Sitting of 31 March 1862

Preamble
MINUTES.—PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Sir John Soane's Museum.
2° Merchant Shipping Acts, &c. Amendment; Writs of Habeas Corpus into Her Majesty's Possessions Abroad.
3° Copyright (Works of Art).

THE PEGU PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Why the Pegu prize money, arising from the sale of prize property captured in Pegu in 1852 and 1853, and ordered to be distributed by Order in Council of the 12th day of September, 1860, has not yet been so, and when it will be?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was afraid he could not say when the money in question would be distributed. The Royal Warrant authorizing the distribution had been passed in September, 1861, and sent out to India. In order to prevent delay as far as possible in the matter, notice had been issued by the Prize Committee at Calcutta to the effect that no application for any portion of the money could be received after the 31st of December last. It was not until that date, therefore, that the number of applicants was known. It required, he might add, some time to compare the prize rolls; but when that was done, the distribution would take place at once.

PERSECUTION IN SPAIN.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay on the table of the House the Papers relating to the Negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Queen of Spain, respecting the alleged persecution of Protestants?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am afraid I cannot give the Papers which the hon. Gentleman asks for, and for the best of all reasons, that I do not think any such Papers really exist. There has been no official correspondence or negotiation between the English and Spanish Governments on the subject. The British Minister has from time to time had unofficial conversations with the Spanish Ministers with reference to the matter; but I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will understand that reports of these unofficial conversations are not matters proper to be
254
laid before the public. I can only repeat what I have said before, that Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid has been instructed to take advantage of every favourable opportunity—without giving offence to the Spanish Government—to express the interest which the British nation feels in regard to those unfortunate people who have been condemned to severe punishment on account of their religious opinions.

TRAINING OF THE MILITIA.

  RESOLUTION.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to move the following Resolution:—
  "That in the opinion of this House it was not desirable that the annual training of the Militia should be of less duration than the minimum period recommended by the Royal Commission."
  The question involved in the Resolution was an important one, and the circumstances under which he brought it forward he thought justified him in doing so. The Militia Estimates were in this respect different from the other Estimates for the service of the Crown, that they were annually submitted for preparation to a Committee of that House; and though they could not be altered or amended, the fact that they were submitted sufficiently proved that the militia were a Parliamentary force. In asking the House, therefore, to interfere he was asking them to do no more than was consistent with their authority and responsibility. For the first time for several years the Government intended to diminish the time granted for training the militia. Since the Royal Commission, appointed to consider that and other questions relating to the militia, had reported to the House, the time for annual training had been reduced to a period of one month. During the last year it was agreed that that period might be modified so as to give a preliminary training to recruits, and that arrangement had been attended with very beneficial results; but twenty-seven or twenty-eight days was taken as the starting point. That year, however, a circular had been addressed by the Horses Guards to the Lords Lieutenant of counties requesting them to fix one uniform period of twenty-one days, and fourteen days for

  255
  preliminary training for recruits—a change which, he contended, affected injuriously the efficiency of the regiments, and was opposed to the report of the Royal Commission which considered the whole question in 1859, and which had collected a mass of evidence of the most valuable description. Now, of the necessity which existed for maintaining the efficiency of the militia he need say nothing, inasmuch as it was an object in the expediency of accomplishing which all statesmen seemed to concur. The militia force, having lain dormant for several years, had been revived in 1852, when public attention began to be called to the inadequate condition of the public defences, and the policy of having a body of men at home to protect the country in case of emergency. The Bill for its revival in 1852 was introduced by Lord John Russell, and the fact that a new force, the Volunteers, had arisen, called together by the most patriotic and praiseworthy motives, in no degree rendered the militia less necessary. It was important for them, therefore, to consider the state of what the late Lord Herbert had designated as "our army of reserve," and of what was pre-eminently a constitutional force. The late Duke of Wellington had referred in the most laudatory terms to the services of the militia during the last French war, and remarked on the readiness with which he was able to transfer them into the regular regiments of the line; and in introducing the militia Bill into the House of Lords, the noble and gallant Duke had prophesied that 50,000 or 80,000 men levied for the militia would in a short time attain a state of discipline worthy of their predecessors. To show the important advantages which such a force was calculated to render, he need only point to the case of Switzerland; which, secure in the courage of her people, was making a bold stand against the supposed designs of a neighbouring and powerful empire, depending for her defence on a militia organized in a manner not very unlike our own. Now, between a militia kept up efficiently and one which was not the greatest distinction prevailed, and therefore the difference between three weeks' and four weeks' training was of great importance. During the Continuance of the Crimean war the value of the militia had been tested, and owing to their embodiment, opportunities had been given for sending many regular regiments abroad. Such was the admirable
  256
  state of discipline to which the militia had attained that a very distinguished officer, speaking of the state of discipline of the troops in the camp at Aldershot, pronounced that a certain militia regiment was the best regiment in the camp. In 1860 the late Lord Herbert made a speech in that House on the subject of the militia, which, as far as its number were concerned, had then fallen into a most unsatisfactory state, owing to the regiments having been embodied and disembodied in an arbitrary and uncertain manner. Lord Herbert mentioned that in that year there were 40,000 men in training, but he added that there were 30,000 absentees, a state of things not only unsatisfactory but alarming. The changes which Lord Herbert carried out in order to secure the efficiency of the militia had been attended by the best results, and at the present moment the militia was in a condition immeasurably better than in 1860. No return of the number of militiamen trained last year had yet been published; but, as a specimen of the great improvement which had recently taken place, he might cite the case of the regiment which he had the honour to command. In that regiment in 1860 there were 600 men in training, and 130 absentees; in 1861 there were no absentees; and in 1862 the regiment was full, and there were thirty candidates on the list waiting for vacancies to be enrolled. The regiment was a credit to the county to which it belonged, and it gave no trouble to the town in which it was billeted. But what he wanted to show was that, according to the concurrent opinion of the Royal Commissioners, and of all the witnesses who were called before them, the efficiency of the militia depended upon the length of its training. The Commissioners stated that the number of days for training in each corps should never be less than 28. Some of the witnesses, officers of great experience, thought that even in 28 days proper musketry instruction could not be given. General Hay, at the head of the Hythe musketry establishment, was of opinion that 28 days for recruits, and 28 days for the whole regiment, would be sufficient. For artillery regiments a longer period appeared to be necessary. All the witnesses concurred in stating that the difference between 21 and 27 days was all important. The recommendation of the Commissioners was that a minimum period of 28 days should be allowed for recruits

  257
  in their first year, with 28 days additional for the whole regiment, making a total per annum of 56 days, or 168 in all. Last year the period was reduced to 126, 134, or 135 days. This year 21 days were to be allowed for the whole regiment, and 14 for recruits, making a total of 105 days instead of 168, as recommended by the Commissioners. The proposed reduction would operate most injuriously upon such regiments as happened to have few recruits. He believed the question was one of expense. The War Office had a larger number of regiments to train this year than they had last; but was it right, or prudent, or economical that, because they had more regiments to train, they should render the whole force less efficient in order not to exceed the Vote of last Session? It would be far better to reduce the number of rank and file, for a regiment composed of 700 well-trained men would be in all respects more efficient than one consisting of 800 ill-trained men. Out of a period of 21 days there were only 15 really available for training men fresh from the loom and the plough. The only difference in the expense of 21 and 28 days' training was 8s. 6d., and for that they were sacrificing efficiency. In a letter written by an officer who took a lively interest in the subject, but whose name he would not mention, the writer stated that 28 days was the shortest possible period that should be given for training men for the ranks of the militia. Instead of spending our hundreds of thousands upon fortifications at the other side of the Atlantic, which many persons considered a worse than useless expenditure, he thought it would be much better if the Government would spend money in the more advantageous direction of making the militia, which was the cheapest force in the kingdom, more efficient for the purposes for which it was established. He ventured to think that the course taken by the War Office was not consistent with a desire to maintain the efficiency of that force, nor with the principles of real economy. He should, therefore, move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" in the opinion of this House, it is not desirable that the annual training of the Militia should be of less duration than the minimum period recommended by the Royal Commission,"
  —instead thereof.
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he rose to second the Motion. His hon. and gallant Friend had entered so fully into his reasons for asking the House to resolve that the militia should have a further period for training, that he (Lord Burghley) should not consider it necessary to trouble the House with any lengthened observations. Having, however, since the organization of the militia in 1852, been intimately connected with that force, he trusted that the House would allow him to say a few words in support of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. He could assure the House, speaking from experience, that twenty-one days were not sufficient to instruct the militiaman in all that it was necessary for him to know in order to make him an efficient soldier. The modern improvements in firearms rendered it more necessary than ever that a longer time should be devoted to the instruction of the militiamen in the use of their rifles. It was no longer of such advantage to teach the soldier how to load and fire as quickly as possible; but it was all-important that he should be instructed upon certain principles, without the thorough knowledge of which the rifle placed in his hands would be a comparatively useless weapon. The period allowed by the Government for musketry instruction was six days. That time was wholly insufficient. He held in his hand a letter from an officer who, from his having passed a long time at Hythe, was of course competent to express an opinion on that subject, and this gentleman stated that the period allowed by the Government for musketry drill was quite inadequate to impart the instruction that was absolutely necessary, and without which, the militia, as a force, would be comparatively useless in times of emergency Sixteen days, at least, should be devoted to teaching the soldier the use of his rifle. Owing to the improvements in modern gunnery, it was especially necessary that the militia should be instructed in light infantry movements. He believed that the great majority of the force was only partially instructed in light infantry drill, and that the remainder possessed no knowledge whatever of those movements. He therefore thought that the twenty-eight days asked for by his hon. Friend—a period which was strongly recommended in the report of the Royal Commission—was not an hour too much to devote to the training of the militia. In order to show the House that he was not exaggerating the

  259
  insufficiency of the time granted by the Government to the training of the force, he would remind hon. Members of the number of days which must necessarily be deducted from even the limited period allowed by the War Office for the purposes of drill. After making allowance for the days of assembly and dismissal, and three Sundays, six days were required for musketry inspection, and two days for giving out the stores, and two days for putting the clothing back. Altogether fourteen days were to be deducted from the twenty-one allowed, winch left only seven days for the instruction of the militiaman in manual and platoon exercise and drill. He knew that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) and some other hon. Members who concurred with him, considered that the militia force was not so much required now, in consequence of the organization of the Volunteer force, which the hon. Member and his friends thought was not only a cheaper force, but one able to perform all the duties of the militia. Far be it from him to depreciate the merits of the Volunteer force. On the contrary, he believed it to be a most useful force, and that it ought to be encouraged by the Government. He must, however, be excused for saying that it was impossible for the Volunteers to fulfil to any extent the duties which were expected from the militia force. The Volunteer force, for example, could never be made a nursery for the line. In times of war it was well known that the militia was often called upon to fill up the vacancies in the ranks of the line. The great majority of the Volunteers, from their social position, would be wholly unable to do this, or to perform the ordinary duties of soldiers. Suppose a sudden call is made upon the Government to send out 10,000 or 20,000 men to serve abroad, or to recruit the ranks of our regular army. Surely it Could not be supposed that the Volunteer force would respond to such a sudden demand? The militia force had, however, acted upon such a sudden emergency over and over again, in the campaigns of the Duke of Wellington, and more recently in the Russian war and Indian mutiny. He therefore trusted that the House and the Government would not deny to that valuable and constitutional force the means of rendering itself thoroughly efficient. The invasion of this country was not a contingency dependent, as in former days, upon fine weather or a fair wind. In these
  260
  days of steam power invasion might be a question of a very few hours. It was then of the utmost importance that the militia should have ample time given them for being thoroughly instructed in all those duties it was necessary for them to learn before they could be marched against the enemy. The state of Europe was such as to warn the Government against the folly of being parsimonious in regard to their military forces. France was armed to the teeth; Sardinia was in a most disturbed and unsettled state; Austria appeared to be only waiting for false steps on the part of Hungary or her other dependencies, to pour her legions into the disaffected provinces. Greece was still in the throes of an active revolution. The Poles were only kept quiet by the presence of a strong military force in their country. Looking to all those circumstances, he thought the Government would be acting most unwisely if they did not use every means in their power to secure the thorough efficiency of every branch of the country's defence—Navy, Army, Militia, and Volunteers. He begged to second the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire, at the commencement of his speech, proved with elaboration certain points which I think he was entitled to assume without so much expenditure of argument. In the first place, he proved that the militia was an ancient constitutional force; that it was to be considered as an army of reserve; and that it was highly valuable to the country in the event of danger from invasion. The hon. and gallant Member then proceeded to establish this proposition, that four weeks of drill would render a regiment more efficient than three weeks, and that it was not expedient that a military force should be insufficiently exercised. I should have been quite prepared to concede as much as that to the hon. and gallant Member without any formal proof. But, as he truly remarked on proceeding to deal more closely, with the subject, this is substantially a question of expenditure, and the House must choose between submitting to the privation of a certain amount of military efficiency or incurring a considerable increase of expenditure. Now, the Government had to choose the best and safest means which they could under the existing circumstances; and I think, when I state the facts to the House, it will be of opinion that it is better to acquiesce in the

  261
  proposal which we shall submit in the course of the session in Committee on the Militia Estimates. In 1860 the number of regiments trained was 123, and the Estimate voted by the House was £ 520,129. Last year the total number of regiments was also 123, and the Estimate £ 637,000. The reason of that increase was that in the first of those two years the number of days' training was 27 simply, while in the second year there were three classes of regiments, having different periods of training, coupled with different periods of preliminary drill. In the present year we have 160 regiments, instead of 123, to estimate; and the arrangement which the Government have thought it advisable to propose is that there should be 21 days' training, instead of 27, and that we should allow 14 days for preliminary drill. The expense for that period of training and that period of drill is £ 697,000, as compared with £ 637,000 last year, being an increase of £ 60,000. Now, if the number of days' training was 28 with seven days' preliminary drill, on the present number of regiments the expense would be £ 749,500. What I think the hon. and gallant Member proposes is that there should be 28 days' training, with 14 days 'preliminary drill.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONobserved, that he should be quite satisfied if the same option were allowed to commanding officers of regiments with respect to the different periods of training and drill, as was given them last year.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: At all events, I may state that the cost of 28 days' training and 14 days' preliminary drill would be £ 757,000, the cost of 28 days' training and seven days' preliminary drill would be £ 749,000, while the cost of 21 days' training and seven days' preliminary drill (or less than we propose) would be £ 689,000. The question for the House to consider is, whether the proposal of the Government is adequate to the requirements of the country. It appeared to us, looking to the state of foreign affairs, to the existence of a large body of Volunteers, and the strength of the regular army, that 21 days' training for the militia, with 14 days' preliminary drill for recruits, would be sufficient. The hon. Gentleman says it would be far preferable to reduce the strength of the militia regiments from 800 to 700 men, and increase the number of days' training. That, no doubt, is an opinion which anybody may fairly entertain. But I am strongly inclined to think, that if
  262
  the Government had proposed to reduce the strength of the regiments in order to increase the period of training, there would have been more hon. Members in favour of the course we actually have adopted than in favour of a diminution in the numerical force of the militia. Because it is easy in future years to increase the number of days' training; but when the strength of the regiments is once diminished, it is not so easy to augment it again. Therefore, although the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, founded exclusively on efficiency, are unanswerable, there being no doubt that you will have a more efficient militia if you train it a greater number of days, yet the Government had to take into account not only what amount of efficiency might abstractedly be desirable, but what amount would be sufficient for the wants of the country, and could be obtained consistently with a proper economy. Taking, then, each of those elements into consideration, I trust the House will not be disposed to support the Motion of the hon. Member, but will agree with me in voting for the order of the day.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he thought it was clear that twenty-four days' training were not enough to make the men efficient. His object in rising was to suggest what he believed to be the best course the Government could adopt under the circumstances—namely, that of reducing the number of the regiments and increasing the number of days' training. The right hon. Baronet seemed to anticipate that there would be an outcry against reducing the regiments, and that a difficulty would be felt in afterwards obtaining recruits. But if he consulted officers of experience, as to the number of men brought on parade for drill, he would find that nearly two-thirds of the present complement of the regiments would be sufficient, and that there would be no real difficulty, if the men were required, in bringing them up again to the full standard. By following that plan the Government would save the recruiting money and would prevent desertion. The commanding officers, too, would have a greater control over the men, who would form an efficient nucleus, because they would belong to their own respective neighbourhoods.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Office would do well if he followed the suggestions offered by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire—namely, of giving the commanding officers, the

