Sitting of 26 February 1863

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Lisburn, John Doherty Barbour, esquire.
SUPPLY.—Navy Estimates, Resolutions 1 to 9 agreed to.
SELECT COMMITTEES.—On Ordnance, nominated.
Reports.—Public Petitions. Fifth Report; Railway and Canal Bills, Second Report [No. 50].
PUBLIC BILLS. — First Reading. — Marriages Registration (Ireland) [Bill 39]; Marriages, &c. (Ireland) [Bill 40]; Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) [Bill 41]; Salmon Exportation [Bill 42].
Second Reading.—Post Office Savings Banks [Bill 22]; Bills of Exchange and Notes (Metropolis) [Bill 33].
Committees.—Telegraphs Bill [Bill 16]; Malt Duty [Bill 20].
Reports.—Telegraphs Bill [Bill 38]; Malt Duty [Bill 37].
Third Reading.—Prince and Princess of Wales' Annuities [Bill 30]; and passed.
Bill withdrawn.—Marriages (Ireland) [Bill 32], Order for Second Reading discharged.

THE CASE OF PATRICK BOURKE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether, in the promised inquiry into the circumstances attending the removal of Patrick Bourke from Leeds to Westport, he has taken any steps to secure the attendance of a representative of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSreplied, that the day after the noble Lord had brought the matter before the House he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) received the papers connected with the subject from Ireland, and he sent them forthwith to the Guardians at Leeds for their explanation. He had only that day received their answer. The Guardians took issue upon almost every fact stated in the papers, and professed their perfect readiness to enter into the fullest investigation of the case, and assist in
  796
  every way in laying before the Board and Parliament all the facts connected with the case. It would be open to the noble Lord to see their answer, and he might then determine for himself whether any further inquiry was necessary. The ordinary course was to direct an Inspector to proceed to the spot and hold an open inquiry into the matters in question. If that were done, it would be in the power of the noble Lord to send any person he thought proper to watch the evidence and take such steps in the inquiry as he might think necessary. If the noble Lord thought further inquiry were necessary, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) would then direct notice to be sent both to him and to the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland of the place and the day when and where the further inquiry would take place.

BOOK POST TO INDIA AND CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, On what grounds British manufacturers and others are prohibited from transmitting to India and Hong Kong specimens of textile fabrics of British Manufacture under the Book Post restrictions, as they are permitted to transmit them to France and elsewhere?
  MR. PEELreplied, that with the single exception of France, as to which a special arrangement was made at the beginning of 1861, the Post Office did not undertake to carry, under the regulations of the Book Post, specimens of textile fabrics or any other trade patterns. He had no doubt that a general adoption of the principle would be beneficial to commerce; but he was told that there were considerable difficulties in the way, and it must depend upon the removal of those difficulties whether the Book Post could be made available for patterns.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he intends to introduce any Bill for the Registration of Assurances during the present Session?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that a Bill had been prepared by the Government, and it would be introduced immediately.

THE LICENSING LAWS.—QUESTION.
MR. LAWSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, the House having rejected the Liverpool Licensing Bill, he is prepared to introduce a general measure for amending the Licensing Laws?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that the rejection by the House of the Liverpool Licensing Bill had tended rather to retard than to accelerate the introduction of a general measure. Several material points in connection with the subject were still under consideration, but he could not at present give a positive promise with regard to the introduction of a Bill.

THE NIGER EXPEDITION.—QUESTION.
LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any Report has been received from Lieutenant Lefroy, commanding Her Majesty's Ship Investigator, of his recent expedition in that ship as far as Rabba, on the river Niger, 400 miles into the interior of Africa, and of his return, after seven weeks' absence, without the loss of a man from fever or other cause; and whether he would have any objection to lay that Report upon the table of the House?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay the Report in question on the table, if the noble Lord would be good enough to move for it. He understood it would be printed in the nest Gazette.

BURMESE PRIZE MONEY.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to inquire, Why the Prize Money earned in the Burmese war, which terminated ten years ago, has not been paid?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, there had been some mistake with regard to the distribution of the Burmese prize money, the causes of which he could not quite ascertain. The Warrant, authorizing the distribution, was sent out in October, 1860. In 1861 there was an announcement made in India that no application would be received after the end of that year, and in conformity with that order a similar notification was published in this country. The Government had every reason to suppose then that the distribution would take place at once, but they discovered acci-
798
dentally in September last, in reference to some question as to the Delhi prize money, that the distribution of the Pegu prize money was delayed in consequence of their not having received the prize roll of the naval force employed in Burmah. Steps were immediately taken in connection with the Admiralty to procure a roll of the men entitled to share in the distribution; the roll was sent out in the course of the autumn, and he hoped there would be no further delay in the distribution.

UNION RELIEF AID ACT (1862) CONTI NUANCE BILL— [BILL 17.]

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. COBDEN,
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the Union Relief Aid Act (1862) Continuance Bill was not likely to be reached that evening till an hour which would be inconvenient to many hon. Members who had Amendments to propose; arrangements had therefore been made for taking the Bill first on next Monday evening.

THE ROYAL LEVEES AND DRAWING ROOMS.—QUESTION.
MR. STURT:—I wish, Sir, to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question, but I am somewhat at a loss to know to what individual Member of the Government I should address it. I wish to ask the Government, Whether it is their intention to introduce any regulation by which Her Most Gracious Majesty's subjects, and more especially the stout portion of them, may attend the Levees and Drawing Rooms with decency and comfort, and without the risk of being squeezed to death?
There was no answer given to the Question.

BARRISTERS (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 31.] QUESTION.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he rose to ask the hon. Member for the King's County to postpone this Bill until after Easter.
  MR. HENNESSY, in reply, said, to meet the convenience of the Government, he would postpone the Bill until after Easter.

  BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH and LORD CLARENCE PAGET rose together.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I wish to make an appeal to my hon. and gal-

  799
  lant Friend—[Cries of Order! amid which the noble Lord resumed his seat.]
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member give way?
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH: I am quite ready to go on. I have no feeling but that of doing my duty as a Member and upholding the dignity of the House. The noble Lord was getting up to make some statement in reference to the breach of privilege of which I complain; and if the noble Lord is prepared to make an apology on the part of the party offending to the House, and to me, I am the last man to stand in. the way, so long as my honour and the honour of the House are safe. It is in the recollection of the House that we had a debate two nights ago on the subject of the Naval Estimates, and that in the performance of my duty I then made some comments on an appointment by the Board of Admiralty which appeared to me to be open to grave question. I thought that in making those remarks I had guarded myself against saying anything unkind or ungenerous. I asked whether or not the gentleman who was appointed Chief Constructor of the Navy had ever built a ship; and I said, that if not, the appointment was, in my estimation, a very dangerous and improper one, because the Constructor of the Navy will have the control of all the dockyards in the service, and if he be incompetent to teach those whom he has to direct, all discipline will fall to the ground. I stated, also in correction of my noble Friend (Lord C. Paget), that the gentleman in question had really not been a member of the College of Naval Architecture. At first I believed he had, because there was a Mr. Reed who was a member of that College, with Mr. Chatfield and Mr. Creuze, and when Mr. Reed was appointed I believed him to be that person. It is now certain that he is not that person, but that he was brought up as an apprentice, at first at Sheerness, then at Portsmouth, and also, but of this I am not quite sure, at Chatham. He was, however, a mere apprentice. I am glad to find a person in that position raising himself up. I myself have risen in the service and in position, and no one is more glad than I am to see others do so. However, this gentleman, as I have said, had really been merely an apprentice of the working class, and was at the School of Mathematics at Portsmouth. There he
  800
  acquired a knowledge of mathematics. He is a very talented man, I have not the least doubt, but he never was a member of the College of Naval Architecture, and he never had, so far as I am aware, a knowledge of naval architecture, fitting him for the prominent post which he now occupies. As a Member of Parliament, I think I had a fair right to criticise the appointment. I am sure I would not do it invidiously. I should be the last man to bear hardly on him; and if he had been appointed to a junior office, with a prospect of rising to a higher position, no objection would have been made. But to place him at once at the head of all the constructors of the navy I think is hardly fitting. These are the statements I made. I have since read the report of my speech in all the leading journals, and I can find nothing that goes beyond what I have described. I also said I did not believe Mr. Reed had acquired that amount of practical experience which would enable him to discharge his duties with advantage to the country. Under these circumstances I was never more astonished in my life than when I received yesterday morning a letter from Mr. Reed, whom I never saw, and of whom I know nothing except in his public character. That letter is as follows:—
  "10, Glen Mohr Terrace, Greenwich,
  "February 24.
  "Sir,—In the House of Commons last evening I heard you deny that I had belonged to the Admiralty School of Naval Architecture, which, though true verbally, inasmuch as the school was entitled 'School of Mathematics and Naval Construction,' is calculated to convey a most false impression, inasmuch as the school in question was, in fact, a school of naval architecture, inferior in no respect to that which bore the name previously. Further, I heard you state that I was without a proper knowledge of my profession; in fact, that 'I knew nothing about the matter.' Now, I call upon you to say why you made this false and libellous statement concerning me in your place in Parliament, and on what grounds you justify, or attempt to justify, it. I beg to assure you that I have not sought the appointment which the Admiralty have given to me, and I think you are bound, if you feel called upon to put forward the claims of a constituent of yours as superior to mine, to do so without subjecting me to personal abuse in a place where I can have no opportunity of answering you.
  "I am Sir, yours very truly,
  "E. J. REED.
  "To Sir Frederie Smith, M.P."
  Now, first of all, it is quite clear he alludes to Mr. Lang. I believe no person knowing Mr. Lang can doubt that

  801
  he is the best naval architect you have, perhaps the best in the world. But Mr. Lang is not, and never was, a constituent of mine. Mr. Lang never was and never will be, on the register of voters for the borough of Chatham. I trust the House will feel with me that a Member of Parliament ought not to be subject to attacks of this kind in the performance of a simple duty. I can assure the House, and Mr. Reed, that I have no ill-will whatever against him. I should be glad to see him rise in the profession, and if he is appointed by the Government, I hope he will succeed and be useful to the service. But if we are to be deterred in the performance of our duties in a matter of this kind, the House of Commons will be degraded. I, for one, cannot stand under the stigma of having used false and libellous words, when the exact expressions attributed to me by this gentleman never passed my lips. I can find no trace of them; but if I did not use them, then I am ready to do so now, therefore Mr. Reed will get nothing by his letter. I now say, what I said before, that if Mr. Reed has never constructed a ship his appointment is improper, because I believe he cannot be competent practically to carry out the business of the dockyards. I was about to move that Mr. Reed be called to the Bar. But my noble Friend has proposed that I should take no steps in the matter until I had waited for an apology, which the noble Lord says has been written. [Cries of Move!] If such an apology has been written, no doubt that will be satisfactory. [Renewed cries of Move!] If such be the wish of the House, I will move that Mr. Reed be called to the Bar.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having brought under consideration a document which he considers a breach of privilege, will be so good as to bring it to the table.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I do not think it is usual to make a Motion to call a gentleman to the Bar until the House has first decided that the document amounts to a breach of privilege. I express no opinion upon this point myself, but I think the first Motion should be that the document is a breach of privilege.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH: I beg to move that the document is a breach of the privileges of this House.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, no one can, I presume, dispute, that a dis-
  802
  tinct breach of privilege has been committed, and that the letter was a most improper one. But my hon. and gallant Friend, before he brought the subject under consideration, was good enough to show me the letter, and also to state, that if I could get up and assure the House that Mr. Reed would be prepared to make a proper and ample apology, he would not push the matter further. My object in rising, a while ago, was to induce my hon. and gallant Friend to put off the matter until I should see Mr. Reed, and procure a suitable apology for such improper conduct. ["No, no!"] I again appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, the attack, such as it is, has been made upon this House, and the apology, if any, ought to be made at the Bar of this House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the said Letter is a breach of the privileges of this House.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH: I now move that Mr. Reed be called to the Bar of the House on to-morrow.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That E. J. Reed do attend this House To-morrow.

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

THE NAWAB OF THE CARNATIC.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he rose to submit the following Resolution:—
  "That, whereas by a Royal Proclamation addressed to the Native Princes and Peoples of India, published the 1st day of November, 1858, it is stated 'That we desire no extension of our present territorial possessions, and while we will permit no aggression upon our Dominions or our Rights to be attempted with impunity, we shall sanction no encroachment in those of others;' and again, 'We hereby announce to the Native Princes of India, that all Treaties and engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company, are by us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained;' so, in the opinion of this House, where differences of opinion have arisen with respect to the interpretation of such Treaties, the questions at issue ought to be referred for decision to Her Majesty's Privy Council."
  He brought forward the Motion with much regret, because he was aware that Indian questions were distasteful to the

