average, to be docked once a year, and iron ships once in every eight months; so that the demand for the repair of casualties also would be much greater than in former times. Only two days ago, in Portsmouth dockyard, he saw a troop-ship which had been fitted for sea only a few months ago, and had made only one voyage, and that to Ireland, yet she was now in dock and required repairs which he was informed it would take three weeks to complete. If these considerations were calculated to lead to the conclusion that our accommodation for docking our larger classes of ships was inadequate, he did not think we should have more reason to be satisfied
  472
  with it on a comparison with the resources in that respect of France. He found that in France the area of the dockyard basins was 80 acres, chiefly accessible to the largest ships at their load draught at all tides; while in England the area of the dockyard basins was only 40 acres, chiefly inaccessible to the largest ships even at spring tides. The number of docks in France, including those in progress, was 22, of which only 7 were under 280ft. in length. In England the number was 32, of which no fewer than 22 were under 280ft. Of docks measuring 400ft. and upwards there were in France 8, in England 4; 350ft. to 400ft., in France 2, in England 2; 300ft. to 350ft., in France 4, in England 3; 280ft. to 300ft., in France 1, in England 1. Total of 280ft. and upwards, in France 15; in England 10. Of docks, with 27ft. water and upwards over the sills at spring tides, there were in France 12; in England 6. France, with half our navy, had double our area of basins, twice the number of deep docks, and one-third more long docks. France, therefore, must have been unduly extravagant in respect of docks, or we unduly parsimonious. He should not institute particular comparisons, except as between Portsmouth and Cherbourg dockyards, the position of which invested them with peculiar importance for the defence or attack of this country. In Portsmouth there were two basins of 11 acres, with 25 feet 6 inches of water over the sills at high water, spring tides; in Cherbourg there were three basins of 50 acres, with 30ft. over sills at high water, neap tides, or basins deep enough every day in the year for the largest ships loaded. In Portsmouth there were 3 docks of 300ft. in length and upwards; in Cherbourg there were 6. In Portsmouth there were 2 docks with 27ft. water over the sills at high water, spring tides; in Cherbourg there were eight with 27ft. and upwards. Cherbourg, therefore, had five times the area of basins, twice as many long docks, and four times as many deep docks. Surely that was a state of things which could not be considered satisfactory, and he thought that when we were charging posterity with millions for the defence of the dockyards, we should, at least, hand down to it dockyards which should be worth defending. His noble Friend might, perhaps, say that in future iron-cased ships would not be built of such great length as the Warrior. That might be the case with re-

  473
  spect to ships intended for coast or harbour defence, but the great bulk of our navy must, as heretofore, consist of seagoing ships, fit to be sent wherever their services might be required, and combining all the conditions essential to the efficiency of a man-of-war. One of those conditions was speed, and as the enormous weight iron-cased ships had to carry required great area of midship section, the fineness of lines necessary to speed could not be obtained without great length, and it did not therefore appear to him that any great diminution in the length of our seagoing iron-plated ships was to be expected. But even if, at a great sacrifice of speed, we contented ourselves with vessels of the Defence class, of the length of only 280ft., or 100ft. shorter than the Warrior, that would not affect his argument in any way, for, in the enumeration he had made, he had included docks of 280ft. long; and he contended, that whether we built ships of the length of 280ft. or of 380ft., additional accommodation for keeping them in repair would be imperatively necessary.
  With respect to the necessity of providing docks on our distant naval stations, he should not trouble the House with any remarks of his own, as he believed his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, whose opinion would carry with it so much greater weight, would state his views respecting it before the discussion concluded. It was perfectly clear, that if we were to employ on those stations iron ships requiring to be docked at least once a year, the necessary accommodation for that purpose would be indispensable. He had endeavoured to answer by anticipation some of the objections with which he might be met; but he had no doubt that the great objection which would be made to the extension of the dock and basin accommodation he thought necessary would be one of a financial character. He did not think he would be told that our present dock accommodation was sufficient, but he would, in all probability, be asked, Where was the money for its increase to come from? In reply to such a question he would ask if additional docks were necessary for the maintenance of the efficiency of our fleet, and if an efficient fleet was indispensable to the safety of the country, had we come to such a pass that we could not afford the small additional outlay necessary to provide them? His hon. Friends who sat near him, and who had commented on the great in-
  474
  crease in the amount of the Military Estimates, had declared, at the same time, that whatever was necessary to the safety of the country ought, at whatever cost, to be provided; and he would remark, that the annual Vote for works had not participated in the general increase of the Navy Estimates. Comparing a period of comparatively low expenditure with the present, he found that in 1845–6–7–8 the average of the annual Estimates was £7,522,000; the gross sum voted in those four years was £30,088,000. The sum voted for works in the same period was £2,200,000, or more than 7 per cent of the whole amount. In 1859–60–1–2, the average of the annual Navy Estimates was £13,000,000. The gross sum voted in these four years was £52,000,000. The amount voted for works was £2,024,000, or less than 4 per cent of the gross amount of the Estimates, and actually £176,000 less than the sum voted for works in the years from 1845 to 1848 when the entire amount of the Navy Estimates was so much smaller. The disproportion would have been greater but for the Estimate for works in the year 1859, proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), which was £188,000 more than the average of the last three years. If the Government would only revert to the Estimates for 1859, and apply the £188,000 thus to be obtained to the construction of docks and basins, in addition to the sum of £70,000, which had been the average so applied in the last three years, we should have upwards of £250,000 a year available for these works, which he thought would meet the necessities of the case. He was by no means an advocate for an extravagant extension of the dockyards. He had seen plans for an extension of the works at Keyham, providing three docks and ten acres of basins, the estimate for which was £500,000; a plan for the extension of Portsmouth, giving four docks and twenty-six acres of basins, estimated to cost £750,000; and another alternative plan for works in Southampton Water, estimated at £500,000. A sum of £1,500,000 would probably provide for all he considered absolutely necessary at Devonport and Portsmouth, and at an annual expenditure of £250,000 the works might be completed in six years. When the Navy Estimates were £12,000,000 a year, surely it was absurd to say they could not afford that small addition to the amount, when it was required to give full efficiency

  475
  to the navy. He had drawn attention to the subject from a conviction of its deep importance; and he was satisfied, that if r were more generally understood, the public voice would be as loud in demanding additional docks as in the demand for additional iron-cased ships. The more we increased the latter, the greater would the necessity for the former become; and he hoped to hear from his noble Friend that the subject would be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit in future Estimates. He concluded by asking, what were the intentions of the Government as to the dock accommodation for the navy?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was glad to find that his right hon. Friend had made upon this occasion a much more moderate proposal than that of which he originally gave notice; but, nevertheless, the present proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would involve a great increase in the public expenditure. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's observations, he (Lord C. Paget) believed he could show, that though the present dock accommodation might not be so extensive as many persons considered requisite, yet, on a calm review, there was no cause for alarm as to any evil results to the efficiency of their fleet in time of war from a want of such accommodation. His right hon. Friend had referred both to the dock and basin accommodation, and of course he had drawn comparisons between the extent of that accommodation in England and France. He (Lord C. Paget) was perfectly willing to admit that the French had gone to an enormous expenditure in the construction of their dockyards, but he denied that we ought necessarily to imitate the policy which might have induced the French Government to create works of such magnitude. It might have had reasons for employing large bodies of men in its seaports as a question of public policy, quite independent of considerations of the real requirements of their navy. The French Government went to a much greater expenditure on public buildings of every kind than we did in this country. That might or might not be an advantage to France; but he believed the course adopted in England was the wisest—they only constructed great public buildings when absolutely required. Instead of creating great public establishments with a view to future wants, they were satisfied to create them according to the wants of the day. However desirable it might be
  476
  to increase the dock and basin accommodation in the dockyards hereafter, he begged the House to consider the enormous expense of the navy in every branch, and to be satisfied to confine their wants to the necessity of the moment. In comparing England with France, his right hon. Friend had omitted to notice a most important point—that nature had provided for England what she had not provided for France—namely, that in England we had a number of great ports which were themselves natural basins. The dockyard of Portsmouth was a natural basin, in which they could lay ships alongside the yard, at all times and in all seasons, perfectly safe from the weather. Again, at Devonport we had a beautiful natural basin, in which ships could lie alongside the dockyard at all times. There was scarcely a single dockyard in France in which this could be done. Cherbourg, no doubt, was a magnificent port, but ships could not lie alongside the port itself, and artificial basins had to be constructed for the purpose. In Brest and Toulon it was the same. He was not at all prepared to say that it was not a matter deserving of consideration whether we should not further increase our basin accommodation. Her Majesty's Government had not lost sight of so important a subject; and he might mention, as a proof of the attention they had bestowed upon it, the fact that in this year's Estimates they had proposed a sum for the enlargement of the basin at Keyham. His right hon. Friend was not satisfied with the progress that was being made at Chatham; but certain legal proceedings and preparations had to be gone through before those works could be proceeded with at much greater speed. The Admiralty had under their consideration a proposal made by a distinguished officer at Portsmouth dockyard for increasing the basin accommodation by the simple process of creating within the harbour a certain amount of floating wharf accommodation, somewhat similar to what was now done at Liverpool, by means of which vessels could be repaired. Considering, therefore, that France had few natural basins, and that the public works of France to supply this deficiency were on a scale much greater than was necessary for a country possessing fine natural basins like those of England, he thought it would be very unwise in the Government to bring forward any new proposal in respect of basin accommodation which