  263
  option of training their men either twenty-one or twenty-eight days, because circumstances varied in the different counties, as every gentleman knew who was connected with a regiment of militia. It would be impossible, he presumed, to make any alteration in the arrangements this year, but he ventured to call the attention of the Government to the point, and the right hon. Gentleman would on inquiry find that commanding officers would prefer having an option in the matter.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

IRON-PLATED SHIPS.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the reports of an engagement between the American iron-clad frigate in the naval service of the Confederate States, called the Merrimac, and an iron vessel, called the Monitor," in the naval service of the Federal States, having a shot-proof roof; and to ask whether, in consequence of the results of that action, it will not be prudent to suspend the construction of some of the proposed forts at Spithead until the value of such iron-roofed vessels for the defence of our ports and roadsteads shall have been fully considered? Upon former occasions he had felt it his duty to protest against the construction of works upon Portsdown Hill, because he thought it would never be possible adequately to garrison all the forts. He thought so still. He had not voted with the hon. Member for Liskeard when he proposed to abandon all the forts at Spithead, because at the time he thought such measures of defence were necessary there; but recent events had induced him to alter his opinion, and, as the subject was one of vast importance to this country, he felt it to be his duty to invite the attention of the House to it. He would have brought forward the subject on Friday last but that he desired to do so in the presence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whom he congratulated upon his improvement in health and re-appearance in the House. The great question of iron-plated ships against wooden vessels had been brought to an issue, and, happily, without any action on our part. It appeared that a vessel, the Merrimac, which a few months back was a wooden ship, was
264
sunk, was then raised, cut down to within three feet of the water, cased with iron two feet below the water-line, and the iron casing brought over the deck in the form of a roof, but not absolutely forming a ridge, an aperture being left on deck for ventilation. In order to break the blockade of the Chesapeake that vessel moved down to Hampton-roads, where she found several ships of war of the Federal States, constructed of wood, with considerable power, most of them well armed, but not all well manned. She engaged those vessels, destroyed one by running into her; was injured herself in so doing; she destroyed another by firing her, and kept the rest of the squadron at bay. That was a gallant exploit, and showed that the captain must have had great confidence in the iron casing of his vessel, which there was reason to believe was five inches thick. Private letters stated that the shot flew off from the iron covering of the Merrimac without having the least effect upon it, although one shell appeared to have entered the aperture on the roof-deck and killed the Captain and several men. So far that showed the success of covering vessels with iron decks; but it might be objected that such vessels could not navigate the sea in bad weather. That point, however, was soon settled, for on the following day to that upon which the Merrimac made her appearance, another iron vessel, of different construction, designed by Captain Ericsson, of the United States or Federal Navy, arrived in Hampton Roads. That vessel had come round from New York in half a gale of wind, and had proved herself a good and safe sea-boat. The Merrimac and the new comer, the Monitor, soon went into action; both were well fought and well handled. That contest was of great importance, and appeared to him to settle the question of the best means of defending our ports and roadsteads at the least cost and in the most efficient manner. The money had been voted a year and a half ago to construct the forts at Spithead, but little progress had been made. He now rejoiced that so little progress had been made, because they were still in time to stop if they were in a wrong course, and to diminish in some degree the number of those costly forts. He had originally been an advocate for some of those forts, but he had now seen reason to entirely change his opinion. Let the House consider the question how those forts could be fought. They were

265
to mount 380 guns, and would require 2,700 trained gunners, who would have to fire at moving objects with heavy guns. The right hon. Baronet would perhaps say that the forts were in course of construction, that contracts had been entered into, and that it was intended to place guns of enormous size upon those forts. He had heard that guns throwing 1,000 lb. shot were to be mounted; but he hoped that was not the fact, because if the service proportion of powder—one-third the weight of the shot—was to be used as the charge, it would be like springing a mine, and would be perilous to the men in the fort. What danger would there be of a foreign fleet anchoring in the Solent if they had a fleet of twenty or thirty Ericsson Monitors in portsmouth harbour, which could be constructed at one-tenth the cost of the forts? The noble Lord, the Secretary to the Admiralty, would recollect the statement of an able officer, Captain Sullivan, that there would be no danger to an enemy's fleet in running past the forts by night, and but little by day; while even if they threw 1000 lb. shots, in all probability only a few would hit the ships. Apart from the question of constructing forts at Spit-head, there was a proposition to erect powerful forts along the north shore of the Isle of Wight, to prevent an enemy from occupying positions on shore from which he could bombard Portsmouth Dockyard. Such forts would do no injury to vessels like the Monitor, which was almost even with the water's edge and strongly plated. In giving up the Spithead forts they should give up the works on the Isle of Wight. The passage of the Needles must be defended, and there were forts there already and the landing-places must be guarded; but to occupy a few spots of ground in the Isle of Wight, in order to prevent an enemy from bombarding Portsmouth dockyard, was a pure waste of public money. The officers who fought the action in America to which he had referred regarded the question between wooden and iron vessels as settled for ever. The Navy Department at Washington had issued invitations for tenders for the construction of vessels of all descriptions, partly of wood and partly of iron. These were to be vessels of certain draught of water for harbour duty, vessels for river service, others for coast defence. The tenders were to be sent in by the end of March, and immediate steps would be taken to
266
form a fleet of a most formidable character. Those vessels which were intended to defend harbours and the coast were to steam 15 knots, to carry 11 days' coal; and were to be armed with 11-inch guns. In England they had heard of an immense mortar; but nothing came of it, and the same result would probably follow in the case of that enormous gun, which, we are told, is to throw a shot of 1,000 lb. weight. He did not believe that the various parts of the metal could be amalgamated so as to render it proof against the large quantity of powder which would be necessary to propel from the gun so enormous a shot at a high velocity. Perhaps the first two or three trial guns might be well constructed; but by-and-by less care would be taken with them, and some serious accident would then happen. Even with the Armstrong guns accidents occasionally happened, although there the amount of metal was comparatively small. With regard to the forts, if the Government had not gone too far, they could surely suspend their operations. He was told that two forts were in progress. Let this system of defence be confined to them, and, at all events, give up the forts in the Isle of Wight. The estimated cost was £ 1,000,000; but he believed the forts would cost a great deal more, and that they would be very lucky if they got out of it for less than£ 2,000,000. It would be better to stop the works and pay a penalty to the contractor, than to spend so much money so uselessly. The hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), than whom no man was more competent to give an opinion on the subject, in a letter addressed to The Times upwards of three years ago, called public attention to the importance of building iron vessels. Mr. Laird also published a most admirable letter descriptive of a ship so constructed as to run into and sink an adversary. But even in America blunders were made, and it appeared that the stem of the Merrimac was too weak. No doubt, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would bear that lesson in mind. There was time to give our ships now in course of construction much greater strength in this respect. The Warrior could not run into such a vessel as the Merrimac without receiving very serious injury; but if her present very handsome stem were removed, and a strong, useful stem substituted, she would be a much more serviceable vessel. It was quite clear that, in constructing the forts

267
at Spithead, they were proceeding in a wrong direction. But it was not too late to draw back, and there could be no more opportune time for doing so than on the last day of the financial year. One point which the House should remember was the difficulty in getting 2,700 well-trained artillerymen to man the forts. Such a force could not be spared, even if the Volunteer movement continued, and was it right, then, to go on constructing forts which they would find it impossible to man? But there would be no difficulty in manning small vessels carrying two guns, which would be enough to keep at bay, if they did no more, vessels infinitely more formidable than the Merrimac. The action in question had changed his opinion with regard to the Spithead forts, and he was now fully impressed with the necessity of making the best use of the lesson which they had just been taught. The House would also remember that his lamented friend, Sir Richard Dundas, was of opinion that for the defence of the Solent it was better to rely on vessels than on forts, though the latter might be useful. That officer was a high authority, and had proved almost a prophet upon the question. Captain Coles had advocated the same thing, and the country was much indebted to him for his services. The question of sloping sides, which had been much canvassed, was one of detail. No doubt if, they could present to a shot a sloping and not a perpendicular side a much thinner metal covering would be sufficient to turn or resist that shot. In the Merrimac the amount of vertical surface placed opposite to the line of fire was only two, or at the most three, feet, and there was thus complete protection for the men working the guns, and plenty of air. How Captain Coles's cupolas would work was a matter of experiment, but there was a ship which, after being exposed all day to the fire of several powerful vessels and batteries, went off without injury from them; and after a five hours' engagement on the second day, exposed to the fire of guns much heavier than her own, it was a question whether a single shot penetrated her sides. If her sides were penetrated, they clearly must have been pierced by the fire of shot weighing 200 or 178 pounds; but, at all events, the Monitor sustained not a single crack in any of her plates. Although fighting almost muzzle to muzzle with the Merrimac, the Monitor was not damaged in the least; and if that
268
were so, no one need fear that small iron-cased vessels in the Solent would suffer from the fire of larger vessels entering, because the vessels for harbour defence could carry both heavier guns and much more impenetrable armour plating than any sea-going vessel could do. Under those circumstances, it was hardly justifiable for the Government to proceed with the construction of works on the northern shore of the Isle of Wight, or with the whole of the forts originally proposed. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by asking the question of which he had given notice.
MR. LAIRDsaid, that he wished before the question was answered to make a few observations on the subject. He looked upon the action to which reference had been made as the turning point in the adoption of iron for all classes of vessels in Her Majesty's service. Objections had hitherto been made to small iron vessels of this kind, but the success of the Monitor had clearly proved that ships of a small class were able to resist large ones; and, moreover, though the Monitor had not been built as a sea-going craft, she had made the rough passage from New York to the James river in perfect safety. That one vessel had saved the credit of the Federal navy; for unless she had come up, the Merrimac might have destroyed all the wooden ships there almost at her leisure; and this engagement had now settled for ever the relative capabilities of wooden and iron ships in war. The Americans themselves were so satisfied with the result of their iron vessel that they were going to construct many others; and he saw by one journal that they had abandoned the idea of defending their harbours by means of forts. He had always argued, in respect to iron ships, that it was not a question whether they could make a ship impenetrable to shot, but what would be the effect of such a ship, properly built, coming into contact with wooden vessels. That question had been settled. Objections had been raised to going into that question; but when he looked back and saw the difficulties that had been raised to the adoption of any new principle, he could not wonder at the objections that had been made to going one step further than they had done, and constructing the whole navy of the country of iron. But, he believed, till they did so, they should not be able to reduce their naval expenditure. The adoption of iron as the material of construction would do

269
away with the necessity of keeping large stocks of timber laid up in the dockyards. The Government would merely have to order the iron when they wanted it; if they chose to build ships by contract, they could do so; but they could reduce the establishments kept up at such great cost, and they would be able to know with certainty what the naval expenditure of the country would be. The objections to adopting iron that had lately been made in the House merged themselves into this—that they could not use iron to build a small class of vessels for foreign service, because they were liable to fouling. The only remedy for that, and the one that would be found the cheapest in the end, was to provide more dock accommodation for cleaning and repairing vessels on their foreign stations. The outlay for bringing ships and steamers home for repairs was very large. If an accident occurred to a vessel on the East or West India or the American stations, unless the means of repairing her were at hand, she had to be brought back to this country, and the expense of doing that was enormous. Sooner or later they would have to provide greater dock accommodation abroad. It was stated by Admiral Robinson, the Controller of the Navy, in his evidence last year, that with greater dock accommodation abroad one ship would do the work of two. The Government would save an enormous sum of money by adopting the principle thus laid down, and till they did adopt some such plan they could not keep their steam navy in an efficient state. He hoped the result of what had taken place in America would be to direct the attention of the Government more seriously to the matter, and induce it to pause before proceeding further with the construction of a small class of wooden vessels. They would be utterly useless and unable to cope with the vessels they might have to meet on foreign shores He must repeat his conviction that till some such course was adopted they should not be able to reduce the present enormous naval expenditure.
MR. GREGORYsaid, the event that had lately occurred in America appeared to him an entire revolution in the art of naval warfare. It was neither more nor less than that, and the newspapers of the Northern States had been congratulating themselves that, in consequence of what had occurred, the naval superiority of England was at an end. But he took
270
the precisely contrary view. He thought that England, with its great wealth, its mechanical appliances, and ample supply of; coal and iron, could not only provide for; her own preservation, but the maintenance of the superiority on the sea she had hitherto enjoyed. Another source of consolation was that a great portion of the burden of taxation that had weighed upon their shoulders for a long time past, under the impression that it was necessary, would be dispensed with. He entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir F. Smith) that money expended on fortresses would be money thrown away. Forts would only be buoys and indications; by which an enemy might pass into the harbours. The description of the late battle given in The Times stated that the large heavy shot from the land forts fell off from the Merrimac like hail from a tin roof, and shot weighing 180 lb. were fired by the Monitor at the Merrimac when they were lying muzzle to muzzle. If that was the case, what could the proposed forts do? To be of any use, they must have guns powerful enough to crush such ships; mid if they had guns of such enormous magnitude, the bursting of one of them would be like springing a mine within the walls. Jones's angular target of iron, 4½ inches thick, resisted, at a distance of two hundred yards, the Armstrong bolt-shot, weighing 110lb; whereas the Martello Tower at Eastbourne, with walls seven to nine feet thick, crumbled away before the fire of the same shots at 1,032 yards. What, then, had the Government to do but to accept the logic of facts, and accommodate themselves to the new state of things? He would read the advice given to the Government of England by Mr. Ericsson himself, in his letter to the American Naval Department, explaining his reasons for calling his iron vessel the Monitor. The letter, as it appeared in The Times of that morning, said—
"The impregnable and aggressive character of this structure will admonish the leaders of the Southern rebellion that the batteries on the banks of their rivers will no longer present barriers to the entrance of the Union forces. The iron-clad intruder will thus prove a true 'Monitor' to those leaders. But there are other leaders who will also be startled and admonished by the booming of the guns from the impregnable iron turret. Downing Street will hardly view with indifference this last Yankee notion—this 'Monitor.' To the Lords of the Admiralty the new craft will be a 'Monitor,' suggesting doubts as to the propriety of completing those four steel-clad ships at three and a half millions a-piece. On these and many

271
similar grounds I propose to name the new battery 'Monitor.' "
He trusted most sincerely that the vessel would prove a "monitor" to the Lords of the Admiralty. What were the suggestions that presented themselves from that letter? It was clear that by these vessels the means of defence were superior to those of attack. Shot of 180lbs. weight had no effect on the Monitor. Against such ships forts might as well be armed with popguns and squirts as with the heaviest ordnance at present used. Forts might, perhaps, be made invulnerable by plating them with iron; but of what use would that be? Iron ships had only to pass the forts and work their will on the dockyards beyond them. What they required was iron-clad batteries, not fortresses—vessels that could go out and contend with such an attacking enemy on equal terms. Another suggestion from this battle was, that the whole character of naval war was changed. Formerly this country relied on the individual courage of its seamen. When they had once boarded an enemy's deck, it was thought the battle was over. They could not board now; it was a mere tradition of the past. Boarding the sloping side of such a ship as the Merrimac would be like scrambling up the roof of a house. And when an attempt was made to board the Monitor not a soul was to be seen. The bravest boarding party might now, by some new device, be met with a shower of hot water and steam. He was curious to see how much the affair of Hampton Roads had affected the chief question that had been agitated that Session in Parliament. It had solved the whole question of colonial fortifications. It was positively throwing money away to spend it on fortifications in the colonies. The best defences were these floating batteries, which might, like the Monitor, be constructed in ninety days, and only cost £60,000. No fortifications now constructing could beat them. But by building the same kind of vessels the colonies might defend themselves with less outlay. Neither Gibraltar nor Quebec were any longer impregnable. If the Spanish launches had been plated with iron when the Chevalier D'Arcon brought them before Gibraltar in 1782, Lord Heathfield's red-hot shot would have been of no avail, and the Spanish flag would have waved over that fortress. British superiority on the American lakes would be very much endangered by the new class of vessels. It
272
had always been said, that though the Americans might overrun the border, yet in Quebec they would find a difficult nut to crack; but since the introduction of these destructive instruments of warfare the case was very different. If the Warrior had met the Merrimac, it was a matter of grave doubt whether the angular-sided vessel would not have overcome her vertical-sided antagonist; but if the Warrior and the Monitor had met, there was little doubt that the smaller vessel would have plunged her shot into the unprotected parts of the Warrior, and would, in fact, have overcome the pride of the British navy. Again, how useless would the fortifications of Alderney be before such vessels. What could be the use of spending money on fortifications when a battery could come from Cherbourg, sail right in, and knock every ship in the harbour into lucifer-matches without receiving the slightest damage? Cherbourg itself was the most notable example of the folly of building these fortifications. He hoped the Government would take that tremendous subject into their consideration. If, instead of going about like pottering old pointers, sniffing after the traditions of Blake and Benbow, they accommodated themselves to the facts which had met their eyes, and made proper use of this salutary lesson, they might be able to diminish their expenditure, and to provide an impregnable line of defence which all the Powers of Europe would not be able to break through.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that when the Defence Commission first gave in their Report, he was of opinion that the forts at Spithead, to which alone he should confine his observations, were absolutely necessary, but he had now changed his views, and he was confident that it should be better for the public good if the money were spent in the construction of vessels of the new description for the defence of the port, because these vessels could be made as strong as forts, and a movable fort must be much more valuable than a stationary fortification. Under these circumstances, he agreed in that particular with the gallant Member for Chatham; but there were some special circumstances to which he had alluded which required some slight explanation. He did not quite agree with the hon. and gallant (Gentleman in all the inferences which he had drawn from the late action and from the experiments which had been made in reference to the construction of iron fortifications and ships; nor could he