  803
  House; but, believing that the honour of the Queen had been compromised by the conduct of the Government, it became a matter of duty to bring the subject under the notice of Parliament. When Her Majesty's Government were advised to assume the direct administration of Indian affairs, a great responsibility was cast upon the Crown. Her Majesty had no Parliament in India to counsel her in the administration of the government of that country. The Parliament of England was both disinclined to discuss Indian questions and unable to appreciate the opinions and feelings of the people of India. It was for these reasons that the Ministers who were in office when the transfer of the government of India to the Crown was made, advised Her Majesty to issue a proclamation to the Indian Princes and people, informing them not only that Her Majesty was about to assume the direct government of their country, but also what were the principles upon which, for the future, that government was to be conducted. That proclamation was issued at a time of great public danger, when the rebellion was still in progress, and when large bodies of Indian troops were still in arms against Her Majesty. The effect of that proclamation was very remarkable, and he did not hesitate to say that it had contributed very greatly to the pacification of the country, and he was sure the House would feel that the promises made by Her Majesty, under such circumstances, ought to be faithfully and honourably fulfilled. Now, what were the promises made in that proclamation? That proclamation promised to the people of India that their ancient laws and customs should be preserved to the native princes; it promised not only that no spoliation of territory should in future take place, but that all the treaties which had been made by the East India Company with the native princes should be faithfully and honourably maintained. Had those promises been fulfilled? He charged the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India with violating those promises. He knew it was a very serious charge, for it involved the honour of the Crown, and he should not make it lightly or without due consideration. He made it advisedly, and he was prepared to demonstrate its truth. The case which he was about to bring under the notice of the House was that of the Kawab of the Carnatic, but the House should not suppose that this was a solitary
  804
  case. There were many cases of violations of treaties and of poliations of territories, but they occurred during the administration of the East India Company, and there would be great difficulty now in going back to those transactions. But the case which he was about to bring under the notice of the House had occurred during the last days of the Company, had been since referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, he had reviewed it, and confirmed what the Company had done. In taking that course the right hon. Gentleman had violated the promises made in Her Majesty's proclamation. The case of the Nawab of the Carnatic was this. The Nawabs of the Carnatic were princes of that part of India previous to the advent of the British. At the time when the East India Company's possessions were confined to the factories of Madras and Cuddalore, and when they were contending with the French for their very existence, the Nawab gave them the most effective aid both in money and troops, and continued to assist them in all their wars down to the close of the last century. In order that the House might appreciate the debt of gratitude the East India Company owed to the Nawab, he would read a few extracts from the official correspondence of that period. Sir Thomas Bum-bold, in 1780, said—
  "The first and most distinguished of our connections is that which has been long formed with the present Nabob of the Carnatic. Our influence in the Carnatie is founded on the free will and consent of the Nabob. It is unquestionably to his influence in the Carnatic that we are indebted for a great part of our prosperity—for our success against the French during the last war, to which, as affairs have since turned out, we owe perhaps our present existence in the East."
  Such was the avowal of the Governor of Madras in 1780. In spite of that friendship and alliance, however, the Nawab was compelled by Lord Wellesley, in 1801, to sign a treaty by which he surrendered four-fifths of the revenue of his territory to the East India Company, on condition that the remaining fifth part should be secured for the maintenance of his dignity and that of his family. That violent proceeding on the part of Lord Wellesley was justified on the ground of some treasonable correspondence said to have been carried on with the Mysore Princes; but the facts were never proved, and the charge was denounced in the House of Commons in 1808 by Mr. Sheridan and Sir Samuel Romilly

  805
  as frivolous and without the shadow of a foundation. Mr. Sheridan called upon the ex-Chief Justice of Bengal (then a Member of the House) to declare whether a man could be convicted upon such evidence in a court of justice, and he emphatically declared that he could not. It was upon such frivolous pretexts that Lord Wellesley despoiled the Nawab of four-fifths of his territory; and it remained for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to despoil him of the remainder upon grounds still more frivolous and unjust. The Treaty of 1801 was faithfully and; honourably maintained by the East India Company for a period of upwards of fifty I years. At the expiration of that time, in the year 1855, the Marquess of Dalhousie, being Governor General of India, publicly proclaimed what has been called the annexation policy, which was eagerly adopted by the East India Company because it promised them a large accession of revenue. In his celebrated minute the Marquess of Dalhousie expressed the opinion that it was sound policy to take every opportunity of annexing the territories of native princes, so that India might be governed by one central authority. Acting on this principle, when the Nawab of the Carnatic died in 1855, he sent orders to the Governor of Madras to take possession of the territory, declare the nawabship; to be at an end, and to seize on all the property, public as well as personal, of the family. The Marquess of Dalhousie justified this renewed act of spoliation on the singular ground that the Treaty of 1801 was a personal treaty, having reference only to the Nawab who signed it, and, as that Nawab had died, the treaty ceased to exist, and the Company could deal with the territory as they pleased. It did not appear to have suggested itself to the Marquess of Dalhousie, that if the treaty had ceased to exist, the Government had lost the only title by which it held any portion of the Carnatic territory, and that the whole must of necessity have reverted to the Nawab. That might be proved by the admission of the East India Company, for after the signature of the Treaty of 1801 the East India Company issued a proclamation requiring all the barons, noblemen, and gentry, the great officers of the Carnatic, to yield due obedience to them by virtue of the rights and powers acquired to the said Company by compact with the lawful Nawab of the Carnatic. That was a direct admission
  806
  that their rights were acquired by the treaty. The interpretation put upon the treaty by the Marquess of Dalhousie did not convey the real meaning and intention of it; it was clearly intended by the Nawab to make over four-fifths of the revenue of the Carnatio to the East India Company for ever, on condition that the remaining portion should be guaranteed for ever to his family. And he would next proceed to show, by the most conclusive proofs, that such was the opinion of all the great officers of the East India Company up to 1855. The Nawab who signed the Treaty of 1801, Azeem-ul-Dowlah, died in 1819. Now, if the treaty had been considered as a personal one, that would have been the proper time for the East India Company to come forward and assert their rights. But what took place? His son, Azeem Jah, on the 11th September, 1819, was proclaimed as his successor, and on the 13th December of the same year the Nawab was informed by the Government agent, that in the opinion of the Governor General, a new treaty was unnecessary, as the Governor General considered his Highness to be ipso facto a party to the treaty concluded with his father in 1801. So that they had the Governor General of 1819, the Marquess of Hastings, directly at variance with the Marquess of Dalhousie in 1855. On the 3rd February, 1820, a few mouths afterwards, the Governor of Madras, Sir Thomas Monro, a great Indian authority, addressed a letter to the Nawab, in which this passage occurred—
  "It is with infinite satisfaction I have the honour to congratulate your Highness upon ascending the musnud in the direct line of hereditary succession to your late father, of blessed memory.
  Sir Thomas Monro shortly after recorded his opinion in a minute as follows:—
  "By the 10th Article of the Treaty of 1801 the rank of the Nawab as a prince and as an ally of the British Government is declared. No change in the political situation of the Nawab has taken place since 1801. He is still Prince of the Carnatic, and he is a party to the treaty by which one-fifth part of the revenue is secured to him; without a breach of the treaty we cannot, except with his consent, alter any of the articles."
  That was a quotation from Gleig's Life of Sir Thomas Monro. Nothing could be more clear and decided than this opinion. Upon the death of this prince, who reigned but six years, he was in due course succeeded by his son, and this succession was announced as follows:—

