Sitting of 3 March 1862

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Wakefield, Sir John Charles Dalrymple Hay, baronet.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Merchandize Marks; Officers' Commissions.
3a India Stocks Transfer; Consolidated Fund (£973,747).

OUTRAGE ON THE ITALIAN CONSUL IN MALTA.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received that great outrage and insult was offered to the dwellings and persons of the Italian Consul and of Signor Fabrizzi, Deputy to the Italian Parliament, and other Italian gentlemen, on the occasion of the fete of St. Paul, at Malta, on the 9th and 10th February, the authors of which were presumed to be Neapolitan and Sicilian Bourbon refugees; whether the Italian Consul had previously communicated the expectation of such outrage to the Government of Malta, and had received assurances of protection for himself and his countrymen; and if so, whether means will be 'taken by the Home Government to prevent in future such an abuse of the privilege of asylum accorded to those persons upon British territory?
MR. LAYARDin reply said, that a representation had been made by the Italian Government to the Home Government as to the affair mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—namely, the outrage and insult to the persons and dwellings of the Italian Consul, Signor Fabrizzi, and other Italian subjects in Malta, by persons who were supposed to be Neapolitan and Sicilian refugees. Inquiries were directed to be made. They had not yet heard the result, but of course every step would be

913
taken for the protection of any Italian subjects who might be in Malta.

UNITED STATES AND MOROCCO.—ARREST OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE "SUMTER"—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would now beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received that the Captain of the Sumter has been arrested at Tangiers at the instance of the American Consul at Gibraltar and the Captain of the Tusco rora; and, if so, whether it is supposed that any pressure has been put on the Moorish Government by the American officials, or any infringement of the independence of the territory of Morocco has taken place in such transaction?
MR. LAYARDsaid, it appeared that an officer named Myers, of the steamer Sumter, accompanied by Mr. Tonsel, late United States Consul at Cadiz, was pursuing a voyage in a French merchant steamer, bound for Cadiz and other ports. They landed in Tangiers, and were arrested by the American Consul, who requested the Moorish authorities to give him their assistance. He did not know that any pressure had been put on the Moorish Government; because, according to the law of Morocco, a Consul had a right to arrest a subject belonging to the Power that be represented. It was on a representation to that effect by the American Consul that the Moorish authorities enabled him to arrest those persons. Her Majesty's Government had since heard that Mr. Tonsel and Mr. Myers had been set at liberty.

EXHIBITION OF 1862—ROAD THROUGH KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONTsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, with a view of relieving the crowded state of Park Lane, there will be any objection to open Hyde Park, between Stanhope Gate and Apsley Gate, for the passage of cabs while the International Exhibition is open?
  MR. COWPERsaid, Hyde Park was already so crowded with carriages on ordinary occasions that he thought there might be great reason to doubt whether the public convenience would be consulted by allowing public carriages to pass between Stanhope Gate and Apsley Gate when the great influx of additional traffic that
  914
  might be expected during the Exhibition set in. The road near Hyde Park Corner had already been widened to the full extent that the trees would permit. At present it would be difficult, to make any calculation as to the number of vehicles that would pass through Park Lane. It might be wise, therefore, to postpone any decision till they should have had some experience as to the direction which carriages would chiefly take.

LIGHT CAVALRY REGIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why the 3rd, 4th, 13th, and 14th late Light Dragoons were changed into Hussars, and whether there is any difference in the weight of their appointments; also if the Officers have received, or will receive, any compensation in consequence of the expense they have been put to by the change of uniform, and if the men of those regiments have or will receive any compensation in lieu of their old clothing?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the alteration referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been made in consequence of the Report of a Committee of Cavalry Officers, presided over by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. It consisted merely in converting four regiments of Light Dragoons into Hussars. The change in the uniform was very trifling; and in the case of privates it was principally in the stable-dress. Time had been allowed for the present clothing to be worn out before the change was to come into operation, and when that was the case it was not the custom to give compensation to the Officers. In the ease of the privates also, time was allowed for wearing out the old uniform.

RETIREMENT OF INDIAN OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, be wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, If he will lay upon the table the Report of the Commissioners who were assembled in India to consider upon what terms Officers of the Indian Army for whom no active employment could he found should be permitted to retire; and also the decision of the Home Government in reference to the recommendation of such Commissioners. In case the right hon. Baronet should refuse the Return he asked

  915
  for, he would beg to inquire of him whether he ban state the number of promotions which will be made in consequence of the retirements sanctioned by the Home Government?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not think it was desirable to lay on the table the Report alluded to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was the Report of a Commission appointed by the Indian Government. The Indian Government disapproved the Report; and all the Home Government had done was to concur in disallowing the recommendations of the Commission. The Government of India thought that a smaller retirement was desirable, and a retirement of such a character had, in the mean time, been made out by the Home Government. Their scheme was for the retirement of Lieutenant Colonels, Majors, and Captains, to the number of 300 in all. Up to the date of the last accounts, 122 Lieutenant Colonels, 83 Majors, and 30 Captains had accepted the proposal, and the Government had reason to believe that the full number of 300 would avail themselves of the retirement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had also asked him as to the number of promotions. One-half the vacant Lieutenant Colonelcies, and the whole of the vacancies in the rank of Major and in that of Captain would be filled by promotion. There had been 59 promotions to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, consequent on the 122 retirements; 83 to that of Majors—equal to number of retirements; and 30 to that of Captain, the same as the number of retirements. It would thus be seen that there had been 235 retirements and 172 promotions. The Government had reason to believe that there would be 65 more retirements of Captains; and, if so, there would be 65 promotions.
  MAJOR KNOX: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the promotions will be by seniority?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: All promotions in the Indian army are by seniority.

RETIREMENT OF BARON RICASOLI.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether he has received any confirmation of the report that Baron Ricasoli had resigned, and that Signor Ratazzi had been sent for by the King of Italy?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Her Majesty's Government have received information, which they have reason to believe it authentic, that Baron Ricasoli had tendered his resignation; that that resignation had been accepted; and that Signor Ratazzi had been commissioned by the King to form an Administration.

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

RELIEVING TROOPS IN THE COLONIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the want of system which prevails in relieving Her Majesty's Troops serving in India and in the Colonies. In the first place, he was anxious to remind the House that two years ago a Bill Was passed for amalgamating the Indian army with the Royal Army; and that on that occasion the House abolished the system of governing the Indian army that at that time prevailed. Whatever might have been the inherent defects of that system, the army of India had achieved great conquests and won great glory under its auspices on every field of battle, and had won for Her Majesty the most extensive and most magnificent empire on the face of the globe. The House took upon itself to abolish the system under which the army had accomplished those deeds, by introducing a Bill at the end of the Session, which passed through its various stages with a very small attendance of Members. The truth was, the House did not appreciate the importance of the subject, nor did it recognise an important feature of the Bill—namely, that it effected a great change in the nature of the service of the Royal Army. Previous to the Indian rebellion the Royal Army was only called on to furnish 20,000 men. After the passing of the Bill the Royal Army was called on to furnish 80,000 men. That was a great change in the nature of the service of the Royal Army. Practically it reduced the Royal Army to the condition of a colonial army. All that might be for the good of the army—he did not wish to enter into that question—but it should not have been carried into effect until the Government had been able to give full and ample ex-

  917
  planation to the House of the nature of the system which for the future it was intended to adopt. No such explanation was given. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India (Sir Charles Wood) frankly confessed that the Government had not matured their plans. He stated that a Royal Commission was sitting to draw up a scheme for the amalgamation of the Royal Indian army; and it was under these peculiar circumstances that the House of Commons decided to place implicit confidence in the Government, and to leave the details of the measure in their hands. Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State for War could not be surprised that Members should now come forward and ask how that confidence had been justified—what was the result—what, in short, was the future of the scheme and plan which the Government with reference to the service in India had finally decided to adopt? Before he proceeded further, it might be well to remind the House of the evils complained of under the old system, and what were the reasons assigned by the Government for the introduction of the Bill. The evils complained of were these. It was said that the Indian army had been in a state of mutiny; that the European troops of the Indian army had been in a state of mutiny. It was asserted, on the authority of distinguished officers who had served long in India, and who had given their evidence before the Royal Commission, that the European troops of the Indian Government had for a series of years been in a chronic state of indiscipline. It had been stated by some, that such was the effect of the climate of India on the health of officers long subject to its influence, that it rendered them less capable of employing that vigour which was necessary for strict discipline and the good of the service; and I think it was stated that no regiment of Her Majesty could serve for a longer period than ten years in India, without being seriously deteriorated, for these causes. These were the evils complained of under the old system. And what was the remedy proposed by the Government? It was stated by the Government that thenceforth reliefs should take place more frequently, and that no regiment of Her Majesty's Army should be compelled to serve for longer than ten years, either in India or in the Colonies. In the course of the discussion which ensued, he ventured to observe that however desirable such an arrangement would be, it might possibly
  918
  be found difficult to carry it into operation, for that the House of Commons, or even some Chancellor of the Exchequer, might object to vote the number of men that would be required for a standing army at home, in order to relieve so large a force as would be stationed in India every ten years; and that if those obstacles or difficulties should arise, the result would be, that Her Majesty's troops would be left for an indefinite period in India or in the Colonies, and that they would practically become local troops without any of the advantages of the local troops under the Indian Government, Now, what were the advantages enjoyed by the local troops under the Indian Government? Every officer who entered into that service knew beforehand what was the nature of the service; he knew beforehand what would be required of him; he knew that he would be required to serve for tea years in India; be knew that at the expiration of the ten years he would have two years' leave to return to Europe to renovate his health; that after the expiration of his leave he would be compelled to return to India for another ten years' service; that after that he would have again two years of leave, or if his health had suffered from the climate, he could then retire from the service with the full pay of his rank. These advantages served to mitigate the evils of long service in a tropical climate; but no such advantage was enjoyed by the troops in the service of Her Majesty. When one of Her Majesty's regiments went to India it was for an indefinite period—ten years, twenty years, thirty years. There were instances of Her Majesty's regiments being left in India for twenty-eight years. No officer, therefore, who went with his regiment to India could reasonably calculate that he would be able to return to his native country with his regiment; he must make up his mind to leave his regiment or to leave his bones in India. This was a species of cruelty that was practised by no other Government in the world. There were other Governments which had colonies in tropical climates, where they maintained large bodies of troops—for instance, the Governments of France, of Spain, of Holland—but in all cases the periods of service of the troops were always limited. It was in England alone that a contrary practice had prevailed. Did the Government assert that the practice was a good one? On the contrary,

  919
  the Government denounced the practice—they said it led to relaxation of discipline in the army. Then why had the practice been retained? It was simply a question of economy. The Ministers of the Crown had always been afraid to come to Parliament and ask for the number of men that would be required to relieve the troops in India and the Colonies at a stated period. The Duke of Wellington never was able to effect that object, although very anxious to accomplish it. Now, this he (Mr. Baillie) believed to be the only reason. He believed the Government would be anxious to relieve the troops with regularity if they had the requisite number of men; but he doubted whether they had the number of men. In order that the House might understand the question, he would just state, in the first instance, what was the number of troops now required to be stationed in India and the Colonies; secondly, what would be the force required for a standing army at home in order to relieve those troops every ten years, allowing them on their return from foreign service five years at home; and after that he would state to the House what number of troops they now had in the country to perform that service. First, take the case of India. The Secretary of State had informed the House that the number of troops fixed for India was 73,000. He (Mr. Baillie) believed this to be the lowest amount of force with which we could ever govern India with security. He knew that a difference of opinion existed on this point; but his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) who held a contrary belief overlooked the fact, that although there appeared to be 73,000 on paper, practically there were not more than 50,000 fit for active service, as an average of one-third of the Europeans would always be in the hospital. Now, would any one say that 50,000 would be too high a number to be maintained for active service in India. We had only 50,000 men in India when the rebellion broke out, and did not every one admit that the rebellion broke out solely owing to the want of a sufficient number of European troops? It should always be borne in mind in considering this subject what an enormous extent of country we bad to govern, with upwards of 180,000,000 of people and 1,200 miles of frontier, inhabited by fierce, warlike, and hardy mountaineers, always anxious for war, and always making inroads upon
  920
  us. He did not think that any one would say that 50,000 were too large a force under such circumstances. They must therefore maintain 70,000. Now, what was the force at the present time stationed in the Colonies? The House would be surprised to hear that the force stationed in the Colonies was, as well as he could calculate, upwards of 61,000. From that force, however, must be deducted the colonial troops that did not require relief, which he estimated at 8,000; leaving 53,000 men stationed in the Colonies who would require relief; and that added to 73,000 men in India would give an army of 126,000 men requiring relief. Now, what amount of force for a standing army at home would that necessitate in order to relieve the force every ten years, and allow the troops who returned from foreign service five years at home? The amount, as far as he could make it, would be not less than 112,000 men; and he would give the House the data upon which that calculation was made. In the first place, there was the relieving force, amounting to 63,000. To that should be added the Guards, 8,000; the depots, 16,000—a very small estimate; 10,000 always at sea, because, if they had to send to India every year 13,000 and bring home 13,000, there must be 13,000 for the wear and tear of the army and the men whose period of service had expired. Some persons had calculated that 15,000 men would be always at sea, but he had put it down at 10,000. There then remained a certain proportion of Artillery and Waggon Train to be maintained at home, with a certain number of men for contingencies, by which he meant a force to send out to any colony that might require it. The force necessary for these purposes he put at the very moderate number of 15,000; making a total of not less than 112,000 men if the system of relief was to be carried out. He then came to the third point. What was the force which they actually had at home at the present time? So far as he could estimate that force, not having official papers, it did not at the present time amount to 90,000 men. So that the number was less by upwards of 20,000 men than was absolutely required to relieve the men now serving abroad. He was aware that many Members of that House thought the Votes for the army of last year were too high, and no doubt many had the same opinion of the Estimates this year. It was even

  921
  said that such was the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If that really were his opinion, he ought to state to the House the calculations upon which he arrived at that conclusion. He ought to state to the House what number of men should be stationed in India and what number in the Colonies, and the period of service, as the number of men required depended upon that. Of course, if the service was for twenty years, only half the number of men would be required for relief that would be required for ten years' service. The House should bear in mind that the military establishment of this country mainly depended on the policy that was adopted with reference to the Colonies. He knew there were many Gentlemen, both in that Mouse and out of it, who believed the colonial policy of this country to be erroneous, who believed the Colonies were a burden to us, and drained the resources of this country both as to men and money, and that we should have just as much trade and commerce with the Colonies if they were altogether free and independent of us. There were others who contended that our magnificent Colonies contributed to the greatness, power, and glory of England, and that they ought to be maintained at any cost and at any price. He would not offer any opinion on that subject at present, as he was not called upon to do so; but he would say, that if the Colonies ought to be maintained, the people of England must be prepared to maintain a force adequate for their defence. Hon. Gentlemen were in the habit of going back twenty years, and comparing the amount of the Estimates then with the amount at the present day. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) did so. Did he reflect on, or did he know of, the great extension of our Colonies during those twenty years, and, consequently, the much greater demand there was now for military support as compared with twenty years ago? He (Mr. Baillie) would give a few illustrations. He first took the Colony of New Zealand. Twenty years ago we had no Colony in New Zealand. We had now not only a magnificent Colony, but there was an army there of 6,000 men, who were engaged in active hostilities with the natives, and consuming a vast amount of military stores. Fur an army of 6,000 men in a Colony they must have 3,000 men at home for their relief, so that New Zealand cost us the maintenance of 9,000 men.
  922
  Take the case of the Cape of Good Hope. Twenty years ago we had not extended our frontier as we had recently done, and now we were in contact with fierce and warlike tribes of Kaffirs, who had engaged in war with us, and not without success; and in order to defend the frontier we were obliged to maintain in South Africa at the present time double the force of twenty years ago, and in addition a force at home competent to relieve it. The colony of [long Kong had a regiment, and so had Swan River and Victoria. Take the case of the military stations in the Mediterranean. Twenty years ago the Government felt so secure of peace that they did not think it necessary to keep up the fortresses in a common state of defence, and the garrisons were reduced so low that they did not amount to 3,000 men. He remembered a Governor of Malta stating that he had not got one ordinary gunner to every five guns. The fortresses, besides, were without military stores. The Government a few years ago very wisely thought it was necessary to place these fortresses in a state of defence, considering that the preponderating power of France and the increasing power of Spain left them no other alternative. For the garrison of Malta there were now 6,000 men, at Gibraltar 6,000, and added to that must he 3,000 for the relieving force at home, so that the Mediterranean fortresses required 9,000 men more than they did twenty years ago. Take the case of Canada, the best illustration of all, for it was the most magnificent of all our Colonies, rich, flourishing, and populous. It had an independent Government of its own, and a Parliament that legislated without reference to the interests of England, as was sufficiently illustrated by the tariff that was lately passed, and which he was assured upon the highest authority was very little, if at all, better than the celebrated Morrill tariff of the United States. Twelve months ago the Government did not think it necessary to defend Canada, and only one of Her Majesty's regiments was there, and a few artillerymen; and an order was sent out to the officer commanding the artillery at Quebec to knock off the trunnions of the guns and to sell the guns for old iron. The officer who received that order was in this country now, and he very wisely took upon himself not to obey the order, and the guns were there now. Such were the views of the

  923
  Government twelve months ago. They now took a totally different view of the question, for with the entire approbation of the people of this country, they had sent 15,000 men to Canada. Nobody could suppose that force had gone to Canada for a temporary occasion; because it must be perfectly obvious, when we considered the hostile feelings of the people of the United States, when we considered the great anxiety they had always exhibited to annex Canada, and when we considered the great military force that would be at their disposal at the end of the civil war—it was obvious to every one that that force must be retained in Canada. Under these circumstances the Government might have been expected to come to the House and say that having been obliged to send 15,000 men to Canada, there must be an addition to the army of an equal number. That course they had not adopted; they had not increased the army; and the consequence would be that when the time came for relieving the troops, those troops which should go to relieve the army in India would have been sent to Canada. That was a question in which the officers of the army were deeply interested; every young officer who entered the army was entitled to know what was the nature of the service and what was required of him. He had a right to know whether he would be obliged to serve in India ten years or twenty years. And not only were the officers of the army entitled to the information, but the House of Commons were entitled to know what the intentions of the Government were, as the House of Commons, when the Amalgamation Bill passed, placed implicit confidence in the Government, and left all the details in their hands. These were the reasons which had induced him to bring this subject under the notice of the House, as it was a subject well worthy of their serious attention. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India would be prepared to give the information required, which it was his duty, and, no doubt, his wish to do. He (Mr. Baillie) had no complaint to make with regard to the Estimates. His only fear was that they were too small, and would not enable the Government to do justice to the army.
  SIR CHARLES WOODbegged to reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that the statement he had to make would prove satisfactory. It had been asked what change had been
  924
  introduced in respect to the system of reliefs in consequence of the amalgamation of the forces in India, as the present mode of relieving the Queen's troops in India and elsewhere was stated to be unsatisfactory, imposing on them hardships. When the time arrived for considering the conversion of the European regiments in the Indian Establishment into regiments of the Line, it was necessary to consider what would be the demands on the regiments, in order to know the number of battalions that should be added to the army, and the question of reliefs was carefully gone into by the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Herbert, and himself; and they also consulted various military authorities on the subject. It was quite true that there had been instances, but not recently, of regiments serving abroad for periods nearly approaching to twenty years; but it had been the great object with the military authorities to bring the system of reliefs to ten years abroad and five years at home, being about equivalent to two-thirds of the army abroad and one-third at home. In this calculation the Guards and the Cavalry were excluded, and the question was really confined to infantry. When the question of the formation of regiments of the Line from the local troops in India was under discussion, the number was determined by the consideration to which he had adverted—namely, that such a number of battalions should be formed as would enable one-third always to be at home. According to this principle, there would be fifty-six battalions of infantry in India, thirty-eight abroad in the various colonial possessions, and forty-seven at home, making 141 battalions of infantry of the Line. It was true that latterly there had been an extraordinary demand for troops in various parts of the world. A much larger force had been sent to Canada, and a larger force was also employed in New Zealand, than usual; but when the demand for men beyond the ordinary number in various places should cease, then some of the regiments would return home, and would enable that arrangement, which was a desideratum both for officers and men, of ten years' service abroad and five years' service at home, to be carried out. It was the object of the Government to attain that most desirable state of things; and he believed that there never was a period when it was more neatly approached than at present, when the numbers of battalions

  925
  at present in India was 56, abroad 45, and at home 40. Of course, circumstances might arise occasioning a temporary demand for additional regiments abroad; but, under ordinary circumstances, the arrangement he had mentioned would he the rule.