273
quite agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) in his proposal that the smaller class of ships in the navy should be constructed solely of iron. It was absolutely necessary that the light description of vessels should be built of wood, because they could not carry plates thick enough for their protection, and the destruction which would take place on the thin iron plates of vessels of that size would be much more formidable than the destruction produced on wooden ships of the same size. But all vessels which were to fight in war must not only be of considerable size, but of size sufficient to carry plates of considerable thickness, so as to protect them from the fire of the enemy. There was no doubt that modern artillery had arrived at such perfection that it was positive madness to send people out to fight in wooden vessels. If two vessels met armed with the modem ordnance, not one but both must be destroyed, and no result would flow from such an engagement. As far as he knew, it was not possible to construct ships solely of iron. It was absolutely necessary to have something behind the iron to prevent the vibration destroying the ship. As far as experiments had gone, it was certain that when the plates were very rigid, the attachments or bolts which fastened one to the other were certain to break by the concussion; and it was therefore necessary to construct ships of wood and iron combined, which so far was fortunate, because the best use they could make of their wooden three-deckers was to cut them down to their lower-deck beams, plate them with iron, and cover them with as many of Captain Coles' cupola shields as they would carry. One of these ships so cut down and plated, and provided with six or eight of Coles' shields, would destroy eight or ten line-of battle ships as they now existed. So far it was of value that they had ascertained that there was a positive advantage in having the wood to support the iron, because they could avail themselves of the great number of ships they possessed, which might be converted into useful engines of war. He approved largely of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, that the dock power and accommodation at our different naval stations should be increased, and the money which was to be spent on building the forts at Spithead might be much more usefully employed at Bermuda, Malta, and elsewhere in building docks to receive our iron navy With reference to the necessity for sloping the sides of iron ships, it was certain that
274
it was quite unnecessary to do so. There was nothing to be gained by sloping the sides of a ship, because by so doing I there must be a larger plate to cover the same vertical area. There was no doubt that the iron was better disposed in greater thickness upright than if the same weight were rolled out to cover the same vertical area. It had been tried over and over again. The thicker a good iron plate was, the better it was for defence against the effect of projectiles; and a shipbuilder need not be trammelled by any desire to alter; the form of his ship by a false idea of obtaining sloping sides, when he would get the same thing by building his ship in the best form to perform her duty and plating her vertically.
MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, the proposition was to substitute vessels for forts, so as to have a fleet in every port. It was not his province to defend the Admiralty, but his hoped they would proceed with the construction of the forts. Forts were better than ships, and particularly at Portsmonth, as there was not a sufficient depth of water for vessels carrying very heavy guns to manoeuvre about Spithead. This country was foremost in inventions, but the Admiralty seemed always the last to take advantage of those inventions. He attributed it to there being no competent Board to decide what inventions should be adopted and what should not. The Admiralty had allowed themselves to be out-stripped by the French, who had constructed La Gloire before the Warrior was in commission, and by the Americans, who had built the Monitor, although the Admiralty were aware of Captain Coles' invention.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPESTsaid, that as he had seen the Merrimac, a few words from him would not be without interest. There was some misapprehension with regard to her. Although she was a most powerful vessel, she was not calculated for anything but smooth water. Owing to the weight of the plates put upon her, she was immersed to that extent I that there was nothing above water but the deck for her gun ports. The sides were carried up at an angle of 45°, and at the top was an open bar roofing, through which the ventilation was obtained, the consequence of which was that shipping a sea would certainly sink her. With regard to the Monitor, he thought she was more powerful, because she had made voyage in rough weather from New York

275
to Fort Monroe; but it was no disparagement to the gallantry of the officers and crew of the Merrimac to say that she was only fit for river purposes, and that the anticipation of her being able to cross the Atlantic was not well founded. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham was, in his opinion, entitled to the gratitude of the House for having brought forward that important question, and he submitted that the time was come when the Government should reconsider the matter, and pause in the construction of costly land fortresses, which practical men were of opinion would not be so efficacious as these new iron vessels in defending our coasts and harbours.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, two questions have been raised during this debate. One has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham, of which he gave notice—namely, whether the recent action on the coast of America has given the Government any reason why they should stop the forts in course of construction near Portsmouth. Another, but a much wider question, has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Galway—whether, in consequence of that engagement, we should not entirely alter the whole character and structure of our navy, and abandon wooden ships in order to build nothing but iron ships. It has been suggested that the revolutionizing our naval defences will lead to a great economy of the public money. I must venture to express my opinion that, from all the experience which we have had of revolutionizing our armaments, a new system of defence is likely to lead, not to a diminution, but to a great increase of public expenditure; and that, in fact, nothing is so expensive as a systematic change of armaments on a great scale. I do not say that it may not be necessary, in consequence of the experience of the recent engagement, to make a vast change in our naval defences. I am not expressing any opinion upon that subject and its necessity; but I warn the House against entertaining any expectation that that change can be made otherwise than by a corresponding large sacrifice of public money. I think it will be more convenient to the House not to enter into that large discussion at the present moment. It is, in fact, a question mainly affecting the Naval Estimates. If the House-be of opinion that this revolution is to be effected, I apprehend it will probably be the duty of
276
my noble friend sitting near me (Lord C. Paget) to propose a Supplementary Estimate of some£10,000,000 or£15,000,000. That will be the practical result of the naval revolution which has been sketched. I abstain entirely from entering upon that part of the question. I merely wish to advert to the question of which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham gave notice. The question which he submitted to the House is identical with one which was brought under the notice of the Defence Commission by Lord Herbert on the 18th of February, 1861, and upon which that Commission made a careful report. The question referred to them was, "the possible substitution of iron-cased ships in certain localities for such of the permanent defences as can be constructed only at large cost, and cannot in all probability be completed for a long time." That suggestion had particular reference to Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. The Defence Commission, composed of professional military men—Engineers—reported their opinion in the following manner:—
"1. We adhere with the utmost confidence to the opinion we formerly expressed as to the necessity for the forts for the protection of Spithead, more especially as regards the two outer works on No-Man's Land and Horse Sand, which give protection to the anchorage as a harbour of refuge for an inferior force of our own fleet, and for merchant vessels, which the 'Spit' and 'Intermediate' forts cannot afford, owing to the depth of water near them being insufficient for anchoring purposes. These two outer defences also command the space more effectually which might be occupied for the purpose of bombardment, and would take in reverse any ships which had succeeded in forcing the passage. The work on the Starbridge is, in our opinion, only second in importance to the two just mentioned. It completes the circle of defences which will afford a concentrated fire on the anchorage, provides a second line against an enemy attempting the passage of the Solent, and gives shelter to floating defences which might have been obliged to retire before a superior force either from the outer entrance to Spithead, or from the defence of the passage of the Needles."
There are some further remarks—
"2. We consider the mixed scheme of defence by forts and auxiliary iron-cased vessels to be the only practicable mode of effecting the object in view. 3. We are of opinion that no time should be lost in commencing the forts, and in constructing as many iron-cased vessels as are essentially necessary for the above purpose."
The Report of the Defence Commission amounted substantially to this:—That the best plan for the defence of Portsmouth is a combined system of forts and iron-cased ships. They did not rely on one or the other, but on a combination of both. The ques-
277
tion is how much that system ought to be modified in consequence of the experience derived from subsequent events. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) seems to think that the recent action points to a revolution in the art of naval warfare. I do not myself presume to speak with authority on the question. I merely judge from the reports which I receive from those who have professionally and technically studied the subject. The information which I have lately obtained leads me to the conclusion that, in the opinion of the most experienced persons, the engagement in question throws little light upon the qualities of iron-clad vessels. I will state what I myself saw with my own eyes. A model of the side of the Warrior was set up at Shoeburyness, and made the subject of experiments in order to test its resistance to very heavy ordnance at a very moderate distance. The result was, that scarcely any effect was produced on the plates. In that instance we had as complete a proof of the qualities of iron-clad vessels as was afforded in the recent action. There is no doubt that the Merrimac is not a sea-going vessel. The Monitor, perhaps, might go some distance out to sea. Of course, we must not assume that an attack on our coast, if ever it take place, will be made simply by wooden vessels, over which our iron vessels might have an easy victory. We must expect to see iron opposed to iron. The question becomes whether, by the improvement of artillery, forts might not be enabled to maintain the same advantage over floating batteries which they have hitherto possessed. It is an axiom, I apprehend, in naval warfare that all floating batteries are inferior to those on land. I am assured that the effect of the recent experiments with iron-cased vessels will only be to stimulate the inventive powers of our engineers in the effort to produce some ordnance which will be forcible enough to smash the sides of the iron-clad ships, and I hope they will not be long in achieving that result. That is the problem which the military engineer has to solve, and he may consider it a triumph in his art if he contrives a gun which those ships which are now invulnerable to artillery will not be able to resist. There is nothing unreasonable in the ambition which encourages him in that aim. We have grounds, then, for holding that a complete revolution in the art of war will not be effected, but that in a few years the disproportion which is now said to exist in
278
point of strength between floating and fixed batteries will disappear. I observe that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), at a meeting over which he presided lately, read a letter from a correspondent in New York, who said—
"The success of the Rodman gun has induced our Government to try experiments on a scale still larger, and they are about constructing guns of 20-inch bore, throwing shot of 1,000lb, which, it is thought, will crush in the side of any iron-plated ship, no matter what the thickness of the plates."
That shows that the belief in the progress of artillery is not confined to this country. I am fully aware of the importance of this question, and of the necessity for our adopting those expedients which are suggested by recent experience. We must, however, beware of taking a precipitate step. The Government ought to be guided by scientific advice, given on mature consideration, and ought not to rush into a series of costly changes. The subject will receive the careful attention of the Government, but I cannot hold out any hope that the construction of forts for which contracts have been entered into, and which are already in progress, will be abandoned.
MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will not be deemed very satisfactory by the House. He was modest enough to say that he did not hold himself to be an authority on a question of this kind, but I must say the facts he quoted did not appear to be much to the point. The report of the Defence Commission was written more than a year ago, and cannot, therefore, refer to an event which happened about a fortnight since. The right hon. Gentleman has, therefore, said really nothing to the proposition of the hon. Member for Chatham. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his comments on the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway. On the occurrence of a single event such as the recent action, however important—and the man must be particularly stupid who does not see its importance—it would, I think, be very unfortunate if the Government at once adopted the scheme of naval reconstruction which is very much favoured by the right hon. Member for Droitwich. Nothing could be more costly or calamitous to the country than that we should have such sweeping measures carried out by aspiring Lords of the Admiralty every half-dozen years. The question which has been raised is very simple, and the Government

279
ought not to be allowed to escape from it without a definite statement to the House. The question is, whether the batteries which we are about to erect at a vast cost in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth harbour are capable of resisting the entrance of iron-plated vessels, such as the Monitor. The old questions, whether there is any danger of invasion, whether any fortifications are required, and whether we can get them manned, are not discussed now. They remain just where we left them; but, as far as I can learn from their conversation, those who voted for the fortifications two years ago are generally very much ashamed of that vote. What we have to consider is whether, heedless of the proofs which are being given of what iron-plated ships can do, we are to go on spending on fortifications—I am afraid to say how much, and, indeed, the ultimate cost was never very clearly set before the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is to be assumed as absolutely concluded by what has taken place in the James river, but the probability is that something has been concluded. I do not require to be a great naval authority, to pronounce it a very serious event, and I think the House may fairly call upon the Government at any rate to suspend these works, which are costing many hundred thousand pounds in the locality I have mentioned, and which will involve an outlay of millions if we include all the fortifications which we were invited to sanction two years ago. Some hon. Members have an idea that money is to be dug out somewhere, and that nobody is any the poorer when it is paid out of the Exchequer for such things; but the fact is that somebody works for it, somebody sweats for it, somebody receives less of the comforts of life for its expenditure, somebody pays it to the taxgatherer, often grudgingly, and suffers for the loss of it. Even the most determined spendthrift in the House must see that the necessity of spending that money at all has, at least, been rendered doubtful by recent events. Surely we may call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sometimes upbraids the House for its profligate expenditure, to support the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham in the discussions in the Cabinet. I understand that the revenue returns, concerning which we are to hear something on Thursday, will present an appearance more favourable than, or rather not so unfavourable as
280
many persons had expected; but I can assure the House that, judging from the state of things in the North of England, there is a very high probability that during the next six months or during the next year there will be a very considerable falling off in the revenue, and very great suffering among the working classes—infinitely more, a thousand-fold more suffering, than we know anything of, because it is borne so silently and heroically. But the less the people complain, if they are in distress and from no fault of their own, the more carefully ought the Government and this House to watch that not a single farthing of the money which is extracted from them is expended on works which have been shown by one of the greatest authorities in the country, the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham, to be unnecessary. I think we are fairly entitled to ask the Government not to commit themselves to anything further in this respect, and to abstain from involving the country in further expenditure. We may be sure that before long we shall receive from the other side of the Atlantic the reports of scientific men, and more complete information with regard to this matter. Without going into the question of the great revolution which I agree with the hon. Member for Galway is inevitable, but which is not, perhaps, so far proved as to justify a great change of policy, we may call upon the Government to suspend proceedings, and thus save to the country at least a million of the outlay to which we committed ourselves so hastily.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he was glad that the question had been raised. He had always pressed upon the Government that the greatest caution ought to be observed in following out the principle of iron shipbuilding. Two years ago opinions were very much divided upon the question whether the forts at Spithead should be built or not; and two different reports were made, one by the commission upon which Sir Richard Dundas sat, and the other by the defence Committee. The question was, what was the use of solid fortifications built in the water when they could have equally solid fortifications in the shape of iron vessels, which could be moved where they were wanted? Of course, if the defence were required on a spot where it must be on land, there was no choice; but, otherwise, there was no comparison between the advantages of the two kinds of defence. Two years ago the hon. and