  807
  "Mahomed Ghouse, only son of his Highness Azeem Jah Bahadoor, was on the 22nd December, 1825, proclaimed successor to his deceased father in the rank and title of Nawab Subhadar; during the minority of the Nawab the affairs of the Durbar will be conducted by his Highness Azeem Jah, Bahadoor, brother of the late Nawab, with the title of Naib-i-Mooktar, or Regent."
  And thus, with the consent of the East India Company, the present claimant was appointed Regent during the minority of his nephew. In a letter of the Honourable Court of Directors of January 14, 1829, it was said—"The Nawab being an infant and in declining health, and the Naib-i-Mooktar being next heir in case of his demise." That was a direct acknowledgment of his right of succession. Again, the Directors, on the 4th of July, 1824, expressed their approval of certain proceedings on the ground of the Naib-i-Mooktar being heir in case of the demise of his nephew, Gholam Ghouse Khan. He now came to a later period—namely, 1843. On the 20th of September, 1843, on the occasion of a question of precedence, the Governor of Madras, the Marquess of Tweeddale, again expressly recognised Prince Azeem Jah's right to the succession. His Lordship in Council observed, that—
  "His Highness Prince Azeem Jah Bahadoor does not hold the place in list No. 1, to which he is entitled in consideration of the position he lately occupied in communication with the British Government, and of that he still holds in relation to his Highness the Nabob and to his succession to the Musnud."
  He (Mr. H. Baillie) had now shown what was the opinion up to 1855, not only of the East India Company, but of all its officers, and yet the regent's claim had been set aside by the Indian Government. If that mode of dealing with native princes was to be tolerated, there was not a native prince in India who held a treaty which was worth the paper on which it was written. Take the case of the Rajah of Putteeala, who had rendered efficient services, and had perhaps saved India to the British Crown. The Rajah died a few months ago, and supposing the Governor General had been a disciple of the Marquess of Dalhousie, he would have written a letter stating that the treaty was a personal one, and that the death of the Rajah put an end to it, and would have seized his property on behalf of the Government. Had the Governor General done so, his conduct would, no doubt, have been severely condemned; and yet it would not have been a whit worse
  808
  than the behaviour of the Indian Government in the case he had just cited. He was ashamed to be compelled to expose, not only to his fellow countrymen, but to the nations of Europe, the iniquities of that system of administration which so long prevailed under the East India Company, sanctioned by the Government of this country. It was a system of fraud, violence, and spoliation, carried on under the hypocritical mask of honesty and virtue, which for impudence and unscrupulousness was without a parallel or example in history. The day of retribution for the Company came at last. Let the House beware how, by its inattention to Indian questions and its disinclination to discuss Indian affairs, it allowed full scope to a Minister to continue a course similar to that which had been pursued. A day of retribution might again arrive. Even at that time, thousands of people in India were anxiously waiting for the decision of the House on the question. Last Session he presented a petition signed by 15,000 landowners of Madras, praying the House to allow cases to be decided by the Privy Council, a tribunal in which every confidence was placed. It was not only the people, but also the princes, who were waiting for the decision of the House, in order that they might know whether the treaties they held were worth the paper on which they were written; whether the gracious proclamation of Her Majesty was to be regarded as a reality or only as an empty form of words, issued at a time of great public danger, and intended to mislead and deceive; and whether for the future the government was to be conducted on just and honourable principles or like that of the East India Company. He did not call upon the House to decide anything, or to pronounce an opinion as to whether he had given a right interpretation of the treaty, or whether the right interpretation was that given by the Government. All he asked the House to do was to express the opinion, that when such questions arose, they should not be decided by the Minister for India, who was an interested party, but that they should be referred to Her Majesty's Privy Council, whose decision would give satisfaction, because it was admitted by the natives of India to be a fair and just tribunal. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He did so on the general

  809
  principle that, for the last twenty years, the treaty engagements entered into with the princes of India had not been carried out faithfully by the British Government. It was of no use denying the fact, for it was notorious, that one of the principal causes of the rebellion of 1857 was the treatment which the native princes of India received from the government of the Marquess of Dalhousie, and the well-founded conviction that not the least reliance was to be placed on the faith, or the honesty, with which treaty engagements would be carried out under the Marquess of Dalhousie. Unfortunately, immediately ofter his inauguration as Governor General, the Marquess of Dalhousie laid down the preposterous dictum that it was the right of the British Government to take possession of any territory whenever a fitting opportunity should arise; and he constituted himself the judge as to the fitness of any opportunity. He acted upon this dictum consistently and invariably, and it was that policy, as he (Mr. Smollett) believed, which mainly contributed to the rebellion. He would not mention every lawless act, but he would briefly notice some of the prominent cases in which the princes of India were summarily and contemptuously set aside. Shortly after the Marquess of Dalhousie's arrival, in 1848, a "fitting opportunity" occurred. The Rajah of Sattara died, having on his deathbed adopted a son and successor from among his collateral relations; but the Marquess of Dalhousie repudiated the right of any native prince to adopt a son; and the Treaty of 1819, which defined our relations with the state of Sattara, and stipulated that the full sovereignty was vested in the Rajah, his heirs and successors in perpetuity, was set aside. The second case was that of the Rajah of Nagpore, who died childless, in 1853, and who had not adopted a son, probably because he knew the adoption would be set aside by the Governor General; but the Rajah left behind him one or more widows, several relations, and a considerable private fortune. In this case the Marquess of Dalhousie not only annexed the territories, but seized the private possessions, which he confiscated to the State. He seized all the jewels, bijouterie, and valuables, and sent them to Calcutta, where they were brought to the hammer at an auction mart. That act disgusted all the natives of India, and it was an act which was mischievous in itself and disgraceful
  810
  to the British rule in India. The third case of the non-fulfilment of treaty occurred in the annexation of Oude. There was, in 1856, a reigning sovereign, and there was no chance of any lapse of succession. The state, however, was a large and valuable one, and the Marquess of Dalhousie considered the lax rule of the kingdom a sufficient cause for annexation. There was a treaty with the kingdom of Oude which defined our relations with, that kingdom. It had been entered into and acted upon by Lord Auckland, in 1837. It laid down the rule that in all cases of sudden emergency, and if in cases of trouble the British Government should feel it necessary to interfere, they should do so and assume the administration; but the treaty bound the administrators to keep correct account of the revenues for the benefit of the reigning family. When the King referred to the treaty in answer to the demand that he would cede his territories, the Governor General asserted that the treaty was obsolete, and that it had been abrogated, because one of the clauses had been considered to trench too deeply on the rights of the native Royal Family and had been disallowed by the Court of Directors. It so happened that that very treaty had been laid on the tables of the Houses of Lords and Commons by command of Her Majesty, in 1853; and when the fact was stated, the Marquess of Dalhousie replied, that it must have been done through the inadvertence of a clerk. On that pretence the treaty with Oude was set aside, and the country was annexed to the Crown, on the broad ground that the people were sighing for British rule, whereas in the year after the whole country rose as one man to put down the administration which the Marquess of Dalhousie had instituted, and to endeavour to recover their independence. The other cases he would refer to were those of the Rajah of Tanjore and the Nawab of the Carnatic. They were protected princes who had ceded their territories under treaties which bore the same date—1800 or 1801. Both treaties were based on the same principle. The Rajah of Tanjore ceded his dominions on condition that his debts should be paid, and that he should receive one-fifth of the net receipts of his principality; and a similar bargain was made with the Nawab of the Carnatic. In 1855 the Rajah of Tanjore died, leaving behind him several wives and two daughters, but no lineal heirs male. The Marquess of Dalhousie