MILITARY EXPENDITURE FOR INDIA.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had given notice of a Resolution which he believed to be in the interest of the taxpayers both in this country and in India, for his objection to the amalgamation scheme was the enormous cost that would he incurred in the transport of the military backwards and forwards. His Motion was to the effect that all monies required for raising and training officers and men for service in India should be voted in that House in a separate Estimate, and repaid into the British exchequer by the Indian Government, and he suggested that the repayment should take place by monthly instalments. His proposition was supported by the highest authority, and was founded, he believed, on common sense. It had been his intention to have brought the subject before the House last Session; but he was advised by the late Sir James Graham, whom he had the honour of consulting, to wait to see if any action in respect to the matter would be taken by the Government. It had been proved that the accounts in the War Office were not kept in a state of perfection. The hon. and gallant General the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) had given notice of his intention to make a statement on the want of control on the part of that House over naval and military expenditure, He would not therefore enter into that question now, except to say that it was the clear duty of the House not to add to the difficulties in the War Department, or, by mixing up Indian with British accounts, to render quite unintelligible that which at present was far from being so clear as it ought to be. It was easy to see that the question raised was one of the greatest importance. They had imposed upon the British taxpayer during the last three years for the army a charge of forty-five millions and the greatest confusion had been created by mixing up the Indian and British accounts. The House was now called upon to vote £15,300,000 for the army, and the Estimates for the army
  926
  and navy together amounted to twenty-seven millions. He observed a remarkable and most important change in the Estimates. A sum of upwards of £900,000 on account of certain home charges for the army in India was now, for the first time, included in the estimate of military expenditure. That charge would be imposed, in the first instance, upon the British taxpayers, whom it was the duty of that House to protect, and they could be protected best by keeping the accounts separate. It was also the interest of the Indian taxpayers that the accounts should be kept separate. There had been a feeling generated in India akin to that which prevailed in the American Colonies before they separated from the mother country. The people of India held the opinion that vast home charges for military purposes were inflicted upon their country by the authorities here, and it appeared that last year they had had to pay under that head a sum of no less than £1,619,000, and it behoved that House to prove, by a thorough discussion of the Estimates, that everything in financial matters was fair and aboveboard. To the Secretary of State for India and his Council the sanction of Parliament would be invaluable, for it would enable them to resist a pressure which papers on the table showed was now brought to bear upon them, and to which they were, perhaps, sometimes obliged to yield. Mr. Laing, who might be called the Chancellor of the Exchequer of India, when addressing the Madras Chamber of Commerce in December last, and alluding to those import duties on British manufactures which many hon. Gentlemen considered so injurious, stated that relief should he looked for in a reduction of the home charges, and of Indian military expenditure. The same view was entertained by the press and the leading men in India, and if the House of Commons desired to give contentment to the people of that country it must see that the military expenses were fairly calculated. He was persuaded that an honest and straightforward conduct on the part of that House, assisted by the publicity which was always given to its proceedings and by the comments of the press, would be found the best means of preventing discontent and maintaining tranquillity and order in India. Supposing the military expenditure for India to be properly discussed and voted, the question then arose, who was to pay it? He hoped the British taxpayers would be

  927
  kept clear of that burden at least. What authority had Ministers for the feasibility of their scheme that the money voted should be repaid into the British Exchequer by the Indian Government in monthly instalments? In 1860 a very laborious and able Committee was appointed to consider the military organization of the empire. He might cite in favour of his view the opinion of every Gentleman who took part in that inquiry. The report of the Committee, which was drawn up by the late Sir James Graham, stated that the accounts as between India and the British Exchequer were in a most unsatisfactory state. Why were they in an unsatisfactory state? Simply because they were never settled. It was proved before the Committee that certain accounts were kept open for a period of five years. The Committee discovered that at the time they were sitting the accounts of the Persian war had not been closed, while those for the China war of 1856 were only settled, by a sort of compromise, in 1860. Mr. Anderson, the financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Arbuthnot, of the same department, the Accountant General, and the late Lord Herbert, all admitted, in reply to questions from Sir James Graham, that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the state of the accounts between this country and India. There were accounts kept open for years, disputed balances, and no settlements. But we had now got into a new phase of Indian accounts. The sums were enormous. Last year no less a sum than nearly a million was spent in this country on account of the Indian army. Who was responsible for that expenditure? A large portion of it was prospective—for invaliding and pensions which would fall due at some future period. Who was to look after the fair distribution of that expenditure if the House of Commons did not take the matter in hand? Mr. Anderson told the Committee of 1860 that the best mode of meeting the difficulty would be to arrange that all monies required to be expended in this country on account of the army in India should be voted by that House; that they should be issued under proper checks; that they should be repaid into the British Exchequer by the Indian Government; and that the accounts, after being audited, should be laid before" Parliament in the usual way. That was an admirable suggestion, and it could be easily carried into effect. If hon. Mem-
  928
  bers looked at the present Estimates, they would find that in no less than seven Votes they were referred to a certain note, which informed them that the sums included something relating to the Indian army. Of course, that struck at the accuracy of our own Estimates, but it also muddled up British and Indian finance in a manner which should not be tolerated for a single day. These were the grounds on which he thought his Motion might be fairly supported; and he thought this was the proper time for submitting it to the House, when they found for the first time Indian accounts muddled up with the English Estimates. Above all he thought it was but justice to the English taxpayer that he should not be charged with these payments. It was a most curious thing to find a necessity for an additional penny per pound on the Income Tax on account of India, and the import duties maintained in consequence of the charges on India in this country. He therefore did hope that the House would uphold its own character by keeping these accounts clear. Whatever control they now had over the army expenditure would be much weakened by mixing up, as a new element of confusion, British with Indian finance.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words' it is the opinion of this House, that all monies required on account of the raising, training, &c. Officers and Men for Service in India, and all other expenses connected therewith, shall be voted in this House in a separate Estimate; and that all such monies shall be repaid into the British Exchequer by the Indian Government "
  —instead thereof.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I do not at all dispute the right of the hon. Baronet to bring forward this Motion upon going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates for this year; but I think the House will see that it can have no bearing on the Estimates that are now on the table, when, in order to give effect to the Motion, these Estimates must be withdrawn and entirely recast, and considerable delay necessarily incurred for the purpose of that double operation. Therefore, whatever importance the Motion may have must be considered as limited strictly to its future operation. But I confess, if the Government had taken the course which the hon. Baronet recommends in his resolution, I should have expected to hear the hon. Baronet himself, as a financial

  929
  reformer, protest against a system so defective, and call on the House to adopt the course actually followed in these Estimates; because it is an unquestionable fact that the system which has been heretofore followed in presenting to the House the cost of the Indian military expenditure has been imperfect and anomalous. There was a charge of £60,000 for the non-effective service, which was paid into the Exchequer; on the other hand, with regard to the effective service and the Indian depots in this country, the matter was arranged between the Indian Government and the War Department. The War Department incurred the expense in the first instance, and kept a separate account. That account was presented to the Indian Government and the expense paid; but no trace of that transaction appeared in the Army Estimates. And it is an entire mistake when the hon. Baronet says that now for the first time the Ways and Means are affected and the English taxpayer is called on to advance the money. The money was as much advanced before from the British Exchequer as it will be under the present system; the only difference is that there was a transaction between the War Office and the Indian Government of which the House had no cognizance, but which is now brought under the cognizance of the House. The hon. Baronet is therefore entirely mistaken in representing the change made as a retrograde movement. It is a decided improvement on the former system. The whole expense incurred and paid out of the English Exchequer in the first instance appears in the Votes, and we make now a statement of the repayment we are to receive from the Indian Government. That repayment has been arranged on a fixed and simple principle. It admits of being liquidated according to the number of men on the Indian establishment; and there can be no dispute between the Home and the Indian Government as to the amount. Therefore it seems to me that the matter now is placed on the most simple and intelligible footing, of which this House can have no reason able ground to complain. In fact, the whole object of the Government, with a view to simplify these accounts, to make them intelligible, and bring them before the cognizance of this House, has been in a diametrically opposite direction to that described by the hon. Baronet. Their object was to place the whole military ex-
  930
  penditure in the account, and to show the set-off obtained in a gross sum from the Indian Government. What is meant by the amalgamation of the Indian and the English armies? Assuredly it means that instead of being two they are branches of the same army; and if the army be amalgamated surely the accounts should be amalgamated. It must be useful as far as our Indian depots are concerned, and the expenses in this country on account of India, that they should appear in our army accounts, I cannot admit that the smallest advantage can arise from adopting the plan recommended by the hon. Baronet. But if it were desirable that there should be such a separation between the two Estimates—that we should have one for the English army employed in India and another for the British army—I very much question whether it would be practicable. I trust, therefore, the House will not agree to the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.
  COLONEL SYKESrose to second the Motion. In the present year there were 75,899 European troops in India, and 7,629 belonging to the regiments in India in depot here making about 83,500 men. A capitation of £10 upon that number would yield a sum of £835,000; and allowing £3 10s. for the non effective service, this would give a sum of £1,132,500 transferred from India annually, and put into the English Exchequer. He thought the hon. Baronet was right in saying that the House ought to have there accounts separately, and ought to be able to trace what became of the money. When the mutiny broke out, in 1857, there were not 45,000 European troops in all India, and there were not 12,000 in active employ against the 100,000 veteran Bengal sepoys. When Oude was in rebellion, and many Native Princes were hostile, nevertheless that small body of men crushed the mutiny before the arrival of reinforcements from Europe, and in testimony of this he would read to the House the general order of the Governor General, dated the 5th November, 1857—
  "Before a single soldier of the many thousands who are hastening from England to uphold the supremacy of the British power has set foot on these shores, the rebel force, where it was strongest and most united, and where it had the command of unbounded military appliances, has been destroyed or scattered by an army collected within the limits of the North Western Provinces and the Punjaub alone. The work has been done before the support of those battalions which have

  931
  been collected in Bengal, from the forces of the Queen in China and in Her Majesty's Eastern Colonies, could reach General Wilson's army; and it is by the courage and endurance of that gallant army alone that the head of rebellion has been crushed, and the cause of humanity and rightful authority vindicated."
  Could it be possible, now that the whole of India was at our feet, and no enemy to oppose us, that we required 83,000 troops? He appealed to common sense whether that could be necessary. Of the European troops maintained in India, 7 per cent died annually, and 3 per cent were invalided; and the people of England had a right to inquire whether it was necessary to spend so much of the youthful blood and sinew of the country in India. The fact was, they had lost that confidence in themselves which they possessed when India was under the rule of the East India Company. They had it on the authority of Mr. Laing, in his letter to the Chamber of Commerce at Madras, that it was the expense occasioned by this large number of troops that necessitated an import duty of 10 per cent on the cotton goods sent from this country to India, and the imposition of an Income Tax in India; and till the European army was reduced those imposts could never be remitted. If the twenty-one nations composing our dominions in India had been inclined to shake off the British yoke, they could have done so when the mutiny broke out; and it was not therefore from necessity, but from the lust of power and patronage, that our large standing army was maintained at the expense of the tax-payers in India. His hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. H. Baillie) was mistaken in supposing that the massacres in India would not hare taken place if they had had a larger force in India at the time of the mutiny, for these massacres took place in out-of-the-way localities, which would not have been adequately protected even if they had had 200,000 European troops in the country. If the hon. Baronet divided the House he should vote with him.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Baronet, and his hon. and gallant Friend who had just sat down, objected originally to the amalgamation of the two services, and it was but natural that they should now object to the amalgamation of the accounts. But the Government, be thought, would have exposed themselves to serious animadversion if, after combining the Indian and English services, they had kept the
  932
  accounts separate. They proceeded on the more intelligible and satisfactory principle that the whole army should be treated as a single body. In that way they hoped to attain three great desiderata. Firstly, a complete and uniform management of the whole of the army in this country; secondly, that the whole of the expenditure should be submitted to the House of Commons; and, thirdly, that the accounts between the Indian army and the English Exchequer should be placed on a clear and well-defined basis. Economy, too, had been a strong inducement in adopting the amalgamation, inasmuch as several unnecessary appointments, the expense of duplicate depots, duplicate sets of officers, duplicate establishments, were by the amalgamation extinguished. By these means the vast expense of keeping up in this country a subsidiary army, distinct from the British army, would be avoided, and proper supervision and economy would be insured in appointments and establishment charges, over which it would be otherwise impossible to keep any adequate check. No difficulty could arise with the Indian Government, because there was a fixed charge per man, and there never could be any doubt as to the number of men serving there; and there never could be any doubt as to what the cost of the Indian establishment was, as there always had been under the old system. He could not conceive how any objection could be taken to the course pursued by the Secretary for War, except, possibly, that he had not carried economical principles sufficiently far; but he certainly had done all in his power to give that House direct control over the matters which formed the subject of discussion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that if he understood correctly the statements of the hon. Member who had just spoken, his constituents in the Tower Hamlets would have the pleasure of contributing their share to provide the funds for the whole Indian army, inasmuch as his proposal was, that in consequence of the amalgamation of the two armies it was the duty of the Government to bring forward the entire charge for the Indian army—he did not say whether he included Blacks as well as Whites in his proposal—for payment in this country. [Mr. AYRTON: I said the whole charge in this country in respect to Queen's troops in India, not the whole charge of the Indian army in India.] Then, if that were the hon. Gentleman's view, he did

  933
  not see how it applied to the Estimates on the table, because, so far as he could understand anything in them, they gave what was to be the whole expense in this country. The Government simply said it is estimated that the sum of £985,000 should be charged on account of raising, training, &c.; and the el cetera was, no doubt, a very accommodating ending for a thing which was only estimated in the beginning. But what he was anxious to know was, what amount of money the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to ask for in Committee of Ways and Means for the service of the year. It was clear that there would be a penny in the pound additional for the taxpayers of the Tower Hamlets, as well as the rest of the country, if the new system of keeping the accounts were adopted. The ordinary course pursued by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in making his financial statement was In say, "You have voted the Army and Navy Estimates, which amount to a certain sum; the Miscellaneous Estimates will amount to so much more, I want you to provide for these amounts in the Ways and Means for the year;" but in the present instance the House would be told that the Army Estimates were £15,000,000, and then they were told in a foot-note, printed in italics, that there was a sum of £900,000 odd which was estimated to be paid back again. Was that, he should like, to know, a satisfactory mode of keeping the public accounts? For his own part he did not think so, and he quite concurred in the opinion that it would be desirable the estimate of the sum which it was said was to be paid back were given in a more detailed shape, for then the House would not be so much at the mercy of the Government when the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were made in Committee of Ways and Means. He, for one, did not see that the amalgamation of the two armies had anything to do with the question which had been raised. They now happened to require 70,000 of the Queen's troops instead of 30,000, and the expense was proportionately greater.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise to answer the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not at all sorry he has made it, because, as this is a novel arrangement, it is quite right the subject should be discussed in this House, and that hon. Members should obtain a clear view of the grounds on
  934
  which the alteration was made and what its operation is likely to be. In dealing with the matter I would, in the first place, call the attention of the House to the nature of the old system; and I may observe, in doing so, that I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in his concluding observation, that the change recently effected with respect to the settlement of accounts relating to our Indian forces stands entirely apart from the question of the amalgamation of the two armies. This change, in fact, so far as it is a financial improvement and tends to simplicity in our accounts, might and, indeed, ought to have been adopted if the Indian and British establishments had continued upon their former footing. We must bear in mind that there were two great heads of expenditure incurred by Great Britain—in the first instance, with a claim to reimbursement from India, on account of the non-effective service; and, in the second place, on account of that which the right hon. Gentleman had described by the words "raising, training, &c," which I suppose I shall be correct in designating the effective services. Now, the old system has been this, that the Indian Government paid £60,000 a year into the British Exchequer, which was supposed to be a reimbursement of our charge on account of the non-effective service of India. Of the charge or the reimbursement the House of Commons never heard, because the whole of the non-effective services were voted together in the British Estimates, there being no means of knowing how much lay to the charge of one service, or how much to that of the other. Neither was the reimbursement of this amount of £60,000 ever heard of by the. House. [Mr. HENLEY: It used to be.] Not of late years. [Mr. HENLEY: Yes, within a few years.] Well, not, at all events, during the period for which I have been responsible for the finances of the country. The amount was simply paid into the Exchequer and taken credit for by the Finance Minister in Committee of Ways and Means as a portion of the miscellaneous Revenue of the country. Now, the alteration which has been made is this. The whole subject of the justice of this charge has been reconsidered, and in lieu of a fixed payment of £60,000 a year we shall now have a payment varying according to the number of men serving in India. The right hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that it is impossible we could do more