281
gallant Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) voted in favour of having these Spithead forts, and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Sir J. Hay) spoke in favour of them; but experience had now shown that there was a mistake upon that matter. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would; reconsider the statement which he had just made, and would take time to see whether the altered circumstances which had just occurred should not modify his views.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Sir, I was in hopes, after the numerous and distinguished instances of conversion to a conviction of the non-necessity of these forts which we have heard to-night, that we should have heard also of that of Her Majesty's Government. I have been very much disappointed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War because, if we are to collect anything from that speech, it must be that Her Majesty's Government are about to rush into this enormous expenditure in spite of the great lesson they have received from the events which had occurred in Hampton Roads. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) has been unnecessarily hard upon the right hon. baronet the Member for Droitwich, (Sir John Pakington) because there can be no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was the first to draw the attention of the country to the defective state of our navy, and he ought not to be taunted with what was in fact a great merit on his part. It has been said that the Admiralty are opposed to all change, but I would remind hon. Members that it was the Admiralty of that day that proposed these very floating batteries. It was my late lamented Friend Admiral Sir Richard Dundas, then First Sea Lord, who brought forward this very scheme, and proposed to convert twenty useless line-of-battle ships into floating batteries to defend Portsmouth and other harbours. He proposed to do that—and would have done it—at a cost not exceeding £840,000, instead of erecting enormous forts which will cost considerably more than a million and a half. That proposal was negatived by the Engineers, who thought there was nothing like stone and mortar for building; and therefore I do not think that the Admiralty are open to the insinuation that they set themselves against this improvement. From the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, we seem to be going
282
blindly on, throwing these millions of money into Spithead, without knowing exactly either what is to be the cost of the forts, or what is to be their use when they are built. The right hon. Baronet has spoken rather slightingly of this great and bloody experiment which has been made in Hampton Roads. But what is the evidence of the doctor who was on board the Congress? It is most conclusive. He says that as soon as the Merrimac, or, as I believe she is now called, the Virginia, got within range—
"We opened fire on her. We might as well have fired at a moving iceberg. The shot glanced off her iron sheathing like hailstones off a tin roof …Nearly all the guns were dismounted, the bulkheads blown to pieces, rammers and handspikes shivered, the powder boys all killed."
If that is not evidence, with what evidence will the right hon. Gentleman be content? Whether it be evidence or not, I think that the House is justified in calling upon Her Majesty's Government to suspend—at least to suspend—these extensive operations, which are likely not only to be most expensive but most unnecessary. I do not think that justice has been done to Captain Cowper Coles. His plan was brought forward last year, and on that occasion I think that it was very much discouraged by the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: No, no.] At any rate, no ship has been built on that plan.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: There is a ship now building on that plan.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I am very glad to hear it. What does Captain Coles offer? He says that he will for a small sum of money convert line-of-battle ships which are lying idle into shield ships, which may form a coast patrol to defend your harbours. I am glad that this discussion has taken place, but I think that it will be totally useless if we—not only the converts, but the thirty-nine articles, of whom I happen to be one, who originally voted against this outlay—if the House does not insist upon Her Majesty's Government not spending another shilling upon these forts until we are in a position to know that they will be able to hold their own against the monsters of the deep which are now being constructed.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the question which was raised very ably and clearly, and with a very kindly spirit, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham is a question of extreme import-

283
ance, but it is not an Admiralty question. The question is whether the Government is determined, without any pause whatever to proceed with the construction of the forts at Spithead. I do not consider it possible to regard the tidings which we nave received of this extraordinary action fought in America otherwise than as novel and most important. I entirely agree, however, with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that it would not be wise for us, in the transition state in which we now are, to be carried away or suffer our policy to be affected by every report that may come across the Atlantic; but, on the other hand, it is impossible to deny that the circumstances of the action in James river have been most remarkable. It is also impossible to deny that those circumstances are closely connected with the opinion which has been throughout expressed by that high authority Captain Coles, that the erection of the forts would not be the best mode of defending Spithead. Surely some additional light has been thrown on that question; and I cannot but express my regret at the language we have beard from the Secretary of State for War, and from which I gather that Her Majesty's Government are disposed to attach no weight at all to this occurrence but to persevere at all hazards, without any delay, and without any further consideration or reflection, to spend this large sum of money upon the construction of these forts. The question is a very difficult one; but the impression made upon my mind by the intelligence from America is such that, considering the great expense involved and the doubtful policy of constructing these forts, I wish the Government had intimated more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman has done that they were disposed to consider anxiously what is the real tendency of that intelligence before they determine to persevere with these works.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, I must say that I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has rather misled the House as to what was said by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War. What he said, as I understood him, was—and with that I entirely concur—that important as is the event which has recently occurred on the other side of the Atlantic, it shown nothing so decided as to the merits of iron-cased vessels of which we were previously ignorant as to oblige the Government suddenly to set aside a plan which has been
284
adopted after the maturest and gravest deliberation. Important as this action has been, what, I ask the House, has really been taught us by it? We have known for some time that vessels cased with armour of a certain thickness would resist the projectiles which are known in the present day; though how long that impenetrability will last, in view of the daily improvements of guns and projectiles, is a doubtful matter. We have been going through very careful experiments at Shoe-buryness, and we know that iron-cased ships are very much superior to wooden ones. What has been the result? Why, that we have ceased to build large wooden ships and have taken to building iron-cased ones. What other things do we learn from this action? That an iron-cased ship can what is termed "give the stem" to a wooden ship, and cut her down; but it did not require this action to prove that. We have known that for a long time, and have constructed all our iron-cased ships with a view—the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham shakes his head, but I assure him that every iron-cased ship, beginning with the child of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, the Warrior, has been so constructed, by strengthening the stem and the bows and other arrangements, as to enable her, if necessary, to run down her enemy. So that when we are told that the Americans have taken the lead in building vessels strong enough to run down others, my answer is, that that is in fact what we have been doing for the last three years. Some hon. Gentlemen would lead the House to believe that the Government ought immediately to bring in a supplementary Estimate. ["No! No !"] What is the proposal of the hon. Member for Birkenhead? He tells us that, putting aside our wooden vessels, we ought to construct a great mass of iron ships, and build docks in all parts of the world for them. Are we to build docks all along the American coasts, at all the new settlements, at the Feejee Islands, and other outlandish quarters where we have vessels of war stationed? [Mr. LAIRD: I said distinctly, at our foreign stations in different parts of the world.] The suggestion is needless, for at most of our principal colonial stations there are already docks belonging either to private merchants or to the Government. Because we have heard of the extraordinary success of iron ships on this occasion, are we to reconstruct the whole navy of England

285
and to give up building small wooden vessels for distant service? I maintain that, at all events, the time has not yet come to do so.
With regard to Spithead, naval men naturally prefer ships to forts; but in war time merchant ships running up and down Channel will continually seek refuge in any emergency in that very best of Channel harbours; and I want to know whether you are to keep a large fleet of iron-cased ships locked up between the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth, simply with a view of guarding the merchant navy? I can quite believe that you will require iron ships as adjuncts to the forts, but I maintain that nothing which has taken place across the Atlantic in any way alters the position of the question. Let it be remembered that, as regards ships, there must be a limit—I do not say we have arrived at it yet—to the size of the gun and the thickness of the plate which they can carry. But in a fort there is no limit. If we can construct a gun to carry shot of 1,000lb. weight we can mount it on a fort; if we can make iron plates, aye, of five times the present thickness, they can be put on a fort. But I question whether any very great increase either in the armour plating or in the weight of the guns can be safely carried by sea-going ships. Without, therefore, entering into the question how far it may hereafter be the duty of Government to modify the plan for the defence of the port of Spithead, there can be no doubt that forts must ever be stronger than ships Some hon. Gentlemen have quoted my friend, the late Sir Richard Dundas, as an authority against these forts. It is true, seeing the great progress which France had made in iron-cased ships, Sir Richard Dundas recommended that we should devote our earliest energies to the construction of more iron-cased ships; but that Sir Richard Dundas always considered these forts absolutely necessary for the protection of Spithead, and that he was an advocate for their erection, I can assure the House and the country. I have been told that the Admiralty have done nothing towards preparing vessels of the class of the Monitor. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne) gave the House to understand that the Admiralty had not taken up Captain Coles's proposal, and that I personally was very much opposed to it. If he takes the trouble to ask Captain Coles, he will ascertain that I was one of the earliest advocates of that
286
system. I believe, moreover, that the system is capable of very large development. But I would wish the House to remember that Captain Coles's cupola ship—like the Monitor—is not a sea-going vessel. We do not profess that she would be able to cross the Atlantic, though she would be a very superior vessel to the Monitor, because she carries her guns nine feet out of the water. She would, no doubt, be a very valuable and very efficient vessel for our Channel defences. But when we are told that the Americans have built this Monitor to beat us, and that if she came across we have nothing like her, I will ask, hare hon. Gentlemen read the account of her voyage from New York, when, upon the statement of her own engineer, she was at times completely under water, and the green seas went down the funnel? That does not look as if she was fitted to go across the Atlantic and to keep the sea; though I believe her to be remarkably well adapted for the particular service for which she was designed. I have no doubt that the grave attention of her Majesty's Government will be given to the question whether we ought not to have vessels of that class for the defence of our coast. But I protest against its being said that either the Admiralty or the Government is not taking every possible means for the security of the country.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him, with all due deference to the House, that there had been a good deal of exaggeration in the opinions which had been expressed on that question. He did not think, with the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), that the action which had taken place on the other side of the Atlantic was likely to be a source of economy; nor did he agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken, that his noble and gallant Friend (Lord C. Paget) would be called upon to bring in a supplemental Estimate. He believed that the question lay in a nutshell. The House always voted liberally, and in his opinion wisely—the money required for the defence of the country, and the question was simply this—What was the best way of laying it out? He was bound to say that he had heard with great regret the statements made by the Secretary at War and by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. He gathered from those answers that it was the intention of the Government to continue as before the operation of building the forts; and the noble Lord asked them

287
what they had learned lately to induce them to alter their mode of proceeding. The noble Lord implied, if he did not assert, that there was nothing in the recent action which ought either to make them pause in their present operations or to lead them to consider the question whether their whole system of defence might not be revolutionized. He thought that that answer was the result of a total misconception of our position. Within the last month they had had what they had never had before—a practical proof of the value of iron sheathing for ships, and of the comparative value of vessels and forts when in collision. They had found that so far from there being no reason to alter their views and opinions, this had occurred, that whereas ships had hitherto always got the worst of it in engagement with forts, ships could now compete with forts and come off unhurt. If they had not learned anything from that, when would they find anything from which they could learn? It was providential that we should without loss be able to find the comparative value of iron and wooden vessels; and were we to go on following the course which might have been right before, but must now be considered doubtful? Instead of saying that we had not learnt anything from the late contest, we ought to look on it as a providential occurrence in which, without cost or loss of life, this country enjoyed an opportunity of testing the value of iron-sheathed-ships. There was one part of the question which had not been touched upon except slightly by his noble and gallant Friend (Lord C. Paget), and that was as to the condition of merchant vessels at Spithead. Let the House suppose, in case of war between this country and France, that a large fleet of merchantmen was lying at Spithead for shelter from the enemy's squadron; the forts at Spithead would be no protection to those vessels whatever. Two or three of the enemy's iron ships could run into Spithead and capture or sink the merchant vessels there without receiving any injury. Were the forts there to blaze away indiscriminately, striking alike friends and foes? He defied any man to prove that the forts at Spithead would be of any good for the protection of he ships; they would only be available to fire a flying shot at the vessels endeavouring to run the channel. By the accounts of the last action in the American waters heavy batteries were firing away all day at an iron-plated ship, and did it no material damage. What possible
288
damage, then, was it likely would be done to two or three of these iron-plated ships running through the channel into Spithead at night and in thick weather? It was, in the first place, a million to one against the vessels being hit, for it would be a flying shot; and once having passed the forts they could not be fired upon without the certainty of injuring the merchant vessels which it was the object of the forts to protect. That was a most important question, and he ventured to express a hope that the Government would at least admit that the time had come when the question of the mode of defending Spithead and other ports ought to be reconsidered. He contended that they had learned enough from the experience of the last month to show them, that if the whole question had not been entirely revolutionized, it had been so completely altered in all its bearings, that to persist in acting on the old system would be to do precisely that which had been condemned by the right hon. Baronet on the Treasury bench. For it would be to deal hastily with the subject, for nothing could be more hasty or inconvenient than that they should, in the teeth of recent information, continue a system commenced before that experience was acquired. All that was desired was that the Government should pause in carrying out a system which might have been good last year, but which had now fallen into disrepute by increased experience. They asked for further time for consideration, in order that money for the defence of the country might not be spent on works which in a short time might prove quite useless.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he could not but express his regret that the Government had decided against the reconsideration of the system of fortification. He had ventured on a former occasion to express an opinion that the system of constructing iron men-of-war was still in its infancy, and he believed that vessels would some day be built which would be able to send a shot through the Warrior just as if she were a bandbox. He was one of the first to recognise the importance of the Lancaster gun; and when he saw them he expressed an opinion which he still entertained, that they would bring about a complete revolution in the science of warfare, and that ships would be constructed to carry guns of the heaviest calibre. Already there were schemes on foot to build men-of-war to carry sufficient coal to enable them to steam round the world, and

289
which could deliver a bow broadside from guns of the heaviest calibre. It was simply a matter of scientific calculation to ascertain, having the thickness of iron plate given, what sized shot could, under various circumstances, penetrate that plate, and he believed that as certainly as a rifle bullet would go through a deal board, so could shot penetrate the sides of the Warrior. Probably, it might be found necessary to construct vessels with plates twice the thickness of those on the Warrior, in which case the size of the ship must be proportionately increased. Again, efforts were on foot to apply steam to the working of guns. He, therefore, strongly deprecated any expenditure on a large system of land fortifications; and he should likewise deprecate an expenditure on colossal vessels, which he believed to be a mistake, for it was likely that a vessel having greater speed than the Warrior might engage her with success. Choosing her own ground for the purpose, she, having invulnerable bows, might keep them always directed towards the Warrior, and might sink her without receiving any material damage. He thought the Admiralty had always been very slow learners of these scientific truths, and with that protest he ventured to hope that the Government would pause in the system which they were pursuing.

THE TURKISH LOAN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the participation of Her Majesty's Government in the proposals for an Ottoman Loan. The subject was first brought to his notice by the receipt of a circular from a highly respectable firm of stockbrokers. The letter was as follows:—
  "We beg to call your attention to the prospectus of the New Turkish Loan, which will appear in to-morrow's newspapers. You will observe, as a special feature, that it is under the direct cognizance and favour of the British Government. The low price of the new issue, when compared with the present market value of the previous loans, the great advantages offered by the sinking fund for the redemption of the loan at par, and the securities which have been taken for the fulfilment of all its conditions, leave no doubt of the complete success of the operation. Being duly authorized to make up a list of subscribers, we shall be glad to know, as early as convenient, if we may have the pleasure of including your name in it. The amount of deposit to be lodged with each application is 5 per cent."
  The prospectus of the loan certainly war-
  290
  ranted the terms employed in that letter. It commenced by stating that a special commissioner had been appointed by Her Majesty's Government, at the request of the Sultan, to assist in the due application of the proceeds of the loan to the consolidation of the floating debt and extinction of the depreciated paper money. It was intimated that a copy of a letter written by Earl Russell was annexed, and to that letter especially he desired to call attention. The letter was as follows:—
  Foreign Office, March 15.
  "Sir,—When I had the pleasure of receiving you and Mr. G. G. Glyn at the Foreign Office a week ago, I informed you, that if the Sultan's commissioners or agents in this country should be successful in obtaining a loan, Her Majesty's Government, anxious for the well-being and prosperity of Turkey, would be ready to send one or two gentlemen in whom they had confidence to assist the Sultan's Ministers in the due application of the proceeds of the loan to the extinction of the paper money and the funding of the floating debt. I stated that Her Majesty's Government would take an interest in this operation from their feelings of friendship towards Turkey. I said the contractors of the loan might see in such a mission a further security against the misapplication of the present loan, and the loss of credit which would ensue. I am happy to inform you that Lord Hobart has consented to proceed to Constantinople for six months for the purpose I have indicated.
  "I am, Sir,
  "Your most obedient humble servant,
  "RUSSELL."
  "H. A. Bruce, Esq., M.P."
  It was to that letter that he wished to call the attention of the House. He took no objection to any assistance which Her Majesty's Government might give to the Ottoman Government or any other foreign power in the way of advice in regard to financial matters, either directly themselves, or through any individual; but what he submitted to the House was, that the letter of Earl Russell went infinitely beyond that limit. That letter took a ground which was unusual in subjects of this kind. There was moreover an apparent discrepancy between the prospectus and the letter of Earl Russell, because the former stated that the appointment was at the request of the Sultan, and he did not find that Earl Russell acknowledged having received such a request. The first question, therefore, which he wished to ask was, whether that was a voluntary act on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or was it done at the direct request of the Sultan? The fact of Her Majesty's Government having sent a commissioner would seem to imply, that he proceeded in their employ;