  811
  was in Madras at the time, and he gave immediate orders to the Government of Madras to declare the Raj extinct. He would not allow that heirs female came under the words of the treaty—"the Rajah and his heirs and successors." But he did a great deal more than declare the Raj extinct. Under the arrangements of the treaty the Rajah and his family had been receiving £60,000 or £70,000 a year for fifty-five years, and they had acquired a large amount of private property in lands, houses, jewels, &c., valued at £400,000 or £500,000. The Marquess of Dalhousie declared that all these were confiscated, and that the Rajah had no right whatever to private property. The government of Madras sent an officer to take an inventory of the property, with a view to its being sold and the proceeds applied to the public account; but the family had recourse to the protection of the British Law, and obtained an injunction from the Supreme Court of Madras to prevent the sale. The Government of India appealed to the Privy Council, the case was argued in London, and Lord Kingsdown, in giving the decision, stated that the authorities in India had acted in a violent and unjustifiable manner; though, as their agents had proceeded professedly under a treaty, a court of law had no jurisdiction in the matter. Fortified with that decision, Sir Charles Trevelyan proceeded to dispose of the property, but his council luckily interfered; the course of spoliation was stopped; the case was brought before the House of Commons, where the Secretary of State promised that justice should be done to the family, and he had now great pleasure in stating that all the private property of the late Rajah had been returned to its rightful owners. In the case of the Nawab of the Carnatic, the family had received an allowance under the treaty; and three generations passed without any mention being made of the treaty being a personal one. The last possessor of the allowance was a young man who had been our ward from the age of two years, and whose education had been entirely neglected, the allowance having been wasted during his minority. He died childless in 1855; but an uncle of his had been received by us with regal honours at the Government House at Madras for twenty-five years, and recognised as the heir presumptive of his nephew. Notwithstanding, his undoubted claims, the Marquess of Dalhousie set
  812
  aside the treaty on three grounds. The first was the alleged treason of the great-grandfather and grandfather of the claimant; and the second was that it was a personal treaty, that the last possessor had died without heirs male—for he would not admit that the uncle could succeed to the nephew. The third, and most probably the true reason, was that the late Nawab had been a spendthrift, and had set a bad example to his dependents by the manner in which he got rid of his allowance. On these frivolous pretences, the treaty, which had been observed for fifty-five years, was set aside, and the family turned adrift to starve. It was no wonder, then, that the people in India had come to have no faith whatever in our adherence to treaty obligations, seeing that Governor Generals could arbitrarily set aside successions in this way. He therefore hoped the Motion, if opposed, would be pressed to a division. It might be said that it was of no use closing the stable door when the horse had boon stolen, and there was some truth in. that; or it might be said that there was no use in referring these questions to the Privy Council, because the treaties were so clear that "he who runs may read;" but there was a want of honesty in men of high position, and it was because he had no confidence in men like the Marquess of Dalhousie when invested with large arbitrary power, because he wished to sec such cases as those he had mentioned decided by legal gentlemen who would not be moved by the breath of faction or actuated by political motives, that he had the greatest possible pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire.
  Amendment proposed.
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "whereas by a Royal Proclamation addressed to the Native Princes and Peoples of India, published the 1st day of November 1858, it is stated 'That we desire no extension of our present territorial possessions, and while we will permit no aggression upon our Dominions or our Rights to be attempted with impunity, we shall sanction no encroachment in those of others;' and again, 'We hereby announce to the Native Princes of India, that all Treaties and engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company are by us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained;' so, in the opinion of this House, where differences of opinion have arisen with respect to the interpretation of such Treaties, the questions at issue ought to be referred for decision to Her Majesty's Privy Council,"
  —instead thereof.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it was a convenient practice in that House, when a Motion was about to be introduced, that some intimation should be given of the matters which were to be brought under consideration, but certainly by the words of the present Resolution little intimation was afforded him that the hon. Gentle man intended to enter into details relating to the Carnatic from the year 1760 downwards, and still less that he should be called upon to defend, not his own acts, but acts that had been the subject of debate in that, House for thirty or forty years past. It was true that the hon. Member had informed him, a short time before he came down to the House, that he should refer to the case of Azeem Jah; but he (Sir C. Wood) had not had time since then to acquaint himself with these former matters, nor did they bear much upon the question they had to discuss, and it would scarcely be expected that he should go into the Sattara and other cases on which the House had, on former occasions, expressed its opinion, and on which he did not think much could be added to what had been said before. But, first, with reference to the general question, what the Queen undertook by Her Proclamation to do was correctly stated in the Motion. The words were—
  "That we desire no extension of our present territorial possessions, and while we will permit no aggression upon our dominions, or our rights, to be attempted with impunity, we shall sanction no encroachment in those of others, and we hereby announce to the Native Princes of India that all treaties and engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company are by us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained."
  The treaties entered into before the assumption by the Crown of direct authority over India were simply put on the footing of all other treaties made with the Crown, and he apprehended they must be treated precisely in the same way. If, therefore, it was proposed that all treaties—when a question arose regarding their construction — should be submitted to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for interpretation, all he could say was he did not think that would be a convenient or constitutional mode of determining such matters. All treaties must be left to be dealt with, as they now were universally, by other nations as well as our own. The Judicial Committee of Privy Council were not
  814
  responsible advisers of the Crown in cases of this kind. Ministers referred in such matters if they thought it necessary, to their Law Officers, and in any particular instance the House might express its opinion on the conduct which the Government pursued. But on all questions arising with other Powers, independent or quasi-independent, the Government must act on their own responsibility, subject to the control of Parliament, and they could not shift that responsibility to the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. He apprehended, then, that on the general ground, the House could not possibly accede to the principle that the interpretation of treaties should be subject to the opinion of that tribunal. He now came to the main case brought forward by the hon. Gentleman. From the observations of the hon. Member it might be supposed that the prince in question was a native ruler exercising rule and authority in some part of India, and that he really had some territories which the Marquess of Dalhousie could have directed to be seized. But the fact was that the Government of India in 1801 took, possession of the territories of the Carnatic, and the then Nawab was reduced to the rank of a pensioner at Madras, where he and those placed in a similar situation for the last fifty-five years had resided under superintendence—a mode of life not very advantageous either to the State or to themselves. As to their having the slightest control over any portion of the territory of India, with any single person to govern in any way whatever, it was a total and entire mistake. The House, therefore, might dismiss at once all question of the annexation of territory. There were many reasons why he thought we should not annex native States. It was for our advantage that such States should be left in India. It was undesirable to annex those portions of India which were happy under the native rule of their princes. But there was no sort of similarity between putting an end to native rule over a native State, and the doing away with the very anomalous position of the pensioned princes, whether at Madras or Calcutta; and he frankly avowed that he thought, if that could be fairly done, without injustice or breach of faith, it was desirable to do it. The representatives of the Nawab of the Carnatic were in precisely the same position at Madras as the pensioned