  935
  than we have done—namely, estimate approximately the amount forthcoming under this head. We do not. in short, now proceed on the principle of charging a lump sum on India. To do so would invoke the risk of undue gain or loss to the Exchequer of one country or the other. Instead, we have fixed a certain sum per man, which is to be payable to this country according to the number of the force maintained. We get, in fact, £3 10s. per man on the non-effective services, in lieu of £60,000. With regard to the effective services, the old principle was that the War Department and the Indian Government settled the matter together without ever presenting the Estimate to the House, the War Department being subsequently reimbursed the exact amount the Indian depots cost in the first instance. The recommendation made under these circumstances—and it was one, I think, in accordance with the soundest principles of financial administration—was that, in lieu of that system, a new one should be established, in accordance with which the whole charge for those depots should be voted by the House of Commons; that the total cost of them to this country should be estimated as nearly as possible; and that on that Estimate as a basis the calculation of repayment from the Indian revenue should be made. Having, after a careful calculation, fixed £3 10s. for the non-effective, the Government arrived at the conclusion that £10 per man was the proper sum to fix for the effective service. As the system now stands, therefore, you will be called upon to vote, in the first instance, in one single Estimate the whole of this country's charge, both for the non-effective and effective services in India. These charges were estimated for the purpose of reimbursement at so much per head upon the army serving in India. On that basis the repayment will be made into the Exchequer, and will form part of the Miscellaneous Revenue. Some apprehension appears to have been felt in this discussion lest the people of this country should be placed in the position of being under a permanent advance to India in respect of these military charges. On the contrary, the arrangement which has been made will operate in such a manner that practically this country will be under no advance to India at ail. Heretofore, indeed, this country has been under very serious advances of this nature; but now the basis
  936
  of the settlement that has been adopted will enable us to make the payments from time to time at very short intervals. I do not remember the precise terms, but I think they will be made from month to month; and the arrangement has been come to with the object on the part of the British Exchequer of bringing back into that Exchequer as nearly as possible within the financial year, under the head of Miscellaneous Revenue, the precise sum which will have been paid out within the same financial year under the head of Army Expenditure. Therefore nothing can be more simple than the answer I have to give to the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect which this arrangement will have on the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first effect will be a certain apparent increase in the amount of charge to be borne by the country; because when he proceeds to state the amount which the House will be called on to vote, or may have voted during the financial year, he will have to include under the Army Estimates the cost of certain effective forces in India, which have never appeared in them before. But it is asked whether increased ways and means will not have to be found in proportion. My answer is, that those increased ways and means will find themselves, because the payments will come back from the Indian Government almost literally as quickly as they go out from the War Department; and therefore the financial Minister will take credit on the other side of his account in the shape of Miscellaneous Revenue to the exact amount of the addition to the Military Estimates.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked, whether they were to understand that the expense of the depots in England was borne under these Estimates, and was to be repaid in a capitation upon the army in India? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] Then the smaller the army in India, and the greater the number of these depots, the greater would be the expense to this country, and the smaller the proportion which the Indian Government would have to pay?
  SIR. GEORGE LEWIS: Of course every estimate of this kind must be made upon an average. The estimate of £10 per head was very carefully prepared last year by a Committee composed partly of Members of the Indian Department and partly of Officers of the War Department.

  937
  Different estimates were put forward on each side, and at last it was generally agreed that upon an average of the strength of the Indian Establishment £10 per head would be a fair charge. Of course extreme cases may occur.
  COLONEL SYKES: £10 per head—that is, on the total number of troops in the Estimate?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: No-on the muster-roll.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEasked for some explanation of the data on which the £10 per man was reckoned, and hoped that the Report of the Committee to which reference had been made would be laid before the House.
  MR. HENLEY: In answer to the contradiction which I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have to say that I now hold in my band the Estimates for 1854, when the right hon. Gentleman held his present office, and it is there stated that under an Act of George IV. the sum of £60,000 was paid into the Exchequer from the East India Company.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was not deducted.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: In reply to the questions of hon. Gentlemen, I may state that the old practice was that the moment an English regiment was put upon the Indian establishment the whole expenses Connected with that regiment were transferred to the Indian revenue. The payment of the regiment in India was made in India, and all the charges in respect of it payable in this country were paid by the War Office, and repaid by the Indian Government. The payment for these charges had been commuted into a sum of £10 per head, which included not only the cost of recruiting and training, but covered tinder the term "&c." all other items of charge whatever (which were too many to be enumerated) incurred in this country in respect of a regiment in India. The War Office has no interest in keeping down this expense; while, on the other hand, the Indian Government—which, being charged with the payment, has such an interest—has no means of keeping it down. The consequence is that much disagreeable correspondence has been going on between the two departments; and to that state of things it is desirable to put an end. A Committee was appointed, as my right hon. Friend has said, of which Sir Alexander Tulloh was chair-
  938
  man; and on that Committee sat on the one side the Deputy Paymaster General and the Revenue Clerk of the Treasury, and on the part of the Indian Department, the Auditor of the Indian Office and the Chairman of the Military Finance Commission of India. They ultimately arrived at the conclusion—which they reported in very general terms—that they had quite satisfied themselves that the arrangement detailed by my right hon. Friend was a fair one, and they accordingly recommended its adoption as a temporary measure, until there had been a further opportunity of going more fully into the matter. On an average of many years hack £8 per head has been found to be a fair charge; but, as everybody knows, many additional advantages have of late years been afforded to the soldier, such as good-conduct pay, greater luxuries in barracks, and the like; and on due investigation it was thought that £2 more per head would be the proper allowance for these extra charges. £10 per head on the effective force mustered in India for the charges at home, and £3 10s. as our contribution towards the pensions and dead weight, is, we think, a fair scale. We therefore introduced it for one year, and it is proposed to continue it for another year, subject to further consideration hereafter. This arrangement, I believe, will greatly simplify matters, and be perfectly just both to this country and to India.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHdoubted whether £10 per head per annum would cover the whole charge of all kinds for the effective force, and thought that in a matter of so much importance the House ought to have the detailed figures of the calculation placed before it.
  MR. DEEDESshould like to have more clearly pointed out by what means the British Exchequer was to be so quickly repaid the advances.
  SIR CHARLES WOODobserved, that a monthly muster-roll of the Indian army was sent home every month, and payments were to be made once a mouth to the Exchequer from Indian funds.
  MR. DEEDESasked, whether the muster-roll necessarily conveyed the amount required?
  SIR. GEORGE LEWISremarked, that if there were 60,000 troops in India, their cost under the arrangement would be known; under the old system the difficulty arose as to striking the balances.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 55: Majority 77.
  Question again proposed.

NAVAL AND MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  GENERAL PEELrose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the want of control on the part of the House of Commons over the naval and military expenditure of the country. After having given notice of his intention to submit this subject to the consideration of the House, he found that his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) had taken up the matter and introduced the question to the House. Notwithstanding, however, that fact, and that a discussion arose on the occasion, he thought the subject so important that it could not be too frequently urged upon the attention of her Majesty's Government. It appeared to him that nothing Could be more unsatisfactory than the position in which the House, stood as regarded the control of the money voted for the naval and military expenditure of the country. In point of fact, the House exercised no control whatever over this expenditure. They all professed themselves to be advocates of the strictest economy, and he had no doubt those professions were sincere. But what steps did they take to carry them into effect? He could assure the House that the observations he was about to make were dictated by no party feeling, and were not meant to apply to any particular Government, far less to any individuals. If any fault attached, it lay with that House generally for not having exercised a more effectual control over the expenditure. It was true they had always the Estimates before them, and it might be said that the House had the power of reducing the Votes. All he could say in reply to that was, that the exercise of that power involved a degree of responsibility which he for one should be sorry to share. It should be recollected that the Estimates were always proposed on the responsibility of the Government of the day, and that they alone were fully competent to judge of the number of men required during the course of the financial year. He looked upon the Estimates for the Army and Navy as implying to a
  940
  certain degree a vote of confidence in the Government, and he could not well understand upon what grounds the House could take upon itself the responsibility of refusing them. He did not suppose that any Ministry could remain in office if their Estimates were materially interfered with. It had frequently been suggested that the Estimates might be referred to a Select Committee of the House. To such motions, however, he had been always opposed, believing that it was peculiarly the province of the Government to decide upon them; that the Government alone were competent to form a judgment upon them; and that they were responsible for the number of men necessary to maintain the efficiency of the service, and for the means of providing for them. A Select Committee could not possibly be supposed to possess all the information necessary to guide them to a proper judgment in the matter, and he should be sorry to see the security of the country dependent on an irresponsible Committee of the House. Moreover, he thought it would be anything but promoting a wise economy to authorize those Estimates to be framed by a Select Committee of the House. The main portions of the increased Estimates had arisen from the Resolutions of the House. It appeared to him, that if they delegated to a Select Committee the power of framing those Estimates generally, the result would be a considerable increase in the expenditure of the country. For example, a rule had been laid down with regard to reliefs; namely, that every regiment should be called on to serve ten years abroad and five years at home; but if that rule was fully carried out, they would require a very large increase of men. The House had also approved of the report of the Army Sanitary Commission, which recommended a space of 600 cubic feet to each soldier in the barrack dormitories. Now it was obvious, that if such a recommendation were acted upon, it would involve a great increase of expenditure for further barrack accommodation. The Estimates, as laid before the House, do not embrace all the demands made by the various departments in military districts; they are cut down to the lowest point consistent with the efficiency of the services. Indeed, he thought a larger amount might not only be asked for with a due regard to efficiency, but also on the score of economy. A Select Committee would have great difficulty in resisting a demand for outlay

  941
  founded on a Resolution of the House, and based upon the principles of economy. He thought, therefore, we must always be prepared to consider the Estimates as proposed by the Government; and his experience told him there was little hope of materially reducing them, and that it would very rarely be desirable to do so. He thought it most objectionable that they should have Supplementary Estimates. Supplementary Estimates, in his opinion, should always be avoided as much as possible. They deranged the whole financial arrangements of the year, and the Estimates for the year ought to pro vide, as far as can be foreseen, for the services of the year. There was no objection, as far as he was concerned, to the form in which the Estimates were laid before them. There were, however, grave objections as to the manner in. which they were appropriated. He thought that the audit of the expenditure should be expedited as much as possible. It generally took eight months for the audit of the Admiralty Estimates and thirteen months for those of the army. Considering the facilities of communication that now existed, he thought it might be effected within a much shorter period; but be the time sooner, or be it later, he would have the audit of the expenditure submitted to a Committee of that House. That Committee should be called upon to examine the expenditure, and to compare the sum voted with the expenditure, with the view of seeing whether the number of men voted had been actually raised; what money had been transferred from one service to another; and if such transfer had taken place, they should inquire whether the money so transferred had been actually a saving, or merely arose from a postponement of the service for which it had been voted. The adoption of such a course would lead to accuracy in the Estimates and economy in the expenditure far more than by referring the Estimates themselves to a Committee. They had the Estimates laid on the table of the House, and the Estimates of the former year to compare with them. But neither the House nor the Government knew whether the Estimates voted for the former year were sufficient for the purposes for which they bail been voted. It would be much better to have the Estimates of the previous year that had been audited before them. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: The accounts?] He meant the audited accounts. With regard to any
  942
  account of the expenditure of the money they would be called upon to vote to night, if any very industrious or inquisitive Member should two years and a half hence—say at the end of 1864—search very diligently in the library of the House, he might then find an audited account of the expenditure of the money voted this year: but, whatever the excess of the expenditure might be, or whatever transfers might have been made from one service to another, he ventured to say he would never be able to attract the attention of the House to it. It would have been met by Supplementary Estimates, by votes of credit, or by transfers of votes; and as the House would not be called upon to vote any further sum in regard to those Estimates, its attention could not be enlisted to the subject. It might be asked, what was the use of a control over expenditure which could not be carried into effect until eighteen months after the expenditure had taken place? He admitted it would have no effect on past expenditure, but it would have the greatest possible effect on the expenditure for the future. The next improvement that he would suggest would be an alteration in the Appropriation Act as regarded the manner in which sums were permitted to be transferred from one service to another. At present the heads of the departments were obliged to obtain the sanction of the Treasury to such transfers. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them last year that the Treasury had neither power nor responsibility in the matter; that if the money were there, and was required by one service, it was the duty of the Treasury to sanction the transfer without coming to the House. He (General Peel) did not mean to say that this power of transfer might not be necessary in some cases, but he would leave the power and the responsibility with the Secretary of State or the First Lord of the Admiralty. If, for example, they had more men than they had money to pay, it would be certainly necessary that this transfer should he made. Those transfers, however, never took place until near the end of the financial year, when the Votes were exhausted. But Parliament was always sitting at the time, and the Secretary of State might come for the sanction of Parliament, and not act upon the sanction of the Treasury, for those transfers. If Parliament were not sitting, he might make the transfer; but it should

  943
  be imperative on the Secretary of State to report the circumstance to Parliament when it assembled. This system, of course, would only apply to what was voted for the naval and military services. Another improvement he would suggest was, that no service of the past year should be paid for out of the money voted for the service of the present year. Nothing was more easy than to obtain the postponement of the delivery under contracts until after the expiration of the financial year; and then the money so voted for this purpose might be applied to another purpose. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty gave them an instance the other night, when he told them that a sum of £50,000 which ought to have been paid in the one year became a charge on the next year.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: It was re-voted in the next year.
  GENERAL PEEL: Exactly. He had known a case, not of £50,000, but of hundreds of thousands, which became a charge on the ensuing year; and he doubted much whether they should have heard anything about the matter unless the Government had been obliged to come down to the House for a Supplemental Estimate. He did not mean to say that the money had been improperly expended. On the contrary, he thought that the large outlay for the last few years on the military and naval services had placed those services in a state of efficiency which redounded much to the credit of all the departments. He believed that the expenditure had been most economical—had saved the country the necessity of going to war, and that the state of preparation in which the country had been found had saved us the expenditure of many millions. He did not object to the expenditure that had been incurred, but that the House had not that control ever the money voted which it ought to have. For instance, from the years 1858 to 1861, Indian troops were employed in China who had had never been voted by that House, and had never been included in the Estimates. He had the greatest doubt whether the provisions of the Mutiny Act could be applied to men so engaged and not included in the Act. What he meant to say was that the men who had been so employed were employed without this House having authorized such a proceeding. They were paid for in one lump, and no account that he knew of had ever been given to the House of that ex-
  944
  penditure. Surely that was not a satisfactory state of things. With reference to the transfer from one Vote to another, he might state that in the financial year 1860–1 the sum of £250,000 was voted for iron-plated ships, No portion of that money, however, was employed during that year for that purpose; the whole was transferred to the expenses of the Admiralty on account of the Chinese war; and that portion of the Vote of Credit which the Admiralty was to have had was transferred to the army in order to meet their expenditure, which greatly exceeded the Estimates. Again, £250,000 was voted this year for the same purpose, to which he understood only a portion of it was applied; another portion had been applied to some other object. Thus the House might go on voting money for a specific purpose over and over again, and it might be transferred to another purpose over and over again. They had nothing to do but to take up the Estimates and look, for example, at the Vote for barracks, fortifications, and civil buildings; they would see how much money had been voted, and how small the portions were which had been expended upon the objects for which it was voted. What had become of the balance? This system ought surely to be put an end to. The House should have a more direct control over the expenditure of the country. He was perfectly aware that those things could be better discussed in Committee than across the table of that House. He should have moved for a Committee if he did not think he should be interfering with a motion of a noble Friend of his (Lord Robert Montagu) which was to come on next week. To that motion, however, shaped as it was, he could not give his assent. If his noble Friend would change the terms of his Motion, and move for a Committee to consider how a more direct control could be given to the House over the expenditure of the country, he should give him his support. He did not profess to be a great economist. He thought that the best economy was true efficiency. Nothing however could be more unsatisfactory than the present position of the House in respect of those matters.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was remarkable what coincidences of opinion were to be found between Gentlemen who were in office and Gentlemen who expected to be in office. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had been Secretary for War

  945
  justified the extraordinary expenditure for the army asked for by the present Secretary for War. To him (Mr. Williams) the Estimates proposed for the Army this year appeared perfectly incomprehensible, when he looked at the circumstances of the country and compared them with those of former times. The Estimates for the army this year amounted to £15,300,000, independent of the Militia Estimates; and if the latter were the same as last year, it would make a total expenditure for army and militia of nearly £16,000,000. Some expectation had been raised that they should get a reduction of a million. Nothing could justify this expenditure but a preparation for war, and the amount of the present Estimates exceeded the Estimates for the year in which preparations were made for the Russian War. And yet Her Majesty by Her Commissioners had assured the House that her relations with all foreign Towers were perfectly good. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Baillie) had complained that he (Mr. Williams) was constantly comparing the expenditure of late years with that twenty years ago; but the only instance that the hon. Gentleman brought forward to justify the extravagant expenditure into which they had fallen was the increase of our Colonies: but those Colonies had not required an increase of 5,000 men more than they had when the expenditure was so much less. Now, taking the period from 1822 to 1852, the expenditure proposed for the present year was nearly double the largest amount expended in any of those years. In 1830, the last year of the Tory unreformed Parliament, when the Duke of Wellington, the greatest soldier this country had ever produced, was Prime Minister, the amount actually expended on the army was only £7,238,000. In the first year of the reformed Parliament, when Earl Grey was Premier, the amount required was £7,900,000. In another very remarkable year, where one of the greatest Statesmen, as well as the greatest General of the time, was in office—the year 1835—the amount expended for the army was £7,550,000; and in the year 1852–3, the last before the preparations for the Russian war, the army expenditure was £8,540,000—very little more than half what was required this year. The expenditure upon the army and navy which was now proposed would amount to £27,500,000; but if the present Government could carry on public
  946
  affairs with the same amount of expenditure as had taken place under the four Governments which he had mentioned, there would be a saving in those services of something like £14,000,000 this year. The amount of force of a military character maintained in Great Britain and Ireland, inclusive of militia and volunteers, but, exclusive of the force in India and the Colonies, was extraordinary. He calculated it at 400,000 men, taking the militia at the number of last year, and the volunteers according to the latest report. In respect of the Volunteers, he regarded that body of men as most valuable. It had inspired a sense of security into the minds of the most timid—the oldest of old women now thought themselves perfectly secure from invasion; and though there was now an attempt in some quarters to throw cold water on it, he believed that it deserved the highest respect and confidence. He wished to know what was the reason of this great accumulation of military force year after year? Invasion' by the Emperor of the French was made a bugbear, but he doubted whether any French Sovereign could be named who had had a greater desire than the present Emperor for peace and friendship with this country. hi the present Estimates the amount to be expended on the Colonies was astounding—it amounted to £3,718,000 for the army alone; and what was spent, in addition, on the navy for protecting the Colonies, on colonial bishops, en clergy of various denominations, on magistrates, governors, and other official, increased the amount to £4,700,000; and what they contributed towards that vast sum was no more than £109,000. It was most unjust that the people of this country should be taxed for the protection of communities which would be perfectly aide to take care of themselves if they would only follow the noble example which had been set them by the Volunteers of Great Britain. There was a time when the commercial relations between the mother country and the Colonies were reciprocally advantageous. But that had now ceased. The Colonies were now in no way constrained to take their manufactures from this country, but had the liberty to purchase in the cheapest market, and could impose any amount of duty on what might be sent from this country; he knew not that Great Britain derived any advantage from them, except the patronage exercised by Her Majesty's Ministers of appointing the governors; but