  291
  and, if so, he should also like to know whether this country would have to pay the cost of the mission to Constantinople. It was not, however, so much on the fact of that mission being sent oat as upon the subject-matter with which it was connected that he wished to lay stress. It was said the object of the mission was to see that the proceeds of the loan were applied to the extinction of the paper money and the funding of the floating debt, and those operations would, as Earl Russell naturally remarked in his letter, give the contractors of the loan much confidence in the undertaking. To that extent Earl Russell was perfectly justified, and the brokers who had the negotiation of the loan were also, he thought, justified in anticipating the success of a scheme which had been launched under such high auspices as that of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The result, at all events, was in conformity with such anticipations, for it was stated, that whereas £5,000,000 was the real amount required, £25,000,000 had been offered by the British public. Now, that fact furnished a clear proof of the action of Government interference in the matter, but he entertained very serious misgivings as to the policy of that interference; because, if the loan had been a success mainly on account of the part which the Government took with respect to it, he should like to know what would be the consequences of any ulterior disappointment in its case. He would assume that the chief object, for which Lord Hobart was to go Out to Constantinople was to insure the complete success of the loan, so far as he was concerned, and that he returned to this country having fulfilled his mission so for as having the money, which might be supposed to be under his control, applied to the extinction of the paper money. That being so, what were to be the subsequent proceedings of the Government of the Sultan, whose want of knowledge and intelligence in such transactions no doubt the mission was meant, to supply? Admitting that the present Ministers of the Porte were men of integrity, and that the Sultan himself was well affected, yet they might vanish from the stage before the loan reached its conclusion, and in the event of any obstacle to the future completion of the contract between British capitalists and Turkey, would not the subscribers to it say to Her Majesty's Government, "We contributed to this loan owing to the encouragement which
  292
  you gave ns; we ask you now to interfere to obtain for us the fulfilment of our expectations"? Thus, under the circumstances, a prospective and possibly undeniable claim on the Government was established.
  But there was another practical difficulty connected with the subject to which he wished to draw attention. The proceeds of the loan were to be applied, it seemed, to the extinction of the paper money. Now, the debt of Turkey, according to a statement made in an official paper, of which a translation appeared in the newspapers in England, was as follows:—External debt, £15,000,000; floating, £9,000,000, and somewhat more; the amount of the paper money being £9,000,000. What amount, he would ask, was applied to the extinction of the debt? The amount subscribed for was £8,000,000 at 68; but from that 2 per cent must be deducted as commission to the negotiators, and 6 per cent as the year's interest; so that only 60 per cent at the utmost would be applicable to any financial purpose in Turkey. Was the money to be devoted in the first instance to the extinction of paper money, or to the satisfaction of those pressing claims which had been hanging over the Turkish Government for some time past? Hon. Members were, of course, aware that the Bank of France had a large claim against it on account of the dishonoured drafts of Mirès, and he believed the Ottoman Bank in London had also some claim. That being the ease, be should like to know whether those two corporations, were to be satisfied out of the amount subscribed before the residue was applicable to the extinction of the paper money? But let him suppose that the whole sum stood over for the purpose, it would be found that £8,000,000 subscribed at 60 per cent made only £4,800,000, while the. paper money which it was meant to extinguish amounted to £9,000,000; so that after the most careful scrutiny of the matter, he was unable to satisfy himself as to how the object in view was, under these circumstances, to be accomplished. Now, the noble. Lord at the head of the Government would, he was sure, put the best complexion on the matter, and be able to solve, if possible, the practical difficulties, and might say something in extenuation of the course which had been pursued; but he (Mr. Hubbard) would venture to say that no amount of exte-

  293
  nuation would justify the Government in: having interfered in the proceedings with regard to that loan. Whether they looked at it as forming a precedent for future Operations, or whether they looked at it in its individual character, it was equally objectionable. If foreign powers were to apply to the Government of this country, and ask Secretaries of State to give them letters to be inserted in circulars for loans, it was a course which he conceived was highly objectionable, as a positive interference with the appropriation of the national capital; but the system was still more objectionable and dangerous in its prospective operation, for it was likely to lead to embarrassments with foreign powers, such as had occurred with reference to Mexico, to which place this country had had to send a fleet to enforce the payment of the claims of British subjects, although the Government had been in no degree concerned in the transactions from which those claims originated. As a matter of precedent, then, it would be seen that the course which had been followed must, probably, lead to interference with the foreign relations of the country. On the other hand, if it were to be regarded as an individual case, if they were to be told that Her Majesty's Government considered it an isolated and solitary instance, in which it acted from feelings of friendship to the Turkish Government, he should like to know what were the claims of Turkey to that special friendship and interference. When, at the close of the last war, Government took the responsibility of guaranteeing a loan for her, it was raised at 4 per cent interest. The present loan yielded a return of 11½ per cent, so that, 4 per cent being interest, 7½ per cent represented the risk which the capitalist ran; and he must say that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had displayed infinitely more nerve in recommending such a transaction to the British public than he would have done even if he had taken the command at a moment's notice of the Channel fleet. In conclusion, he had simply to say that he had brought the subject forward from no wish to embarrass the Government, but because of the danger which he thought was likely to flow from the adoption of the policy to which he had adverted. He begged leave to move for the correspondence which had taken place on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House having
  294
  already decided that the words "the Speaker do now leave the Chair" should stand part of the Question, the hon. Member cannot make his Motion.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, he wished to say a few words on a subject very closely connected with the question before the House. He would not allude to the proposed second mission of Lord Hobart further than to say that it was a mission which he thought that the House would approve of, and which, under the circumstances, her Majesty's Government could hardly refuse when called on to embark in. He should be very much surprised if, in the answer which they would receive, the House were told that that mission would involve all the serious consequences which his hon. Friend opposite appeared to anticipate from it. It would be found, he thought, to have a much narrower and simpler object. The matter to which he wished particularly to refer was the former mission of Lord Hobart and Mr Foster, and be wished, respectfully but earnestly, to press on the consideration of the Government the great importance of applying at the earliest possible day to the Turkish Government, through M. Mueurus, for their consent to lay upon the table of that House a copy of the report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster on the finances of Turkey. They had lately had placed before them some rather sanguine statements as regarded the state of Turkish finance; but having given great attention to the whole subject, he must say that he thought those statements were too highly coloured. Coincident with the announcement of the new loan, they had had transmitted to them from Constantinople an able document in the shape of a budget from Fuad Pasha, anticipating a surplus of £844,463. In connection with that budget, he wished to notice one item—namely, the increase on customs duties under the new treaties of commerce of £914,200, a sum larger than the whole of the anticipated surplus. Among the new treaties was the treaty recently concluded between Turkey and this country. By that instrument the export duties were reduced from 12 to 8 per cent, and they were to diminish 1 per cent every year, until they reached 1 per cent, at which point they were to remain stationary. The import duties were raised from 5 to 8 per cent. It was possible that the revenue arising from the diminished export duties might eventually reach its present amount, but time must be allowed for that, while it

  295
  was rather sanguine to expect that the produce of the import entries would be largely increased at once by means of a treaty which raised those duties from 5 to 8 per cent. At all events, many of the calculations of the Turkish financiers must be somewhat problematical, and he was afraid that if they should turn out to be unfounded our Government might be blamed for having withheld information which the public ought to possess. He trusted, therefore, that they would lose no time in laying the report of Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster on the table of the House.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, he could not but express his regret that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hub-bard) should have brought forward his Motion at the present time. Great reforms had recently been carried out in Turkey, and the waste which formerly prevailed in Turkish finance had almost entirely disappeared. The present Sultan had devoted a large sum out of his privy purse to the payment of arrears due to the Turkish army, and it was to be remembered, that if the foreign debt of Turkey had been greatly increased of late years, that increase was mainly due to the recent war with Russia. It was much more difficult for the Sultan to introduce reforms among his people than it was in this country. Every year panics were made by large houses to force the market for bourse transactions. He trusted that both France and England would always be ready to maintain the independence and integrity of Turkey, which, as long as she retained possession of the Dardanelles, might be regarded as the key of Europe.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I can hardly accept for my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office the compliment paid to him by the hon. Member for Buckingham, that he has shown great intrepidity by the part he has taken in the present transaction. My noble Friend acted, I think, simply upon the commonest dictates of prudence and statesmanship in a matter which deeply concerned the interests of a friendly Power, and a Power, moreover, the maintenance of which is a point of very great and deep importance to England. The way in which the transaction took place may be briefly stated. The Turkish Government represented that it was essential an attempt should be made to arrange their finances. It is well known that, at their request, we sent two very able men—Lord Hobart and Mr. Foster—to make
  296
  a minute investigation into everything connected with the finances of the Ottoman Empire. Those gentlemen made a report of the greatest possible value. They were furnished with every information which they could wish or desire to obtain. They had access to all the public departments and all the documents necessary for giving them full information as to the state of the Turkish finances. One portion of the arrangement suggested was, that the paper money, which was in excess, should be called in, part being exchanged for money, and part exchanged for engagements of another kind, terminable in point of time and bearing interest. The Turkish Government made several attempts to procure a loan, which they represented to be absolutely necessary for that purpose. They applied to capitalists of other countries, but they failed to obtain the amount they required, except upon terms which were thought too burdensome and too onerous for the interests of Turkey. They then applied to this country, and they were informed they might obtain here upon very different conditions the sum they wanted. But they represented that it would give them great facilities for obtaining upon tolerable terms the amount which they required if Her Majesty's Government would consent, not to assume any responsibility or enter into any engagement as to the payment of the interest, but simply to commission some competent person to go to Constantinople, and in conjunction with the Turkish Government, to see that the money raised by the proposed loan should be applied to the purpose for which it was ostensibly asked—namely, the exchange of the paper money and the liquidation of some part of the floating debt. If Her Majesty's Government had refused to comply with a request so simple, so easily granted, and involving so little responsibility, I must say they would have been justly chargeable by the Turkish Government with indifference, if not something more, towards the prosperity of Turkey. I will simply state that the British Government take upon themselves no responsibility whatever with regard to the payment of the interest of the loan, and all that the functions of Lord Hobart (who has kindly undertaken the duty on the part of Her Majesty's Government) will extend to is simply to see that the money raised is applied solely to the purpose for which it is raised. Now, that purpose is one to which we cannot be indifferent. The money it is

  297
  hoped will lay the foundation for putting the finances of the Turkish Empire in a sound and healthy state. It is well known that for a long time past, from various circumstances, the finances of Turkey have been in the greatest possible confusion and disorder; troops have been for months without pay, public servants have received no salaries, engagements of nil sorts have been contracted which there were no means of satisfying; and the evil grew to such a degree that the Turkish Government, became most anxious to have matters placed on a better footing; and Tier Majesty's Government felt that until that was done there was no solid and safe foundation for the permanent interests and the security of the Turkish Empire. We have been told that the gentleman was sick. Well, he was, and we were asked to supply a remedy and put him on a bettor regimen I trust we have done so. I have hopes that in a time not very distant we may find that he has become more robust than many of his neighbours who have hitherto boasted of the strength of their constitution and the vigour of their health. Fortunately, Turkey has a Sovereign who possesses, in an eminent degree, qualities calculated to enable him to regenerate that Empire. He is a man of great vigor of mind. of determined patriotism, of the most frugal and even parsimonious personal habits, in defatigable in industry; from the habits of life formerly imposed upon him, not, per haps, so well versed in the details of government as others, but most anxious the learn, most desirous always of arriving at the truth, and firm in setting his face against corruption, jobbing, favouritism, and all those abuses which of late years tended so much to the decay of the Turkish Empire. Well, Sir, this Sovereign is anxious for the assistance of the British Government, and we have afforded that assistance, in the first place by that commission to which I have alluded, and in the next place by this temporary aid of the commissioner to give security that the money raised will be applied to the whole-some purpose for which it was raised.
  Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion seems to think that we have no interest in the maintenance of the Turkish Empire, and that, even if we have, there is no hope that that Empire will be preserved. Why, Sir, as to the interest that we have in the maintenance of the Turkish Empire, as an element tending to preserve the balance of power in Europe, I think
  298
  any person who looks to the history of modern times, and casts his eye over the map of Turkey, must see that we have a distinct interest, at all events, that other Powers shall not occupy that country. Well, in order that that should not happen, it is necessary that the Government which occupies that vast country should be strong and able to maintain its independence. Well, Sir, financial reform must be the basis of all national strength. Until the finances of Turkey are placed in a healthy condition no other assistance that could be afforded her would be of any real or permanent value. But is it true that Turkey is in that hopeless state that nothing will save her from that doom which has been denounced against her so often? We have hoard that threatened men live long, and if that be so certainly no State has a better chance of longevity than Turkey, because she has been so much threatened. Every one must see that the Turkish Empire comprises some of the most fruitful and favoured regions of the globe, with every variety of climate and soil, with mineral riches beyond calculation, and geographical and topographical advantages for commerce greater than almost any other country in the world. The inhabitants are of a mixed race, not at all deficient in intellect; labouring, it is true, under the disadvantage of conflicts of religious opinion between large portions of them; but we may hope that that spirit of enlightenment which has marked of late years the conduct of the Turkish Administration will under the present Sultan be pursued, and that those hatreds and religious differences which have in many cases led to conflicts may henceforward be gradually softened, and may ultimately disappear. It is true, as was stated by my hon. Friend who spoke last, that great reforms have been and are being carried out, and that the whole system of administration is in progress of improvement; but these things require time, and nobody has time to give them who is nut able to pay his debts. Therefore, anything which enables the Sultan to pay his way and to redeem his Empire from that state of financial embarrassment in which, unfortunately, it was placed in former times will enable him to carry into effect those social, political, and religious improvements which I am persuaded he is anxious and determined to accomplish. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hubbard) has said that the Turkish Empire has cost us quantities of money and torrents of blood; but if you

  299
  could establish Turkey on a solid basis and make her a highly prosperous country, as she is intended by nature to be, you would pave for the future all that expenditure which in time past has been incurred. Nothing would more contribute to the permanent peace of Europe than the establishment of a strong, independent, and well-administered Government in Turkey. I hope we have a prospect that that end may be attained. Of course there are great difficulties in the way of correcting evils of long standing, in establishing order where confusion has hitherto to a great extent prevailed; but I am sure that this House and this country will feel that Her Majesty's Government in lending its aid in any way in which it properly can to the accomplishment of that object, especially when that aid is afforded without incurring any pecuniary responsibility, are doing their duty and are entitled in that respect to the approval of the country. As to the report of the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Freeland) called attention, that Report was made, not to the British, but to the Turkish Government, and it applies to a great number of intricate details connected with the Turkish Administration. Until we have the permission of the Turkish Government to present it, we could nut take advantage of the knowledge we have obtained of matters which concern the internal administration of Turkey and which are not of general interest.