  477
  would involve any considerable expenditure beyond that adverted to. So much for the question of basin accommodation. He would next pass to a consideration of the question of docks. He readily admitted that no one was better entitled to offer an opinion upon that subject than his right hon. Friend, who had throughout his whole political life been connected with the navy, and who might fairly be called the father of many of the great works in our dockyards. His right hon. Friend was a great advocate for brick and mortar works in our dockyards; but he would remind his right hon. Friend that the moment people began to tamper with brick and mortar they never knew where their labour and their expenditure would end. His right hon. Friend had quoted Admiral Robinson to show that the country that could soonest repair its iron-cased ships after an action would conquer the seas. He had the highest respect for this opinion; but when officers like Admiral Robinson were examined before Committees, they were asked for their opinion on some particular want of the service, and not on the general question of economy or relative expenditure. If the question had been put to Admiral Robinson, whether, with Estimates of the present magnitude, it would be right to propose an addition of £1,250,000 for docks, his answer might have been different. That was a question for the House of Commons to consider. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that steam ships required docking and repairs much oftener than sailing ships. It was also true, no doubt, that owing to the destructive character of modern ordnance, a fleet would require much more extensive repairs than was formerly the case after an engagement. He would admit, moreover, that iron-cased ships would require docking much oftener than wooden vessels. He would now proceed to state to the House the exact amount of our dock accommodation, and in doing so would confine his observations to the larger class of vessels. The right hon. Gentleman had given a list of iron-cased ships, and of the docks for their reception, but he had omitted to include the docks that were building. [Mr. CORRY: No.] Then the right hon. Gentleman had made a great error in his figures. We had, irrespective of the intended enlarged dockyard at Chatham, either built or building in our dockyards, four of the largest docks, which would take in the largest class of ships. There was in addition at Chatham a dock
  478
  in which the Achilles, one of the largest class of vessels, was actually being built, but which he would not include, because there was not water in the dock to float that vessel when she was loaded. But would his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) tell him that he could not repair his ship after an action in a dock with 23 feet 6 inches of water because she drew 26 feet of water? Why, his hon. and gallant Friend would take out his guns and stores, and, having lightened his ship, would repair her in the dock. [Sir JOHN HAY: At a great loss of time and much expense.] He did not assert it would be done without inconvenience; but he thought he should astonish his naval friends when he told them the extent of our dock accommodation. There were three iron-cased vessels of the Agincourt class, 400 feet long, built or building, and three of the Warrior class, making six vessels of the first-class. There were either built or building four docks, which would take in these vessels when loaded, or nearly so, besides the dock at Chatham, which would take them in after lightening. If it were said that four docks of this size were not enough, he would ask whether it was not worthy of consideration whether the Admiralty were to go on building an indefinite number of vessels of such extreme length and difficulty of handling? This was a question that he would not enter upon at present, but he would take our whole iron-cased fleet, which he would put at twenty-five ships. Well, there were now built or building seventeen docks, which would take in these twenty-five ships, including all the classes of iron-cased ships now building or already built. [Mr. CORRY said, that the noble Lord had included the floating batteries.] If the right hon. Gentleman excluded the floating batteries from the calculation, the proportion of dock accommodation to the number of vessels was so much the greater. The question, then, was whether, looking to the present wants of the navy, these seventeen docks were not enough. At Chatham there were two docks which would take in vessels of the Royal Sovereign or the Prince Albert class. His right hon. Friend had told them that at Sheerness there was nothing; but at that place there were two docks, which would take in either the Royal Sovereign class or the Prince Albert class.
  MR. COREYexplained that he had particularly referred to iron-plated seagoing ships, such as the Defence and vessels of that class. The Royal Sovereign, cut down to the water's edge, could not be called a sea-going vessel.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETconsidered that ships of the Royal Sovereign class were perfectly fit to go to sea, and so were those of the Prince Albert class; and the right hon. Gentleman, if he came back to the Admiralty, and told the officers in command of those ships that their vessels were not able to go to sea, would greatly surprise them. He was perfectly willing to admit that those ships did not carry stores and coals suitable for service across the Atlantic; but for the purpose of going out and fighting a battle in the Channel they were just as fit as any ships in the Royal Navy. He had figures in his hand, furnished to him by the authorities at the dockyards; but, in order not to detain the House, he would only repeat that there were seventeen docks, built and building, for the general purposes of iron-cased ships. This was in addition to the new dockyard to which he had alluded, and to which the House had already agreed, at Chatham, or rather, the extension of that dockyard, in which, he believed, would be contained something like four docks. These, though they could not be counted as docks just yet, were, nevertheless, authorized by Parliament. His right hon. Friend made a great case of the usual comparison with the French docks. No doubt the French had a vast amount of dock accommodation; but, with respect to the Atlantic seaboard, the French were very little better off than the English. In their Atlantic ports the French had altogether sixteen docks. He was referring to the larger class of French docks. His right hon. Friend had told the House that the French ships could actually go into their docks at all times of the tide; but, in reality, the French had, at the present moment, only one dock in their Atlantic ports, and that was at Brest, into which their large-sized vessels could go, except at spring tides. At Havre, which was a mercantile port, he believed that additional dock accommodation was preparing. Such was the present state of the French; and, let him add, that the English were actually in the same position, for there was but one port—at Devonport—which would take in a first-class iron-
  480
  cased ship at high water in neap tides. These were matters of detail which he was obliged to go through; for, when the right hon. Gentleman alarmed the House by stating that this country was totally unprepared for anything like a European war, he thought he was bound, on the part of the Government, which had carefully considered these matters, to show that such was not the case. In considering the question of dock accommodation, and in comparing the amount possessed by this country with the amount possessed by France, the great advantage to be derived from the English commercial ports ought not to be overlooked. If the French fleets were disabled, it had nothing to fall back upon but the Government dockyards alone, for there did not exist in France great commercial ports which might be used in aid of the Government dockyards. Of all the commercial ports along the whole coast of France, it was actually only at Havre that there was at present in preparation a dock available for the great iron ships of the French navy. But what was the case in respect to England? The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) could tell the House that at Liverpool there were built and building at the present moment docks, together with other facilities, which would really count for resources to this country in the case of emergency. At Southampton there was a dock capable of taking in the Warrior. At Cork there was capacious dock accommodation; and also at other ports round the coast, besides those he had mentioned, amounting to something like fourteen or fifteen more in number. Now, let the House compare this state of things with the dock accommodation possessed by the country in former times. He did not mean to say, that if the building of these great ships should be largely developed, it might not be necessary to increase the dock accommodation, but he maintained that they now possessed both docks and ships, and there was nothing the country needed to be alarmed at. He should like to give the House a notion of what their forefathers thought requisite for the docking of their fleets. He would refer to the year 1815, because in that year the country probably had more pendants flying and ships afloat than at any other period of English history. At that time this country had 219 line-of-battle ships, and only fourteen docks capable of taking in those 219 ships, or one dock for

  481
  about every fifteen ships. He thought, then that he had shown that though at the present day the wants of the country might be greater, the Government had not neglected those wants. In conclusion, he desired to mention that there was at present a very serious question before the Government in regard to dock accommodation. At this moment they had no means of docking a vessel at Bermuda; and he thought it wise to consider of the best mode of effecting this object, and to determine whether there should be formed one of those floating docks which were deemed advantageous in places where there was little rise or fall of tide. He believed that in the colonies generally there existed no great want of docks. At Malta there was a dock which could take in the Warrior, though he believed that it required some alterations for the purpose. There was also under consideration the question of a second dock connected with great improvements at Malta. The other night the hon. Member for Birkenhead told the House that they ought to construct docks all over the world. The fact was that for this they must trust to their colonial industry, and the colonies had generally got docks. In Australia there were two docks which, though they would not take in the heaviest class of ships, were very fit for vessels of twenty feet draught of water. At Bombay there were two fine docks for vessels of a light draught, and there existed likewise docks at Singapore, Hong-Kong, Amoy, and at various other points on the coast of China, which might not, indeed, be sufficient to receive such vessels as the Achilles or Warrior, but were nevertheless large enough to take in the smaller-sized vessels. It was right that the House should be informed of these things, and also that large sums of money were being laid out at mercantile ports in enlarging dock accommodation, though the public service might not be proceeding to so great an extent, perhaps, as his right hon. Friend would wish; for the right hon. Gentleman's time at the Admiralty was looked on as the golden age, when he was the Palladio of that establishment. The right hon. Gentleman used then to go down to the Board and propose gigantic works; and in going the round of the yards, if a person asked who constructed this or that great work, he was sure to be answered "Mr. Corry." His right hon. Friend had left his mark upon all the dockyards. He
  482
  gave his right hon. Friend credit for his exertions; but he asked him now to sit down contentedly, satisfied that succeeding Governments would take pains to increase the dock accommodation wherever it might be required, and not to alarm the House by statements that this country was unfit, in the case of emergency, to assume her proper station.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty now admitted that Government were constructing a dock at Bermuda, and a second dock at Malta, though he turned into ridicule the suggestions which he (Mr. Laird) had made upon the subject of docks on a former occasion. [Lord C. PAGET: Not at all.] It was not he, but the noble Lord himself that talked of building docks all over the world. His own observations were confined to our stations abroad. As the noble Lord had made that statement, he (Mr. Laird) supposed that his representations had produced some effect, and he should not go into details upon which he should otherwise have entered. There was one point in particular to which he wished to call attention, and his views upon the subject were confirmed by those of the responsible officers of the Admiralty—the want of basin accommodation. That want had caused a great increase of cost to the country in the management of the navy, for when a ship was obliged to refit in the stream, as the men were obliged to go backwards and forwards in boats, and all the stores had to be taken out, a great part of the time was lost. So greatly were the advantages of basin accommodation valued by the merchant service, that docks had been constructed in the Thames on both sides of the river. In the evidence which Captain Washington and Admiral Robinson gave before the Chatham Dockyard Committee, they stated that the want of basin accommodation was very demoralizing to the men employed, who lost 20 per cent of their time going backwards and forwards; it added to the expense, and created great difficulty in carrying on the work. The whole basin accommodation now in all the Government dockyards was only about forty acres. And yet an enormous sum of money had been spent on those dockyards, into which they constantly saw that vessels could not enter. About £1,500,000 within a few years had been spent in patching and altering the docks. Would it not be better to see at once whether, by a judicious construction of docks,

  483
  the cost of the necessary outlay would not be repaid? He had no doubt that a proper addition to the basin accommodation, if it did not repay the whole cost in a few years, would at any rate pay a very large interest on the outlay. There were plenty of docks in the country long and wide enough, but the draught of water was not sufficient. It might be sufficient if they took the stores out—[Lord C. PAGET: Hear, hear!]—but there was no time for that. He maintained, that in order to work the navy economically, this country ought to have basins where all the necessary stores could be put on board, and where the ships could be taken in or out without lightening them. He had communicated with every public and private dockowner in the country, and he had no hesitation in saying that at this moment there were only two private graving docks in the country that would take in the Warrior, or any vessel of that class. There was one at Birkenhead, a private one, that would take in the Warrior with all her stores on board, and there was another at Southampton. On the Liverpool side of the Mersey there was one large entrance to a dock, or rather it was a lock, that the Warrior could be taken into; but she could not lie there without stopping the commerce requiring to pass into and out of the dock. He did not deny that, in case of emergency, the vessel could be placed there to be examined. He had often done this himself; but vessels could not be allowed to lie there, or else the whole trade of the port would be stopped. The entrance to the Huskisson dock at Liverpool was another of the same kind; but as for regular graving docks to receive the Warrior, there were but two in the country. Now, with regard to the question of cost for additional basin accommodation, it would not be enormous if it were gone properly about. The graving dock at Birkenhead that he had spoken of cost about £25,000, and the one at Southampton £60,000. Taking the floating basins and docks at Birkenhead as a guide, he believed that the necessary additional basin accommodation for the navy could be constructed for £25,000 to £30,000 an acre; so that a sum of £1,000,000 or £1,200,000 ought to be sufficient to double the present dock accommodation. But if they were to go on as they had done, spending £1,500,000 in patching and altering, they would be very little better off than they were at present. Looking at the change from sail-
  484
  ing to steam-vessels, and from a wooden navy to an iron one, he would still maintain that we should require a much larger extent of basin and graving dock accommodation than we had now. If we must maintain our naval superiority, as all admitted that we must, then we must also provide dock accommodation. It was what any man would do in his own business—that was the test; and what was economical for commercial men was economical for the country. He was glad to hear that a dock was to be built at Bermuda and another at Halifax, because if we were to have war with America, it would not do to bring our vessels for repairs across the Atlantic to this country. And the same remarks would apply, in case of war with France, to the convenience of docks at Malta, where we were to have two. If docks were not provided now in time of peace, the result would be that we should go into the matter when there was war, and in our haste we should spend three or four times as much money as would be necessary at present. He believed that an expenditure of £200,000 a year for five or six years, would put the country in a safe condition as regarded the Channel fleet.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that the Government had entirely altered their tone since last year with respect to the necessity for additional docks and basins. The noble Lord had spoken more like a Chancellor of the Exchequer than a Secretary to the Admiralty, and had, by confounding the two subjects of docks and basins, completely mystified the debate. In the Committee on Chatham Docks last year, of which he (Sir James Elphinstone) was a member, Admiral Robinson was asked whether he considered there was sufficient dockyard accommodation for the existing fleet; and he said certainly there was not, and added that he did not hesitate to say that the want of sufficient docks and basins was attended with national danger. The growth of ships, he said, far exceeded the growth of docks and basins, although great efforts during the last ten years had been made to keep pace with it. He also stated that the creation of a steam fleet rendered an immense amount of dock accommodation indispensable. Admiral Robinson was then asked a question as to the extent of the basin and dockyard accommodation in France; and he said the docks and basins in that country exceeded

  485
  two hundred and twenty acres, as opposed to forty acres of docks and basins in England, which, included a basin at Deptford, and another at Woolwich, which were worthless for the purposes of large ships. At Cherbourg alone there was a floating dock of fifty acres, and the whole harbour at Brest was a floating basin. The opinion of the Surveyor of the Navy, and the evidence of Captain Washington, was in favour of an increase in dock accommodation; and upon their evidence the Committee of last year recommended that the docks at Chatham should be enlarged;—and in his view of the case, the new works there would cost the country £1,000,000 before they were completed. Now, what was the position of Chatham in reference to this question? It was the opinion of every sea-faring man, that if the fate of the country should ever come to depend upon the issue of a naval battle, that battle must take place in the Channel, and in that case they ought to have a place near in which they could repair the ships which might be disabled. Now, supposing six or eight of our ships to be disabled, what would be the use of our basins at Chatham? Actions in the present day would not be like the actions of former days, for with the improved artillery, two wooden vessels in close action would not last for many minutes; and in the event of iron ships suffering, harbours for their reception ought to be very near at hand. He would look at this question from the point of view of a shipowner, and he would say that anything more reckless or disgraceful than the system pursued by the admiralty in the management of the dockyards could not be. In 1794 the East India Company were so impressed with the disadvantages of fitting in the stream, that the East India Docks were constructed, and in 1805 the West India Docks were made; and a great saving had resulted to all those shipowners who had resorted to them—an improvement which had since been followed by every mercantile community in the kingdom. As to repairing ships in the Hamoaze, it was well known that in some weathers the men could not get off the shore, or from the hulks in which they lived; and as to hulks, every Commission or Committee which had sat on the subject of the dockyards and their accommodation had denounced the system of hulks, and had recommended barracks instead, and had also strongly recom-
  486
  mended basins, in which the ships might be refitted. If the ships could be docked, the men employed would be able to live near their friends, and would learn habits of sobriety and good conduct, and be weaned from those irregularities and vices to which seamen were prone; and if this country had more dock room, there would not be the necessity which now existed for sending their ships and men to Lisbon in winter, to spend their money in a foreign country. He could not allow the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to ride off upon the platitudes and generalities with which he had overlaid this subject during this debate, without making some observations against the course pursued by the Admiralty. With regard to the Colonies, he found there was no dock room at Calcutta larger than would dock the Pylades, which he believed was a 22-gun ship. At Hong-Kong and Whampoa there was no dock, and at Bombay there was the dock in which all the old wooden ships had been built. Then at Sydney there was not dock room for a ship of more than 1,500 tons. There was not, as he had been informed, a single dock in India or New South Wales which could take in the flag-ship on the station if required. The noble Lord admitted there was no dock at Malta, Bermuda, or at Halifax, sufficient to take in the Warrior. Then where were those docks of which he had spoken? He (Sir James Elphinstone) did not know; and that being the state of the case, he should support the Motion of his right hon. Friend, and he trusted the House would hear from another Member of the Government a more satisfactory account than the noble Lord had given them.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he considered the question before the House not only one of efficiency, but of economy; because, by a judicious expenditure of money in providing dock and basin accommodation, a large amount would be saved to the public. The present system of fitting, arming, provisioning, and storing our ships in the stream was utterly absurd; and the sooner it was put an end to the better, which could only be done by having large and deep floating basins, with ample quay accommodation. When he looked across the Channel, he found that France had seen the necessity of abolishing the system; and the mercantile marine of this country had also given, it up, in consequence of the very large ex-