  947
  he must not be supposed as desiring to sever the connection between the Colonies and the mother country. The fact, however, was, that the only benefit that we derived from them was the patronage, in the shape of governorships, which they placed in the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers for the time being.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he was sure the House would be thankful to the right hon. and gallant General (General Peel), and also to the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford North-cote) for having called attention to this difficult and important subject. It showed their zeal as financial reformers; because on all hands it was admitted that the Army and Navy accounts were the most correct and the most strictly kept of all the public accounts. That, therefore, was the most unfavourable ground that a financial reformer could take up. The inference which must, however, be drawn from this was, that it required a much less knowledge to make a successful attack on the miscellaneous accounts and the other Estimates. He was, however, not about to enlarge on that point at present, because that was the subject of the Motion that he should bring on next week, in virtue of the notice which he had given on the 11th of February. He desired, however, to remove a few of the prejudices that might be raised in the minds of hon. Members by the speech of the hon. and gallant General. The first thing he said was that he objected to a Committee of that House being appointed for the examination of the Estimates. Now, that had been a constitutional practice of a very old date. Committees had been appointed frequently in former years for the examination of the Estimates, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said that the only way of meeting the wishes of the House—the only mode of fulfilling the recommendations of the Public Monies Committee—was to appoint a Committee, to be annually appointed in that House, to take into consideration the Army and Navy Estimates. [Mr. PEEL: The Accounts, not the Estimates.] He was nearly certain that the right hon. Gentleman said "Estimates." He was not, however, sure that this was the case. The thing to be considered, the right hon. Gentleman below (General Peel) had said, was whether the audit of the accounts could he expedited, and that ques-
  948
  tion should be submitted, and that alone to the Committee. But the first thing, he (Lord Robert Montagu) apprehended, was, to consider whether the audit itself was efficient or was not efficient. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman had read the evidence before the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure he would have seen that the Audit Board was a mere delusion, and that they did not really audit the accounts at all. Some of the heads of accounts were submitted to them, and they added them up to see if they correctly added. He (Lord Robert Montagu) did not believe that they even saw the vouchers. Mr. Romilly, the Chief Commissioner of the Audit Board, said that the accounts could not be got from the Secretary for War, and he said that Parliament was greatly mistaken if it supposed that the accounts were efficiently audited. It was useless, therefore, to talk about expediting the audit when that audit was a delusion. They would be only expediting the influence of a delusion. Something should therefore be done to obtain a correct audit of the accounts. The right hon. Gentleman (General Peel) had alluded to a vote of £250,000 for iron ships that was taken in 1859. Now that would show how these things were done. The Minister went down to the House at the end of the session, and was in the greatest hurry for the Vote, which he brought forward in a special Bill. He said the Emperor of the French was building iron ships at such a rate that it was absolutely necessary that we should enter into competition with him, and strive to rival him successfully in that race. The hon. Members for Birmingham and Lambeth both objected, but their objections were overridden, because it was considered that there was no time to be lost in building these ships. What then was the astonishment of the House to find that not a single penny of the vote of £250,000 was expended on iron plated ships, and that all of it was transferred to military stores? Other cases might be cited which were even worse; but he (Lord Robert Montagu) would defer his observations on that subject until his Motion next week, when the whole question would be laid before the House. The gallant General had said he could not support that Motion in its present form. He was sorry for that; and from the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) he feared he

  949
  was labouring under a similar intention. He (Lord Robert Montagu) had, he acknowledged, prepared the Resolution with out consultation with any Member of the House, He had, however, taken it bodily from the report of the Public Monies Committee. He therefore was not responsible for the terms of his Motion, and he really would not like to change it unless the House expressed a strong opinion on the subject. There had been frequent promises of financial reform from the other side of the House, but there bad never been any fulfilment, nor any steps taken towards that end. In 1859 there were empty promises of financial reform; in 1860 there were similar promises of financial reform, and in 1861 they had two such promises. On the 8th of February the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and said (hat the only way of meeting the wishes of the House and of fulfilling the recommendations of the various Committees, was to appoint a Committee annually; he moved for the appointment of such a Committee, and promised the House, that if that Motion were granted, he would then move that the appointment of that Committee should become a Standing Order of the House. That promise had never been fulfilled to that day. He (Lord Robert Montagu) thought it rested with the independent Members on the other side of the House—Members who professed so much to their constituents, and were so lavish in promises to restrain the reckless expenditure. This was growing worse and worse every year, and he (Lord Robert Montagu) rejoiced when he heard the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen, because, as there had teen plenty of empty promises from the other (the Ministerial) side, without performances, they were going now to get performances on that (the Opposition) side of the House even without any previous promises.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The speech of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) in favour of limiting the expenditure for the defence of our Colonies might advantageously have been reserved until to-morrow, when a special Resolution upon that very subject will be submitted to the House. As to the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) upon the general question of the control exercised by this House over the Army and Navy expenditure, I can only express my opinion that
  950
  if he investigates the matter more closely he will find that many of the defects he believes to exist are imaginary, because there can be no doubt that, as far as the army and navy are concerned, the check of this House is very complete. The speech of the gallant Gentleman may be regarded as a sort of epilogue to the proceeding's of the Committee on Public Monies which sat two years ago, and of which I had the honour of being a Member. Our object was to assimilate the practice with regard to the. Civil Service Estimates to the practice with regard to those for the army and navy. It was admitted that the practice in the Army and Navy Estimates was, as far as the check of this House is concerned, almost perfect, and the difficulty was so to arrange the votes of the Miscellaneous Estimates as to bring them under the same rule. That rule is, if the money voted is not expended within the year the power of expenditure granted by the Vote ceases. For instance, if £100,000 is voted this year for a barrack, and it is not expended before the 1st of April next, the power is gone, and the War Department cannot spend the money until it is revoted by this House. When the year has passed away, and all the payments made within it have been calculated together, the expenditure is audited—for it then becomes an account, and not an estimate. The noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Robert Monttagu) said the Government were guilty of a breach of faith in not moving the reappointment of a Committee which sat last Session. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: In not making it a Standing Order.] I know nothing about a Standing Order. I believe it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the reappointment of that Committee, and then the audited accounts for the army and navy can be referred to it. But let the House observe the great distinction between an audited account and a payment upon estimate. All the payments made by the Government in the course of a year are in the nature of cash payments founded upon the authority of this House. When payments are made they become matters of account, and then they are audited by the Board of Audit. It has been said that some payments have been made for service in China in excess of the Votes of this House. My firm belief is, that the Executive Government never does make any payment in excess of the Votes

  951
  of this House. If it does, it is certainly liable to impeachment. It is possible—though I have no personal knowledge that the fact is so—that some regiments on the Indian establishment may have been serving in China, and their pay may have come out of the Indian treasury. It is also possible that their pay may have come out of the Vote of Credit for China; but that any English regiment serving in China should have been paid without the authority of Parliament I hold to be utterly impossible, and I venture to affirm that the statement which has been made rests upon some delusion or misapprehension. The House may be assured that no Executive Government, to whatever party it may belong, ever knowingly makes any payment in excess of the Votes of this House. There may be wasteful expenditure—expenditure over which the Government has not sufficient control from the distance at which it is incurred, or from some other cause; and I am afraid, indeed, that when hostilities are going on no Government can find means of preventing undue expenditure. It is impossible at such times to hold the purse-strings quite close, I appeal to any Gentleman who knows what expenditure in the field is, whether it is possible to exercise a strict Parliamentary control over it; but that any executive department knowingly sanctions any payment in excess of the Votes of this House I do not believe, and I feel satisfied that if any such case appears to exist it will be found upon investigation to be a mistake. Having made these remarks, I trust the House will now go into Committee of Supply.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYbelieved the light hon. Gentleman was in considerable error as to the impossibility of troops being employed without the cognizance of Parliament. It would be found that during the Chinese war a regiment had been employed through the agency of the Commissariat chest.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISthought that the hon. Baronet must he referring to native Indian troops.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: Precisely.

TROOPS FOR CANADA.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, it would be recollected that in the early part of the disturbance in America a question arose how far it would be our duty to protect
952
our possessions in Canada. Upon that point different views were expressed. At length the Government sent out a reinforcement of troops by the Great Eastern and other vessels. On the 24th of June, however, a question was put to the Government, and it was supported by high authority from this side of the House, strongly condemning their proceedings in this particular. He was startled at the time to hear some of the expressions which were used, echoing the opinions expressed by a portion of the press. Condemnation of the Government was profuse for having sent out troops in such numbers at such a time, and in such a manner, which was said to be such as would be highly offensive to the American people. Since that time, however, he had understood that the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces had applied for large reinforcements, 10,000 or 12,000, for Canada. The probable expediency of that demand was elucidated by the Trent affair; and no doubt it would have been a great relief to the country had it been known that so large reinforcements had been sent out at a time when they would in a great measure have escaped the dangers incurred at a later period, and that such a body of troops were already in that country, prepared to resist any attack made upon the independence of Canada. He wished to know whether such applications as he had stated had been made to the Government by those responsible for the safety of Canada, and what effect the sentiments expressed in that House, and by some portion of the press, had made on the proceedings of the Government in that particular? The bun. Member then put the Question of which he had given notice, Whether the Governor General of Canada, as well as the Commander-in Chief of the forces there, did not apply to the Government last summer to send out a body of troops to Canada considerably larger than that which was actually sent at that time; and, if so, why they did not more fully comply with that requisition?
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he had a few words to address to the House in reference to the Army and Navy Estimates. He believed that the House of Commons possessed ample power of controlling those Estimates, if they would only exercise it. The late Mr. Hume, without one-half of the information which was at present laid before Parliament, was able to control the public expenditure; and if he (Sir Francis

953
Baring) wanted to show that it was the fault of the House itself that that control was not at present exercised, he need only refer to the state of the benches around him. He wished also to take that opportunity of suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of reappointing at an early period the Public Monies Committee of last Session, so that its Members might be enabled to go fully into the numerous details which would come under their examination. He would further recommend that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who complained that the House had not sufficient control over the public expenditure should be nominated a Member of that Committee.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In reply to the question put by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Darby Griffith) I have to confirm what he stated—namely, that the reinforcements which Her Majesty's Government thought it right to send to our North American provinces in the course of last summer were represented by Gentlemen on that side of the House as useless, injurious, and impolitic. It was said they ought not to have been sent. I believe that opinion is not now very much entertained. It had been the wish of the Government to send out at that time a larger number; hut, so far from that larger number having been asked for by the colonial authorities, it was in consequence of the representations made by the Colonial authorities that the sending of that larger number was for the time suspended; therefore it was not at all owing to any want of foresight on the part of the Government that a larger number was not sent at the time; but, as it happened, I believe it was rather fortunate that we did not send that number then, because I think those who have watched the progress of late events must have seen that the energy and rapidity with which a very large force was despatched to Canada in the middle of winter, in spite of all the difficulties that naturally opposed themselves to such a proceeding—that display of promptitude, of vigour and power, on the part of this country, I am convinced tended very greatly to the peaceful and satisfactory solution of the recent difficulties between this country and the United States.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, that last year, in Committee on the Army Estimates, he had called attention to the difficulty of ascertaining the sum total required for any particular colony. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman
954
the Secretary for War for the change he had made in that matter in the present Estimates, in which the military charges for each colony were separately set forth. But he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might make a further improvement in that case if he would give, under each head, the component items of each sum total, so that hon. Members could see what was the outlay incurred in a colony for men, or for fortifications, or for any other source of expenditure.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that it had been in his consideration whether under each colony the amount should be given, distributed through the various particulars which made up the Army Estimates. But the items in many cases were so small that the House would be rather perplexed than informed; and the real question of importance was to give the sum total for each colony. Of course the noble Lord could have the information he desired, if the House wished it, in a Supplemental Estimate.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
Mr. MASSEYin the Chair.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Mr. Massey, although we make annually a constitutional protest against the institution of a standing army—although we annually recite in our Mutiny Act that it is contrary to the liberties of this country to maintain a standing army without the consent of Parliament, still I think that this protest must be considered as a constitutional fiction, and that we must regard an army as belonging to the permanent institutions of the country, not less than the navy, or the machinery for the collection of the revenue. It is, indeed, true that the existence of our army is dependent upon the annual vote of Parliament; but no one doubts that this vote will be cheerfully given, no one wishes that the continuity of the army—I mean that system of organization and discipline which can be attained only when the army is maintained in a permanent form—should be destroyed. It is, moreover, true, not only that we have a standing army in substance, but that it is one of the most expensive of the institutions which we maintain. For I find that, taking the total expenditure of the country at its present amount—about £70,000,000 per annum, of which sum £26,200,000 may be

955
referred to the payment of the interest on the National Debt—the cost of the army alone amounts to £15,302,000; and taken together with the militia, to £16,250,000: leaving for all the other branches of expenditure the sum of £27,550,000. So that the expense of our army and militia is about £16,000,000, as compared with £27,000,000, the remainder of our total expenditure, minus the interest on the National Debt. The Committee will therefore perceive that in voting the Army Estimates they deal with a very large portion of the expenditure of the country which is within the control of the House of Commons. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) has already pointed out, that this expenditure has increased of late years; and in moving the first Vote of the Estimates now on the table—the Vote embracing the number of men required, and therefore substantially determining the character of the whole Estimate—it will be my endeavour to furnish the Committee, so far as I am able, with an answer to these questions:—"Why have Army Estimates increased of late years? and why have they reached the sum of £15,302,000, which is the amount to which it is my duty to ask the Committee to assent in the present Session: Now, I can, I think, without occupying to any unreasonable length the time of hon. Members, supply them with an answer to those questions; and I hope I may be able to do so without troubling them with any great amount of details or figures, which are, I am aware, always distasteful within these walls.
In order to make the point with which I propose to deal clear, I will ask the permission of the Committee to go so far back as the year 1789—the year in which the great French Revolution broke out. In that year the total number of men voted for the British and Irish establishments—the two establishments were then separate—was 43,395; while the total sum voted for the Army, the Ordnance, and the Commissariat was £2,981,000—that is to say, £2,428,000 for Great Britain and £553,000 for Ireland. Not quite £3,000,000, therefore, was the entire amount of our expenditure for military purposes in the first year of the French Revolution. Well, as the Committee is aware, we embarked shortly after in a great war which lusted many years; on which the existence of this nation depended; which was prosecuted
956
on a gigantic scale against the power of Napoleon, both by land and sea; and which rendered it necessary that our military organization should be developed to the utmost, and that every nerve of the country should be strained for the purpose of increasing our army to the highest point which its finances could bear. Now, I am anxious to call the attention of the Committee to the effect which the existence of war has upon the numbers and expense of the army. In the year 1819 the number of men in the army had risen to 88,682. That is to say, the number of men had risen to about double since 1789. The total amount of the Estimates in the year 1819 for the army, including the Ordnance and Commissariat, was £10,035,127; so that the number of men in the army had increased from 43,000 in 1789 in consequence of this great war to 88,000 in 1819, and the military expenditure from about 3,000,000 to about £10,000,000. In that position our army remained without any material alteration till 1852. Before referring more particularly to that year, I may perhaps be allowed to give a correct statement to the Committee of the Votes for the army, including all the items, for the year 1832. In 1832 the number of men voted for the army was 97,949; the total amount of the Estimate was £8,399,700: so that, as you will perceive, there was no material difference between this year and the year 1819. I now come to the year with which I propose to institute a comparison—the year almost immediately preceding the Crimean war—the year 1852–3. In that year the number of men asked for was 119,519; and the total estimate for the army, including the Ordnance and Commissariat, was £9,021,394. I wish the Committee to observe that in consequence of the French war, which began in 1793 and ended in 1815, our military expenditure underwent a great increase, and thence remained tolerably stationary till the year preceding the Crimean war. There is no doubt that the deficiencies of our military system, as disclosed by the events of those wars, led to a considerable increase in the amount of our army, and in the expense of our establishments. This is shown by a comparison of the number of men to be voted in the present year, 145,450, and the amount of money, £15,302,870, with the figures which I have stated for the year almost immediately preceding the Crimean war.