AUSTRIA AND TURKEY—THE SUTO RINA.—QUESTION.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, he wished to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with reference to the interests and independence of the Turkish Empire. It related to an act of armed intervention on the part of Austria which took place in the Sutorina on the 1st of last December. The Sutorina was a tongue of land which ran down from the Herzegovina to the Adriatic, and divided the Austrian territory of Ragusa from the Turkish dominions. He would describe the act of which he complained in the language of the official report as it appeared in the Wiener Zeitung, and as it was given in the Viennese correspondence of The Times of the 7th of December—
"Not long since the civil and military governor in Dalmatia made known to the Imperial Government that the insurgents in the Herzegovina had, in two different parts of the Sutorina, constructed batteries which commanded the Imperial Royal
300
military road across that Turkish strip of land (enclave), and also the waters of the Gulf of Cattaro. In virtue of a convention between Austria and the Porte no change can be made in the status quo in the Sutorina except by mutual consent. As the batteries in question interfered with the security of the communication between the territory of Ragusa and the district of Cattaro, the Imperial Royal Government was necessitated to summon Luka Vucalovitch, the leader of the insurgents, to remove them, and that within a given period. At the same time it stated that if the above-mentioned chief of the insurgents did not do what was required of him, the Imperial (Austrian) troops would not fail to take the matter in hand. As Luka Vucalovitch did not attend to the summons within the period fixed, which was at the end of the 30th of November, the commander of the Imperial Royal brigade lying at Ragusa received orders to destroy the two batteries, and, when he had done so, to return with the troops employed to the Austrian territory."
The correspondent of The Times added—
"By a telegram of the 2nd inst. from Castel-nuovo, a fortified town at no great distance from the present entrance to the war port of Cattaro, we learn that a body of Austrian troops under General Von Rodich entered the Sutorina yesterday, and' without having fired a single shot,' demolished the two batteries which were between Svinje and Lucich."
He was not desirous of attaching too much importance to an isolated act, but considering the unsettled state of the border territories of Turkey and Austria, considering the policy of non-intervention, which was as much a matter of interest as of duty, and considering the treaty stipulations by which we were bound to prevent as far as possible any such interference as had taken place, he thought it would be admitted that such an act deserved the zealous regard of the Government of this country, and some steps ought to be taken to prevent it from being turned into a precedent. In stating so much, he did but echo the opinion and policy laid down as binding the great Powers of Europe by the Treaty of Paris; for, by the 7th Article, "Their Majesties engage each on his part to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, guarantee in common the strict observance of that engagement, and will in consequence consider any act tending to its violation as a question of general interest." The report to which he had alluded spoke of France and Russia having thought fit, in some way, to enter a protest against that act of aggression being construed into a precedent for the future; and he had therefore to ask, whether his hon. Friend was prepared to lay any papers on the table, or to give an

301
assurance that the Government would act, if they had not already acted, in the manner in which France and Russia were supposed to have done.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that in order to explain the answer he had to give to his hon. Friend, he would remind the House of the exact position of the Sutorina. When the Republic of Ragusa was an independent State, she was surrounded by Venetian dominions; and not finding the Venetians very pleasant neighbours, and in order to cut off her territory from theirs, she gave to Turkey two strips of land, one to the north and the other to the south, running down from the Turkish province of the Herzegovina to the sea. In that way she completely isolated herself from the Venetians. When Austria came into possession of Dalmatia and Ragusa, the two strips of land remained in the possession of Turkey; and if some arrangement had not been come to between Turkey and Austria, all access by land to Ragusa, now forming part of the Austrian territory, would have been cut off, had the Turks chosen to prevent a passage through their territories. Accordingly, an engagement was entered into by Turkey with Austria—Turkey refusing to cede these two strips of land to Austria—that a road between Ragusa and the Austrian territory should be always kept open, and should not be interfered with in any manner whatever Recently there had broken out in the Herzegovina an insurrection, which was still going on. One of the chiefs of the insurrection, Luka Vucalovitch, descended into the Sutorina, and erected a battery upon the strip of land. It was evident the battery was not intended for any defensive purpose against the Turks, The Turkish troops had not been there, and there was no ground for believing that they intended to attack the insurgents in that place; consequently the battery was raised for some purpose foreign to the insurrection. The Austrians, naturally anxious that the communications between the territory of Ragusa and the district of Cattaro should not be interfered with, gave notice to Luka Vuoalovitch, the leader of the insurgents, that if the batteries were not removed within a certain time specified, the Imperial troops would take the matter in hand. They were not removed, and accordingly the Austrians, with the cognizance of the Turkish Government, entered the strip of land and destroyed the battery without resistance, no impediment being offered to
302
the removal of the two small guns of which the battery consisted. The article quoted from the Treaty of Paris provided for the independence of the Turkish Empire, and guaranteed its territory against any violation by a foreign Power; but the act in question could not be considered a violation of its territory. It was no act of aggression. As soon as the object was accomplished, the Austrian troops were withdrawn, and the territory had remained in the possession of the Turks. As soon as the circumstances of the case were known, various Governments, including those of Russia and France, remonstrated with the Austrian Government. Full explanations were, however, given; and the Powers, including the British Government, being satisfied that the Turkish Government did not make the act of Austria the ground of any complaint, nor consider it any violation of its independence, they allowed the matter to drop. No one looked upon it as an absolute precedent which might authorize any other power, without the sanction of Turkey, entering its territory. It was an act arising out of extraordinary circumstances; but still he hoped that the necessity for such interference, which might be accepted as a precedent, might not occur again. There were no papers on the subject which he could present to the House.

UNEXPENDED BALANCES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he could not but complain of the confusion which was occasioned in the public accounts by the want of distinctness in the arrangement of the items. He also wished to call attention to the number of Votes in Book No. 1 of the Estimates, in which large sums remained over from former years. The whole of the twenty-three Votes in that book amounted to £695,000, while the items lying over from the votes of former years amounted to £769,000. He contended that all balances unappropriated on the 31st March should be paid into the Exchequer, and so accounted for, and a fresh vote taken for the same purpose when one was necessary.
  MR. PEELobserved, that the Government were rather entitled to credit than censure for the existence of the balances to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. Most of those votes had not been passed till very late in the Session; the exist-

  303
  ence of the balances was, therefore, an indication that Government had not begun to expend the money under the Votes until they had been passed by the House. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already stated that it was the intention in future to take the Votes for the Civil Service for the payments falling due within the year, and it was also intended that sums unexpended should be paid into the Exchequer.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask whether the change which had just been announced would be effected by a Bill or by a simple order of the Treasury.
  MR. PEELsaid, that it was not quite settled; but, if legislation was necessary, a Bill would be introduced.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
(1.) £33,583, Royal Palaces,
MR. W. EWARTsaid, that it was his opinion that many of the works of art at present in Hampton Court Palace ought to be removed nearer London, where they would be more accessible to the artists of the country. He also thought that copies of them might be taken and distributed through the chief towns of the country. As they were circumstanced at present they were in considerable danger of being destroyed by fire.
LORD. WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, it appeared from the Vote that money had been paid for cleaning pictures at Hampton Court Palace. He wished to ask what pictures had been subjected to such treatment, and why a practice which had been given up at the National Gallery was still adopted at Hampton Court Palace?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he felt much disappointed that no general explanatory statement had been made by the Secretary of the Treasury in bringing forward the Civil Service Estimates. Such a statement was due both to the House and the country, and was all the more necessary as the Committee was now asked, for the first time, to consider a particular part of those Estimates without having the entire series before it. They were not even furnished with a general abstract of the whole of the accounts to guide them. Besides, many of the Votes in Class No. 1, which they were discussing, were connected with Votes in other classes, and particularly
304
with those in Class 4; and without having the whole of the Estimates before them they could not judge accurately of the expenditure they were sanctioning. The utter want of method in the preparation of the Estimates rendered it almost impossible to tell what was the total sum required for each different establishment, some items being lumped together where they ought to be separated, and others, which ought to be brought together under one view, being scattered up and down through the whole group of Estimates. It was, therefore, most difficult to get at the entire amount of Expenditure under a particular head, or to institute a true comparison between one year and another. On the face of the Estimates there appeared to be a saving on the charge for Class 1, Public Works and Buildings, that charge being this year £700,000 in round numbers, as against £834,000 the last year. On examining the figures, however, more closely, it would seem that the amount this year would be at least £750,000 instead of £700,000; the former sum being the amount of expenditure sanctioned, while the latter only represents the money voted, the difference being made up by the Balances in hand to the credit of these various works. There was a sort of caprice, too, in the way in which the particulars of different Votes were stated. Very full details were given of certain small items, while, in regard to larger items, the Committee were expected to be content merely with the total sums. In short the Estimates were drawn up in the most confused, heterogeneous, and imperfect manner, and he must earnestly press upon the Government the adoption of a clearer, more intelligible, and more orderly arrangement.
MR. PEELsaid, that the Government had been anxious to lay all the Miscellaneous Estimates before the House at the earliest possible day, but accuracy was quite as important as despatch, and it was impossible that they should undergo the revision of the Treasury, and yet be produced at an earlier period. It had not been usual for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make a general statement upon the Civil Service Estimates corresponding to the statement of the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary to the Admiralty. The reason was that there was no connection between the different classes of Votes, nor did they hang together, like the Estimates of the army and navy. For

305
the last year or two the practice had been to make certain reductions from the Votes in respect of the Estimates of the coming year, on account of balances remaining over from the previous year. The hon. Member was not without the means of making a comparison between the proposed expenditure of that and former years, and he would find the comparison favourable to the present year. The aggregate of Class 1 of the Estimates of last year, irrespective of the deductions of the surpluses of former grants, was £962,666. The detailed Estimate of the same class of the present year was only £750,215, showing a reduction of £212,451. There was a small deduction of surpluses this year amounting to £55,000. The deduction last year on account of balances was £128,000. The real decrease therefore, was £212,451 on Class 1, although apparently it amounted only to £139,451, in consequence of the Exchequer balance taken in diminution of the Votes for 1862–3 being so much less than for the year 1861–2.
COLONEL FRENCH: But are these real balances, such as can be made available for the service of the coming year?
MR. PEEL: They are sums that are called balances, and are the unexhausted remains of the Votes of last year. During the coming year the balances will be surrendered to the Exchequer.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH: Will that apply strictly to the next year?
MR. PEEL: Yes.
MR. ROGERSsaid, he wished to ask whether the cartoons in Hampton Court Palace were insured against fire?
MR. COWPERsaid, it had not been the practice to insure Government property, but every precaution was taken against fire. With regard to the question of the noble Lord (Lord W. Graham), a sum of £475 was taken for cleaning and varnishing the pictures and cartoons at Hampton Court. The cleaning would be executed under the direction of Mr. Redgrave, superintendent of the Royal pictures, by the most competent persons. The pictures at Hampton Court had not been touched for many years, and many were perishing for want of varnish, and were obscured by the dirt on the surface. The cleaning of these pictures was a delicate matter, and Mr. Redgrave would be responsible for the manner in which it was done. The great cartoons of Raphael were already under glass, and
306
those of Andrea de Mantegna would soon be similarly protected. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. Ewart) had suggested that the cartoons of Raphael should be brought to London; but at present there was no edifice to contain them. When the enlargement of the National Gallery took place, there would be, he trusted, ample accommodation for the proper exhibition of the cartoons, and it would then be desirable that works of art which were without parallel should be rendered accessible and brought to the metropolis.
MR. C0NINGHAMsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that if he wanted space for the cartoons, he had only to turn the Royal Academy out of the National Gallery, and then he would find plenty of room. He was sorry to hear that picture-cleaning was recommencing in the public galleries. It was proved a few years ago that the pictures at the National Gallery had sustained great injury from the process of cleaning, and if the pictures at Hampton Court were exposed to similar treatment, they would be irreparably damaged. He had often thought that the health of the people would be improved if all allopathic doctors were abolished, and was similarly convinced that art would be greatly advantaged by the abolition of picture-cleaners.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he saw that the probable surplus of former grants under the Vote was estimated at £10,000. He wished to ask, whether that was the total of the surpluses of several years?
MR. COWPERsaid, that the balance in the Exchequer of the Vote for 1861–2 was £34,000. Of that sum £10,000 might be treated as a surplus, and would not be wanted. The House would not be asked to vote that amount again. The balance arose from the great economy of the department.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYremarked, that if that were true, the Estimate seemed to have been an extravagant one.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGSaid, that the balance arose from the change of system, consequent upon carrying into effect the recommendation that had so long been made in regard to surpluses. The sums referred to were not proofs of extravagance, but were sums which had been voted before for services which had not yet been paid for.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had expected an explanation from the Treasury bench, but the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had, no doubt, given the real explanation. They were not payments in the course of the year, and how could there be an economy?
MR. COWPERsaid, that by the exercise of economy the whole amount estimated had not been expended.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £89,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to call attention to the large amount of rent paid by the Government for public offices. The sum had increased from £25,000 last year to £26,900 in that year. If the Committee would look through the list of public offices, they would find the Government rented buildings all over the West-end, which entailed a great deal of inconvenience upon those having business to transact with them. That sum of money represented the interest of £900,000, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) whether he could not devise some better mode of expending the public money?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had to complain that the Government had separated from the War Office the fortification branch of that office, and had taken for it rooms which cost the country £1,312 a year. He thought that system led to very great extravagance, and he wished to know whether the offices would be retained permanently or not, or whether there would be a concentration of all the offices under the War Department?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHobserved, that in the Civil Service Estimates were many charges which ought properly to appear in the Military Estimates. Chelsea Hospital, the Royal Military Asylum, and the Tower of London were instances; as also the items for coals and furniture for offices connected with the military branches.
MR. COWPERsaid, he could not admit that the arrangement of the Estimates was justly open to criticism. He did not think the expenses mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. A. Smith) could fairly be includ-
308
ed in the Army Estimates. The Fortification Branch had been placed in Victoria Street, because there was not room for it at Pall Mall, but the arrangement was expected to be but temporary. With respect to hiring houses for temporary purposes, that was more economical than purchasing expensive sites and crecting costly buildings; but in respect to some of the offices it would, perhaps, be better to have permanent buildings.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask whether, as they expected to have a good many foreigners in London during the year, it would not be possible to give the fountains in Trafalgar Square a better appearance than they then presented in spouting forth hot water, which emitted clouds of vapour, and prevented no beauty of the fountains from being seen.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he would also suggest that a better supply of water should be provided for the fountains. Those fountains had been a laughing-stock to foreigners, and during the time of the Exhibition it would be much better that they should not be allowed to play, unless they were to be more sportive than they had hitherto been. It was admitted on all hands that they were the most outrageous failures ever attempted in this country.
MR. COWPERsaid, he quite agreed that the fountains were in a condition that Englishmen might well be ashamed of. But he would venture to promise that in the month of May they would be such as every Englishman would be proud of. The House was good enough last year to vote a gum of money for increasing the supply of water for the fountains. Works for that purpose were in progress, and the new jets with which he proposed to fill the surface of the basins would produce a very ornamental effect. The water which supplied the fountains was, for economy's sake, water which had been used in the condensing part of the engine, and which was thereby raised to a very considerable heat. It was then sent out to cool as a fountain, and again returned to the condensing part of the engine.
MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to call attention to three items—£700 for the Stationery Office in Prince's Street, Westminster; £110 for the "late Stationery Office," Great Newport Street; and £205 for "late ditto" in Gate Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. He wished to know whether the public was paying for those three offices?
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was anxious for some information with regard to what was called "the new State Paper Office." As he understood, what was really a new building, and had coat between £40,000 and £50,000, was going to be pulled down. He therefore wished to know what was to be the sum total of the change; what was to become of the records while a new building was being provided, and what would the entire cost be? What would the public get out of it for £120,000?
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that some explanation was required in respect of the item of £1,094 for the Queen's Prison. He believed that all the persons who had occupied that prison had been sent about their business. What then was going to be done with the building? There was also an item of £900, rent of a house in St. James's Square for the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners. The; work of that Commission had been reduced; to nothing, and yet there were three Commissioners. There was another item to; which, in his opinion, there was so much objection that he should move its rejection. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £680, the rent of a house for the Ecclesiastical Commission.
MR. COWPERsaid, he deeply deplored the necessity of pulling down the State Paper Office. The fact was, however, that the site which had been obtained for he new Foreign Office and the new India Office could not be made available unless that step was taken. It was true that the existing State Paper Office had cost about £40,000; but in reality it was not at present worth more than half that sum, as a large portion of that expenditure had been incurred from a want of the knowledge of the use of concrete in laying the foundations of a building upon so treacherous a soil. The new India Office would be erected on the very spot occupied by the State Paper Office, and it would be impossible to make its elevation harmonize with the rest of the proposed new edifice. The "late Stationery Offices" to which the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) had referred had been taken by the Government on lease, and could not be given up till the lease was expired, but they were let at the same: sums as those set down in the Votes. In reference to the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners, he had to observe that many additional duties had of late years been thrown upon them, and that at present
310
they had a great deal of work to perform as Inclosure Commissioners. An objection had also been made to the payment of the sum for a house for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But the House of Commons had in previous years decided that those Commissioners performed duties of a public character which justified that expenditure; and it should also be borne in mind that only one quarter of the rent in that case was paid by the public.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed that was the last time the Committee would be culled upon to Vote any sum on account of the Queen's Prison, Since the passing of the new Bankruptcy Act a great reduction had taken place in the number of prisoners confined for debt, and arrangements were being made for the purpose of removing all the remaining prisohers in the Queen's Prison to Whitecross Street Prison. When those arrangements were completed, a Bill would be submitted to Parliament authorizing a sale of the Queen's Prison.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask, where the public records would be removed to when the State Paper Office would be pulled down? At present a large portion of the public records were stowed away in houses in Chancery Lane, which were in a very dilapidated condition, and by no means such as any gentleman would choose for his private papers.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman really thought he was doing wisely in paying a rental of £27,000 a year, instead of concentrating these offices? It might, indeed, be better to continue to pay that rental, rather than erect new buildings in the style of the Foreign Office; but he believed that a building, modest in its elevation, but sufficiently commodious to accommodate the whole of these offices, might be constructed at a cost, in the shape of annual interest on outlay, of not more than half the sum now paid as rental.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to ask, whether the plan of extending the buildings of the Admiralty, by taking a portion of the houses in New Street, Spring Gardens, was to be carried into effect, or whether it might be considered that the notices served on the owners of these houses had been withdrawn?
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wanted to call attention to an item of £1,000 for the expense of a fire-engine station for the protection of the public