  487
  pense it involved. He would suppose the case—one which, he said was not unlikely to occur—of the Channel fleet comprising ten or a dozen Warriors, after cruising for a certain time, requiring to be refitted and re-coaled, and anchoring at Spithead for the purpose. What organization, he should wish to know, was provided to admit of the object being carried into effect? The probability was that the ships would have to wait for a considerable time for high water to take them into Portsmouth Harbour, where no adequate means were provided for placing coals or provisions on board. The consequence would be that the fleet would have to be divided and the ships sent, some to Plymouth, some to Chatham, others elsewhere, after a haphazard fashion, which he thought entirely inconsistent with the due maintenance of our naval power. He thought the House ought to enter into the discussion of the subject with enlarged and clear views; they should consider a proper and sufficient system for the accommodation of the navy to be a matter which touched the honour and dignity of this country, especially as they had been told, on the authority of Rear Admiral Robinson, the Comptroller of the Navy, "that with proper dock and basin accommodation, one ship would do the duty of two," and also "that the nation that could first repair its damaged ships after an action, would thereby at once double its force." He could not but admire the policy that had been adopted in France. The French had long been impressed with the great importance of this subject, and had for many years, and again quite recently, made large additions to their dock and basin accommodation; and he was afraid that our exertions in that direction could not for a moment be compared to theirs. He was glad to hear, however, that the Government had, to some extent, carried out the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) last Session. In regard to foreign stations a good deal of money would be saved in the end, and efficiency secured, by our having small establishments abroad where our ships could be refitted in the shortest possible space of time. By sending them home for repair we lost their services during many months, and, in addition, risked their being taken by the enemy in time of war. In his opinion, the great fault of the Admiralty for years past had
  488
  been the adoption of a patchwork and shifty system. The time had come when we must look ahead, and see whether we could not devise a large and comprehensive plan capable of extension to keep pace with the requirements of the service. All now admitted the necessity for additional dock and basin accommodation—the question for consideration was, where that accommodation should be provided. He was not prepared to express any very definite opinion upon that point; but, at the same time, he confessed he was surprised at the conclusion to which the Royal Commissioners had come. No one could doubt, of course, that there should be some dock and basin accommodation at Chatham; but he thought it would be unwise to spend any very large sum of money at that place. Chatham was reached through the most difficult part of the Channel, and the Medway was a narrow and tortuous river, presenting serious obstacles to the progress of large ships; and a part of the plan approved of by the Commission was to expend £45,000 in dredging that river—a sum, in his opinion, much more useful if used for the deepening of the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour. Our docks and basins should be constructed where our ships were most likely to be employed, and where they could be got ready for sea with the least possible delay. The French had constructed Cherbourg almost solely with the intention of making it a fitting dock. After an engagement in the Channel their fleet would be able to enter Cherbourg at all times of the tide, and when refitted it would be ready at once to go to sea. Our fleet, on the contrary, would have to be dispersed all over the island, and would thus be liable to be taken in detail. He trusted that no reasonable expense would be grudged for improving our position in this respect. Both efficiency and economy would be gained by a wise and liberal expenditure of money in the construction of new docks and basins.
  MR. WHITBREADdid not intend to follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) through the whole of his speech, nor would he say more of the alarming picture he had drawn of the frightful and disgraceful state of demoralization into which the British navy had fallen, owing to the practice of fitting out vessels in the stream than that he did not believe it to be accurate. The hon.

  489
  Baronet, having settled the precise spot where the naval action big with the fate of England was to be fought, had informed the House that, in consequence of the improvements made in modern artillery, a combat between a British ship and one belonging to the enemy would be so decisive that for one of the vessels dock accommodation would be perfectly useless, while for the other it would not be required. He had also stated that the tone of the Government had undergone a change in regard to the increase of dock accommodation since the publication of the Report of the Select Committee. He would like to know in what respect it was different. It would be recollected that the recommendation of the Committee was, that if more dock and basin accommodation were required, there was no place where it could be better provided than at Chatham. The Government did not delay to act upon that suggestion, but, on the contrary, submitted to the House a vote which would enable it to construct such an establishment at Chatham as would not only be superior to the best existing dock in England, but equal to anything of the kind in France. Moreover, the House had already sanctioned an extension of the basin at Keyham, which it was intended to make large enough to admit vessels of the Warrior class; and in the Estimates for the present year provision had been made for the construction of two more docks at Portsmouth, for the accommodation of the largest ships. He might state, further, that plans were now under consideration for providing a large extent of additional quay accommodation at Portsmouth, which, for all purposes of fitting out vessels, would be quite equal to basins. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) had complained that for several years past the Admiralty had been patching up existing establishments, with the view of rendering them capable of accommodating large vessels. Surely the House would not join with the hon. Member in censuring the Admiralty for pursuing so wise a policy. The last instance of the kind was at Keyham, and in this year's Estimates they had taken the sum of;£6,000 for a further increase of those docks. If the Admiralty had not taken the course of proposing the enlargement of the existing docks, but had proposed to construct new ones, and for that they must have found new Bites, and built new
  490
  factories, and provided new accommodation for the workmen and the staff. The expense of that would be enormous; whereas the cost of altering existing docks—such, for instance, as the dock at Keyham—so as to enable them to accommodate ships of the largest class, would be comparatively trifling. Something had been said by the last speaker against the selection of Chatham. That question was considered before the present Government came into office, arid the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had recorded his opinion that Chatham was the best place which could be chosen as the site of large docks and basins for the refitting of ships. It seemed to be taken for granted that the decisive action must be fought just outside the Isle of Wight. But, many years ago we had a large fleet in the Baltic. We might have a fleet there again, and he submitted that for ships coming home from the Baltic Chatham was, at least, as convenient a port as Portsmouth, or any other place in the Channel. A complaint had been made that the Government had not taken a sufficient Vote for the works at Chatham. He assured the House that the amount of work was not to be measured, in the first instance at any rate, by the sum put down in the Estimates. For some time to come the work at Chatham would consist almost exclusively of excavation, and he need hardly say that it would be done by convicts.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONthought the object his right hon. Friend had in view in raising this question would be sufficiently answered if he had reason to believe and hope that the serious attention of the Government would be directed to the subject, although he confessed he wished his right hon. Friend had been able to elicit still more distinctly something like an intention to carry out this great object hereafter. He was sorry, however, to say, that although he hoped the hon. Gentleman who spoke last was alive to the importance of the subject, the tone of the noble Lord's speech was rather more evasive than he liked to hear. If he were to render that speech into briefer and plainer English, it would amount to something like this:—"We do not deny the importance of the question, we do not deny that the subject is pressing; we acknowledge that what you propose ought to be done. But

  491
  England cannot afford to do it." Now, that was a question which the present Government ought well to consider; for if there was any financial difficulty, he could only observe that it arose from the reckless manner in which they had thrown away a portion of the resources of the country. It was for the House of Commons to take care that our great naval arm should not be weakened by improvidence of that kind. The noble Lord appeared rather to evade the merits of the question, and imputed to his right hon. Friend a desire to promote extravagance; he even ventured to insinuate that his right hon. Friend had been guilty of extravagance in former days with reference to Keyham dockyard. Now, he thought the country much indebted to his right hon. Friend for having, when in office some years ago, originated the great improvements which had been carried out at Keyham. His noble Friend would admit that it was impossible to refer to a higher authority on such a subject than the late Sir James Graham. Now, in the first instance, when his right hon. Friend brought forward the plan for enlarging Keyham dockyard, Sir James Graham was strongly opposed to it; but at a subsequent period, when Sir James Graham was again at the head of the Admiralty, he complimented his right hon. Friend, acknowledged his original error, and said the country were greatly indebted to him for what he had done; and Sir James Graham himself proceeded to add to Keyham dockyard and enlarge the basins there. The noble Lord had taunted his right hon. Friend with being the Palladio of the dockyards, and indulging his taste with colonnades and pilasters; but the fact was, his right hon. Friend had nothing to do with the colonnades and pilasters at Keyham, to which the noble Lord referred; these were added by a subsequent Board of Admiralty. But, after all, the real question was whether they ought not to provide dock and basin accommodation according to the proportions of the ships that were being built. That was a question of common sense. Who would think of buying a horse when he had no stable, or a handsome carriage when he had no coach-house? No doubt, a stable or coach-house might be hired; but the requisite dock and basin accommodation could not be hired. That accommodation, he repeated, should be according to the proportions of the ships
  492
  being built. His noble Friend rather tried to mystify the House in his statement as to the extent of dock accommodation the country at present possessed. Now, here, was the Return which had been made on the subject, and what did it show? There were two columns. The first showed what was the present dock accommodation, and the second what it would be when the proposed alterations were carried out. The test laid down was the docks which would admit the Warrior, and the number of days in each month in which that vessel could be docked at each of the Government yards. He found it ran thus—Deptford, not at all; Woolwich, not at all; Chatham, not at all; and so on. Going down the column of Dockyards till he came to Portsmouth, he found that was the only dockyard where at present the Warrior could be docked at full tide on six days during the month. At Pembroke there were twenty-four feet of water, but the Warrior drew twenty-seven feet; and when lightened, her guns and stores being removed, he believed they could not reduce her to draw only twenty-two feet, so as to get her into that dock. Now, the Warrior was afloat, the Black Prince was afloat, and they were adding to the navy as speedily as they could four other vessels of that class. The question then arose what docks had they to put them in? and it appeared that at the present moment we had but one dock capable of receiving our largest iron-plated ships. This consideration alone was enough to justify his right hon. Friend's remarks. Then as to the other column, which related to the accommodation we should have when the proposed alterations were carriedout— taking all the docks in England there would be only four, one of these being a second dock at Portsmouth, in respect to which there was a somewhat important limitation in the words noted in the Return, "any day when in the basin or when entering the basin." Thus even the prospective dock accommodation was reduced to three instead of four. Then as to basin accommodation, it should not be forgotten that we were not standing still, but retrograding. While increasing the size of our ships we were not only not increasing, but actually diminishing, our available basin accommodation. Our basin accommodation, which a few years ago at Portsmouth would take in eight of our large ships, would now, from the increased size pf our ships, only accommodate four.

  493
  He did hope that the Government would seriously take this subject into their consideration, and not be deterred by the necessary expenditure it would involve. His noble Friend had tried to alarm, the House with an exaggerated idea of that expenditure. His right hon. Friend, indeed, had mentioned the sum of £1,250,000, but it was right to point out that that expenditure would be spread over six or eight years, Mid would not add more than £200,000 to the annual Estimates.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that as the noble Lord had referred to him, he would just state to the House what had actually occurred within his experience. During the Crimean war the Black Sea fleet had to be repaired at Malta. They all had to be docked, and the necessity of docks was greatly increased by the use of steam power. The dock at Malta was one of those docks to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) so well alluded. The dock had been constructed with twenty-one feet of water over the sill, and was just long enough to take in the largest ships that were then employed in the Mediterranean. Shortly after it was constructed, it was found that steam-ships required much more dock accommodation, and it was therefore decided that the dock should be lengthened. It was lengthened accordingly, but the sill was not deepened; and the inner part of the dock being made ten feet deeper than the outer part, there was no possible means of getting ships through the shallow outer dock into the deeper inner one. The ship that he had the honour to command required to be docked at Malta in order to be repaired; and as she drew twenty-seven feet of water, it was necessary to lighten her to twenty-two feet, by taking out all her guns, her coals, her stores, her top-gallant masts, and part of her engines and machinery. The preparations for getting her into dock took a week, while the repairs she had to undergo when they did get her into the dock only occupied three hours. If that dock had been large enough, and the sill as deep as the inner part, the whole of the Mediterranean fleet could have been docked in two days. It had been said that we had 219 line-of-battle ships in 1815. But at that time line-of-battle ships did not necessarily require to be docked in order to be repaired, but it was now indispensable. An old line-of-battle ship could be hove down and repaired wherever it might be, but our
  494
  modern steam-ships were placed under totally different conditions. The only way of having those ships refitted, with convenience, economy, and despatch, was to have docks into which they could be taken while fully equipped for war.
  MR. J. H. PHILIPPSsaid, the Committee which sat last year on the extension of Chatham dockyard had confined themselves to the subject referred to them, and were not deserving of censure for not going beyond their instructions.
  MR. G. L. PHILLIPShoped that the Government would give due attention to the capabilities of Pembroke, which was most favourably situated for works of this description.
  MR. R. W. DUFFcould not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) on the time he had chosen for bringing forward a proposal to spend a million and a quarter on dock accommodation.