957
The lesson, then, I think, which this comparison teaches, is, that as the French war brought about a great development of our military system, showed the deficiencies under which our army then laboured, and, as a consequence, caused a great increase in the charge for the army; so the Crimean war produced similar results, and has led to a permanent increase in the cost of our military system, both by making a permanent addition to the strength of the army and also by rendering necessary certain improvements intended to provide for the efficiency of the army, to which I shall call attention. There is, however, another circumstance to which I must advert in accounting for the increase in our military system since the commencement of the Crimean war—the change that has taken place in the political institutions of France. All persons, I think, who are conversant with the sentiments of those who occupied a prominent place in public affairs during the first fifteen years of this century will admit the predominant object of their policy to have been, so long as they exercised any control over the affairs of the State, to promote the maintenance of peace. They had lived through a period of most disastrous warfare, and the great object of all the Statesmen of that generation, both in this country and on the Continent, was to multiply and strengthen the securities for peace, and to contribute to its permanence. Since that time, however, a generation has grown up which has no personal recollection of the wars of the French Revolution and the Empire. Moreover, the re stored dynasty of France was from its origin naturally attached to a pacific policy. Its members owed their throne to the assistance of the other Powers of Europe; its security was to be found, to a great, extent, in the support of the rest of Europe; and the last thing that was to be expected from the restored Bourbon dynasty was that it should revive the wars of the French Empire. But as soon as a Bonaparte dynasty was restored in France, the ideas of the Empire naturally revived. I do not for a moment doubt that the policy of the present Emperor, as far as that policy depends upon his own independent wishes and his own individual opinion, is essentially a pacific policy, and that he is well inclined to maintain a cordial understanding with this country. But it is to be remembered that he lives in the midst of a population governed by opinions
958
which the restoration of his dynasty has set in motion; that such books as the history of M. Thiers naturally have great influence in that country, and that the idea of restoring the natural boundaries of France as they existed under the Revolution, and as the Empire found them, may not unnaturally be pressed with great force upon the Imperial mind. My own belief is that we have nothing to fear from ill-feeling on the part of the Emperor of the French towards this country. On the contrary, my conviction is that we have every reason to expect from him good wishes and cordial relations with this country. Rut we must bear in mind the opinions and circumstances by which he is surrounded, and prudent statesmen must guard against possible dangers, which must be admitted to be not without foundation. Looking to the alterations in the state of Europe, and looking at the great extension which our military system received during the Crimean war, I find an explanation of the increase which has taken place in our military establishments. I think the Committee when they come to examine the details of these Estimates—large, no doubt, as the sums which compose them are—will not come to the conclusion that they are larger than the interests of the country demand.
Having attempted to explain the general foundation of these large Estimates, I will now proceed to show that there are certain circumstances which make their apparent amount larger than their real amount. In the first place, there have been some charges brought into these Estimates for the first time. For the first time the charges for the Indian depots and recruiting for the Indian army appear in these Estimates. Therefore, that increase is apparent and not real. The total amount of repayments, which are estimated to be received during the year from the Indian Government—it is only an estimated amount, we do not know the exact figures—is nearly a million, or £985,500. A part of that sum has been previously set off in the shape of repayments for non-effective services; but the whole of the repayments for the effective service, which are estimated to amount to about £780,000, appear for the: first time as a set-off against, this sum. If from the total of £15,302,000 you deduct £7: 50,000, the expense in India for the first time introduced, it leaves a real amount of £14,572,000. That sum, the Committee

959
will perceive, is rather less than the Estimates of last year, without the Supplementary Estimate, and considerably less than the expenditure of the last year upon the two Estimates combined. But to make the comparison fair, I must allow about £500,000 for additional expenses in Canada, which will have to be incurred in consequence of the recent expedition, which are included in these Estimates, and which will not come in course of payment before the 1st of April. In addition to that, there is a sum of £170,000 for New Zealand, not included in last year's Estimate, and there will be about £50,000 for China, which last year was included in the Vote of Credit. If we make allowance for the repayments by India and deduct the extraordinary expenses for New Zealand, Canada, and China, these Estimates exhibit, in fact, a reduction upon those of last year of about £650,000. Therefore, although, no doubt, these Estimates are large and exhibit a considerable increase as compared with those of the year immediately preceding the Crimean war, yet they are not by any means extravagant Estimates as compared with those of last year; and, in fact, after making the allowances I have mentioned, we have a reduction of about £650,000.
Now, Sir, having explained the financial part of the case, I will state what is the number of men proposed. In the first place, I will explain the present distribution of the army. It is material that the Committee should know how our army is distributed, because much depends upon that distribution. Our army is essentially unlike the armies of Continental States, which have no foreign possessions; for a large part of it is permanently abroad, and the wear and tear thereby created is very considerable. Instead of comparing our army with that of Prussia, for instance, it would be fairer to compare our Militia with the Prussian army, because it is not subject to the destructive influences upon health which are necessarily entailed by services performed and hardships endured in the East and West Indies, succeeded by a removal to North America, and the vicissitudes of climate to which our regular troops are exposed. There is also another important consideration to be borne in mind. The number of men may appear very considerable, but a large proportion is always abroad, and, therefore, the number of men in the United Kingdom is much less than might be expected from the large
960
numerical amount of our army. The number of men of all arms in the United Kingdom proposed for the year 1862–3 is 81,614, and including the Indian depots 89,238. The number of men in Europe forming our Mediterranean garrisons is 17,008; in Asia, excluding India, 8,185; in our African possessions, including the islands, 7,233; in America, 24,389 (that is larger than usual in consequence of the forces recently sent out); in Australia, without New Zealand, there are 1,234 men; in New Zealand, 3,965; and in India, 75,899—but this number will shortly be reduced. The total number of men, therefore, including India and the Staff, is 228,973. The Committee will immediately see, from the large number of stations in which our army is distributed, how great is the difficulty in making any considerable reduction in the number of men. We propose this year, in consequence of some additions to our settlements upon the coast of Africa, to add a fourth "West India regiment. The manner in which this addition has been made is this:—The three West India regiments already in existence have been reduced from ten to eight companies each, and the additional cost of the new arrangement is not considerable; in fact, it is an economical arrangement, although it does produce some increase in the Estimates and in the number of men. But, inasmuch as it is proposed to reduce the army, as recruiting has been stopped since last autumn, except for a short time during the alarm of war, and has now ceased, the number of men will be diminished, and the Committee will see that the total number of men proposed this year is less than the number proposed last year. There is one part of the Estimates which may excite some remark, and that is the increased expense for the Staff. I dare say many hon. Gentlemen will say, "Oh, this is a proof of the improper influence of the Horse Guards, who are always wishing to increase the Staff." I think I can satisfy the Committee that there has been no real increase in the Staff, with the exception of a small addition made to the medical staff for the Canadian reinforcements. It was thought desirable to send out to our North American colonies some additional medical officers, whose services might prove useful to our troops in the unfortunate event of war occurring. There were, therefore, 10 officers added to the medical staff. That

961
is the whole of the actual increase to the Staff; the rest of the apparent increase, as I will explain to the Committee, is merely nominal—230 officers have been transferred from Vote 7 to the Military Store Staff. Formerly the Store officers had not commissions; but now they have military commissions, and are staff officer who appear on the list. Then there are 64 officers, non-commissioned officers, and men belonging to the School of Gunnery, whose regimental pay used to be included under Vote 2; there is no difference, in their pay now, and as they were previously provided for, there is no difference in the Estimate. Then there are 164 officers, non-commissioned officers and men belonging to the Schools of Musketry, whose pay is taken under Vote 15, but the numbers have not hitherto been included in Vote 1. Next there are 45 officers, noncommissioned officers and men of the cadet company. There is then an addition of 152 officers, non-commissioned officers, and men on the staff of depôt battalions, hitherto provided for by the Indian estimates. Hitherto provision in the Army Estimates has been made only for the depôts of regiments on the British establishment: bin in consequence of the depôts of the Indian establishment being brought into the Estimates it is necessary to include these officers. These together make an aggregate of 665, but I deduct 65 who were formerly included regimentally, although not in the staff, leaving a total of 600. The Committee will therefore see that, though this increase appears very formidable, it is nothing more than a question of account, and constitutes no real addition.
I have already stated that the increase to our present Estimates since what I may call the pre-Crimean period, may be taken in round numbers as an addition to the strength of the army of about 25,000 men, and au additional cost in money of about £5,000,000 sterling. I compute that about half of that increase of £5,000,000 is due to the increase of the strength of the army. If you were to reduce your force by 25,000, you might produce a saving of about £2,500,000. But beyond this £2,500,000, there is an increase of an equal amount since the Crimean war which is still unaccounted for. It is my business, therefore, to account for that increase. The cause of it is to be found in the additional expense which has been incurred since that period for the improved armament of the army, for the
962
augmentation in the provision of stores and munitions of war of all kinds necessary for the efficiency of our troops, and also for the increased outlay in promoting the health, comfort, and efficiency of the private soldier. I believe that under these heads we may divide all the sources of the recent increase in our military expenditure. In the first place, it is not the fact that any increase has been made in the pay of the army. Upon a comparison of the pay of some of the principal branches of the service as it was in 1853–4 with that of the present year it will be seen—confining ourselves to the first Vote for pay and money allowances—that there is scarcely any difference since 1853–4. I will give the Committee a comparative statement, taking the total number of men and dividing the first Vote by that number, The pay and allowances per head in 1853–4 was—Life Guards and Horse Guards, £57 12 s. 3d.; whereas in the present year they are to have £58 9s. 4d. per head. The, Cavalry of the Line received in 1853–4 £42 10 s. 4d., and in 1862–3 they will receive £33 0s. 11 d. The Toot Guards in 1853–4 received £36 7s. 3d., against £32 16 s. 2d. only in the present year. The Infantry of the Line in 1853–4 received £26 12 s. 5d. per head against £27 1s. 11 d. this year. These figures, I think, conclusively show that, whatever may be the increase of expenditure, there has been little or no increase in the pay and allowances of the Army. But, though that is the case, the condition of the Army on the whole has, nevertheless, been improved, as I will shortly prove to the Committee. One cause, as I have already slated, of the increased expenditure has been the new establishments of different kinds connected with the Army. In the first place, since the Crimean war the military train—an entirely new body, for the transport of baggage and provisions—has been created, as have also an army hospital corps and a Commissariat staff corps—both of them totally new establishments; while a great addition has, likewise, been made to the Commissariat and Medical Staff Officers. The Purveyor's department, too, has been almost entirely organized since that date. These are important branches of the Army, tending materially to promote its efficiency when in the field, but, of course, adding to its expense. They are not of a nature to attract much public attention but, nevertheless, are eminently serviceable when the unfortunate necessity of a recourse to

963
war arises. Another new source of expenditure which has been opened since that time is the creation of camps of instruction at Aldershot, Shorncliffe, Colchester, and the Curragh, and the formation of schools of musketry at Hythe and Fleetwood, and a school of gunnery at Shoeburyness. The cost of the establishment of these camps and schools of instruction, excluding that at Shoeburyness, has been upwards of £1,000,000 sterling, and their annual cost must be taken at least at £100,000. I believe that all military authorities are united in the opinion that the existence of these camps of instruction adds greatly to the efficiency of our army and to the facilities for training it in time of peace so as to be ready for service in time of war, which, let me observe, is, after all, the great object of a military system. Your object is, that when war breaks out you should not be found unprepared; that you should not be driven to those expedients which we see attended with so much public inconvenience, and which have also entailed an enormous expense upon a kindred State across the Atlantic, when it has been called upon suddenly to make vast military preparations. In addition to our camps and schools of musketry I have to mention the manufacturing departments, which have now attained a very great extension. I do not know whether many Members of this Committee are acquainted with the establishments at Woolwich; but hon. Gentlemen who are conversant with them must, I think, be persuaded of the immense power which these establishments confer on the country of making preparations to be useful in time of need, and will appreciate the enormous facilities they afford for producing a great amount of serviceable stores at a short notice. Besides the factories at Woolwich we have the small-arms department at Enfield, the clothing branch at Pimlico, and some other minor establishments to which it is not necessary now more particularly to refer. These manufactories are conducted on a scale far exceeding that of private manufacturers. At Woolwich there are at present steam-engines furnishing altogether about 7,000 horse-power; and the number of workmen and mechanics ordinarily employed is no less than 10,000. I must say that, although I entered the department without any prejudice in favour of Government manufactories, my experience has convinced me not only of the great effi-
964
ciency of the system as at present conducted under the War Office, but, upon the whole, of its economy. There is no doubt that by means of Government manufactories you can always be certain of the result, which never can be the case where the articles are furnished by contractors; and, after a careful investigation of the relative cost, my belief is that their economy is quite equal to their efficiency. I do not say that the system of employing contractors should be altogether discarded, because it is useful for the guidance of the Government itself that a partial supply from private manufacturers should be kept up as a check on their own establishments. A mixed system is, therefore, desirable; but I repeat my firm belief, that the great works now carried on at Woolwich are no less economical than they are efficient, and that if you wish to have a resource upon which you can rely under all circumstances, a large proportion of your work must be done in the Government factories. Another great addition to the cost of our military system lies in the change of small-arms which has been going forward of late years, and which is not yet completed. The whole of our army has, in fact, been re-armed of late years. The old musket has been discarded, and the Enfield rifle substituted. We have, moreover, furnished Enfield rifles to the Volunteers and Militia, and recently we sent out a considerable number to Canada. This change has not been effected without considerable expense, and, as the process is still going forward, the expense has not yet been completed. In addition to this new supply of small-arms there has been a complete change in our system of iron ordnance. We have to a very great extent introduced the Armstrong gun. We have supplied our garrisons in the Mediterranean, and to a certain extent garrisons in other parts of the world, with that arm; we are gradually supplying the fortifications of this country with the same important engine; and our field artillery has been entirely put in possession of it. Considering the great expense of these new weapons, I think the Committee will see that the operations I have detailed furnish to a considerable extent an explanation of the increased cost of the Army Estimates. There is another point which is often lost sight of when we compare the Army with the Navy Estimates. When Gentlemen complain of the great amount of the Army Estimates, and point out that the

965
Admiralty is much more moderate in its demands than the War Office, it must be remembered that the War Department is at present a composite Department, embracing the duties of the former Board of Ordnance, and charged with the manufacture of guns as well for the navy as for the army. These warlike stores are furnished to the Admiralty on their requisition, and no part of the cost of those articles appears in the Navy Estimates. If the Committee will refer to Vote 11 they will see the warlike stores for the navy put down at £801,309, to which must be added £221, 976 for wages, making a total of £1,024,285. Guns, gun-carriages, ammunition, small-arms and ammunition, rifles, swords, cutlasses, and boarding pikes—all these articles are furnished to the navy by the War Department. In order, therefore, to arrive at the precise expenses of the navy as compared with the army, you ought to deduct £1,000,000 from the Army Estimates and add that amount to the Navy Estimates. I have not the least objection to the present system of keeping the accounts or of furnishing the navy; I do not complain of the existing practice or wish to see it altered; I am merely anxious that the Committee should truly understand the nature of the expenditure. Then there has been of late a great increase in the charge for gunpowder. As everybody knows, gunpowder is rather an expensive material to burn, and the quantity of gunpowder yearly consumed in infantry practice—which is entirely new—is very large. A great consumption also takes place in experimenting with large guns at Shoeburyness. A day or two ago experiments were tried with Sir William Armstrong's new 300-pounder. I do not know what each explosion cost, but I am aware that in the aggregate it reaches a very large amount. Volunteers are also supplied with ammunition by the War Department, and of course all these items inflate the charge for gunpowder. The Committee, probably, will not wish me to go through the details of this Vote; but I may mention that there is also an increase for timber and miscellaneous items, in consequence of the multiplication of stores which modern science has suggested for the use of our army, and which we must provide for our soldiers if we would place them on a footing of equality with other armies, with which we may have to contend. And here let me remark that
966
military science, though invaluable by reason of the discoveries which it makes for perfecting the mechanism of war, nevertheless entails very heavy expenses on the Government, which is forced to follow all the changes of weapons, and adopt all the latest improvements in gunnery, fortification, and the different other branches of military art. As soon as one improvement has been introduced, it is superseded by another, which the Government is pressed to adopt. At this moment there is a large body of persons who think that the Enfield rifle ought to be discarded, and the Whitworth, or some other rifle, substituted. Everybody must feel that so expensive a question ought not lightly to be entered on; but even greater expense would have to be encountered if the progress of military science should threaten to put our army on a footing of decided inferiority by the adoption of some new and improved arm. Consequently, the Government has often to make a choice between incurring great expense and the possible disapprobation of the House, or allowing the army to remain in a state of inferiority to others.
I believe I have now put the Committee in possession of the general outlines of the increased expenditure upon those branches which are intended to increase the efficiency of our army as an engine of warfare. But many improvements have also been introduced with a view to ameliorate the social, moral, and sanitary condition of the private soldier. In the first place, much expenditure has been incurred for the sake of enlarging and improving barracks, and in giving effect to various recommendations of this House with respect to barracks themselves and the hospitals connected with them. I am happy to say that these efforts have not been unattended with important results, as will appear from authentic returns of the mortality in the service. These have been prepared by Dr. Gibson, the Director General of the Medical Department; and I believe they are perfectly authentic, though it certainly is difficult to believe that so great a change can have taken place in a limited period. It is possible that the greater youth of some portions of the army may to a certain extent affect the returns; but I believe the difference is mainly to be explained by improvements in the sanitary conditions under which they are now called on to servo. The return is confined to troops

967
serving in the United Kingdom, and gives the average annual results of two several periods. During the first period of observation, the years 1830–6, the number of deaths per 1,000 for the Household Cavalry, in the course of each year was 14; in the last period of observation, the years 1859–60, the mortality was only 6 per 1,000. In the cavalry of the Line, for the first period the mortality was 15 per 1,000; last year it was only 7 per 1,000. In the Royal Artillery, for the years 1830–6 the deaths were at the rate of 15 per 1,000; in 1859–60 they were only 6 per 1,000. The mortality in the Toot Guards was, in the same manner, 21 per 1,000 in the former period, and 9 per 1,000 in the latter. For infantry of the Line, the first period of observation having been 1836–46, the deaths decreased from 18 per 1,000 to 9; in 1859–60. I have similar returns from the colonies. The two periods of observation are 1837–56, and 1859–60. For the first period there died at Gibraltar 13 per 1,000; for the last 9. At Malta the diminution was from 18 to 14 per 1,000; in the Ionian Islands, from 16 to 10; in Bermuda, from 35 to 11; in Canada, from 17 to 10; in Jamaica, from 60 to 17; at Ceylon, from 39 to 27. I have other returns from other colonies. I believe they are authentic, and certainly they show that a very considerable amelioration has been effected in the sanitary condition of the soldiers through the increased efficiency of the medical department. These results are very encouraging for future attempts in the same line of improvement. Then there has been an increase of expenditure, not only for hospitals and barracks, but also for hospital furniture. Also, in consequence of a recommendation of the Royal Commission, there is a considerable addition to the charge for clothing. The clothing has been improved, and that, of course, will lead to the increased comfort and health of the troops. The stoppages for bread and meat during illness have been abolished, while there is an additional charge for light and fuel in hospitals. Generally speaking, it may be said that all the medical departments of the army have been increased. The staff has been enlarged, and consequently there is an additional expenditure. The good-conduct pay has likewise been increased, the period of service after which a soldier is entitled to good-conduct pay has been
968
diminished from five years to three; and that, also, has brought an additional charge on the Estimates. Then there has been an increased allowance to the married soldiers, and more advantages have been given to soldiers of that class. I may say, in regard to the wives of soldiers, who generally received a ration of provisions when they accompanied their husbands to the colonies, that the married soldiers were not accompanied by their wives in the expeditions to China and Canada; in the former case because of the distance and other circumstances, and in the latter because of the cold; but an allowance has been made to the women to make up for the loss which they sustained; and I think the Committee will be of opinion that this allowance is a fair and proper charge. I may mention some other matters which have tended to the improvement of the troops. One is the establishment of permanent chaplaincies. Previously to two years ago there were no permanent chaplains attached to the regiments. There are now permanent chaplains of the three denominations—the Established Church, the Roman Catholic, and the Presbyterians. Some expense has also been incurred in assisting Soldiers' Institutes.
The items that I have gone through will substantiate what I have already stated—namely, that a great increase in the expenditure of the army has taken place of late years—partly for providing arms, munitions, and other warlike stores, but also for providing those improvements which will tend to the increased comfort and health of the soldier. Putting those two branches of expenditure together, I think the House will easily understand how the two millions and a half to which I alluded has been spent. The increase is made up of heads which though, when taken separately, are not of large amounts, are, nevertheless, very onerous when taken as a series of additional charges.
Besides those causes of expense, I may mention the Volunteer force which has grown up within the last few years, and for which a Vote is taken in these Estimates. The expense of this force is not, however, merely that which is put down under the head to which I refer, because the Volunteers are supplied with arms and ammunition, and expense is thereby thrown on the War Department. Moreover, there is the correspondence connected with the Volunteer force, which is considerable, and