311
buildings; and asked whether the Government intended to establish a fire brigade system of their own before the Report of the Committee which had been appointed on this subject?
MR. BARROWsaid, he wished to know whether there was any prospect of the abolition of the Tithe and Inclosure Commission? He could see no necessity for its continuance.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that further duties besides those of acting as Inclosure Commissioners were thrown upon the original Tithe Commission. They were employed in all cases in which public money was advanced, or when public Companies received Loans from Government under Acts of Parliament. A Bill would be submitted to Parliament in the course of the present Session for the renewal of the Commission, and then opportunity would be afforded for discussing its duties and the utility of continuing it.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he observed that the amount of the entire Vote was £103,942 8s., but he feared the result of the discussion would not lead even to the reduction of the Vote by the odd eight shillings. He should be glad if an hon. Member familiar with the subject would move the reduction of some item; but if he attempted to do so, the manner in which the Votes were asked caused him terror lest he should make an awkward mistake. For instance, the Vote for the supply of water to the fountains in Trafalgar Square was included in the sum of £3,000 asked for the supply of water to the Houses of Parliament and the public buildings. He feared, if he asked the reduction of that Vote, he would be the means of cutting off their own supply of water. There was one Vote which required explanation—it was the sum of £50 for rent of stables for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These must be only the stables for a pony; and if he succeeded in knocking off that £50, it would pay, at least, for the gas spent during the last two hours of useless debate. He would, therefore, ask why any, and if any, why such a sum of money was Voted to accommodate the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
MR. COWPERsaid, that stables had been attached to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's official residence in Downing Street; and as that building had been given up for public purposes, it became necessary to rent stables in Middle Scotland Yard. With respect to the houses
312
in New Spring Gardens, he had to state that they would not be required at present, as the decision in reference to the scheme for the extension of the Admiralty had been postponed until the following year. The charge of £1,000 for fire-engines had been introduced before the Committee to inquire into the state of the measures adopted for the extinction of fires in the Metropolis had been appointed. The present arrangements made by the Fire Brigade with respect to the public buildings were not of a satisfactory character. At an interview he had held with the representatives of the Brigade, he had asked them whether they were prepared to establish a station nearer to Whitehall, the Houses of Parliament, and Buckingham Palace; but he was told that stations were formed where it was the interest of the Insurance Companies to place them with reference to insured property; that it was not their interest to place one near the Public Offices; but that they would do so if the public would defray the first expense and some portion of the annual cost. It was under these circumstances that the charge of £1,000 in the Estimates was incurred for the first cost of establishing a station in the neighbourhood of Whitehall. He had only to add that no permanent measure would be adopted upon that subject until the Committee, to which he referred, should have made their Report.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth, as he objected to finding offices for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought it desirable that the Commission should be abrogated; it would be an advantage to the Church if that were done.
MR. A. MILLSsaid, that the Commission was created by Parliament, not by the Church; and as long as it continued to exist, Parliament must pay for it.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Item of £680, for the Ecclesiastical Commission, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"
—put, and negatived.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to repeat that it was his opinion that the Government should undertake to house all these Commissions in a general public building.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the suggestion of the hon. Member should have his best

313
attention. No doubt some sites of ground in the possession of the Government might properly be used for the erection of public offices now placed in hired buildings. The south side of Bridge Street, when the houses were pulled down, might be occupied by public offices.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked, if anything had been finally decided on with regard to the National Gallery; and if any plan had been adopted, would it be laid before the House for its sanction?
MR. COWPERsaid, the Gallery was at present sufficient for the purpose of the exhibition which there existed; but probably some other accommodation would soon be required. When a plan should be adopted, it would be laid before the House.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,611, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments."
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the cost of furniture for the army clothing depot ought to appear in the Military Estimates. The depot, he believed, was built by private parties, and hired by the War Department.
SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained, that the expense of the furniture for the public offices used formerly to be included in the general Vote for each department; but, in consequence of remarks made in that House it was thought desirable that all the furniture should be supplied by the Board of Works and appear in one separate list.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he should move the omission from the Vote of the item £4,611 for furniture and fittings for the South Kensington Museum, the Museum of Geology, and the College of Chemistry, as he had a very strong suspicion that money had already been voted for these purposes in the Votes for the Science and Art Department.
MR. COWPERsaid, that that was a mistake. No money had been taken for furniture in the Votes for those departments. The Vote was to supply glass cases, presses, &c., for the exhibition of articles, chairs for visitors, and other similar articles necessary for such exhibitions.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought that details ought to be given, as was the case with other departments. One department had so far condescended to particulars as to give in a claim for eighteen-pence.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he must condemn the whole system on which the Kensington Museum was conducted. The Government were diverting that institution from its legitimate object. It should be confined to the fine arts and archaeology.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to point out that a Vote of £4,600 had been taken last year for fixtures and fittings in the Science and Art Department.
MR. COWPERreplied, that the Vote under consideration had nothing to do with the Vote of last year. It was for different purposes.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Item of,£4,611, for the Supply and Repair of Fittings and Articles of Furniture for the Department of Science and Art, viz. Museum, South Kensington, Museum of Geology, and College of Chemistry, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"
—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £84,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith."
MR. W. EWARTcomplained, that the public were unnecessarily restricted in the use of portions of Hyde Park by the present arrangements. They ought either to have the whole range of the park, or the animals of the deputy-rangers ought not to range beyond certain limits. He suggested that when a vacancy occurred in the office, the ground occupied by the premises of the deputy-ranger should be thrown open to the public.
MR. BLACKBURNobserved, that some cheek ought to be put upon the amount expended on the parks about London. During the past nine or ton years the expense had greatly increased, and it now amounted to about £100,000 a year. It was impossible to reduce the item by moving to strike off any specific sum; but if the opinion of the Committee were expressed, the expense in future Estimates would probably be diminished.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman—a Scotchman—had a just ground for complaint against the Vote when it included £1,780 for Holyrood Park, Irish Members must have a much stronger case, seeing that not one penny piece was allowed for the ornamentation of

315
their country. A memorial influentially signed for the grant of money to ornament Phoenix Park, Dublin, had been presented, and in reply to a question which he had put he had received the stereotyped answer that it was under consideration. He did not object to the expenditure of money on the parks in London, but, in common justice, something ought to be done for Ireland.
MR. COWPERsaid, the hon. Baronet was quite right to remind the hon. Member for Stirlingshire that Holyrood had its share; but the hon. Baronet, if be had read a little further, would have found that there was a Vote for the expenses of the Phaenix Park.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the Government had succeeded in having some gardens in Dublin opened on Sundays, but they gave no assistance towards the preservation of those gardens. It was acting upon principle against conviction. Their principle was that the gardens should be open on Sundays, and their conviction that they should not give money to preserve the gardens. Any one who had seen the PhŒnix Park must agree in the propriety of the appeal of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin. They wanted to have new trees, but none were planted. They wanted to have new roads, but none were made. It was a fine park sadly neglected, and the Irish people threw themselves on the mercy of the Committee.
MR. LOWEsaid, that so far from having refused to bear any of the expense, there was a Vote in the Estimates, under the Science and Art department, towards maintaining the garden to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, they did not object to the expenditure on the parks in and about London, but public grants of that kind ought to be fairly administered. With regard to Battersea Park, he admitted that a great improvement had been effected, but they were led to believe that through the increased value of building sites that expenditure would be a source of revenue to the country. The expectation, however, had not been fulfilled. He wished to know whether the annual charge of £8,000, for the maintenance and embellishment of the park, was intended to be permanent?
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that it was entirely owing to the toll on the bridge that the land at Battersea Park was not let for building. He wished for some information as to the Italian garden at the
316
head of the Serpentine. It was understood that a well was to be dug at that spot which was to supply a large quantity of water daily. He believed that the well had been sunk, and fountains erected, but up to the present moment no water was forthcoming. He desired to ask whether any water had been obtained from the well, and, if not, whether there was to be any further charge on account of that undertaking?
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should protest against the continuance of the large annual outlay for the metropolitan parks, to which the term "Royal" could, in no sense, be applied. In order to test the feeling of the House on the subject, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £7,515, the item for Battersea Park.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he held that the parks of London were a source of almost more enjoyment to people from the country than to the inhabitants. The fact was that country folks were so stifled by the smoke of the metropolis that they were glad to resort to the parks for a mouthful of fresh air. He believed that the municipality of London would have no objection to maintain the parks not Royal, if the Government would transfer them to their hands. The Chief Commissioner of Works, however, took delight in managing them himself; and if the country indulged him in that luxury, it must be paid for. He saw no reason why the parks should cost a farthing. Under the charge of the municipality they would no longer be a charge on the public revenne. That was a subject which deserved reconsideration, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was very well as a first step.
MR. COWPERsaid, he suspected that although the hon. Gentleman represented a metropolitan constituency he did not represent metropolitan opinions. The municipality of which he spoke was the offspring of his own imagination, and in his dreams perhaps he fancied himself at the head of it. If such a body really existed, under such a chief, he would be glad to allow them to provide the expenditure for the parks; but he would require, if not the payment of arrears, at least a guarantee for future expenses. If the ratepayers constituted the municipality in question, he doubted whether the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would meet with their approval. Every one must acknowledge that these parks ought to be maintained. The money which they cost was spent as well as, if not

317
better, than any other sums voted by the House. It not only gave enjoyment to the great multitude of people who came to London, but gave to residents some of the enjoyment of country life, and made them better subjects and happier individuals than if they were confined to the pavement of the streets. He believed also, that if these parks were done away with, the rate of mortality in the metropolis would show a considerable increase. With regard to Battersea Park it had been complained that the anticipations held out to the House of a great return from that park had been disappointed; but that arose from the want of a proper main drain, without which the land would not let for building purposes. When the great; southern sewer was completed, the return would come. The toll on the bridge, as the hon. Baronet had stated, was another obstacle in the way of letting the sites.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that an Act of Parliament had already been passed which intrusted the Metropolitan Board of Works with the making of any new parks. That Board constituted the municipality of London, as the right hon. Gentleman ought to know. With that explanation he would leave the Chief Commissioner of Works to justify the taste of personal reflections upon him, (Mr. Ayrton), which were as unfounded as they were absurd.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYhoped the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), who had left his seat, would not leave the House, because he believed that Battersea Park was a hare which he started some years ago to divert attention from his nibbling at cheeseparings. He was anxious that the Chief Commissioner or the hon. Member should explain to the House what revenue that park had produced, or else should withdraw the promises which had been made with regard to it. If no account of profit could be shown, he hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would vote for the reduction of the Vote.
MR. LOCKEsaid, that before the hon. Member for Lambeth answered the appeal which had been made to him he must say that if that hon. Member had sanctioned any expenditure, even upon the metropolis, he must have seen good reasons for doing so; for without such reasons he was sure he could not bring his mind to approve of any expenditure at all. Good reasons had been given why Battersea Park had not answered the expectations or the hon.
318
Member. The English people did not like to pay toll. There was no comparison between Phoenix Park and those of London, for while the latter were oases in the desert, Phaenix Park was surrounded by the most beautiful scenery, and to make either cabbage gardens or flower gardens in it would be a waste of money. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets wanted to relieve the Government of the expense of these parks. He did not share in that desire, and he was sure the ratepayers of the metropolis had no desire to be rated for them; indeed, the chairman of the Board of Works had said that he looked with horror on the idea of proposing any fresh rate.
MR. O'BRIENremarked, that the tolls upon Chelsea Bridge had been imposed in pursuance of a distinct understanding with the inhabitants of the district.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was at a loss to understand why hon. Members should seek to fasten personal responsibility upon him with regard to Battersea Park, towards the construction of which several Votes had been taken before he became a Member of the House. It was true he complained very often of what he thought the unnecessarily large outlay on the parks; and seeing that £70,000 of the amount voted last year still remained unexpended, it could not be denied that the Estimates were male very much at random; but of the condition and circumstances of Battersea Park, beyond the fact that it was of great advantage to that part of the town, he knew as little as he did of the county of Cork. It was some eight or ten years since he rode that way.
MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to know how it was that £7,515 could be spent in keeping up so small a park as that of Battersea?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could not view the construction of parks merely as a metropolitan ratepayers' question. If the responsibility were thrown solely upon them, he very much feared that, owing to the value of land in the vicinity of London, the ratepayers would prefer to build upon it. Within the last sixty years London had doubled its population. Looking upon the parks not merely as places of recreation for the poor, but as contributing very largely to the permanent health of the metropolis, he hoped the Committee would sanction the Vote.
MR. COWPERsaid, he could assure the Committee that no money was spent

319
upon Battersea Park which was not necessary. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Hunt) would visit the park on a summer afternoon and see the number of persons who there sought healthy recreation, he would not object to the expense of maintaining it. The Volunteers, likewise, made use of it for purposes of drill. The Committee which sat the year before last went very fully into those Estimates, and had not recommended any reduction of the items.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had no great faith in the decisions of Committees, knowing how they were often constituted. At the same time, if it were the general wish, he would withdraw his Motion.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that as one of those who had originally resisted the grants to Battersea Park, he wished to remind the Committee that a large portion of the money had been advanced on what turned out to be false pretences. A distinct pledge was given, that if the bridge were built, a toll should be levied for the repayment of that money. No sooner was the bridge built than persons interested in the district raised an agitation against the toll.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I feel sure that there was never any pledge as to repaying the money spent on the park, though expectations were held out that part of the land might be let advantageously for building purposes. There was a pledge that the cost of the bridge should be repaid by tolls; and when it was moved in this House that the tolls should be remitted, on the ground that they prevented the advantageous employment of the land available for building, the House determined that the tolls should be continued. The amount expended on the bridge is, therefore, I imagine, in course of repayment. But those tolls necessarily diminish very greatly the use of the park by all the persons living on the northern side, and have also the effect of preventing, in a great degree, the advantageous employment of those portions of land intended to be applied to building purposes.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, he should vote for the item in the Estimates, but he was sure that as soon as Battersea Park had attained its maturity the sum would no longer be wanted. The money spent of late years on the park had been most judiciously expended, and the only way of bringing it back to the Exchequer was by taking the toll off the bridge.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Item of £7,515, for Battersea Park, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"
—put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the public suffered great inconvenience in consequence of Kew Gardens being shut off for the great part of the year from Kew Green and Richmond; and he would suggest, with the view of removing that inconvenience, that some slight alteration should be made in the gardens at Unicorn Gate.
MR. COXsaid, he observed that £1,583 were to be paid for keeping in order what used to be called Kennington Common, but what was now styled Kennington Park. To call the place a Park was absurd, as it consisted of only seven or eight walks and a few grass plots, from which even children were excluded.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know why the expense for Greenwich Park was three times greater that year than in the last?
MR. STANILANDsaid, that the whole Vote was presented without proper details, so that the Committee felt a difficulty in cutting down any single item. For Greenwich Park there were two sums of between£4,000 and £5,000, and he held it to be perfectly monstrous to spend such a sum upon the preservation of two hundred acres of land. He thought that the Government would do well to withdraw the Vote for the present, and propose it again in a more detailed form. To mark his objection to the Vote in its present form he would move, that the amount be reduced by £5,000.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he thought that the sum asked for was extravagant, and instead of being reduced by £5,000 it ought to be reduced by £50,000.
MR. COWPERsaid, with respect to Kennington Park, that it was desirable the grass should be kept in existence, and that consequently the public were excluded from walking on it at some seasons, of the year. There was not, he felt assured, a shilling spent on Kennington Park which was not well laid out. Great numbers of people frequented it; but if he were to give all the details of the expenditure in connection with it, it would, he feared, be only to weary the House without leading to any useful result. So far as Kew Gardens were concerned, he