FORTIFICATIONS AT PORTSMOUTH.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEwished, before the Speaker left the chair, to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the non-performance of his promise with regard to the evidence taken by the Defence Commission. Before the adjournment for the Whitsun holydays he reminded that right hon. Gentleman that a copy of this evidence had been more than a week in the Library of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman undertook that it should be in the hands of Members soon after the House rose. Now, up to that evening it had not been delivered. As the right hon. Gentleman had given notice that he intended to bring the question to which that evidence referred before the House on the 23rd instant, it was extremely desirable that the evidence should be placed in the hands of hon. Members without delay. The question was a nice one, and would require a great deal of consideration. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also state whether he meant to proceed by Bill or otherwise on the 23rd instant.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he certainly was under the impression that the evidence would have been delivered immediately. The copy brought to him appeared to be in a perfect state, and he had requested that copies might be placed at once in the Library for the inspection of Members, fully believing that in a day or

  495
  two the rest would be delivered. The House, however, was aware that the printing arrangements were not under his control, but that the matter lay between the Secretary of the Commission and the printer. He was not officially responsible for the delay, but he would inquire into its cause. He proposed to take the ordinary steps for obtaining leave to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of the existing Fortifications Act; and, as that would create a charge on the Consolidated Fund, it would be necessary that he should begin by moving a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House. He would therefore, on Monday the 23rd, move such a Resolution on which to found the Bill. The words of the Resolution would appear on the paper to-morrow morning.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
(In the Committee.)
MR. MASSEYin the Chair.
(1.) £4,200, Bermudas.
LORD NAASinquired whether it was the intention to make any alteration in reference to the convict establishment at Bermuda?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there was no intention to send any more convicts there, and he believed that so far as it was a convict station it would be abanoned.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcalled attention to the large balances which were in hand in the case of most of these Votes; and asked whether, that being so, it was necessary to vote such large sums of money. On the 28th of February the balances upon fourteen Votes amounted to £102,000, while the amount asked for was £117,000. It certainly deserved consideration whether, if these balances were returned in hand on the 1st March, it was worth while to vote such large sums. With reference to this particular Vote, he thought, that as Bermuda was to be nothing more than a military garrison, £4,200 for the salary of a civil Governor, a Judge, and other officers, was needlessly large. He thought the revenue of the island should be amply sufficient to defray the civil expenses.
MR. PEELsaid, that the explanation of these balances was, that in the first instance these colonial charges were met out of the Treasury chest, and the sum voted
496
would be transferred in due course to that chest, the accounts connected with which were necessarily scattered all over the world, and could not, therefore, be very expeditiously adjusted. But what was voted for the year was no more than what was required for the year. Vote agreed to.
(2.) £6,278, Clergy, North America.
MR. BAXTERobserved, that there was £2,000 of the sum voted in 1861 still in the Exchequer, so that it seemed that there was an extraordinary system of keeping accounts. He wished to know whether it was clearly to be understood that the payments would terminate with the lives of the present recipients?
MR. PEELsaid, that the accounts of 1861 were not completed on the 28th February last, and therefore all the claims on account of that year were not yet made. It was impossible to complete the accounts sooner.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the Vote was an expiring one, and would die with the last recipient. It had at one time been as much as £21,000. In fact, since the Vote had been framed, one of the recipients had died.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £1,438, Indian Department, (Canada).
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he had last year given a sort of pledge that the supply of blankets should be discontinued. On inquiry, however, he found that these blankets were strictly in the nature of personal allowances to the Indians, and on the same footing as the pensions. There was a list of Indians above sixty years old, to whom these charitable allowances were made, but the Vote would disappear altogether with the decease of the present recipients.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £9,000, British Columbia.
MR. BAXTERreferred to the statement made on the Estimates, that one moiety of the cost of the Royal Engineers would be borne by the colony and another by the mother country, and asked whether the colony had ever, in fact, paid a farthing of the proposed contribution.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the colony had paid a very considerable sum towards the expenses of the Royal Engineers. It had defrayed a larger proportion of its military expenditure than

497
most young colonies were asked to contribute, or even than most old ones.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £55,000, Vancouver's Island.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSasked for further information beyond the words "an estimate of the sum to defray expenses consequent upon the resumption of Vancouver's Island from the Hudson's Bay Company by the Crown."
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, it was a Vote which never could appear again in the Estimates, but it was a Vote without which the Crown could not resume possession of the Island. In the grant of 1849 to the Hudson's Bay Company it was provided that the Crown should have the power of resuming possession of the Island at any time after the expiration of the licence to trade, upon payment to the Company of the actual amount which they had expended in establishments, bringing emigrants there, &c. The Company demanded a much larger sum than £55,000. There had been a great deal of negotiation between the representatives of the Treasury and of the Colonial Office and the Company. A compromise had at length been arrived at, and legal proceedings of a very protracted and expensive character had been avoided.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that however satisfactory it might be to hear that the Crown could not buy Vancouver's Island of the Hudson's Bay Company twice over, and that another Vote would not be asked for the same purpose, he still wished to know what we were to have in return for these payments, and he should also be glad to know whether any similar arrangements had been made with respect to transfer of the rights of the Company on the mainland.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he was very sorry that the Crown had been obliged to buy Vancouver's Island at any price, but it became necessary when the Government determined to form a colony at Vancouver's Island. The matter was part of the arrangement made in 1849, and every farthing of this sum had been expended by the Hudson's Bay Company—in fact, it was only the balance after giving credit for the proceeds of the sale of lands. With respect to the mainland, the claim of the Company was of a very minor character, and it had been compromised upon favourable terms.
MR. ADDERLEYinquired, whether the Company had any claim upon the mainland, and also whether the Government would furnish a Statement of Account as to this £55,000, showing what it had been paid for.
MR. CHILDERSwas afraid that the Committee could take no other course than grant the money, although it would have been better if they had had some explanation in reference to the items. The Company by their charter were entitled to be paid, not simply the value of the things existing on the Island, but the actual money which they had expended.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could only refer the Committee again to the Company's charter. The amount of the Vote represented the value of establishments handed over to the Government and the amount expended in conveying settlers from this country.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSwished to know if the whole affair was now wound up; and he also expressed his opinion that it was objectionable that they should have to vote money for carrying out emigrants, of whom he thought there must have been very few.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he must press for a detailed account.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, there were a considerable number of emigrants. He would take care that a detailed account should be prepared.
MR. CHILDERSasked, whether any conclusion had been come to as to separating the Government of Vancouver's Island and that of British Columbia.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEcould not give any positive information at present; but he could say that the subject was under consideration of the Colonial Secretary.
MR. PEASEasked, whether emigrants were encouraged by grants of land or minerals?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the land laws of Vancouver's Island and British Columbia were of a most liberal character, and were on an equality with the land laws of the adjoining territory of the United States.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSasked, whether this would be a final settlement?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that he confidently believed that this would be a final Vote. At the same time, there was a slight difference between the Government and the Company, and a claim

499
ranging between £5,000 and £10,000 was in abeyance. He did not think it would come to anything, but could not speak positively,
MR. ADDERLEYwanted to know whether, after the arrangement was concluded, the Hudson's Bay Company would still exist?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied, that the question they were now discussing in no way affected the Hudson's Bay Company's charter; but their power would cease under the agreement over all territory west of the Rocky Mountains except as a private company.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEunderstood that the Hudson's Bay Company had a legal claim upon the Government, and under those circumstances it would be a most unusual course for the House to interfere with the payment.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £25,028, Governors, &c., West Indies, and other Colonies.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSobjected to the appearance in this Vote of sums paid for the salaries of Governors of colonies having representative institutions, and called attention to the appearance for the first time of an item of £300 for the salary of the Chief Justice of the Bahamas of which, if it were not explained, he should move the omission.
MR. CHILDERScomplained of the reappearance of the charge of £3,500 for the salary of the Governor of Jamaica, which the House had been twice promised had been voted for the last time. In 1835, when a promise was given that this item should not appear on the Estimates again, it was stated that negotiations were pending with the Colonial Legislature which rendered it inconvenient that the amount should be struck out at that time. The Governors of colonies having representative institutions ought to be paid by those colonies.
MR. BAXTERreminded the Committee that the Australian colonies, with the exception of Western Australia and New Zealand, and the North American colonies, with the exception of Prince Edward's Island, paid their own Governors, and he thought it should be urged on the other colonies that they should do the same.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he very much agreed in the general principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman, as to the duty of colonies haying representa-
500
tive governments to pay their own Governors; but it must be remembered that the colonies whose Governors we were asked to pay were, with the exception of Jamaica and the Windward and Leeward Islands, colonies which were of a very poor and insignificant character, and which had until the present day suffered from serious embarrassments. With respect to the Vote for the Governor of Jamaica, he must repeat the explanation that it was of a temporary character, and would, he anticipated, in consequence of an arrangement which had been made, soon disappear from these Estimates. With respect to the other two, they were Governors-in-Chief, each having jurisdiction over some half-dozen dependencies. These dependencies having their own establishments, it would be very difficult to, obtain from them, by their several contributions, the sum necessary to pay a man of ability to fill the post of Governor in Chief. With respect to the Chief Justice of the Bahamas, the duties which that judge had to perform for his £300 a year were strictly of an Imperial character, it being his duty to check those wrecking transactions which operated so injuriously on our trade, and the existence of which was a disgrace to this country.
MR. CAVEobserved, that if the question was raised as to whether the salaries of those Governors should be made up by the House of Commons, there was this further question to be decided in respect to some of those colonies—namely, whether they wanted Governors at all? It was perfectly absurd to have the expensive paraphernalia of a Court in colonies not larger than an English parish. No doubt there were anomalies connected with the whole of this Vote; but as the Colonial Office had to deal with those colonies when they were in a state of transition, owing to the effects of Imperial policy from which they had not yet recovered, the House might look at the Vote with more favour than they would otherwise be inclined to show it. The Colonial Office had more power in those colonies than it had in larger ones; and although he admitted that, as a general rule, the appointment of Governors had of late been characterized by honesty and conscientiousness on the part of the Government; yet, if the question as to the continuance in office of the Governors were put to the colonies, while some might probably be re-elected for life, others would have no

501
more chance of maintaining their position than the Pope would if the French left Rome; and these small payments were of little account compared with the mischief which had been inflicted by misgovernment in some of these colonies.
MR. HENNESSY, in reference to the charge of £100 a year for the Chief Justice of Anguilla, remarked that the revenue of Anguilla amounted to £414; the territory was sixteen miles long and two broad; the number of the white population was under 100, yet a Court of Queen's Bench, a Court of Common Pleas, and, he believed, a Court of Chancery, were kept up in Anguilla. It was now proposed to pay the Chief Justice at the rate of £1 per head for the white population.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £10,800, Stipendiary Justices (West India Colonies and Mauritius).
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMasked for some explanation.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHremarked, that the number of convictions by the magistrates in Jamaica amounted to about the number of pounds that they received as salaries.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Vote had been gradually diminished, vacancies either not being filled up at all, or the charges on account of new appointments being- transferred to the colony. The Vote was strictly therefore of an expiring character. When these magistrates were appointed, the colonies to which they were sent out were in a state of transition from slavery to freedom. In 1835–6 their salaries amounted to £69,000; they were now reduced to £10,800.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMinquired, whether, when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary spoke of the Vote as one of an expiring character, he meant that it would expire when all the magistrates expired?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that was exactly what he did mean—that it would expire when all the magistrates died or resigned.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, a sum, not exceeding, £19,634, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa,"
MR. CHILDERScalled attention to the fact that for years past the revenue of Sierra Leone had been more than the expenditure by as much as £2,000 a year. Now, he thought under these circumstances the colony ought to bear a portion of the general expenses of the Coast.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would direct the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the subject.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcomplained of the expenses of the Gold Coast. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £2,500, half of the amount for the maintenance of forts and establishments.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £2,500, for one moiety of Repairs of Barracks and Forts on the Gold Coast, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEexplained, that though they had great influence on this part of the coast of Africa, the Government had very little dominion or taxing power. It was extremely difficult to raise any revenue by customs duties, on account of the competition of the adjoining Dutch forts; and they were obliged to ask for a small annual Vote to curry on the civil government of the territory. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
MR. TURNERthought it would be an unwise economy to cut off the small expenditure incurred in Western Africa. The trade to the Gold Coast was important and increasing, and attempts were being made to produce cotton.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGrose, pursuant to notice, to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum estimated for the expenses of Lagos—namely, £500 for the Governor, £1,000 for a pension to the ex-King Docemo, and £2,500 for contingencies. He said, that hon. Members would find, from the papers laid on the table, that in 1852 the late King Akitoye made a treaty with the British Government for the suppression of the slave trade. His nephew Kosoko took advantage of the unpopularity of this act; and, backed by the slave interest, drove the king from his throne, and took possession of Lagos. He then set England at defiance, and was deposed by the British Government. Akitoye was restored to his kingdom, and at his