969
necessitates an increase in the establishment of the War Office. In alluding to these matters, I wish to guard myself against saying anything that would seem to throw a doubt on the public utility of the Volunteers, or that would indicate any want of gratitude for the service which they have rendered to the country; but in going through the different items of the increased expenditure it is necessary that I should call attention to the Volunteers.
I believe, Sir, I have now touched on the principal Votes. I will merely state with regard to the Vote for the scientific branches, that when it is moved, I will give some explanation; but in reference to what took place last year, I am desirous of observing that the Government do not require that any person entering the army should pass through Sandhurst, except those who are to receive commissions without purchase. The Committee are aware that a considerable number of non-purchase regiments have been added to the Indian army—nine infantry and three cavalry regiments. Provision has to be made for the whole of the officers who are to receive commissions in those regiments. Therefore, it is necessary to propose an additional Vote for Sandhurst College; but it is not intended to make any change, except to require that persons obtaining commissions in non-purchasing regiments should pass a year at Sandhurst. When the Votes are moved, there will be an opportunity for hon. Gentlemen to ask for explanations; but whatever objections may be made, or whatever explanations asked as to particular points, I trust it may be considered that these Estimates rest on the solid foundations of economy and public usefulness, and that they are not, in fact, excessive when properly understood. The Committee will see that there has been a considerable reduction on the Estimates of last year, and that our army charges could not be further reduced with a due regard to our national defences, and to the position which this country ought to occupy.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 145,450, exclusive of the Men employed in Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, Commissioned, and Non-Commissioned Officers included, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, inclusive."
COLONEL SYKESasked, why so many
970
as 318 officers were maintained at the depots of regiments serving in India, now that the number of men had been so greatly reduced?
SIR FREDERIC SMITHasked, why no decision had yet been come to by the Indian Government as to the strength of the artillery force to be maintained in India, and also why the number of horses was not stated in the Estimate r
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Staff establishment for the Indian depots was no doubt large, but it was a matter of arrangement between the War Office and the Indian Department. As to the artillery, the Exchequer had its limits, which could not be exceeded, and it was not thought expedient to increase the artillery force, though no doubt it was a very valuable arm of the service.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that at first sight it appeared that in these Estimates the rate of £100 per man, which he last year stated to be about the cost of the army, had been exceeded; but if the Indian depots, which were for the first time included in these Estimates, were added to the home establishment, the whole number of men to be voted was 153,074, which, at £100 per man, gave a sum of £15,307,400; the amount asked for by the Estimates was £15,302,870, showing that his rule of allowing £100 per man was pretty correct. He regretted that the Estimates did not contain a regular debtor and creditor account of the dealings of the manufacturing establishments. Their cost was given, but there was no account of what they produced. The right hon. Baronet had taken credit for service performed under these Estimates for the Navy, but he had omitted to mention that the cost of some services performed for the Army, such as transport, &c, was defrayed out of the Naval Estimates. He wished to know whether the new system, that the Indian Government should makes its payment direct to the War Office had come into operation, and what sums had been received on that account? In comparing the Estimates for the present with those of former years, it ought not to be forgotten, that while some years ago the number of men voted was never raised, it was now often exceeded.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the new arrangement for the repayment of monies by the Indian Government was made during last Session after the Estimates

971
were voted; therefore, it was not possible to make any other arrangement for this year; nevertheless, a new mode of payment was introduced, and with regard to the effective services it was made a matter of account between the "War Department and the India Department. The money was paid over directly to the "War Department under the authority of the Treasury. The present India establishment was rather under 80,000 men.
In answer to an hon. MEMBER,
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the muster-roll of the army in India was taken every month, and that the twelfth part of £10, the annual sum charged for each man against the Indian Government, or 16s. 8d. was paid to the War Office for every man who was on the list.
MR. W. EWARTwished to know why gardens should not be allowed at the camps, as at the camp of the French army at Châlons? He thought that reading rooms and gymnasiums should be established generally, as at Canterbury and other places, which had produced the best possible effect on the men stationed there.
SIR GEOEGE LEWISsaid, he had already stated that one of the causes of the increase of expenditure of late years was the establishment of soldiers' institutes. If his hon. Friend turned to pages 134–5 in the Estimates, he would see that provision was made in many cases for barrack libraries, reading rooms, and similar institutions. He (Sir George Lewis) had also made a small provision in the present Estimate for instructing the soldiers at Aldershot in trades, which he understood was practised to a considerable extent in the French camps, and with great benefit. If the experiment turned out successful, it would lead to an extension to other camps. He desired to state, with regard to hospital stoppages, that they were not quite abolished, and what he meant to say was that they had been considerably reduced.
In reply to Captain JERVIS,
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the depots of the new regiments in India were not included in the 7,624 men.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he felt strongly disposed to propose a reduction of the force asked in this Vote, but he was aware he should receive no support from the Committee. The standing army and the auxiliary forces of different kinds, and the army in our various dependencies,
972
were in the aggregate equal to the army of almost any military Power on the Continent. It was quite a new thing for England to have such a large standing army.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, if our army had only to defend England, the hon. Member might have cause to complain; but he should remember that it was sent to America and every other part of the worlds and that being so, it was not to be compared with other armies.
CAPTAIN JERVISasked, whether the capitation tax of £10 per man to be paid by the Indian Government, was a permanent or annual calculation?
SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, that although it was in fact an annual arrangement, it would be continued for another year. Practically it was intended to continue for five years and then to be revised.
COLONEL SYKESinquired, whether 83,523 was the told force on the East Indian establishment, including all the depots in Great Britain?
MR. T. G. BARINGstated that it included the whole establishment.
COLONEL STUARTasked, what were the hospital stoppages, and whether in future any religious books would be supplied to the army? Last year £3,000 was taken in the Estimates for the purpose; but this year the sum had been struck out of them.
SIR GEOEGE LEWISsaid, he could not at present give any explanation in regard to the supply of Bibles to the array, but he would do so on the Report. With regard to the stoppages, the supposition formerly was that the fixed sum of 10 d. would cover the whole expense incurred in hospital, but that sum was far from covering the entire cost at present. Nevertheless that sum would not be increased, and therefore, virtually, a large remission had been made upon the stoppages.
MR. WHITEsaid, he really wished that his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, had moved the reduction of this Vote by 10,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that £5,000,000 was formerly the total sum required for the army, and that subsequently to the French war £10,000,000 was required. After the Crimean war the sum needed was £15,000,000, and he supposed if they had been so unfortunate as to have gone to war with America, according to the law of arithmetical progression supported by the right hon. Gentleman, £20,000,000

973
would have been demanded for a normal peace establishment. The Committee ought to protest against Estimates of such portentous magnitude, and consider whether the time had not arrived when they ought to be diminished. We had indulged in self-exultation at the wonderful strength we had attained in this country. We had now 150,000 Volunteers ready for service, and still a vote of 145,450 men was asked in these Estimates. If any hon. member of greater experience would move a reduction of 10,000 men, he would second the motion. ["Move, move."] Well, then, he begged to move it. It was not the first time that he had received encouragement from hon. and gallant Members opposite to go into the lobby, and he now gave them an opportunity of dividing with him. He would move that the number of men be reduced by 10,000.
COLONEL NORTHasked the hon. Member, from what part of the army be would make this reduction?
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 135,450, exclusive of the Men employed in Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Officers included, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, inclusive."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 139: Majority 128.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that as there was to be an additional West India regiment, he wished to remind the Secretary of State that the Committee on Colonial Military Expenditure had evidence before them of the great superiority of the African over the West Indian blacks. Could the right hon. Gentleman state where the regiment was to be raised?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the arrangements for the formation of the new regiment were not sufficiently forward to enable him at that moment to answer the question. It rested upon the Commander-in-Chief and the Colonial Secretary. When possessed of the information required, he would communicate it to the House. An hon. Member (Colonel Stuart) had put a question to him with reference to the supply of Bibles to the army, as he found that the item had been struck out in the Estimates. The supply was not to be discontinued, as was apprehended by the hon. Gentleman, but by a change of ar-
974
rangement the supply would in future be made from the Stationery Office, and the expense would not be included in the Army Estimates.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know what security the Committee would have, when they bad voted the men, that the number would not be exceeded? Last Session he had shown that an increase had taken place in the number of men over the number voted. The number voted was 146,044, but the actual number on the 1st of June was 152,235. If the Committee would refer to a return which had been published on this subject, they would find that in every mouth from May to November a much larger number of men had been kept up than had been voted by Parliament. Would the right hon. Gentleman state how the consequent increase of pay and allowances was provided for?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the practice of the War Office had been to regard the number of men voted, not as a maximum number for any time during the year, but for an average upon the whole year. They therefore considered, that if they made the average correct for the whole year, the Vote of the House had been complied with. In the earlier months of the year the number of men had exceeded the number voted by the House, but it was at the same time intended that in the later months the number should be by a corresponding amount beneath the number voted for the year. It so happened that the alarm of war supervened, and from this cause the number voted for the whole year might to some extent have been exceeded. If the calculations had not been defeated by that accident, the numbers voted by Parliament would have been strictly complied with. There was no chance of there being any excess this year, as recruiting had been stopped, and the army was undergoing diminution.
GENERAL PEELwished to know how the excess of 4,000 men up to the 1st of November was explained?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the same question was put at the end of last Session, and he then endeavoured to explain the circumstances. By a Return presented last February, the number on the British establishment appeared to be in excess of the number voted by Parliament. But the number included the recruits which the Government of India required for the new brigades of artillery, and some men

975
retained in China beyond the number anticipated. The number of men demanded by the India Office for the new brigades of artillery was 4,000. More than 1,000 had been sent out, and 3,000 were in training. The pay of these men was of course chargeable against India. If those deductions were made from the Return of the 1st of November, the number voted would be more than the number borne; and, in saying that, he deducted 1,500 men, the pay of whom was not voted, the rest of the sum deducted under the head of "wanted to complete," represented the pay stopped from men being in prison and other reasons. Since the commencement of the year recruiting had stopped, and whereas more than 1,000 were recruited monthly in 1860–1, in no month of the year 1861–2 up to the difficulty with America did the recruits, cavalry and infantry, exceed 410 a month. In one month it was as low as 129.
GENERAL PEELunderstood that the 4,000 men in excess were upon the establishment.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, there was a special arrangement with the Indian Government that the expenses of the recruits for the new batteries should be paid for by India.
GENERAL PEELsaid, it was the first time he had heard of the special arrangement.
MR. HENLEYsaid, as far as he could understand the explanation given, there appeared on the face of the paper an excess of several thousands, to continue up to a given day in November. The question then came to this—the men being actually there, how were they to be made to appear not to be there? The hon. Gentleman said that a certain number of them were in gaol.
MR. T. G. BARINGbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He simply stated that under the ordinary regulations of the service pay was not issued to the men when in gaol.
MR. HENLEY: The hon. Gentleman stated that 1,500 men of Her Majesty's army were in gaol. If they were not in gaol, he supposed there would be no deductions made. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that this number of men who were in gaol were in excess of the average number in the army who were usually in that position? He also wished to know if the body of 4,000 men to be recruited for the artillery service in India were included in
976
the return of British troops; and, if so, who paid for them? Was the money to be paid into the English Exchequer? The question of excess had been bandied about for the last twelve months. First one answer was given, then another; but they had never been able to get at the rights of the matter. There could be no doubt there was an excess, and the simplest course was to say so at once.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, with regard to the portion of the troops in India referred to, they were a separate establishment. They were the Royal Artillery, but to be used for special purposes—namely, to take the place of the Native Artillery, who were to be discontinued. A special arrangement had been made with the Indian Government that a certain number of men for that object, for whom India was to pay, was to be raised. It was not right to employ to a large extent the Native Artillery.
GENERAL PEEL: It appeared, then, that during the course of the present financial year the Indian Government was to pay not only so much per head for all the troops in India, but the additional expense of these 4,000 artillery troops.
SIR CHARLES WOODanswered in the affirmative.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHasked, whether they would be for general or local service?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, for general service. The new batteries would be formed out of the remains of the local Artillery, and the men to be sent out in substitution of Natives.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHasked, whether they would be liable to service in Europe?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that in due time they would be relieved and be liable to serve in England or anywhere else
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,355,596, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay and Allowances of Her Majesty's Land Forces, at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, inclusive."
MAJOR KNOX, in pursuance of notice, rose to move the redaction of the Vote by £1,038 14 s. 7d., the amount of the

977
pay and allowances to the Major General commanding the Brigade of Guards in London. The hon. and gallant Member said, he had no intention of attacking the Guards; on the contrary, he believed the real enemies of that force were those who opposed a similar Motion last year, when the Vote was only carried by three in a small House; but one of the three had spoken in favour of the abolition of the Major General of the Guards, The appointment in the first instance was devised in order to make a place for a noble Lord on his return from the Crimea. It was held by him for five years, and during those five years little was said against it; but that term came to an end last year, when the matter was broached in that House, and he thought there was a strong feeling against the item. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said that he thought the proposed change would tend to improve the efficiency of the Guards; and, referring to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigan (General Lindsay), said they ought to give weight to the opinion of an hon. and gallant Gentleman who was animated by no other wish than the good of the service. But he would quote from Hansard what another hon. and gallant Member said—
"He (General Upton) was of opinion that, as far as the discipline of the Guards was concerned, that officer was not required. The Guards got on quite as well before the appointment of a Major General as it did afterwards."—[3 Hansard, clxii., 754.]
He did not know exactly what duties the Major General had taken upon himself, because, as the duties were always performed by the Colonels, if he took them the Colonel would have nothing to do. He might have made work for himself. He had the power, certainly, to approve of Courts Martial; but he was told that, when the Major General was absent, that duty was performed by the Colonels. The Brigadier General of the Guards received Major General's pay, whereas a Major General at Aldershot received only Brigadier General's pay. Although he had spent his life in the Line, he had no jealousy of the Guards; but he thought it only fair to assert that the Line Generals were as fit to take the command of the Guards as the Generals of the Guards were to take that of the Line. He understood that the General who had been sent out to command the Guards in
978
Canada was also Inspector General of Militia in this country. That officer could not discharge the duties of both appointments; but when he found the duty in Canada irksome, he would probably come home, and take up his appointment in thin country. If a General was required for the London district, he thought, whether a Guardsman or Lineman, he ought to command all the troops in the district. The appointment rested with the Commander-in-Chief, who ought to be able to appoint any person he thought fit. He would ever be found supporting the true interests of the Guards. He was sure all would concur with him that the Queen ought to have her Guards, and he therefore meant no disrespect to the Throne in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,038 for pay and allowances to the Major General commanding the Brigade of Guards in London.
GENERAL UPTONadmitted, that he still retained the opinion that the office was not necessary for the discipline of the Guards; but when the appointment was first made, persons high in authority said it was for the purpose of relieving the Adjutant General of a variety of business which was imposed on him. That was his justification for not voting against the continuance of this command. He thought the country might be very well served by this new officer, if they extended to him further duties, from which, he was credibly informed, the Adjutant General would be happy to be relieved.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he bad observed that the cost of the Staff this year was upwards of £14,600 more than that of last year.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had moved the reduction of the Vote called the appointment "a job," and stated that the position had been created for a noble Lord who had formerly served in the Guards. Of course it was very easy, when a person was appointed to a new office, to say that the office was made for the individual. But Lord Rokeby was not now Brigadier General of the Guards, but General Crawford; and if the office had been created simply for Lord Rokeby, he presumed it would have been abolished when he vacated the office. At all events, the question was whether there existed any public ground for the appointment? He (Sir George Lewis) had no reason to believe that the office had been created for the individual.