  815
  princes of Delhi had been at Calcutta. The late King of Delhi was, in some respect, connected with the mutiny and accessory to the murder of many subjects of the Queen at Delhi. For that he was tried and punished with exile, in which he died. Could anybody suppose that it was of the least advantage to that prince, his family, or the State, that he should have lived in a position in which he was exempt from all law, amenable to nothing but his own will and pleasure, with a certain number of dependents around him over whom he exercised a certain power and control? It was notorious that crime of every kind was rife in the palace at Delhi. He did not think the position of the Nawab of the Carnatic at Madras was very much better. Lord Harris in a despatch said he was convinced that a serious moral evil was caused by the continuance of this semblance of the pomp and state of an effete Royalty, which, while it did no good to these persons themselves, was capable of being made the nucleus of intrigue. That opinion was borne out by what occurred not long ago at Delhi, where the name of the Emperor was invoked by the mutineers, and the King, if not actually forced, was, at any rate, led into a participation in their schemes, whereas, if he had been in a different position, merely as a great nobleman with a large income, he might have now been living in peace and prosperity instead of dying in exile. With regard to the treaty to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, the expression he had spoken of referred to a great number of things, to personal property and other matters, but not to the territory or the right to the territory of the Carnatic. It was, he thought, of no use going back further than the year 1801, when we took possession of the Carnatic, and the treaty, which must be the basis of all that could be claimed, was concluded between the Nawab and the Indian Government. The treaty of 1801 was distinctly a personal treaty with the then Prince Azeem alone, and the Indian Government stipulated to provide him for his life with a certain income. The Marquess of Dalhousie distinctly stated that as an indisputable fact. The hon. Member said that in the Sattara case the stipulations were to the heirs and successors for ever. These words were not in the treaty of 1801; nor was their omission unintentional, because the Madras Government at first proposed that
  816
  there should be some recognition of the hereditary successors, but the Indian Government decidedly refused to consent to it, and the terms were ultimately confined to the life of Azeem-ul-Dowlah. Thus there was no direct or indirect obligation entered into by the Government beyond his life. When he died, in 1819, the Government of Madras or the Government of India determined, as a matter of favour, to put his son in the same position as Azeem had occupied. The Government of Madras thought that a new arrangement was necessary for that purpose—that, the old treaty having expired, a new one should be entered into. But the Indian Government said "No;" and all they required was that the successor of Azeem should conform to the conditions imposed on his predecessor. In 1855 the second prince died, and the question arose whether it was desirable to continue that state of things any longer. He must distinctly say he believed that the existence of these pensioned princes, without power and authority, fancying that they had rights which some day or other they would enjoy, was the most inconvenient state of things, both for the Government and the princes themselves, that could possibly be conceived. And Lord Harris recorded deliberately his opinion that it was desirable to put an end to that state of things, making a liberal provision for the princes. The Marquess of Dalhousie took exactly the same view, not because there was territory to annex, for there was no territory to annex, and he determined to put an end to it. The hon. Gentleman had made an attack on him, as if he had contravened the Queen's Proclamation. But what had been done took place in 1855, long before he acceded to his present office. Undoubtedly, he had not taken active steps for reversing the state of things which he then found. The Queen's proclamation was a very wise proclamation, and the pacification of India might be, to a considerable extent, attributable to it. But he did not think that that proclamation called upon him to undo what was done fifty or sixty years ago, and thereby throw everything in India into confusion. He was happy to say that he believed the princes of India were pleased and contented with what had been done for them of late years, and we had now a prospect of tranquillity in India such as had not been enjoyed for many a year back. He might also remark, that as his hon.

  817
  Friend took so strong a view of this case, it was strange that something was not done during the time that he was Secretary to the Board of Control. Azeem Jah, the person to whom the hon. Gentleman chiefly alluded, had not been illiberally treated. He was put by Sir Charles Trevelyan in the position of a great Indian nobleman, with an income of £15,000 a year assigned to him. The obligations of the treaty expired in 1819, and whatever had been done since was an act of grace and favour. The Government was under no obligation to do what they had done, and he thought they had made an advantageous arrangement for the State and for the individual. That, however, was not the question before the House, but the question was whether the meaning of treaties was to be determined by the Privy Council, and he sincerely trusted that the House would not take so strange a course as to refer the treaties to the Privy Council.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he concurred entirely in the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. H. Baillie) that in all questions of litigated rights au interested party should not have the power of decision, and least of all when one of the parties possessed great political and military power. Unfortunately, however, the reverse had been the case in all our proceedings with the native princes of India. But his hon. Friend having been at the Board of Control, knew perfectly well that the obloquy which was sought to be attached to the East India Company was in nine cases out of ten undeserved. That Company was represented by a Court of Directors who had the initiative and nominally the administrative power, but they were really overruled by another Board which had absolute power to control them, and that Board represented the Government of the day of the country. He agreed that in many cases the East India Company lent themselves to oppression, but he could bear testimony, from a seat in the Direction for nineteen years, that there were multitudes of instances in which they protested in the strongest manner against such cases of oppression as had been brought before the House by the hon. Member. The gravest case of oppression was practised towards the Ameers of Scinde. He raised his voice against the injustice that was done to those princes. If the secret records of the Court could be produced, they would show that there was
  818
  a very strong protest on the part of the India Company against the appropriation of the territory of Scinde. He might say the same with regard to Sattara, and also with regard to Oude, a transaction which had cast a stigma upon the country. Many of the difficulties had arisen from the utter ignorance of those who overrid the Court of the real relations between the dependent princes and the paramount Power. He had frequently, at the discussions of the Directors of the Company, advocated earnestly that there should be some tribunal provided to arbitrate between those who considered themselves oppressed and those who ruled.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 24: Majority 80.