503
death his son Docemo was set on his throne with the assent of the English Consul. The treaty with Akitoye was signed by Admiral Bruce, at that time in command of the squadron on the station, and as he (Sir Francis Baring) was then at the Admiralty, he had kept up his interest in the subject. This treaty had been suddenly set aside, and Lagos had been taken possession of as a British dependency. He took it for granted there had been some ground for breaking the treaty, and had looked into the papers to see whether there had been any complaint against Docemo that he had broken faith with England. He believed that by international law, where a treaty existed, due complaint must be made of any breach of that treaty before hostilities were resorted to. In the present case, however, the Government instructed Consul Foote to explain to Docemo that they were not actuated by any dissatisfaction with his conduct, "but that, on the contrary, they have every wish to deal with him in a liberal and friendly spirit." If no dissatisfaction existed with Docemo, on what ground, then, was his territory taken away from him? Here was a despatch from Consul Brand, dated "Lagos, April 9, 1860," which stated that—
"Lagos, from being a haunt of piratical slave-dealers in 1851, has, from its geographical position, and the great resources of the country adjoining, become the seat of a most important and increasing legal trade. The value of the exports, even during the past year, by no means a favourable one, is nearly £250,000 sterling."
Consul Brand, it was true, represented that the Government was not sufficiently strong, and that justice was not done, and he recommended either a protectorate or that England should annex the country. But where a trade had grown up so rapidly, it was no bad proof that things had gone on pretty well, and that complaint should have been made before such an extreme measure was taken. Consul Brand's despatch was written in 1860, and it was more than a year before the Government made up its mind to annex Lagos. Consul Brand was succeeded by Consul Foote, and it was surprising, that if the latter came to the same conclusion as Consul Brand, some despatch from him had not been given among the papers. Consul Foote, however, died, and his death was, in the opinion of Commodore Edmonstone, a very severe loss to that part of Africa, as the difficulties which had occurred
504
would probably have been removed had he been spared. But what were the grounds upon which the Government thought themselves justified in taking possession of the country? They were to be found in a despatch from the Foreign Secretary, dated June 22, 1861, and were that the Government—
"Are convinced that the permanent occupation of this important point is indispensable to the complete suppression of the slave trade in the country; while it will give great aid and support to the development of lawful commerce, and will check the aggressive spirit of the King of Dahomey."
But would the suppression of the slave trade justify the Government in breaking a treaty and seizing the property of their neighbours? If so, he did not know why they should stop there. There was an island, the possession of which everybody knew would go much further in putting down the slave trade. But would Her Majesty's Government be justified on that account in seizing on Cuba? If the United States before the late disturbances thought fit to occupy Cuba for the purpose of putting down the slave trade, would that be considered a justification? "Thou shalt not steal" was a very plain commandment, and was a particular exception to be made in favour of taking possession of Lagos with a view of putting down the slave trade? Now, taking the second reason—"It would be a great aid and support to the development of lawful commerce "—was that a ground for seizing on the country? Plainly put, the case was this—"You are my ally; I have no complaint whatever against you, but I will take possession of your country; it will be a great aid to the development of lawful commerce, and I shall therefore be perfectly justified." And then, as for checking the aggressive spirit of the King of Dahomey, what did that amount to but this—"It will greatly contribute to my overpowering the King of Dahomey if I have your territory, and therefore I am perfectly justified in taking possession of it." But there was a fourth reason—
"Her Majesty's Government would be most unwilling that the establishment of British sovereignty at Lagos should be attended with any injustice to Docemo, the present chief of the island; but they conceive that as his tenure of the island in point of fact depends entirely upon the continuance of the protection which has been afforded to him and his predecessor by the British naval authorities since the expulsion of Kosoko, no injustice will be inflicted upon him by changing this anomalous protectorate into an avowed

505
occupation, provided his material interests are secured."
That was a very dangerous doctrine to hold. In point of fact there were none of those African chiefs who were not more or less in treaty with this country, and to a certain extent under its protection. It was under the shadow of our wings, and by the power which we exercised upon the African coast, that they were defended from their enemies. Indeed, there were cases nearer home in which the doctrine of an "anomalous protectorate" would sound very oddly. He might be told that there had been a cession; but he maintained, that when all the circumstances of the transaction were taken into account, it could not be said that any voluntary assent was given by Docemo to the surrender of the territory. The facts of the case were these:—Her Majesty's Government having decided to take possession of Lagos, Captain Bedingfield, the senior naval officer on the station, brought his ship, the Prometheus, into the river. Docemo was invited to a conference on board that vessel, when he was informed of the intention of the Government to convert the anomalous protectorate into an avowed occupation, and requested to sign a treaty of cession. Not having his chiefs with him, Docemo refused to do so, and two or three days were then given him to make up his mind. Mr. M'Croskry, the acting consul at Lagos, admitted this fact; for in his despatch to the Government he said that the King had no arguments of weight to urge against the proposed cession of his kingdom to Her Majesty, but that as his chiefs were not present, he promised to lay the matter before them. A few days afterwards another meeting was held on shore, at the house of Mr. M'Croskry, who says that they saw at once that the party opposing the cession had succeeded in getting the King to refuse. The chiefs then attempted to intimidate by threats; but as Commander Bedingfield had taken measures to put down disturbance, none occurred. Docemo was then informed, that unless he had made up his mind before the 6th August, five days, formal possession would be taken of the island in the name of her Majesty. There were at first threats of opposing this by force; but the precautions taken, and especially the imposing presence of a vessel like the Prometheus, kept all quiet. Docemo then called another meeting at his house, at which he requested all the Euro-
506
peans and immigrants to be present to hear the proposals of the Government explained. At this time there was great excitement, but, owing to the admirable arrangements that had been made, no disturbance took place. What those "admirable arrangements" were, might be inferred from the circumstance that a body of English soldiers and marines, with some cannon, were landed and drawn up so as to be available in case of need. Under these circumstances the signature of the King was obtained to the treaty, some objections which he urged being met by the insertion of one or two new clauses into the instrument. In a letter dated August 8th, 1861, written after this circumstance, Docemo stated that he never intended to cede his kingdom to Her Majesty, and that he only signed the treaty "because if I do not, he (Captain Bedingfield) is ready to fire on the Island of Lagos, and to destroy it in the twinkling of an eye." One of the stipulations of the treaty was that Docemo should receive an annual pension equivalent to the net revenues of his kingdom. Those revenues were farmed for £2,000, a fact of which Mr. M'Croskry must have been perfectly well aware. It was, however, decided upon that the King should receive a pension of £1,000 a year only. He (Sir F. Baring) did not believe that Her Majesty's Government, when consenting to this arrangement, could have been aware of these facts. That they intended to take possession of the country was perfectly true, but he did not believe they would also willingly deprive the King of half his income in addition to depriving him of his sovereignty. The King also complained that his dignity had been insulted and his feelings wounded by the subsequent proceedings of the Consul. The people of Africa were not likely to be made our friends by such conduct as that which had been pursued towards King Docemo. It was bad policy, to say the least, to deprive our friends of their crowns, and to shower favours on our enemies. King Docemo had not been fairly compensated for the revenue he had lost, and it was neither more nor less than a scandal that the memorial of a person who had suffered wrong at our hands should not have received the courtesy of an answer. He entreated the Government to organize such a system at Lagos as might secure justice being exercised there, and to give the natives some means of expressing their

507
feelings and wishes. The right hon. baronet concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum estimated for the expenses of Lagos, £4,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the sum of £4,000, for the Civil Establishment of Lagos, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. GREGORYgave his cordial support to the course pursued by the Government at Lagos. The question lay in a nutshell, and the statement of the right hon. Baronet might be easily and satisfactorily answered. Lagos was the port of Abeokuto, a most flourishing portion of the African Coast, but it was a district continually threatened by the King of Dahomey, and was the resort of people engaged in. carrying on the slave trade, and Docemo, if willing, was unable to restrain them. One might have supposed, from the description of his right hon. Friend, that Lagos was inhabited by a set of Quakers most peaceable and orderly in their conduct, instead of by a number of characters intimately connected with the King of Dahomey, who was engaged in organizing and carrying on the slave trade; and he agreed in the opinion of our naval commander there, Captain Bedingfield, that our occupation of Lagos would do more to suppress that trade than all the ships we could muster along the coast. With respect to the stipulations of our Government with King Docemo, he was to retain his power so long as he acted up to his engagements; but it was perfectly notorious that those engagements with regard to the discouragement of the slave trade, on the maintenance of which his support by the British nation depended, had been violated. Docemo was perfectly unable to restrain the lawless people who were congregated in his territory, and the condition of Lagos was proceeding from worse to worse. His right hon. Friend had talked of the protest of King Docemo against deprivation; but the document to which he referred was dated August, 1861, whereas the last document on the subject was dated March, 1862, in which Consul Freeman stated that Docemo was inclined to sign, but was prevented from doing so by the Whitecap chieftains; but they were afterwards quite satisfied, and the King then signed another article, and received additional compensation. Whether he considered the occupation of Lagos as an opening for British commerce, or as the repayment of a portion of the
508
debt we owed to Africa, he entirely approved what had been done, and he sincerely hoped Government would make no change whatever with regard to the cession of that place. He looked on the occupation of Lagos as one of the links in that great chain by which the slave trade was at length to be bound and destroyed. The separation of the United States was one step in that direction; the independence of the Confederate States was another step; the treaty with the United States was another step, and the occupation of Lagos was ancillary to the same end.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he would not follow his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) in his relation of the facts of this case, as in the main he had correctly stated what had taken place. He agreed that in their dealings with the natives of Africa, as, indeed, with all the world, they should be guided by strict maxims of equity and justice; and he felt confident it would appear that they had dealt both justly and most kindly with Docemo. His right hon. Friend accused the Government of violating international law; but he had really made a great deal of a very small matter. He spoke as if the King of Lagos were the head of a great independent State, instead of a petty chief exercising doubtful authority over a few people. Some years ago Lagos was a perfect nuisance on the coast of Africa. It was the resort of all the slave-dealers on the coast, it was in alliance with the King of Dahomey in his slave-hunts and his butcheries, and the greatest outrages were perpetrated by its population. The English Government were at length compelled to interfere, and an expedition was fitted out against Lagos by the orders of his right hon. Friend, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir F. Baring). After very considerable resistance, the place was taken. It became by conquest the possession of the British Crown, if we had chosen to take it. This, however, we did not do; but we removed the then ruler, Kosoko, putting Akitoye, the predecessor of Docemo, in his place, and established a kind of protectorate. Such protectorates were always unfortunate in the result. We had all the responsibility, without any of the advantages of possession. Docemo, who shortly afterwards succeeded Akitoye, became a mere puppet in the hands of a party at Lagos. We were compelled to maintain a vessel of war there to protect our interests, and the Consul at last asked for