979
He believed that the authorities of the day became aware of the defective organization of the Guards, and that the office in question was created for very sufficient reasons—to remedy this evil. Seven battalions of Guards constituted a brigade, but up to the appointment of this officer they had never been inspected, except by regimental or battalion officers; and it was thought advisable to give a unity of character to the force by having an officer to inspect them as a whole. He understood from very competent authorities that prior to the creation of this officer the discipline of the Guards was in a very backward state, that subsequently great improvements had been produced, and that it would be a decided change for the worse to abolish the command. There were many duties of inspection which could not be adequately performed according to the plans which had been previously pursued. The Committee were hardly aware of the system which had been in operation. There used to be an officer who was called a field officer in waiting; the office was held only for a month, and was taken successively by the seven lieutenant colonels of the seven battalions of the Guards and the three regimental colonels. Now, the Committee would see that a more imperfect system of inspection could not exist, because officers of different ages, views, and experience, month after month, succeeded to the command, and held the chief superintendence of the battalions. It was to put an end to this very imperfect system that the office in question was created; it was created quite deliberately, and upon the recommendation of the most experienced military men. The Committee would see it was essentially a matter of military discipline. He could not himself form any opinion on the subject. He could only take the opinions of others more competent to judge, and he was sure that the system had been eminently beneficial to the Guards. He trusted, therefore, the Committee would not be led away by the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but would defer to the authority of experienced military officers, and retain in the Vote the sum which it was proposed to strike out.
GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he had had the honour of serving under both systems, and he was bound to say that he considered the appointment as an improvement. He could not, however, agree with the Secretary of State with regard to what had occurred
980
before the institution of the office. Ha did not think that the system was so defective as to require a general officer to be put over the Guards for the purpose of bringing them to a superior state of discipline. The actual command used to be in the hands of the Adjutant General, who did duty as General Officer commanding; but in progress of time the business of the army became so enormous that the Adjutant General had very little time to conduct such inspection as ought to take place; and the appointment of a Major General had been brought about by military authority for the better organization of the system. He trusted that the Committee would agree to the Vote.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he did not concur in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the discipline of the Guards was such as required this general officer to be placed over them. At the same time, he did not see why the same rule should not apply to the Guards as to other corps, and therefore he could not support the Amendment, though he thought it would be better if the command of the General in question were to extend to the whole London district, and indeed he did exercise a command over the 3rd Line Regiment now in the Tower.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONthought, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under a mistake when he imagined that his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) had spoken disparagingly of the discipline of the Guards before the appointment under discussion was made. His right hon. Friend only stated what had been confirmed by military authorities in that House, that the appointment was a great improvement in organization. Everybody knew—and this might be stated without offence to other branches of the service—that no body of troops were more efficient, and more distinguished for service in action and discipline at home, than the division of the Guards. That body of men was most exemplary in every respect; but it had this defect, if so it might be called, that there did not exist that unity of system with respect to all matters of internal economy which was so important and necessary, and which was secured by the appointment of a General to superintend the whole division, and who had made an improvement in what was excellent before. He hoped, therefore, that the testimony borne by hon. and gallant Gentlemen acquainted with the organization of the

981
Guards, who stated that the organization, though excellent, might be improved, like all other human things, would induce the Committee to agree to the original proposition.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,354,558, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Pay and Allowances of Her Majesty's Land Forces, at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1868, inclusive."
The Committee divided;—Ayes 65; Noes 115: Majority 50.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(3.) £706,892, Miscellaneous Charges, Land Forces at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India.
MR. WHITEasked, whether the men had any share in the increase of £7,000 under the head of "Field Allowances?"
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, they were allowances made under the authority of a Royal warrant to officers serving in the field.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONdrew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the stoppages under which the troops already in Canada had been placed for their winter clothing. The first cost of it varied from £l 18 s. to £2 5s.; towards which the Government contributed 30 s., with 5s. a year for keeping it in order. These allowances were obviously too little, the 5s. hardly sufficing to keep the winter boots in good order. The men sent out in the winter had been very liberally dealt with, and he hoped that those who had been despatched in the autumn would be treated in the same manner.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the disposition of the War Department was to deal liberally with the troops. He could not say that his attention had been called to this particular stoppage; but he would make further inquiry, and if it still existed, he would take care the matter should be considered.
In answer to a question by Colonel STUART,
SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that the item of £3,000 for religions books, included in the Army Estimates for last year, did not appear in these Estimates for this year, as the books would in future he supplied by the Stationery Office. The item would appear in the Miscellaneous Estimates, which were not yet printed.
MR. KINNAIRDdrew attention to the increase in the hospital expenses for the item of medicines and surgical instruments: the increase was from £15,000 to £40,000 for the next year.
MR. W. WILLIAMSnoticed the high price that appeared to be paid for the horses purchased for the Household Cavalry.
Vote agreed to.
[The next Vote on the Estimates as printed is "Vote 4. Embodied Militia. Nil." The Vote for Volunteer Corps is therefore No. 5. of the printed Estimates, and No. 4. on the Votes and Proceedings.]
(4.) £211,667 Volunteer Corps.
VISCOUNT ENFIELDwished for some explanation of this Vote, which had increased to its present amount from £163,276.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, they had been told that this would be an inexpensive force; but the expenses were increasing from year to year. The expenses for powder were increased, and additional clerks were employed in the War Office, so that the whole of the expenses of the Volunteers were not set forth in this Vote. If this charge were to be increased year alter year, it would be a matter for the consideration of the House whether it would not he better to lay out the money on troops that would be efficient for every purpose. He never thought it likely that the services of the Volunteers would be required, and the chance of their being called upon was now more remote than ever, He had no doubt that, under able officers, the Volunteers would do their duty, and prove able assistants to the militia and regular troops.
MR. W. WILLIAMScalled attention to a charge of £3 per head per annum for clothing to yeoman cavalry, and as they were called out only for a week or fortnight that appeared to him to be an extraordinary charge.
MR. HARVEY LEWISobserved, that in the total sum to be voted for Volunteers £88,779 was put down for the Yeomanry Cavalry. The Vote now before the Committee amounted to upwards of £211,000, but the Volunteers did not receive more than £122,887. He found that the yeomanry cost £6 5s. per head, whereas the Volunteers did not cost more than 16 s. per head. Besides, if we enjoyed peace at this moment we owed it in a great measure to the Volunteer movement.
MAJOR EDWARDSappreciated too highly the inestimable services the Volunteers had already rendered to their country to say one word in their disparagement. On the contrary, so much was he impressed with the value of the force in a national point of view, that he attributed in a great measure to its existence their present peaceful relations with the other Powers of Europe. He maintained that England was under the deepest obligation to that fine body of men who had volunteered their services in defence of their Queen and country in the hour of need, and the obligation was universally acknowledged. On the other hand, he trusted the services of the Yeomanry were equally appreciated, and that no hon. Member would intentionally disparage that force. It was certainly true, as the hon. Member for Marylebone had stated, that the Yeomanry cost £6 5s. per head, whilst the Volunteers did not cost: more than 16 s.; but considering the expenses to which the former were put, in the purchase and keep of their horses, he contended that they were in fact much more inadequately remunerated than the Riflemen who had no such expenses to incur. He, therefore, could not consent to compliment that force at the expense of the Yeomanry. Sixteen thousand mounted men, whose services had already so frequently been acknowledged in that House, and who were at all times prepared to support the Queen's troops, in the support and maintenance of order, if once disbanded could not readily be recruited, and the time might arrive when their services might be required.
MR. HARVEY LEWISdisclaimed any intention to disparage the yeomanry.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he had recently received a circular giving an account of a great meeting held in Glasgow to solicit from Government some additional assistance for the Volunteers. The Glasgow Volunteers made out a very strong case, and he hoped Ministers would give a favourable consideration to their representations. He thought it would be well if a capitation grant of so much per head were given to the Volunteer corps, the amount to be awarded after an annual inspection.
MR. SELWYNsuggested, that in future the charge for the Volunteers should be separated from that for the Yeomanry, for the two forces were not identical in character. It appeared to him that the
984
Volunteers were treated in a very niggardly spirit. Of the £130,000 granted to them £50,000 Was voted for adjutants, and £40,000 for sergeant-instructors. The latter sum should not be charged against the Volunteers, for it was the price paid by the Government for the retention in its service of a most efficient body of men. Many of them obtained their discharge from the army while in the prime of life, and their employment with the Volunteers was an appropriate reward for their past services, and also kept them in practice and ready for any national emergency, when, as recent events had proved, the services of such men were most essential. He believed the present number of sergeant-instructors was quite insufficient, and hoped the grant under that head would be increased. He also thought the Government should afford to the rifle corps a certain number of experienced buglers, and should assist them in obtaining land for proper and convenient ranges. Ministers might accomplish the latter object by taking up and completing the measure which he had himself introduced at the request of the late Lord Herbert, but which, from various causes, was passed in a very imperfect state. The Volunteers had not asked for any grant of public money for this purpose, but only for similar powers to those already granted to many other public bodies. They were willing that those powers should be subject to the previous consent of some competent local authority, and of the War Office, and to the sanction of Parliament; but they wished to be able to obtain land, without being obliged to go before that most expensive, uncertain, and unsatisfactory tribunal, a Committee of either House of Parliament. Such powers, if given, would be seldom exercised, but their existence would prevent exorbitant demands being made, and a great boon would thus be conferred on rifle corps, and great facilities would be procured for Her Majesty's regular forces, and especially for the militia regiments, which in several instances had been obliged to obtain a loan from the Volunteers of their rifle ranges. He trusted that the Vote, instead of being diminished, would he increased—not, however, by a capitation grant, but in the way he had mentioned.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he could bear his testimony strongly to the truth of the statement made by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. H. Lewis), that very

985
great difficulty existed in obtaining funds for establishing and maintaining proper butts for rifle practice; and the Volunteers justly felt that while they made such sacrifices of time and labour, and continued steadily at drill, they should not be called on also to contribute large sums of money for such purposes. The Volunteer force had done much to increase our sense of security at home and our prestige in foreign countries, and he feared the corps would dwindle away if something were not done to meet the demands which were now made upon their own resources, by means not of charitable contributions, but by a national Vote.
LORD LOVAINEwas understood to ask for detailed information as to the exact numbers of the Volunteer corps, if it could be supplied from official sources.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Materials do exist of giving the information pointed out by the noble Lord, and if he is desirous of obtaining it in the form of a return, I will take care that he is furnished with the best information the War Office can supply. With regard to this Vote, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Selwyn) says it is inconvenient to combine the Yeomanry and the Volunteers in one Vote; but such has been the practice, and it is always better to keep Votes in the same form, unless some strong reason is given to the contrary, because comparison is thus more easy. The reason for the combination is that the Yeomanry is simply a Volunteer force, and, upon the whole, it seems desirable to take the two Votes together. Unless you wish to abolish the Yeomanry altogether, I do not know that it could be more economically conducted than it is at this moment. With regard to the Volunteers, two courses of objection have been taken. Some think the cost too high, others that it is not sufficiently high. As to those who think the cost too much, I have to state that the increase is not considerable, and it is entirely owing to certain additional charges introduced in consequence very much of the discussions that took place last Session. There is an addition on the Staff in the number of sergeant-instructors for drilling the Volunteer corps, and the increase on the various heads is so moderate that I thing the Committee will have no difficulty in agreeing to it. But then it is also said that there ought to be a capitation for the Volunteer corps, and that,
986
unless something additional is done by Government, great danger exists that their ranks will be thinned in the course of the present year. I have already stated that this sum of £120,000 does not exactly measure the amount granted for the sustentation of this force. I fully recognise the advantage they have conferred on the country, the great loyalty by which they are animated, and the personal sacrifices which they have cheerfully undertaken; but I hesitate to recommend the Committee to make any additional contribution towards the maintenance of the force beyond what is included in this Vote, because it is desirable always to mark clearly the distinction between a Volunteer and a Militia force. There was another point mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman—for giving facilities of acquiring ranges for rifle shooting for the use of Volunteers. My attention has not been particularly drawn to the Bill of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke; but I will undertake to examine the details, and, if I think it desirable, a measure of the sort suggested shall be submitted to Parliament this Session.
MAJOR EDWARDSbad not the most remote idea that the Volunteer Vote could have come on this evening, and this no doubt was the reason why so few members of that force were present to take part in this discussion. He could only say that the reduction of the pay of Yeomanry officers, when on Permanent Duty, to the level of the privates had caused the greatest dissatisfaction—not so much as a matter of £ s. d., but because (as the natural inference) their services were undervalued by the Government, and the paltry saving to the country in last year's Estimates of £3,500 per annum did not warrant such a step. As a contingent to the Regular Army, the Yeomanry were perfectly distinct from the Volunteers—being liable for duty at any moment, in aid of the civil power, as well as for other purposes, and subject when on duty to the provisions of the Mutiny Act. As to the Volunteers, it was high time something should be done by the Government, if they were to be maintained on their present tooting, either by a capitation grant or in some other way. The clothing of those men who had served three years was already worn out, and it could hardly be expected that the officers should be at the sole expense of replacing it. Under the circumstances he was quite prepared

987
to support a Vote for any sum of money that might have been proposed for such a purpose by the Secretary at War, and he felt much disappointment at no such proposition appearing in the Estimates.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the Volunteer force did certainly look for encouraging treatment and mention from the Government and the House. He did not ask for any capitation grant; but they might have some help—for example, in providing butts.
COLONEL KNOXthought that the arrangement entered into last year with regard to the Yeomanry was fair and satisfactory, and that the sum granted by the Government was amply sufficient for all purposes. The Yeomanry officers, also, thought it would ill become them to ask for this pay when the officers of Volunteer corps were serving gratuitously, and making such sacrifices besides. It was hard, however, that Adjutants of the Yeomanry force should be entitled to no retiring allowances in case the corps broke up of its own accord.
MR. W. E. FORSTERfeared that unless some assistance in the refitment of Volunteers, when the present uniform was worn out the numbers would fall off for want of means. He did not think that any addition should be made to the Vote, or that the Volunteers should be paid; but he would suggest that in future years some assistance might be given in refitting the men, upon the principle of paying only for results, and only granting such an allowance in the case of effectives, say, at the end of three years' service.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, he did not wish to advocate that payments should be made to Volunteers, but that some assistance should be given to them in respect to their clothing and accoutrements. It had become now extremely difficult to maintain the force. The novelty of the thing was passing, the excitement was lessening, and, as the time for getting new uniforms came on, they looked for some assistance. He was quite willing that the assistance should be on results.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he was an advocate for economy, but he must say he could not understand why they strained at the Volunteer gnat after having swallowed the expensive camel of the regular service. He thought the Government should contribute something to the rifle ranges and butts. The expense of this
988
would not be much, and the ground could be used for the practice of the Militia, who, if they were to be made efficient, should have the opportunity of practising with the improved rifle. Did Government mean to give the cloth to the Volunteers? If something were not done in the way of encouragement, the force would very soon melt away. He should always be ready to vote in favour of rifle ranges.
MAJOR BARTTELOTsuggested that the Government should supply drill-instructors to the various corps, and that the cloth for the uniforms should also be given once in four years.
MR. BUCHANANbore testimony to the general prevalence of the feeling among Volunteer officers and others, that unless something were speedily done by the Government to aid the force, a large diminution in its numbers must be expected to take place.
MR. H. A. BRUCEcalled attention to the sum of £3,000 for the payment of clerks of the lieutenancy, who were amply remunerated by the Volunteers.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

MERCHANDIZE MARES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDurged several objections to the measure, which he conceived was calculated to produce difficulties rather than remove them.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee, in which, if the hon. Member would lend his assistance, his suggestions would no doubt be duly considered.
  Bill read 2o, and committed to the Select Committee on the Trade Marks Bill.

OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS SIR GEORGE LEWIS moved the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. HENNESSYbelieved that the measure was unnecessary, it being quite competent for the Queen in Council, at this moment, to do all that it proposed to accomplish.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISadmitted that the matter was not one of any very great moment; but the Bill was intended to remove doubts as to the legal position of officers of the army, with respect to which it was undesirable that any uncertainty should exist.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Declaration of Title; Security of Purchasers; Transfer of Land; Title to Landed Estates; Registry of Landed Estates; Real Property (Title of Purchasers).
DECLARATION OF TITLE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CRANWORTHin moving that
  898
  the Declaration of Title Bill be now read a second time said, he trusted that this question, which was not new to the House, would not be dealt with as one exclusively of a technical nature, but would be regarded as one in which the owners and purchasers of land were deeply and directly interested. He sought to deal with a practical grievance, and to diminish the difficulty, expense, and complication which at present existed in the transfer of land. The best remedy, therefore, would be that which provided the most expeditious, cheapest, and simplest mode of transfer. This subject had been brought under their Lordships' attention in 1846, and a Select Committee was appointed which came to the conclusion that there were unnecessary burdens in transferring land from hand to hand, and they recommended as a remedy the institution of a register for all deeds affecting land. He need not tell their Lordships that the mere fact of being in possession of laud afforded almost no evidence of title. Even where the deeds were of the briefest and most explicit character, there was sometimes great difficulty in proving the title, because it was necessary to show that the land had not been dealt with by the owner or some of his predecessors in a way that would prejudice the title. The advantage of a register of deeds would be, that it would disclose what settlements had been made of the property, and generally how it had been dealt with. In 1853 he introduced a Bill into their Lordships' House with a view of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee which had considered this question, and which proposed the establishment in England, as in Scotland and Ireland, of a general register of deeds. The proposition was very strongly opposed in that House by his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), and he (Lord Cranworth) confessed, that, although theoretically he believed that such a measure afforded the best means of securing titles, he felt the force of the remark of his noble and learned Friend, that the system would throw great expense and cost upon those dealing with small properties. The Bill went down to the House of Commons, which did not concur in the proposal, but recommended an inquiry as to whether there might not be established a register of titles, which would show on the face of it who was the owner of every piece of land in the kingdom. Her Majesty consequently, January,

  899
  1854, issued a Commission, consisting partly of lawyers, and partly of non-lawyers, to inquire into the subject. The Committee reported in May, 1857, recommending an elaborate system of first ascertaining a good title, and then putting it on the register, by means of which it should thenceforth be transferred like stock or scrip. Early in 1858, in conformity with a part of what was so recommended, he introduced a Bill to enable the title of purchasers to be established against all the world in analogy to the procedure of the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland. He must confess that when his attention was first directed to the subject he was startled at the possible establishment of a tribunal for the declaration of a good title in England; but the difficulty was one only of a practical character, and the Irish Encumbered Estates Court had then been in existence eight or nine years, and had disposed of property to the amount of millions. Indeed, so great were its advantages, and so satisfactory its operation, that estates were actually encumbered for the purpose of enabling them to be sold under the Court, the sellers finding, it was said, that they could get at least two years' more purchase-money in consequence of their being sold under the Court more than if they were sold in the ordinary way, notwithstanding that there might be a perfectly good existing title. Well, then, he thought what was so good for Ireland could not be bad for England; and accordingly in the measure he introduced in 1858 he had extended the principle to England. Very soon afterwards the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) came into power; but his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Chelmsford) gave every facility to the Bill, which after having been referred to a Select Committee passed their Lordships' House, but went down to the House of Commons too late to become law that Session. It was, however, during that Session that the Landed Estates Court (Ireland) Bill was passed, superseding, or rather making permanent, the Encumbered Estates Court; and a new power was introduced which enabled that Court to make a declaration of good title even when the estate was not about to be sold, such declaration being made after due investigation at the request of the party interested. To that clause he objected at the time; and although he admitted that the Bill had worked well, he still thought that clause objectionable
  900
  in principle, and a blot on the measure. In the next Session, his hon. and learned Friend Sir Hugh Cairns, then Solicitor General, introduced two Bills on the subject of the transfer of land, founded upon the report of the Commissioners of 1857. This Bill divided the subject into two heads—and no doubt in principle the subject ought to be so divided. The question considered in the first place was how to obtain safely a declaration that a title is absolutely good against all the world; and in the second, how to continue the effect of that declaration, making it operative for all time, and thus preventing any further necessity for the investigation of title. In order to effect the first object, my hon. and learned Friend proposed to establish a Landed Estates Court for England, as in Ireland, and to give facilities for making the title good by registration, due care being taken that such notice should be given that there could be little probability of the existence of any person who conceived himself in any way entitled to the estate not having due warning and ample opportunity to come in and oppose the declaration of the title. That Bill was exceedingly well framed for the purpose, and although it adopted the principle of the Act of 1858 that a person not selling might obtain a declaration of title, it contained a provision that that declaration should be of no avail except when he sold: so that, so far as he was concerned, it would be perfectly waste paper; but if he were selling, it would be valuable in favour of the purchaser. He (Lord Cranworth) was of opinion that that was a great improvement upon the Bill which he had himself introduced in 1858. That Bill dropped when the change of Government took place in 1859, and the subject was now revived by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. His noble and learned Friend now proposed to establish a class of functionaries called Examiners of Title, who, if they found the title submitted to their investigation to be good, were to place it on the register. He also proposed that instead of going before the Examiners, if the parties thought proper, they might go to the Court of Chancery, and have the title declared by that Court. The Bill also contained provisions for giving due publicity, so as to enable all parties who might be prejudiced by such declaration of title to come in and dispute it. The first Bill which he (Lord Cran-