HASLAR HOSPITAL.—EXPLANATION.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to state that upon further inquiries he had ascertained that there was no trace at Haslar Hospital of the loathsome disease, which he had referred to the other night as existing among the boys in training for the navy at that Hospital and in the training ships.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £165,322, Admiralty Office.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he desired to offer a few remarks in regard to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, in which there was something wrong—perhaps more so than in any other department of the State. Hon. Members might not be aware what a vast machine the Admiralty was; certainly a large proportion of the public were not aware of the gigantic nature of its duties. The Admiralty was by far the greatest shipbuilder in the world, and there was evidence that they were the most expensive, if not the most extravagant, shipbuilder in the world. They were the greatest buyers of timber and ship stores. They were blacksmiths upon a gigantic scale. They were manufacturers of anchors, and a Committee had decided that the Admiralty anchors were the worst of any. They were constructors of boats and

819
masts, and sails, and blocks, and ropes, and of innumerable other articles. They were great engineers, both civil and military. They were in one sense landowners, as they had the control and charge of the beds of all navigable rivers. They were great carriers by sea; and during the Crimean war the Department expended no less than £16,000,000 sterling in the transport of troops and stores. The Admiralty were also bakers upon a large scale. They were meat-curers—in fact, they were great provision merchants. They were, at the same time, iron-founders, joiners, builders, and architects. They constructed their own buildings and excavated their own docks. They had the largest shipping office in the world. They were also bankers, for they received deposits from seamen, and paid them by monthly orders to the seamen's wives, relations, and friends. In fact, the Admiralty was a most gigantic department, and therefore it behoved the Committee, before voting the money for its maintenance, to know how it was conducted. It was managed by a First Lord, four Lords who were always naval men, and one Lord who was usually a civilian, and by a Parliamentary and a Permanent Secretary. There were, besides, a Comptroller of the Navy, an Accountant General, a Storekeeper General, a Comptroller of Victualling, and the Director General of the Medical Department. All these were subordinate to the Board, though some of them received a larger remuneration than any member of it, save and except the First Lord. The question was whether such a constitution was best adapted to the management of these various matters. As a man of business he should say not. He had read the evidence taken before the late Committee and also the Royal Commission of 1861, and the conclusion he had arrived at was, that if unfortunately this country should suddenly be thrown into a great war with any European Power, the machine which controlled those great establishments would fall to pieces. Practically there was no one upon whom they could fix responsibility if things went wrong in any particular department. The Admiralty were only known as a Board, and although the duties might be subdivided there, they all knew how shadowy the responsibility of a Board was. There was no great department of the State in this or in any other country in Europe which was governed as the Admiralty was; and after careful
820
consideration and study of the Reports of Committees he threw out as suggestions, whether they ought not to have one head at the Admiralty, just as they had one head for the Colonial, the Home, the War Departments, and for India. That head might be called the Minister of Marine; he should be a Secretary of State, and responsible to that House and to the country. He should have the appointment of six gentlemen — whether civilians or naval men would not matter, provided they were the best men who could be found. The first should be Controller of the Navy, whose duty it would be to superintend everything connected with the construction of ships, with hulls and spars complete. Under him, again, there should be some able men to analyse all the inventions which appeared available. Then would come a Storekeeper General, invested with control over all provisions, stores, and medical comforts. Next would come some person doing the duties of the present Sea Lord, to man the ships. The next officer would be a Director of Engineering and Works, who would be responsible for the construction of docks, &c.; the next would be an Accountant General, who would have the control of the finance and accounts; and, last of all, there would be an officer who should have the control of all matters which did not fall within the scope of the duties of the other five, such as the enforcement of foreshore rights, the protection of navigable rivers, &c. The Secretaries would remain as at present—one Parliamentary and the other Permanent—and they, together with the six members of this Committee or Council, would be subject to the Minister somewhat in the same way in which the members of the Indian Council were now subject to the Secretary of State for India. He would extend the system to the dockyards, the Admiral Superintendents of which had at present no power and no stimulus to induce them to study economy, and would also carry it out with regard to the Estimates. Although the form of the Estimates had been greatly improved since the noble Lord had become Secretary to the Admiralty, it was still far from perfect. Those Estimates were now presented to the Committee under seventeen heads. If his plan was carried out, as there would be six departments of the Admiralty, so there would be six heads of the Estimates, under each of which there would be divi-