509
a body of troops to uphold the authority of King Docemo himself. At length Lagos became a resort of the partisans of the King of Dahomey, and a depôt for the arms and powder furnished to him to enable him to carry on the slave trade and his horrible human sacrifices. It became, at length, absolutely necessary either that Lagos should be abandoned or that we should take possession of it altogether. If we had withdrawn our man-of-war and our Consul, leaving Docemo to act for himself, he would probably have been soon expelled, the slave trade would have flourished again in all its horrors, and the Government would have been compelled to fit out another expedition against Lagos. What did we do? We knew very well that what Docemo chiefly wanted was to have his revenue secured to him. We decided to take possession, and to settle upon Docemo a fixed annual sum instead of his previous precarious revenue. His right hon. Friend was in error when he talked of the land belonging to Docemo; the real possessors of it were certain Whitecap chiefs, as they were called. When the deed of cession was proposed to Docemo, a fear arose among the Whitecap chiefs lest they were to be deprived of their rights; but their apprehensions were soon set at rest, and Docemo himself was fully satisfied when he found that a yearly revenue was to be guaranteed to him on the faith of a treaty. The petitions from Docemo, the chiefs, and various inhabitants of Lagos which had been referred to were very much alike, all being written in the same peculiar orthography and style; and there was reason to believe that they had been drawn up by some persons whose object it was to restore the previous state of things in Lagos. No doubt there were those who were dissatisfied, because they could no longer carry on the slave trade with impunity, and saw that we were determined to put down their atrocious practices. If we had abandoned the place altogether, it would most probably have fallen into the hands of the King of Dahomey. Ought we to have established a more direct protectorate over Lagos? He said that to establish a direct protectorate would be an infinitely worse course than taking possession of the island: he believed that in adopting this latter course the Government had been guilty of no injustice towards Docemo. It had been alleged that no notice had been taken
510
of his petitions, which complained that we had defrauded him of his revenue. None of those petitions touched the question of revenue—they all referred to the cession. The annual revenue that had been allotted to him had been allotted upon full investigation, and it was a fair compromise which he had himself accepted. The treaty did not specify the sum of £1,000, but a sum equal to the average revenue that he had derived from Lagos before the cession. He was not aware of a single remonstrance by Docemo in regard to the sum fixed upon; if such a remonstrance had been received by the Government, it would have been referred for consideration to their representative on the spot. The only desire of the Government had been to treat Docemo justly and fairly, and he would be much happier and his position much better under the arrangement that had been come to, than if we had left him to his fate. There was not a single civil or naval officer of any authority in African matters who did not entirely approve the policy of the Government. The possession of Lagos gave us the command of that vast system of lagoons and internal waters which skirted the coast of Africa, and enabled the slaver to defy our efforts by sea to check his operation. By means of our control over that island, and of the treaty recently concluded with the United States, we had secured the greatest facilities for the effectual suppression of that abominable traffic in the Bight of Benin. He thought that the British Government could not be accused of having acted unjustly to King Docemo, whilst they had taken a most important step towards the ultimate destruction of the slave trade on the eastern coast of Africa.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, the petitions from King Docemo were drawn up by that Prince's own secretary. The Under Secretary of State said he had not heard of any complaint from King Docemo on account of his compensation, but there was a great deal that was quite true which did not appear to reach the hon. Gentleman. The complaint was made to Governor Freeman, and no attention was paid to it.
MR. FREELANDsaid, that the sneers of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the arguments of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) were, he thought, much out of place. The Under Secretary had sneered at the idea of ap-

511
plying the principles of international law to the case of a petty African Prince. But surely the smaller and the weaker the State concerned, the more important it was that a Government like that of England should respect, as far as possible, its independence, and endeavour conscientiously to apply the same principles to it as they would apply in their intercourse with a more powerful community. Though most anxious to see the slave trade suppressed, he should feel great difficulty in supporting the present Vote, unless the Under Secretary of State gave some further explanation of the remarks which he had made.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) £5,923, St. Helena;
(10.) £700, Orange River Territory, agreed to.
(11.) 10,000, British Kaffraria.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked, why this Vote was necessary, seeing that there was £41,000 of credits in the Exchequer on the 1st of April last.
MR. PEELsaid, the £41,000 had been spent, and further claims had been made on the Treasury.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked for a further explanation of the Vote.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he hoped that this was the last, or at any rate the last instalment but one, of a series of Votes, to meet a grant of £40,000 voted in aid of British Kaffraria. It had been intended not to ask for this sum; but when the proposal was notified to the Governor of the colony, so strong a protest was made, accompanied by detailed statements, that the Government thought it right to ask for this sum.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEwas glad to hear that there was a prospect of the speedy termination of this charge. At any rate, the Vote was a less evil than the possible expenses of another Kaffir war.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, a hope had been held out last year that the Vote would never be asked for again.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £79,193, British Kaffraria.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked for an explanation of this Vote, a large portion of which seemed to have been advanced without the sanction of the colonial authorities. It was stated in the
512
Estimates that out of the whole amount now asked for, the sum. of £57,420 was required "to meet the arrears due to the Treasury chest for extraordinary expenses incurred on the responsibility of the late Governor of the Cape of Good Hope to meet the emergency of a threatened Kaffir war in 1857 and in subsequent years;" and it was added that this estimate had not been previously presented, as the accounts were not sufficiently cleared up to allow of the actual amount being ascertained. He thought this a very unsatisfactory statement.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, there had been in one instance a delay of sixteen years in presenting the estimate. He wished particularly to call attention to the item of £21,772, representing sums advanced on account of the colony from 1846 to 1853. The third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which was referred to for an explanation of these Votes, did not, in point of fact, contain any such explanation. This was an audited account; but although it had appeared year after year as having been audited, and was supposed to have received a thorough examination by a Board independent of the Government, the items had been altered in the account this year, and did not correspond with those printed in former years. It was true that the difference was not large, not exceeding £150 in any one case; but the fact that any such difference existed showed the necessity of further inquiry into the mode of auditing these accounts.
MR. PEELsaid, that with regard to the several points to which the hon. Gentleman had called his attention, he had gone into them with the assistance of the Audit Board; and though it would be very difficult for him to explain intelligibly to the Committee these matters of detail, yet he could asssure them that the explanations he had received were perfectly satisfactory. The first part of the Vote referred to a sum issued for services at the Cape as long as fifteen years ago. At that time endeavours were made to obtain repayment from the colonial funds; but difficulties were made, and the subject seemed to have been lost sight of when the constitution was granted to the colony. The Committee of last Session, however, directed the attention of the Government to £21,000, portion of the amount, and suggested a settlement. Communication was in consequence had with the Colonial

513
Office; but the answer was, that it was perfectly hopeless at this distance of time to recover the advances, and under these circumstances the Government thought that the only course was to submit a Vote to the Committee of Supply. As to the other sums, they were withdrawn from the Treasury chest upon the authority of the Governor of the Cape, in excess of the sums voted by Parliament, at a time when he was apprehensive of a Kaffir war, and thought it his duty to take precautionary measures. There could be no objection to any inquiry which the hon. Gentleman might wish into the manner in which the accounts of the Treasury chest were kept.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, there appeared up to 1858–9 advances on account of British Kaffraria £23,000, but in this account the same advances were stated to be £57,000. How was the difference to be reconciled?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although the immediate point was susceptible of the explanation which had been given—namely, that the sums issued in the colonies without direct or adequate authority remained as a general charge against the chest until it was determined to which heads those issues properly belonged, yet it did not remove at all the substance of the case of his hon. Friend. The substantial question had first to be settled; and when it was determined to what head they belonged, they were placed under the year in which the issues took place under that head. He was not saying anything in censure of the conduct of the Governor of the Cape, or of any colonial Governor; but, apart from the motives which actuated them, a most material question remained to be settled—whether the Governor was or was not justified in issuing greater sums than what Parliament had voted. In such a vote as this the House of Commons was ousted of its control over the expenditure of the public money; and, moreover, the Executive Government at home was just as much ousted of its control as the House of Commons. These occurrences were liable to take place in different parts of the world, and, while crediting the local authorities with the best motives, it could not be expected that they would feel as jealous of Parliamentary privilege and control as the House of Commons. The subject was not new to the Government, and they had been considering in what mode they could prevent the recurrence of these ad-
514
vances, which involved the total failure of Parliamentary authority. He was not prepared to state in what precise form stringent instructions to those who had the control of the Treasury chest would be given, but he hoped and expected such instructions would be given as to render their recurrence impossible; and when those instructions were given, they would be laid on the table of the House.
MR. BAXTERsaid, it was important that no Governor of a colony should be permitted to go on drawing sums of money, looking to be repaid in subsequent years by Votes of the House of Commons; and he was exceedingly glad to hear that the Government were about to adopt stringent measures with a view to prevent so unsatisfactory a state of things occurring in future. He hoped this was the last Estimate of the kind that would be presented to Parliament.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—
(13.) £960, Heligoland.
(14.) £3,986, Falkland Islands.
(15.) £4,374, Labuan.
(16.) £300, Pitcairn's Islanders.
(17.) £10,834, Emigration Board.
MR. ADDERLEYcomplained that this Vote, although it had been diminished, had not been reduced to so great an extent as the House had a right to expect. If the Emigration Board was simply an agency for procuring emigrants for certain Australian colonies, in whose despatch we had no interest, why should the charge of that department be thrown upon the Imperial Treasury? Other colonies maintained emigration agents of their own in England, and he did not see why these should not also. Moreover, if the Board was to be maintained, why should it be separated from the Colonial Office, to which it ought properly to belong?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the Board had during one year only chartered thirty-three vessels, while the number of private vessels chartered was 354. It was true that to a certain extent those vessels came under the superintendence of the agents of the Emigration Board, but that duty could be equally well performed by the officers of Customs.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEthought it could not be said that the Government of this country had no interest in securing due care and protection for such of our poorer fellow countrymen as wished

515
to emigrate to the colonies, and he had never before heard dissatisfaction expressed against the Emigration Board—on the contrary, he had always heard their action referred to with satisfaction. The number of emigrants had undoubtedly diminished, but he thought it was still the duty of the Government to protect the poorer classes of emigrants who left their native country for the antipodes. The colonies, it was said, ought to take that duty upon themselves. Some of the colonies had undertaken the selection of emigrants by means of agents; but the transport of the emigrants, however selected, to the Australian colonies, was still in the hands of the Emigration Board. They chartered the vessels, and were responsible for the arrangements on board. But that was not the only duty of the Emigration Board. They exercised constant control over the great system of coolie emigration from India, China, and Africa to the West Indian colonies and to the Mauritius. They advised the Secretary of State upon all the complicated questions which arose in carrying out that system. They also administered the Passengers Act. They superintended the whole of the movements of the poorer classes of this country to the colonies; and they had many other duties to discharge in connection with the colonies, which must be performed by some Board or other. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) had asked why the Emigration Board should not be amalgamated with the Colonial Department. If that amalgamation took place, the number of clerks in the Colonial Department must be increased, and the change would not occasion much diminution of the expenditure. But he did not think it would he expedient to interfere with the constitution of the Emigration Board, which had discharged its duties as satisfactorily as any other department in the State.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHwould wish to hear some explanation from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the recommendation of the Committee.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was quite true the Committee which had considered the subject of the transport of troops and the transport of emigrants, had expressed an opinion that it would be advisable to have both those departments of transports brought into the one office; but the Colonial Office thought that there were great objections to transferring the man-
516
agement of emigration transport to the Transport Board, and, consequently, the recommendation of the Committee had not been carried into effect.
SIR HARRY VERNEYcontended, that if the transport of emigrants was conducted under the supervision of the State, the most stringent measures should be taken to secure seaworthy ships for the emigrants.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £242,971, Treasury Chest.
MR. FINLAYcalled attention to the item of £25,000 for freight of specie in aid of Treasury chests abroad, and to that of £156,147 10 s. 7d. for discount of Bills drawn at Hongkong upon Her Majesty's Treasury or on the Indian Treasury. He thought that both were too large.
MR. PEELsaid, that the first item was a charge which was governed by fixed regulations, and provided for the freight of specie to the several Treasury chests abroad. He did not think it was open to the objection made to it by the hon. Member. As to the other large items, the rate of exchange in the East involved a great loss. The net loss provided for in the Estimate arising from transactions for the supply of the Treasury chest in China, in the year 1860–1, was £217,971. It arose entirely from the difference between the value of the dollar as purchased either here or in China, and the value at which it was brought to account in the books of the Treasury chest. The only real loss, however, was in respect of the payments of the troops, because in paying them the dollar was taken at 4s. 2d.—the assumed Government par of Exchange—while the sum paid for it in China was from 4s. 7d. to 4s. 9d. This might be considered as part of the war expenses with China.
MR. DODSONsaid, the loss ought to have been inserted in its proper place— the Military and Naval Estimates.
MR. BAXTERalso thought this Vote ought to have been brought under the consideration of the Committee when the Army Estimates were before them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was nothing in reference to the Vote which came within the Army Estimates properly speaking; and when those Estimates were laid on the table, and when he made his financial statement, this matter escaped his attention.
MR. BAXTERhoped that in future more attention would be given to a Vote