321
thought it extremely desirable that the public should be admitted during the winter as well as during the summer months; while he might state, with respect to Greenwich Park, that a considerable amount of repair was requisite in the case of the house of the Ranger there, to which office Earl Canning had been appointed.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought no sufficient justification of the Vote for Greenwich Park had been given. In his opinion, the charge for keeping such a residence as that of the Ranger's in repair—a residence which was occupied free from rent—ought not, every time a change of occupants took place, to be thrown on the public.
MR. DILLWYNremarked, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had made no objection to giving the details except their prolixity. Now, he for one should like to have them, and he should look through them with some curiosity to ascertain how so much money could be spent on these parks.
MR. CAIRDsaid, that if the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) thought proper to divide the Committee for the purpose of reducing the item of Kennington Park by a few hundreds, he should have his support. That park consisted of only a few walks through less than twenty acres of grass.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSobserved, that there was scarcely any place of public resort so much frequented as Greenwich Park, and contended that it would be conferring no boon upon any nobleman to tell him he might live in the Ranger's house on the condition that he should repair it.
MR. COWPERsaid, that he was able to furnish the Committee with the details of the expenditure for Kennington Park. They consisted of a number of items, amongst which might be enumerated £421 for police constables and night watchmen, £645 for plantations and shrubberies and flowers, £100 for keeping up walks, £65 for watering footpaths, a superintendent engaged at an expense of £20, and £65 for lodge and railings. Then there were gratuities in aid of funeral expenses to the amount of £5; that was a contribution estimated for in case a death occurred. In the event of its not being required for that purpose, it was devoted to medical aid or relief in sickness. The Committee must also bear
322
in mind that there was a great number of deaths among the plants and trees. The supply of water cost £50, but it was not, he might observe, completely thrown away on the land, as it was also drunk by the police constables.
LORD ELCHOobserved, that one of the chief items for Kennington Park was a charge for night watchers, their liveries, their wages, and their funerals. Sir Richard Mayne had informed him, that if the parks were not closed at night, they would necessarily come into his charge, and be included in the regular beats of the police. He therefore suggested, as a means of getting rid of the charge for night watchers, that the gates of the park should not be shut at night. The Green Park was closed each evening, and there was no watcher left in charge of it. If any park required care at night, that park did, situated as it was in the centre of London.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £79,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal: Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 94: Majority 11.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. COXsaid, he would then move that the charge for Kennington Park should be reduced by £583, leaving a round sum of £1,000.
THE CHAIRMANintimated, that as the sense of the Committee had already been taken on the whole Vote, it was not competent for the hon. Member to propose the reduction of any particular item.
MR. COXsaid, he would then propose, instead, that the whole Vote should be reduced by £583.
MR. COWPERsaid, that if the Amendment was carried, the result would be that the park would not give as much enjoyment as at present. He should deeply regret any such result, for the effect would be felt in the happiness and comfort of the poorer classes.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he hoped the Committee would not support the Amendment under the impression that Kennington Park was a mere grass field. The greater part of it was a garden, consisting of gravel walks, flower-beds, shrubs, and plants, which required to be renewed.
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought the Vote was not too large, considering the advantages which the public derived from it.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury on the same grounds as he had voted for the former Amendment.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if the Committee, after spending a great many hours in discussing sums of every possible magnitude, should at twelve o'clock at night determine at last to cut off some £500 which was to be devoted to the enjoyment, health, and recreation of the people, they would be taking a course not worthy of them.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £84,081, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1863, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 108: Majority 44.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

EDUCATION—THE REVISED CODE.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I propose that this question be taken on Monday, the 5th of May, a week after the day on which the House will meet after the Easter recess.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, as far as he could hear, there was no objection to the day which the noble Viscount had fixed; but it had been mentioned on Friday night that it would be very desirable that the Government amendments on the Revised Code should be laid on the table as early as might be convenient, in order that the House and the country might have time to consider their details. He would, therefore, ask that the noble Viscount should say that he would be prepared within a reasonable time to lay the amendments on the table.
  Committee deferred till Monday, May 5.

COPYRIGHT (WORKS OF ART) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read. Motion made and Question proposed,
  324
  "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would move that the Bill be read that day six months. He thought that the Bill would be wholly ineffective to afford a protection to artists. The measure appeared to have been prepared in a hurry, and was apparently intended only for the purposes of the Great Exhibition. Hasty legislation was always found by experience to be unsuccessful. Supposing that an artist did not register his picture, he saw nothing to prevent a surreptitious copy of the work being taken, without the slightest remedy to the artist. It would be better to reconsider the subject, wait a little longer, and get a better Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Amendment. He had been indebted to several hon. Members on both sides of the House for suggestions and improvements in the measure. Nor was it fair to say the Bill had been prepared in a hurry. He had been requested by a committee of artists to introduce such a measure, the object being to place copyright in works of art on the same footing as that in literary works, sculptures, and engravings. The artists were at first opposed to the plan of a register; but finally their objections were removed. The object of the register was to afford absolute protection to every purchaser of a work of art after it had left the artist's hand. There was a difficulty in the way of a register of works of art, for a requisition to register would operate as an interference with the productions of artists; but no one could be injured by the Bill as it stood, and he hoped, that as it had reached that stage, it would not be opposed.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he was glad that such an improvement had been made in the law relating to works of art; and he thought that some such summary protection should be extended to literary property as was afforded to works of art by the Bill.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3 °, and passed.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that papers would be presented that night by his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, containing the correspondence between the Government and the two telegraph companies, which would give the House a fuller and clearer view of the transaction which it would be asked to authorize than could be readily conveyed in a brief statement from himself. The matter was rather intricate. The company which originally undertook to establish this telegraph, having failed in its design, proposed upon certain terms to give place to a new company, so that the Government had arrangements to make with both companies. The terms made with the old company were, perhaps, more liberal than on simple principles of equity it would have been entitled to; but the question was whether it would not be more far the public interest to deal with the company, even on such terms, than to leave them in possession, because there were no means of ousting them without their free assent. The terms made with the new company were fair and equitable, and though they appeared to offer it the possibility of obtaining an interest of, even 25 per cent on its capital, still it must be remembered that the property came into its possession in a worthless condition, and that it was invited to give value to that property with its own funds, without bringing the public under any new liability as far as it was concerned. The project wag in a very unfortunate position, and the Committee would, he thought, agree that the Government had acted wisely under the circumstances in giving encouragement for the accomplishment of a very useful public object. The line of telegraphic communication towards India had been lengthened by what had already taken place, and hopes were entertained of still greater and more beneficial results from this arrangement. The Resolution he had to propose, preliminary to bringing in a Bill to give effect to the arrangement, would convert the annuity now payable to a joint-stock company into a regular annuity charged upon the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a formal Resolution on which to found a Bill accordingly.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he
326
wished to ask whether the original contract had really been so drawn that there was no help for the country except to pay an immense sum for a scheme having no results?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they had no option, in honour, but either to concede such terms as the old company chose to demand or to leave matters precisely as they stood, with the property wholly useless, and yet an annuity of £32,000 payable to them for fifty years.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would put the further question whether the law officers of the Crown had been consulted, and had given an opinion to the effect just stated by the right hon. Gentleman?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the law officers of the Crown, about eighteen months ago, declared that, under the terms of the contract, the Government were not legally bound; and that being so, the Government felt that as an executive they would not be authorized in paying to the Company their annuity. They then had to look to the original intention of the contract, and they found on examination that there was no doubt the intention was that the payment should be unconditional—that was to say, it was not to be conditional on the continued success of the undertaking. They, therefore, last year brought a Bill before the House, that it might exercise a judgment on the matter. The House passed the Bill, empowering the Government to treat the contract as unconditional, and thereby the annuity became an absolute obligation.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he hoped that as gutta percha had failed as an insulating medium, the Government would guard against its use by the new Company. They ought to insist on the employment of india-rubber, as recommended by the Royal Commission.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government had thought it better not to interfere in the practical details of the question; so that the Company would be left perfectly at liberty to attach itself either to the gutta-percha or to the india-rubber interest.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he thought the remark, of the right hon. Gentleman showed how desirable it was that the Government should altogether cease to manufacture for the public. The Government was spending millions in wholesale

327
manufacture; but, if it was incapable of forming a scientific opinion, it was incompetent to manufacture for the country.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the preparation of gutta-percha had been as yet very unsuccessful, and that the only perfect insulation was that procured by the use of india-rubber. As Her Majesty's Government had appointed a Commission to consider the subject, he trusted that the Government would not deem the matter unworthy of their attention.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had only meant that it was not the business of the Government to fish up the cable from the Red Sea.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was inexpedient for the Government to charge itself with the decision of the relative merits of gutta-percha and india-rubber.
Resolved,
"That it is expedient to authorize the Charge upon the Consolidated Fund of a Terminable Annuity, payable to the Shareholders of the Red Sea and India Telegraph Company, in lieu of the Dividend guaranteed to the Company by the "Red Sea and India Telegraph Company Act, 1859," upon the Capital subscribed by them for the purpose of the said Company's Undertaking."
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, &c.

  AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONmoved the second reading of this Bill.
  MR. BENTINCKhoped that there would be a full opportunity of discussing this Bill before it went into Committee.
  MR. AYRTONcomplained that the Bill contained most extraordinary clauses; and if it was discussed before going into Committee, and they went into Committee immediately afterwards, the object of the discussion would be lost.
  MR. HORSFALLalso hoped that a full discussion of the provisions of the Bill would take place, as his constituents had that day communicated to him some objections to certain clauses.
  MR. LINDSAYsupported the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that the principle of the Bill had already been approved of. He hoped the Bill would now be read a second time: a full opportunity might be allowed for discussion on the Motion for going into
  328
  Committee, or it might be postponed till they were in Committee, as the objections were evidently to matters of detail.
  MR. LOCKEobjected to proceeding with the Committee immediately after the discussion.
  MR. HODGSONsaid, that if the proposition for discussing the Bill before going into Committee were adopted, they might as well postpone the second reading at once, unless they went into Committee immediately after that discussion. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with the second reading.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that he had not the least objection to the fullest discussion; and if the Bill were read a second time now, he would fix the Committee for after Easter.
  Bill read 2 °, and committed for Friday, 11th April.

WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS INTO HER MAJESTY'S POSSESSIONS ABROAD BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which had already passed the House of Lords. It arose out of the case of the fugitive slave Anderson, and its object was to obviate the possibility of future disputes with the Colonists by preventing writs of Habeas Corpus from being granted by courts of justice in this country with respect to persons in the colonies.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he wished to know whether, as writs of Habeas Corpus were thenceforth not to be issued by the Courts of Great Britain for execution in the colonies, there was any guarantee that in cases similar to that of Anderson a fugitive slave would not be restored?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to point out that great doubts existed as to the authority of Her Majesty in Council to hear appeals on matters of Habeas Corpus writs issued by the Colonial Courts, and to ask if such a power of appeal would be given in the Bill?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the observations of the hon. Member deserved consideration. There ought to be a power of appeal where an injustice was done to a British subject by the Colonial Court. The Bill seemed to him to involve Imperial as well as Colonial questions, and that the rights of the Crown ought to be reserved to meet the former.
MR. LOCKEcontended, that it was the inalienable right of the subject, whether in the colonies or the mother country, to appeal to the highest authority in the realm, which in that case was the Queen in Council. It had been decided that an appeal lay from the Courts of Jersey and Guernsey to the Courts at Westminster. He doubted, however, the expediency of passing a general law, applicable to all colonies, merely on account of a single case in a particular colony.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Bill would not apply to all the colonies, as its phraseology confined its operation to such colonies and possessions of the Crown as already possessed Courts with authority to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus and to secure its due execution. Neither was anything in the Bill to prevent the right of appeal to Her Majesty as then allowed by law; but if there was any doubt on the matter, it was a matter to be considered Committee.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would put the case of an Englishman, who, having been accused of committing a crime in the United States, had escaped to Canada; and he would ask what would be done in case he was demanded under the extradition treaty? Was he to be deprived of his right of appeal? He hoped that sufficient time would be given to consider the matter, though he had no objection to the second reading.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEwished to explain that it was only by warrant from the Executive that a prisoner could be given up to the American authorities. The Canadian Court, therefore, though it had power to liberate Anderson, would have had none to deliver him up to the American Government. That could only have been done by the Governor General of Canada.
Bill read 2 °, and committed for Monday next.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved,
  "That there shall be a Standing Committee, to be designated 'The Committee of Public Accounts,' for the Examination of the Accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the Public Expenditure, to consist of nine Members, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every Session, and of whom five shall be a quorum."
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would move to omit the word "nine" and
  330
  insert instead the word "eleven," with the view of having one or two Irish Members placed on the Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Committee not being one of finance or expenditure, he could not see why there should be a desire to choose any Member of it with reference to the part of the United Kingdom of which he was a representative. Nine was the number fixed on last year, and he thought a larger Committee would not work well; but if there were anything like a general wish to have an Irish Member on the Committee, he would consult the hon. Gentlemen who were on it last year, to see whether that object could be accomplished.
  MAJOR HAMILTONobjected to the claims of Irish Members being ignored in the selection of a Committee.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would suggest the name of Colonel Dunne.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had no ambition to serve upon the Committee, but he thought the Irish Members ought not to be ignored.
  MR. HUBBARD, who had on the notice paper a Motion that Colonel Dunne and Sir J. Hay should be added to the Committee, said, that after his hon. Friend's statement he should not press his Motion.
  Motion made and Question put,
  "That there shall be a Standing Committee, to be designated 'The Committee of Public Accounts,' for the examination of the Accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the Public Expenditure, to consist of nine Members, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every Session, and of whom five shall be a quorum."
  The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 11: Majority 52.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS.—1" Marine Mutiny Whipping.
2a Australian Colonies Government Act Amendment.
3a Charitable Uses Act (1861) Amendment.

RIVER SHANNON.—PETITION.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE presented a petition from the Grand Jury the County of Galway, for better Regulation of the Waters of the River Shannon. The petitioners stated that a sum of £40,000 had been levied on the county of Galway for the improvement of the navigation of the river, and the drainage of the land adjoining, but that the plans by which those objects were to be effected had not been properly carried out. They, therefore, prayed for a Committee of inquiry into the subject. He begged to give notice that it was his intention to move for the appointment of a Select Committee on the first Monday after the Easter recess—namely, on the 5th of May. Meanwhile, he would move for the following Returns:—
  "Copy of a Memorial upon that Subject, transmitted to the Treasury in the month of January last by The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and of the Reply of the Treasury thereto: And also,
  "Return showing the Amount of Money paid over by the Shannon Commissioners to the Board of Works in Ireland, after they had made their final Report in 1850, and the Mode in which that Money, or any Part of it, has been applied; together with a Return of the Annual Income derived from and Expenditure incurred by the Shannon Navigation, in each Tear up to the present since 1850."
  Petition to lie on the table.
  Returns ordered to be laid before the House.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that this Bill had been introduced for the purpose of rectifying a mistake which might otherwise be attended with considerable inconvenience. By the Act of 13 & 14 Vict. "for the better Government of Her Majesty's Australian Colonies," each of the Australian colonies was empowered to substitute for a Legislative Council two bodies, consisting of a Council and a House of Representatives; but in order that any Bill passed in any of those Colonies for the purpose of effecting such a change should be valid, it was required that it should be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, and that a copy of it should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a space of at least thirty days before Her Majesty's pleasure thereupon should be signified. Acts for this purpose have been passed in each of the Australian Colonies; but in the case of the Bill for constituting the new Legislature of South Australia that condition had not been complied with, for the measure had not been sent over to this country, in consequence of an oversight on the part of the Governor of that Colony. A contest had thus arisen whether all the subsequent Acts passed by that Legislature were not invalid; and it was in order to remove that doubt that he brought forward the present measure. The Bill was made of general application to the Australian Colonies, although it was meant specially to meet the case of South Australia; because doubts had arisen whether there might not exist informalities of the same nature in respect of other Acts. He trusted that under those circumstances their Lordships would allow it to be passed as speedily as possible.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that this Bill
  252
  had been so suddenly introduced that he was not prepared to say whether he could give it his assent or not. In 1850, when the Bill for the better Government of the Australian Colonies was before Parliament, he was in favour of giving the Colonies as extensive powers of self government as possible. That opinion had certainly been much shaken by what he had read of the management of Australian affairs by their Councils. If this mistake had arisen from the simple mistake or negligence of the Governor of the Colony, it was no great matter; but if this want of compliance with the requirements of the Act indicated that the Colonial Assembly desired to effect these changes without the sanction of the Imperial Government, he thought it would sanction an awkward precedent if they were to pass this Bill. He hoped, therefore, if the noble Duke found more instances of error than the one he had just mentioned, that he would at least represent them to Parliament, in order that their Lordships might see to what extent the Colonies had transgressed the provisions of the Imperial Legislature.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he imagined it was the duty of the Legislature in each Colony, and not of the Governor, to send home these acts for the approval of Her Majesty and Parliament. He thought an Act which would be one of simple negligence on the part of the Governor assumed a very different character when it became one of the Legislature of the Colony, and he should therefore like to know, whether the Governor or the Legislature of South Australia were answerable for not sending home the Act.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEexplained, that it was not the duty of the Legislature, but of the Governor, to transmit these acts to the Home Government. The mistake was one entirely on the part of the Governor, who had given his assent without being in the least aware that it was his duty first to send the measure home—he had overlooked the provision of the 13 & 14 Vict. Their Lordships might blame the Governor for his negligence, but he thought there could be no hesitation in passing an Act to remedy his mistake.
  Motion agreed to
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Five o'clock.