  901
  worth) had laid upon their Lordships' table was precisely similar in its object to that introduced in 1859 and to that of the present Lord Chancellor; but the difference in the two Bills was, that he proposed that for the purpose of obtaining the declaration of a good title reference should be at once made to the Court of Chancery, and that the declaration should be made exactly in the same manner as if the party bad obtained a decree for the performance of a specific contract and there was a difficulty in making out the title. Objection might be taken to the quantity of business that this would bring into the Court of Chancery, and illustrations would probably be given of the enormous amount which was thrown upon the Irish Encumbered Estates Court; but he wished to point out to their Lordships that the condition of landed estates in the two countries was widely different. The chief reason for establishing the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland was the deeply encumbered condition of a large portion of the landed property in that country; in England, however, it was a rare thing for property to be so encumbered as to make it necessary that it should be sold before the knot could be cut; and consequently, in all probability, such declarations could be obtained by means of the existing machinery at a much cheaper rate and in a much more satisfactory manner. The questions which would arise as to title were just those with which the Court of Chancery was now continually dealing, and there could therefore be no necessity for establishing new machinery. The Court of Chancery, he believed, had never yet passed a bad title; and he appealed to the noble and learned Lord opposite whether, practically speaking, the report of the conveyancing barristers, who were now investigators of titles under the Court, was not invariably accepted as satisfactory and acted upon. The next and most important point was how a good title, once declared, could be made perpetual; for even in the case of the Irish Encumbered Estates Courts, after a declaration bad been made, the same questions would arise as existed now, and in fifty years' time there would be the same difficulty in dealing with such cases. The great object in view was how to prevent ambiguity of title arising after it had once been declared. In legislation of this sort Parliament was to some degree legislating for posterity, and the great object was,
  902
  to prevent the questions which had once been settled arising again after lapse of time. In facilitating the transfer of land they must not create impediments to the rights of dealing with land. To guard against fraudulent dealings with land on the register, it was proposed by the Bill of the Lord Chancellor to establish a system of cautions, inhibitions, and injunctions. This did not appear to make the process more simple. In cases of bank shares, stock, and other property, it was necessary to have a name on the registry, to whom payments of dividends might be made. But how could such trustees be placed on a registry for every small landed property? There would be the greatest difficulty in obtaining anybody to be trustee for it. The proposal was that every owner of an acre of land must have a name on the registry. In cases of the sale of parts of a property, instead of the whole, there would be an increase of difficulties. Endeavouring to meet this, his noble and learned Friend proposed to have a record of titles. This was valuable, if it could be done; but the Bill of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was open to the same objections as those which he had already pointed out. By the latter Bill, if a person wished to register, he would have to get his deed printed. Now, he quite agreed that a greater improvement than that effected by printing the proceedings in the Court of Chancery could not he well conceived; nothing could more tend to simplify and shorten the proceedings than that, and so far as that principal could be extended he would always cordially support it; but to force a man to print his deed seemed to him to be compelling him to incur an expense for no possible purpose. To the plan which was proposed in his own Bill he confessed that he had never heard any practical objection. Suppose a person was entitled to an estate in fee simple. He would get a declaration of title. Twenty years afterwards he might die, and perhaps twenty years after that his son, who succeeded him, might wish to sell the property. He would show first the official declaration of title. Then the purchaser would say, "But how do we know that there have been no mortgages, or settlements, or other dealings with the property?" To meet this objection, he provided that no purchaser should be bound by any mortgage, settlement, or trust deed, unless a

  903
  memorandum of it appeared on the back of the declaration of title. This could be readily done; forms were annexed to the Bill, and thus from time to time the title would always appear. There was another provision of his Bill which he regarded as valuable. In the second part of his Bill he proposed that the measure should operate from the first of January, 1863. This would operate in favour of every owner of land; whether he sent for a declaration of title or not, he would remain as he was, but there would also be an endorsement on the back of his deed showing the dealing with his property for all time to come. These were his views on this subject. All the Bills relating to it, he understood, were to be referred to a Select Committee; and should their Lordships think that the views he had taken were not the best, they should have his assistance in endeavouring to put into the most practical and most useful form whatever was proposed. The noble and learned Lord then moved "that the Bill be now read the Second Time."
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that although it was understood that all these Bills were to go to a Select Committee, he thought it desirable that this stage of the Bill should not pass without some expression of opinion from noble Lords on this most important subject. It was a subject of very great interest as well as of very great difficulty, and, until this debate, they had only heard the very clear and lucid statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in presenting his Bill to their Lordships. He had not the slightest doubt that the Select Committee would consider the question fully and dispassionately; but as the Select Committee would probably return a Bill resulting from a careful consideration of all the Bills which had been submitted to their Lordships, and consequently as to which there would be a perfect concurrence of opinion, there would be no discussion on it in the House; so that, unless they took advantage of this stage of the Bill, the public would have no information whatever as to the views of noble Lords on these important measures. They had now six Bills presented to their Lordships, all of which would go to the Select Committee. One which was presented by the Lord Chancellor had astonished him, but it appeared that it was the Bill of a noble and learned Friend who was absent, and was necessarily presented to the House on his behalf
  904
  with the name of the Lord Chancellor upon it, who was not therefore answerable for what it contained. There were two Bills of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cranworth), and he ventured to smile when he heard that noble and learned Lord, in introducing them, so highly vaunt his own goods. No doubt it was reasonable that noble Lords should look with parental affection on the measures which they introduced; but his (Lord Chelmsford's) own Bills, although they bore his trade mark, were not of his own manufacture, but were the same as those introduced by his hon. and learned Friend Sir Hugh Cairns, under the auspices of the Government presided over by the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Derby). He (Lord Chelmsford) was fully prepared to maintain most of their provisions, because they were founded upon the able Report of the Commission which was issued in 1854, and because many of them coincided entirely with those in the Bill of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The subject divided itself into two distinct heads—the declaration of title and the registration of title; the declaration of title for the purpose of establishing the validity of titles to laud, the registration of titles for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of land. Now, with regard to the declaration of title, it was a question which appeared to him not to be, within itself, one of very great doubt or difficulty; but as to the machinery that was to be provided to secure a declaration which would give an indefeasible title there was greater difficulty. The more important part of the question, and the more difficult one, was that with regard to the registration of title. On that subject the Bills which he had presented were founded almost entirely on the recommendation of the Commissioners under the Commission of 1854. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had spoken disparagingly of these recommendations; but he apprehended that if they were to have, not a registration of assurances, but a registration of titles, no better or simpler mode could be adopted than that which was recommended by the Commissioners. They recommended that there should be merely a registration of the fee simple; and that there should be a register merely from time to time of any transfer of that simple title. That title would then appear on the register unclouded by any encumbrances or trusts. The interests of persons who

  905
  might have dealings with the property being guarded by caveats of two descriptions. There was a premonitory caveat which any person interested in the land could enter, and which would entitle him to notice of any application to register the land. There was also another caveat, which, when the land was registered, any person could enter, and thus prevent any transfer of the land without notice. Those were protections which the Commissioners had recommended, and which he had introduced into his Bill. Provision was also made for encumbrancers putting themselves upon the register by entering a certificate of the encumbrance. The distinctions between his Bill and that of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack were of various kinds. In the first place, the Bill of the noble and learned Lord appeared to him to provide rather for a registry of assurances than a registry of titles. Among other provisions in that Bill was one, that an owner of land entered upon the register, who might be desirous of selling or mortgaging his land, should furnish to the registrar a statement of the amount of the purchase-money or of the mortgage, and a deed should be prepared of which an original should be handed to the person disposing of the interest, and the duplicate should be entered upon the register. In cases where property registered passed by will or deed, it was provided that a printed copy of the will or deed should be handed to the registrar, The noble and learned Lord had referred to the advantage that had accrued in Chancery from the introduction of printed proceedings, and inferred that a similar practice in respect of the transfers of land would be equally beneficial. But there was this difference, that in Chancery several copies of the Bill or Answer were required, while a single copy of the will or deed under which the land passed would be necessary, and the cost of printing a single copy would exceed that of engrossment. What he (Lord Chelmsford) proposed in his Bill was, that there should be a slight, entry upon the register of one or two particulars of the instrument, whilst his noble and learned Friend proposed a registration of the assurance itself. There were two important points which were dealt with in till the Bills—the declaration of titles and the registration of titles. With respect to declaration of titles, the only difference between them was as to the machinery to be employed. The Bill
  906
  which he (Lord Chelmsford) had introduced proposed to establish a new Court—a Landed Estates Court, composed of eminent conveyancers—persons well fitted for the discharge of such important functions. His noble and learned Friend opposite objected to the creation of a new Court, and thought that it would be better to leave matters to be decided by the Court of Chancery. He did not think that the Judges of that Court, eminent as they were, were the persons best qualified to undertake those new duties. It was not in the usual way of their business to take an abstract of title, go through it in chambers, and say whether or not there was a good title. Relying upon the experience acquired in Ireland of the working of the Landed Estates Court, he submitted that his own proposition was, under all circumstances, the best. He did not propose to begin with an expensive staff. At first a single Judge might be sufficient, and the judicial staff might be extended as necessity arose. It was proposed by his noble and learned Friend's Bill that the registrar should examine the title, and that if he felt any difficulty, he should refer the matter to a Judge of the Court of Chancery. Who, however, was to raise the question? The registrar might not be a very learned man, but he might not choose to refer his doubts to the Judge, but might take upon himself to decide the question finally as to the existence or non-existence of a defeasible or indefeasible title. He should have thought that the better course would have been to have required the parties to go in the first instance to the Court of Chancery to get a declaration of title, and then to have empowered them to go to the registrar and have it put upon the register. The Judges of the Court of Chancery were not, in his opinion, well qualified to deal with such things as abstracts of title; but if the whole question was left to the registrar he could see no difference between such an officer and a Landed Estates Court, except that he would have neither the importance nor experience of such a Court. He could, indeed, see no intermediate cause between the establishment of a Landed Estates Court and going to the Court of Chancery, to which latter course many and serious objections had been raised. Another part of his noble and learned Friend's Hill required very serious consideration. It was proposed that there should be two classes of titles, one with a guarantee and the

  907
  other without. If upon a guaranteed title a person should he improperly registered as the first proprietor, any one having a better claim is to obtain compensation, not from the purchase-money or from the land itself, but from the Consolidated Fund. The public is thus to become an insurer of titles. Provision is to be made to indemnify the public against loss which may thus occur by enacting that where a registry has taken place in consequence of the fraud or negligence of any person, that person should immediately become a debtor to the Crown. Now how was the negligence to be traced and proved? And who was the person who was to be answerable? Was it to be the registrar or the Judge of the Court of Chancery? He presumed that the purchase-money would have to be retained by the Court of Chancery for a certain time, in order that any person who had been defrauded might resort to it. He hoped that the Select Committee to which the various Bills were to be referred would succeed in constructing a satisfactory measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not congratulate their Lordships on the debate to which they had listened with such exemplary patience. He thought an unfair advantage had been taken of their Lordships; for he believed they all understood that the several Bills were to be sent to a Select Committee without controversy or discussion. He feared it might weaken the confidence of the public in that Committee to find the chief Members of it at the very outset entering the arena of debate, and, not content with lauding their own measures, endeavouring to undermine and destroy the works of others. He would not imitate their example. On the contrary, he acknowledged that the proposals of his noble and learned Friends were entitled to serious consideration. Nothing, however, was to be gained by their discussing them. On the contrary, it would only weaken public confidence if opinions were hastily expressed, and afterwards retracted on the further consideration to which all the Bills were entitled, and which he trusted they would receive. The Bill now before them was simplex munditiis, and if it only answered its purpose, it would be one of the simplest and plainest measures he had ever seen. He must make one little exception to that spirit of charity in which he regarded the efforts of others, and that was with
  908
  regard to the unfortunate Bill which bore his name, greatly to his surprise, and very much at variance with his intentions. As a matter of ordinary good nature, he consented to lay it on the table; but when he began to examine the offspring thus fathered upon him, he was astonished at several of its features. In framing his own measure his object had been to provide a system that would answer all the exigencies of dealings in land without altering the law. All the other schemes, except that now before them, proceeded upon a material change in the law. He referred to the proposal of having estates registered in the name of trustees, without any entry of a beneficial kind. In his opinion, the title should be made the mirror of the existing interest to which all could resort who desired to ascertain what the existing interest was, and to claim from the registrar a certificate which should declare and manifest that interest. By its means every man could go forth with a certificate of his ownership, and enter the market with the evidences that he was entitled to the commodity which he wished to sell. Objection had been made to requiring deeds to be printed when submitted to the registrar. The object of that was to render them less bulky and more readily accessible than they would be if in manuscript. A very ordinary form of a family settlement was as follows:—A. B. was tenant in life of an estate, and his son was tenant in tail. A settlement was made on the estate on a jointure to the wife of A. B., and a provision for the younger branches. Subsequently the estate was disentailed for certain objects with the concurrence of father and son. If the registrar found the short statement of the result of the limitations to be correct, he would enter it in the record of title. If he had reason to doubt the accuracy of the representations, their accuracy would be sifted, examined, and determined. As soon as they were determined, the registrar would insert them in the record of title, and the record would become a history in which the effect of each successive transaction would be recorded from time to time as they occurred. No lawyer would doubt that upon a half-sheet of paper the result of the limitations and provisions in a long deed of settlement could be recorded, and in that way titles would be easily understood and easily exhibited. For greater security he required the deed to be sent to the

  909
  registrar. It was a great objection to the registration of assurances that a man was required to part with his deeds of title. It was alien to the feelings and wishes of the people that he should do so, and, instead of the registrar keeping the deed itself, he would have a printed copy of the deed, and return the deed to the owner. He had been told that the printing of deeds would he expensive, but he had satisfied himself that almost everything used in the Court of Chancery could be printed for even less, and certainly for not more, than the charge of making a single written copy. Instead, therefore, of imposing upon owners a heavy charge, it would be one of the greatest measures of economy, and his ultimate object, by exhibiting its facility, was to supersede by printing all other forms of pleading. As to the difficulty of keeping up the record, their Lordships would recollect that the Bill provided the simplest forms of conveyance; and if resorted to, when an estate was on the register they would all be in a printed form, each occupying a piece of paper perhaps as large as the palm of the hand. As to the possibility of resort ultimately to the Consolidated Fund, that was a feature in the Bill which, no doubt, required great consideration and caution. It was a provision which was introduced because it was part of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission. But it was wrong to say that in every single case there would be a power of resorting to the Consolidated Fund. It was only provided in cases where no proper person could be made responsible, and where the overlooking a latent interest was attributable to its not being discovered, by some inadvertence, by the intelligence and care of the persons employed to investigate the title. It could only occur after an estate had been sold to a purchaser; and although the provision appeared in the Bill, it was merely to obtain their Lordships' approval of it, as it could not be transmitted to the other House without a violation of its rules. He was ashamed to have detained their Lordships so long by a discussion which could lead to no practical result, as the real discussion was to take place in Committee, and he would end by expressing an earnest hope that many of their Lordships who had not been professional lawyers would be members of that Committee, and bring their good sense and general knowledge to bear upon the subject.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSobjected to the Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Chelmsford), on the ground that it proposed to create a new Court. He thought that there were Courts enough already in existence. The judicial powers of the Court of Chancery were sufficient for the purposes contemplated by the measure. The great difficulty was to establish a title in the first instance, where there was no one to scrutinize it adversely as between vendor and purchaser. He was sure that their Lordships would go into Committee on all the Bills with the single desire to frame a really useful and efficient measure.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, he was quite willing to bear his part of the censure which had been passed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack on those who had taken part in this debate. Though the Select Committee might be the proper place to discuss the machinery by which the Bills were to be worked, it was on the second reading that their Lordships were called on to express their views on their principle. The discussion which had taken place on this and the previous occasion had had the advantage of bringing them pretty much to an agreement as to the evils which were to be remedied. These evils were delay and expense. The delay would be diminished by every means which simplified the nature of the title and facilitated the transfer. The expense, however, was a very different thing, and the only real way of diminishing the expense would be by altering the principle by which the payment of costs was at present regulated. This present mode of having solicitors and counsel according to the length of instruments, had the effect of spreading over a number of skins of parchment that which might be stated in three lines. All of the Bills before the House agreed in this, that if their provisions took effect, a man would have to go through just as much trouble and expense to prove his title to the Court as he would have to prove it to a purchaser; but when he had once proved it, he might have a title which would he good for all purchasers. A system of registration was not necessarily connected with a declaration of title; a system of registration might or might not be advisable, but it certainly would not diminish complication or expense. What it was supposed to be likely to remedy were the evils arising from the suppression of instruments of which the purchaser had had no notice,

  911
  If they wished to satisfy the public—and that was the most important object—he believed they could not do anything so likely to set it against these changes as increasing the number of courts and officials, and adding to the large sums paid to legal officers appointed at one time, and removed or superseded at another. They must take the Chancellor of the Exchequer into their councils, for they might talk as they pleased of the expense of the transfer of land, a large portion of that expense was caused by stamp duties. A man might transfer £100,000 in the funds without paying a farthing to the Treasury; he could not transfer an acre of land without paying a stamp duty. The extent to which this had been carried was extravagant. In conveyances by lease and release, the ordinary form of passing the title to land, the Legislature had done away with the lease, which was quite useless; but had nevertheless provided that the purchaser should pay a stamp duty upon it as if it were still in existence. There was an essential difference between land and property in the funds. One £100 in the stocks was exactly like another £100, and the purchaser knew exactly what he bought. But one acre of land was not the same as another acre. In dealing with land it was the very essence of the matter that the parcels should be identified. It was impossible, therefore, that land should ever be transferred from hand to hand like chattels or like stock, even if it were desirable that the same facility of transfer should prevail, which he did not think that it was. It was proposed to refer these Bills to a Select Committee; but on this occasion, when they were being read a second time, he thought their general principle and the extent of the changes ought to be distinctly stated.
  Motion agreed to.
  Then Security of Purchasers Bill; Transfer of Land Bill; Title to Landed Estates Bill; Registry of Landed Estates Bill; and Real Property (Title of Purchasers) Bill; severally read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And on Thursday next the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor

  E. Derby

  Ld. Privy Seal

  E. Clarendon

  D. Marlborough

  E. Carnarvon

  Ld. Steward, (Earl of St. Germans)

  E. Powis

  E. De Grey

  912

  E. Ellenborough

  L. Cranworth

  L. Wodehouse

  L. St. Leonards

  L. Harris

  L. Wensleydale

  L. Wynford

  L. Chelmsford

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  L. Kingsdown

  L. Overstone

  Transfer of Real Estate Bill:—Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day), put off to Monday next.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.