517
of this sort, which was in reality one of great importance.
MR. CAIRDhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take care that the losses on the remittances to China would next year appear in the Military Estimates, for it seemed we were now likely to have another China war.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—
(19.) £1,500, Niger Expedition.
(20.) £55,000, Liberated Africans and Captured Negroes.
(21.) £10,750, Mixed Commissions, Traffic in Slaves.
(22.) £167,783, Consular Establishments Abroad.
MR. CAVEsaid, there was an increase in the charge for consular establishments in the island of Réunion above the allowance for last year. This increase they might attribute to the French. The House knew that the French were, after the emancipation of their slaves, very short of labourers in Réunion, and they smuggled large numbers of British subjects from Madras to fill the gap; but their treatment of these people was not good enough, to secure a continuance of this immigration. They then began to import negroes, with which, if it was a free immigration, we had nothing to do, and, if not, it was contrary to treaty. We could not make up our minds as to which it was; but we bribed the French to abandon it prospectively by giving them the run of the labour market of Calcutta, which was far enough from Madras to prevent any evil reports having been received. He felt it his duty two years ago to protest against this treaty, feeling very strongly that we should lose all control over those people so soon as they had passed from beneath our flag. The noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs assured him that every care would be taken that the obligations entered into by the French were strictly carried out. The French lost no time in securing the benefit of the treaty, for they sent twenty-eight ship-loads of emigrants from Calcutta to Réunion last season, or more than went to the whole British West Indies. He had heard rumours that there had been abuses even in the embarkation and transit. He had heard also that Her Majesty's Government confessed that no real control could be exercised by the Consul. If not, then it was monstrous to put more trust in the
518
Frenchmen than in our own colonists, and to subject the latter to a system of checks and supervisions, of which he did not complain, but from which the foreigner was free. He did not object to this additional allowance, which was probably necessary in so expensive a place as Réunion, if it was of any use incurring the charge at all. Under such circumstances, he had a right to ask whether any reports had been received from the Consul at Réunion. If not, or if they were unfavourable, then the best course would be to give notice to terminate the treaty, to recall the Consul; and as we had lost this opportunity, as well as that of the commercial treaty, of obtaining from France the same concession with regard to the right of search which we had happily obtained from America, we had better leave France to share with Spain the disgrace of perpetuating the slave trade; but let us not help her to supplement her importation of kidnapped Africans with British subjects from India. He would therefore put the Question of which he had given notice, Whether any report had been received from the Consul at Réunion respecting the condition of the Indian labourers carried by the French to that island from Madras and Calcutta.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the fact of their having been a great mortality among the Coolies sent to Réunion by the French had been reported to the Government by Mr. Hill, our consular agent in that island, and representations had accordingly been made to the French Government on the subject. There was every reason to believe that these representations would produce an improvement both as regards the class of vessels employed and the treatment of the emigrants. An English Consul had been appointed at Réunion for the purpose of seeing that the contracts with the Coolies were faithfully carried out.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the emigration of the Coolies from India was obtained in such a way that they hardly knew whether it was voluntary or not. The mortality among them even on the voyage to Réunion was calculated to excite suspicion. The Government had been compelled to place the English Coolie traffic under strict regulations, and it was unfair the French should obtain the labourers without observing rules of the same kind. The Government of India should take great care as to the arrangements under which the Coolies left the country, and that the health and comfort of these per-

519
sons during the voyage were duly attended to. It was useless to make complaints after the immigrants arrived in the colony.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he had frequently heard it complained that the agreements made with the Coolies were never carried out. These persons were British subjects, and ought to have the same protection as the labourers imported into the English colonies. To say that the Coolies on their arrival in the island might appeal to the British Consul was perfectly useless.
MR. CAVEsaid, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had only answered half his Question, and that unsatisfactorily. We might, indeed, regulate the embarkation in India, though apparently we had not even done this, but the Consul was appointed, as he had understood, when the treaty was ratified, to see that the arrangements were properly carried out in Réunion. This could only be done by sending some one as inspector round the estates to ascertain whether the Coolies were paid the stipulated wages. Rumours were current that the contracts were not carried out, and that these unfortunate people were entirely without protection or redress.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he observed in the Estimate that in addition to a Consul, Vice Consul, and second Vice Consul at Alexandria, two new offices had been created of legal Vice Consul at £600 a year, and a law clerk at £300; and asked for an explanation.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGpointed out that the salary of Consul at Lagos at £500 was continued, although Lagos was now a British dependency. There was also a new post created of Vice Consul at Abbeokuta, with £400 a year.
MR. DODSONwished to know why the allowance to the Consul at Cologne was double what it was last year. It had been stated he performed the duties of postmaster in receiving the mail-bags. Had the correspondence so much increased? He observed that the Consuls kept at Chicago and Buffalo were still kept up, although the Select Committee stated that the necessity for these officers was very doubtful. At all events, if necessary, they were kept up for Canadian purposes.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that some time ago a legal Consul was appointed at Constantinople to settle disputes between Her Majesty's subjects, and he was found so useful that a similar appointment had
520
been made at Alexandria. Consuls could only be appointed by the Crown, and the Canadian Government had not therefore the power of appointing the Consuls at Chicago and Buffalo.
COLONEL SYKESsupposed we should now see legal Consuls appointed wherever any considerable number of Englishmen were found.
MR. LAYARDsaid, his hon. Friend had omitted to notice the distinction between Turkey and other countries.
MR. FREELANDbelieved that a memorial had been received from British residents in Constantinople with reference to the introduction of trial by jury in civil cases, and also a report from the Judge of the Consular Courts, containing his views upon the question. Would there be any objection to lay copies of that memorial and report upon the table of the House?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the Government had not yet decided what reply they should give to the memorialists. The matter had been referred to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople for his opinion; and when it was received, there would be no objection to lay the papers on the table.
MR. W. E. FORSTERwished the Committee to be distinctly told whether the regulations for the shipment of Coolies in French ships were less stringent than those which applied to emigration in British ships. There ought to be the same regard for the comfort and health of the Coolies whether they were shipped in French or English vessels.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, it had transpired in the course of the discussion that evening, that the Emigration Board in London were responsible for looking after the emigration of Coolies from India. It was their duty, therefore, it would seem, to lay down rules for the Coolie emigration in French vessels.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, the Government could not have a Consul at a place within the Queen's dominions; and as Lagos had been, without the sanction of the House of Commons, annexed to the British Crown, perhaps the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not object to omit the salary of the Consul at Lagos.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was not quite able to give an answer to the noble Lord, but he would make inquiries and let him know the result before the report was brought up.
Vote agreed to.
(23.) £86,748, Establishments in China, Japan, and Siam.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, this sum was £22,000 greater than last year, and there were six new charges for Consulates in China, which amounted to upwards of £14,000; so that the upshot of our Chinese war was, that after having expended several millions we were now to be saddled with a payment of nearly £20,000 for Consulates. What were the results of all that we had done? Our imports from China in 1857 were to the value of £11,500,000; in 1858 they were only £7,000,000; in 1859, £9,000,000; and in 1860, £9,330,000. Our exports to China were in 1857 about £1,660,000; the same in 1858; £2,500,000 in 1859; and £3,000,000 in 1860. Therefore we paid the Chinese a great deal more than we received from them, and the balance of trade was against us. He wanted to know, then, what advantage did we derive from all that we had expended upon wars with China?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the new ports in which Consulates had been established promised great results, and would be, he was convinced, of the greatest possible advantage in the way of trade.
Vote agreed to.
(24.) £35,000, Ministers at Foreign Courts.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEasked for an explanation of charges for two countries that had disappeared from the map of Europe, the Two Sicilies and Sardinia.
MR. CHILDERSwished to know how it was that the disbursements at Paris under the head of Miscellaneous Expenditure should have exactly amounted to £1,000 a year. Had they contracted for Miscellaneous Expenditure at that sum?
MR. PEACOCKEasked for explanation about the miscellaneous charges for the Turkish Embassy.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the attention of the Committee ought to be directed to the enormous expense of the establishment at Constantinople. A palace had been built, at an expense of £85,000; then a Vote for a chapel, which was at first refused, was taken, and then another Vote; and then upwards of £50,000 was spent upon consular buildings. Having expended nearly £140,000 on public buildings at Constantinople, one would have expected that the annual charge would be reduced; but it appeared to have increased in pro-
522
portion to what they had already laid out; in short, there appeared to be a total expenditure of £33,000 a year on the establishment; a few years ago it was £15,000. Then there was a house at Therapia, which had been presented by the Sultan, and on that account had to be maintained; and in consequence there was a very considerable item for boat-hire between Constantinople and Therapia.
MR. FREELANDhad, on a former occasion, called attention to the growing amount of the sums required for the repairs of the Ambassadors' residences at Constantinople. They were now asked to Vote a sum of £11,728 for extraordinary disbursements connected with the Embassy at Constantinople. This was a sum enormously in excess of the sum demanded for similar purposes in connection with any other Embassy. He thought that the whole expense of the Establishment at Constantinople ought to be thoroughly looked into.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the sum of nearly £2,000 for telegraphic messages was a large one, but the couriers who were formerly employed entailed a much heavier expense. As for the sum of £1,300 for boat-hire—if our Ambassador lived in Constantinople in summer, the expense of his residence would be much larger. But all the Ambassadors left the city in that season, and therefore the two residences were necessary. The sum for the Embassy was large, but he trusted that in time it might be reduced. As regarded the Paris expenditure, it had been thoroughly investigated at the Foreign Office, and not a shilling had been laid out which was not well accounted for. As to the question of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), the statement of expenditure was for the year 1860–1, when the Two Sicilies and the Kingdom of Sardinia were still in existence.
MR. KINNAIRDthought the expenditure ought to be compared with the trade between this country and Turkey, for a large trade could not be carried on without a commensurate expenditure on the diplomatic service.
MR. WHITEfound that this country paid five times as much for the conduct of its trade with Turkey as for the conduct of its entire trade with the United States. He was of opinion that the consular establishments in Turkey required curtailment.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that

523
the hon. Member appeared to forget that in the United States the people spoke English, and the English law prevailed; whereas in Turkey the people spoke Turkish, and the Turkish law prevailed. Consequently, it was necessary for the English Government to maintain a number of interpreters in Turkey. By agreements between the English and Turkish Governments a peculiar jurisdiction was also established in Turkey for British subjects. These things naturally caused larger expenses in Turkey.
MR. FREELANDexpressed a hope that the whole matter would be carefully considered.
Vote agreed to.
(25.) £50,000 for Special Missions, &c.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUnoticed the item of £1,500 for "inquiry into the Finances of Turkey;" and inquired whether this mission were undertaken for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country, or for the good of Turkey? The taxpayers should not be called upon to pay this sum unless they received some adequate return for it. The result was certainly satisfactory, for we had discovered that the Government of a great Empire could be carried on at an expense of only eleven millions a year, while this country had to pay seventy millions. Yet, on the other hand, this sum was virtually paid for a quasi guarantee of the Turkish loan. After the Crimean War the Turks were unable to raise money in this country without a direct guarantee from both Prance and England; while the loan of this year, on the contrary, was instantly subscribed, because it became known that our Government had investigated previously the financial resources of Turkey. This inquiry was therefore, in fact, a guarantee to the capitalists of this country. It would be well, therefore, for the Committee to take into conideration the nature and effect of these loans. He did not allude to the direct effect of such loans, in withdrawing a vast amount of money from the reproductive capital of the nation—from the capital which stimulates energy and creates wealth—and in applying it to unproductive works, to that which destroyed energy, dissipated wealth, and nourished hatred and distrust. He did not allude to this effect, but to another result far more momentous. These loans he believed to be the cause of the feverish anxiety felt at home concerning
524
the affairs of nations abroad; the origin of that meddling and interference, and that state of incipient war which always existed. Take the case of Mexico for example. Many years ago this country lent money to that republic; English bondholders held their bonds, and received a high interest because of the risk they incurred. Yet the moment that the danger became imminent, the bondholders, not satisfied with the ample returns they had already received, began to cry out; and the Government sent an expedition at a vast expense, and went to war in order to recover the money. Yet Mexican Stock had never attracted any attention in the market until the bondholders had complained, and we had begun to interfere. Then again, this year we lent £426,000 to Morocco, to enable them to pay off the indemnity to Spain. The Customs revenues of that country were mortgaged to us in return. We therefore were the mortgagees in possession of the revenues of Morocco. Now here was a casus belli far more clear than that in Mexico, of which we had already taken advantage. Hero war and expenditure loomed in the distance. If France attacked Morocco on the side of Algiers, or if Spain invaded her again on the side of Tetuan, we should have to join in the fight, in order to save our bondholders. Then, again, we lent six or eight years ago the sum of £1,600,000 to Egypt; in return for which the Viceroy secured to us an annuity of £176,000 on the revenues of the Delta. We were therefore the mortgagees of the Delta. A specific thing was mortgaged to us; and if there should ever be a breach of agreement (either because of wars with other Powers, or from other causes), we of course should seize upon that security. Now, we knew how jealous Prance has been of our influence in Egypt; so that the security for our bondholders would here oblige us to enter upon a long and disastrous war with France. There were many other loans, with which he would not trouble the Committee. This system of loans had greatly increased of late years. During the last ten years the loans of Prance alone had been increased by the sum of 168 millions of pounds; and the debts of the whole world had been augmented, during the same period, by a sum of 500 millions of pounds. The loans of the whole world now amounted to 2,074¼ millions of pounds. It would be seen, therefore, that not only was the wealth of the nation directly crippled by

525
these means; but also we had put out many millions in such a way as to bring us into contact with every Power of the world. If a debtor was in danger of impoverishment, we must interfere. If we heard of diplomatic differences, we must diplomatize. If armaments were increased, we must arm too. We thus always embroiled ourselves with other's embroilments. When war threatened, our Exchange trembled, and our capitalists forced the Government into war. He believed that this improper employment of capital was the real cause of all our meddling, and interference, and bloated armaments." and "profligate expenditure."
MR. FREELANDsaid, that they were voting large sums for an outlay arising out of their connection with Turkey. In this Vote alone no less a sum than £12,090 in the whole was asked for. He should like to know whether the reforms promised by the Turkish Government, especially those in which British subjects were interested, were being carried into effect? He particularly wished to know, whether the route from Trebizond, by way of Erzeroum to Tabrez, over which great quantities of British merchandise passed to Persia, had been improved?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reference to the Morocco loan, that all we had to do was to allow our agents there to receive a portion of the Custom-house dues, and to hand them over to the creditors of Morocco. He also denied that we had been at war with Mexico. The road to Erzeroum, to which allusion had been made, had not, he was afraid, been carried out, as ought to have been the case; but the Turkish Government would, he trusted, see the expediency of taking the matter vigorously in hand.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he was astonished at the denial made by the Under Secretary for [Foreign Affairs, that we had been at war with Mexico. He (Lord Robert Montagu) must therefore call a witness into court to prove that point. The witness should be no less a person than the noble Viscount himself. The noble Viscount, in answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), the other day, accounted for the great expenditure of this year and last year and the year before. In doing so he particularly mentioned the war with China and the war with Mexico as unavoidable
526
causes of expenditure. He made particular mention of the war with Mexico as an argument and excuse. If, therefore, the Under Secretary be right, the noble Viscount was wrong. If the noble Viscount was right, then he must correct his Under Secretary. He (Lord Robert Montagu) appealed to the noble Viscount. Then, again, the Under Secretary took exception to the word "mortgaged." If he lent money to any landholder, which was secured on the income from the creditor's lands, then the land was said to be mortgaged to the debtors. It surely, then, was a very fair figure of speech, and not by any means far-fetched, to say that the Delta of Egypt and the Empire of Morocco were mortgaged to us. We had lent £426,000 to Morocco, which was raised in 5 per cent bonds. The amount of Customs revenues collected in that country were £322,900; out of which the half (£160,000) were yearly secured to us. And yet the amount of interest and sinking fund annually due to us was only £38,000. This therefore, was excellent security. Then, again, with regard to the Egyptian loan the same may be said. He alluded to the loan of £1,600,000; in return for which £176,000 were secured to us by the Viceroy, to be paid annually out of the revenues of the Delta. The Delta was, in fact, mortgaged to our bondholders. He repeated that this system of loans embroiled us in the difficulties of others; and was a cause of our vast expenditure.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) had not stated that the Government had not taken any measures against Mexico to obtain satisfaction of our just claims; what he stated was that the claims we had made upon that Government did not apply to debts due to bondholders. The claims against Mexico had reference, in the first place, to the non-payment of certain sums which, by convention, the Government of Mexico had agreed to pay; and in the next to the restoration of a sum of 600,000 dollars which was forcibly taken from the House of our Minister. This money was under seal, and the seal was broken as he was on the point of leaving the country. Such acts as these were national injuries—a breach of faith, and an outrage for which they were entitled to demand satisfaction. He might add that it had been the invariable rule of the English Government not to undertake to require payment for British subjects who, of their own authority

527
and without any sanction by the Government, advanced money to the Governments of foreign States. These parties did so at their own risk and peril, and all the Government ever did was to give then-good offices to induce the Government to whom the money had been lent to pay; but non-payment had never been made the ground of war. If it had been the practice of the Government of England to go to war in order to obtain payment to bondholders, we should have been at war with Spain many years ago—we should have been at war with almost all the Spanish States of America, and we should have been at war with many other countries into the bargain. That, however, was not our practice, and therefore any alarm which the noble Lord might feel that we should be led into war in consequence of loans advanced to foreign Governments was entirely unfounded.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwould ask the noble Viscount whether it were not the case that the Conventions to which the noble Viscount alluded, were not entered into a very short time ago, in order to regulate the payment of the interest on a former loan, and merely grew out of that loan? He would also ask whether the 600,000 dollars were not stolen by Miramon's Government—from whom no satisfaction was required; and whether it was not the fact, that when his opponent, the popular President Juarez, came into power, then satisfaction was claimed by the noble Viscount? Juarez showed his inability to pay the sum at once, but secured the sum on public buildings; among which, he delivered over even the National Palace, as a pledge. This was stated by Sir C. Wyke, our Minister at Mexico, in the despatches laid upon the table of the House. The noble Viscount had therefore proved that the war arose out of the loan, and out of that alone. He was glad, however, to hear the noble Viscount disclaim for the future all intention to levy war in order to secure the capital of money-lenders. This statement would tend greatly to discourage the system of loans.
MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, he was glad to have the distinct declaration from the noble Viscount that the money lent to the Turkish Government was lent purely at the risk and peril of the capitalists who advanced it. It was most questionable whether the Government should give any sort of sanction or authority to any
528
trade transactions between British subjects and foreign Governments; any such proceeding was very much calculated to embroil us in war.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, when a short time ago the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated the debt of Turkey at £14,000,000, he entirely omitted the domestic debt. It appeared from the report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster that the entire debt of Turkey, external and internal, amounted to £42,000,000.
MR. LAYARDexplained, that on the occasion referred to his remarks were avowedly confined to the foreign debt of Turkey. The report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster completely verified what he then stated to the House.
Vote agreed to.
(26.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Surveying the Line of Boundary between the British and United States Territory, in the Western part of North America."
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he believed that the physical and scientific difficulties in the way of tracing the boundary between our possessions in North America and those of the United States were so great that it would he almost impossible to accomplish the work. He thought the Government should submit to the House an estimate of the entire cost of the Commission, and should also state when the undertaking was likely to come to an end.
MR. PEELbelieved, that the boundary had been traced, and that the Commissioners were now on their return home. The present Vote, added to the £60,000 voted last year, would be nearly sufficient to defray the whole expense, which could not exceed £110,000 altogether.
MR. PEASEasked, whether the United States Government had consented to the boundary so far as traced?
MR. PEELreplied, that the Commission was a joint Commission, and that the United States Government paid half the expense.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEwished to know, whether the sum now asked would practically close the account. If so, he should be satisfied.
MR. PEELcould give no such assurance; but such was his belief.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEthought that

529
his right hon. Friend near him seemed to be more easily satisfied than some of the economists who were not there. He thought the hon. Gentleman had given no assurance that there would not be a repetition of this Vote of £40,000. He would move that the Vote he reduced by £20,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Surveying the Line of Boundary between the British and United States Territory, in the Western part of North America."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that his hon. Friend had come down to the House late this evening, and he supposed must have his joke. But he supposed his hon. Friend did not mean that this boundary was not to be traced, or that people were not to be paid for tracing it. The American Government were in perfect concert with ours in this matter, and had agreed to share the expense.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wanted the noble Lord to give a pledge that the cost would not be repeated.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could give no pledge without knowing the facts to which it was to apply. He suggested that his hon. Friend should move for a report of the probable amount that would be required to complete the survey.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he would do that too.
MR. LAIRDwished to know, whether the money had been well expended? He therefore asked, whether the American Government were so far agreed with us as to the boundary?
MR. PEELbelieved they were entirely agreed with us.
COLONEL DUNNEhoped a tracing of the boundary line would be laid before the House.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEwished to know, whether the expense had been borne by both Governments.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, there was a treaty between the two Governments that there should be a boundary line. The American Government were acting with us in order to trace that boundary and prevent disputes. It was surely reasonable that it should be traced at the expense of both parties.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: — Ayes 29; Noes 46: Majority 17.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

INCLOSURE BILL— [BILL No. 130.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. PEACOCKEsuggested, that when any measure was in future proposed for enclosing any land in the vicinity of the metropolis, the attention of the House ought to be specially drawn to that fact. No one would imagine, from what appeared on the face of this Bill, that the Forest of Hainault, situated within nine miles of London, was intended to be enclosed by it. This was a matter seriously affecting the health and recreation of the poorer classes inhabiting the east end of the metropolis, and neither the House nor the Government ought to afford facilities for such encroachments.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the proceedings upon this Bill showed that these enclosures could not take place without the utmost publicity. The Bill confirmed certain orders made by the Enclosure Commissioners, which orders could only be made after due notice to the whole neighbourhood affected. In this case certain persons interested in the question had petitioned the House upon it, and their petition had been referred to a Select Committee in the same manner as if the measure had been a private one. The present arrangement had, he believed, been acquiesced in by all the parties interested. He would, however, consider the hon. Member's suggestion and communicate with the Enclosure Commissioners upon it.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

SHOEBURYNESS—EXPERIMENTS.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  LORD HENRY LENNOX, in moving for an Address for a Return showing the results of the late experiments made with Armstrong or other guns at Shoeburyness within the last six months, and specifying various particulars, said, he was surprised to find

  531
  that this simple and, at the same time, urgent Return was to be refused by the Secretary for War. A strange misapprehension had gone forth with respect to the experiments made upon the target of the Warrior, and contradictory statements had been made by high authorities as to the penetrating power of different descriptions of guns on iron plates. The accredited agents of foreign Powers had, he understood, been permitted to obtain information as to all the minutiae of these experiments, and the House of Commons alone appeared to be kept in the dark on the subject. The Return which he sought for would help to remove the uneasiness and uncertainty which now prevailed on this important matter, and he therefore begged to move for its production.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return showing the results of the late Experiments made with Armstrong or other Guns at Shoeburyness within the last six months, and specifying the charge of powder, weight of shot, and distance of object fired at; including a Copy of the diagram of the Warrior Target, showing the impact and penetration of the various shots,"
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that if there was any particular experiment as to which the noble Lord wished for information, and he would give notice of a question respecting it in the usual manner, he would answer such a question; but it was not usual for the Military Department to give a detailed Return of the results of an experiment like this. The Admiralty had not felt themselves justified in laying upon the table the report of the Iron-plate Commission which had been lately presented, and it contained detailed accounts of a series of experiments, exactly like that mentioned in the Return now asked for. He trusted that the House would not think it necessary to insist on the production of such a Return.
  MR. MONSELLthought that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the practice of the Department, for, if his memory served him, detailed accounts were laid before the House in the case of the experiments carried on with Mr. Bashley Britten's inventions. The House ought to be thoroughly informed upon everything bearing tin the question of fortification, which would have by-and-by to be discussed, these fortifications being
  532
  chiefly advocated on the ground that it was possible to make a gun powerful enough to penetrate the sides of the Warrior at a distance of 1,000 or 2,000 yards. It was therefore important to know exactly the result of the experiments carried on. There was no mystery on the subject. Foreigners went down to Woolwich day after day, and saw the whole process of manufacture. He had also been shown a diagram representing the result of the experiments; and if what he had been assured was correct, the newspaper accounts of these experiments were altogether unfounded.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Lewis) had undertaken to answer any question which might be put with regard to particular facts after due notice. But that was very different from laying before the House a detailed return such as that moved for.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that the fortifications were to be constructed with reference to a particular gun not yet made. How, then, could the House enter upon a discussion as to the expediency of constructing those fortifications if it had not the specific information now asked for? The House voted the money for these experiments, and why should it be left in the dark as to the results? He had been assured that the target had not been penetrated in the course of this experiment; that the shot had stuck in the skin; and that nobody would have been hurt on board a ship so defended. With regard to the diagram which had been spoken of, he had a photograph showing the impact of the balls upon the target. There was no secret about it, and he did not see why the Government should make one.
  On Question, the House divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 19: Majority 3.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL No.47.]

  SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. M'MAHONmoved, that the Select Committee on the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill do consist of 19 Members, and that Lord FERMOY and Mr. GEORGE, be added to the Committee.
  LORD NAASopposed the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE GREYthought special grounds ought to be shown for additional names.
  LORD FERMOTsupported the Motion.
  COLONEL DUNNEwas of opinion that the Committee should not be increased.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Select Committee on the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill do consist of nineteen Members."
  The House divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 17: Majority 9.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.