821
sions and subdivisions. The adoption of such a system would, he was sure, increase the control of the House over the Admiralty, and lead to increased economy and efficiency in that branch of the public service, while it would fix the responsibility upon one head.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that though he must decline to commit himself to details, he could not but agree with the hon. Member that some change in the constitution of the Admiralty was necessary. Since 1828 there had been no fewer than fifteen First Lords, and no fewer than a hundred other changes in the Board. The work of Admiralty reform—like the stone of Sisyphus—was always falling back; or, like the web of Penelope, the Board was always pulling its own work to pieces. They had heard of late much of the discontent and discouragement abroad in the naval service, and he was of opinion that much of that discontent would, on inquiry, be proved to exist. The service required some assurance that equality of appointment and that equality of reward should be shown to all. Let every one see his own way to the admiral's cabin, and let no one feel that he needed anything beyond his own merits to earn honours and distinction. That was the only mode in which to put down the fooling of discontent that unhappily prevailed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the very heavy increase in the item for extra clerks. He would suggest that as many as were necessary should be taken into permanent employment.
MR. WHITEsaid, he did not think the inquiry he was about to make could be more applicable on any other than on the Vote before the Committee. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty to inform the Committee by whose authority her Majesty's gunboats had been handed over to the service of the Emperor of China, and by whose authority stores and supplies of ammunition had also been furnished? If any one was inclined to be captious, he might take the objection that the Estimates were framed on false pretences if a large portion of the expenses voted by the Committee were to be diverted for foreign objects. He thought, therefore, a full and complete explanation was due to the Committee as to the cost of the ammunition and stores supplied. If paid for, they ought to be set on the credit side of the account. A large num-
822
ber of arms had been furnished by the Government of India, which had been paid for by the Chinese Government. He wished to know if the same were the case with the stores and ammunition to which he referred?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The arrangement to which the hon. Member refers was one sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government upon considerations which they deemed sufficient; it being very desirable, with a view to the security of our commerce and the safety of British subjects, that tranquillity should be restored in China. The whole expense of the operations to which the hon. Member refers will be defrayed by the Chinese Government, and will not entail pecuniary liabilities on Her Majesty's Government.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) and he agreed with that hon. Member as to the want of responsibility of the Admiralty; but when the hon. Gentleman said that the country would be indifferent as to who was the head of the Department, he must join issue with him, for he was of opinion that no civilian could possibly perform the duties of head of the Admiralty satisfactorily. Would the hon. Member, whose fleet was one of the great ornaments of the mercantile marine of the country, dream of intrusting its management to any one but a person practically conversant with nautical affairs? A civilian First Lord was incapable of forming an opinion with regard to questions of a technical character, or inventions which might be submitted to him, and hence the country might be deprived, through his incompetence, of some really valuable improvement. He would suggest that the head of the great naval Department of this country should be the best officer that could be obtained, and that his appointment should not be subject to the fluctuations of political caprice in the House of Commons.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that during the last year, he had called attention to the subject of Admiralty management, in the hope that something would be done to give practical effect to the numerous inquiries which had been made, by Commissioners and Committee?, during the last few years. He ventured to think that enough had been ascertained to show that it was impossible, with a Board of Admiralty as constituted, to have the work of the

823
country well done. During the thirty years from 1829 to 1859 there had been seventeen First Lords of the Admiralty, and the average time of their term of office was one year ten months and two weeks. During the same period there had been a hundred other changes in the Lords of the Admiralty. Within the last eight years there had been four general changes of the Board—five First Lords and thirty-four other Lords of the Admiralty. Now, he asked, how could any business be properly performed where the Department connected with it was subject to so many changes? From the Dockyard Committee's Report, and other Reports, it appeared to him that there was something rotten in the administration of the Board of Admiralty, and until it was reconstituted he believed it would be ridiculous to expect anything like good order in the Department. He hoped that the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty would avail himself of the present favourable opportunity to consider the question, with a view to a radical improvement of the system.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the variety of opinions expressed as to the constitution of the Admiralty showed the difficulty of dealing with the subject. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) was in favour of a sort of council, composed of the principal officers, presided over by a responsible Minister. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) objected to a civilian First Lord. Then it was proposed by another hon. Gentleman that the Board of Admiralty should be permanent. But he (Lord Clarence Paget) should like to know, in reference to the Constitution of this country and the control which the House of Commons ought to exercise over the Admiralty, what was to become of that control with a permanent Board. The Board would, practically, be responsible to nobody, and the result, he thought, would soon show itself in a great addition to the expenditure. But his hon. Friend proposed a council consisting of professional officers. Well, that was very much the present constitution of the Board. The First Lord was really responsible. He (Lord Clarence Paget) had watched the action of the Board very narrowly, and he could see no difference, practically, between the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty and that of the Secretary of State for War. He really
824
believed, that if by some good fortune the name of a "Board" were discontinued, and another designation employed, much of the prejudice on the subject would disappear. The Admiralty was not, in practice, a Board. Its affairs were administered by a responsible Minister, with a council of professional officers. No doubt the system had defects, like every other human institution; but he could think of no better means of getting through the mass of complicated business which they had to discharge than that of a body of men sitting round a table, where each member had his own specific function to perform. One of the Sea Lords, for example, had charge of the stores; another was placed over the movements of the ships; a civil Lord had the entire charge of the public works; another Lord was in charge of the manning of the navy; another of the whole of the vast department of armaments and guns. He could assure the Committee that every one of these branches was under the control of a Lord, but the whole business was transacted in concert. Thus, for instance, if the Lord who had the control of the movements of the fleet said, "I am going to send such and such a ship to South America," another says, "I have stores I want to put on board;" and thus these gentlemen worked together, and got rid of the confusion which must prevail if people were working in separate rooms, and a combination of result and action was attained. He believed that system was in practice in the War Department, and that it was the custom there to carry on the various branches separately. Such a plan introduced into the Admiralty would lead to immediate confusion; their work was so interlaced, that continual communication with each other amongst the different departments was essential. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) seemed, like other people, to entertain the notion that the Board of Admiralty was an irresponsible Board, and that they were inattentive to their duties; but he felt quite sure, that if the hon. Baronet could see the practical working of the Department, his prejudices against it would vanish and cease. But he would ask, had their plans for the manning of the navy been so unsuccessful? Two or three years ago ships were in harbour six months waiting for a crew, to the opprobrium of the navy. Now, they might be manned in a day.

825
Was that a proof of maladministration? Then with regard to iron ships. We were passing through a period of transition, and the Admiralty had been compelled to try various systems; but great progress had been made in the construction of a fleet. These were not proofs of want of energy and inaction on the part of the Admiralty. He should have hoped that the vast reductions which the Admiralty had been enabled to make in the Navy Estimates, without injury to the service, would also have helped to vindicate the Admiralty from the imputation of being inefficient. As to the question of the pay and promotion of officers, did hon. Members suppose, that if the Admiralty consisted of one Minister, there would be no complaints from any branch of the service? That, he thought, would be rather too much to expect. Such matters as those did not depend upon the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. Coming now to the Vote before the House, he would point out to the hon. Member for Lambeth that he was in error in supposing that there had been a large increase of temporary clerks. A change had been made by separating the Director of Transports' from the Controller of Victualling's Office, and the increase on one side had been balanced by a decrease on the other. The Admiralty had, however, been obliged, in consequence of the increase of business, to add a first-class clerk in the Secretary's Office. Then, some clerks that had been temporary were made permanent, because when it was found that those clerks had duties to perform that were permanent, it was bad policy to keep them in a temporary position. They had, therefore, put those gentlemen upon the establishment, with a view to their rising in pay and having a claim to superannuation allowance. In the Transport Department they had now got a military officer to sit with the head of that Department, which he thought would be found to work well and economically. He hoped the Committee would now agree to Vote 3.
MR. LINDSAYthought it objectionable that in the Transport Department there should be now two heads, while the amount of work to be done was the same as before. Last year some hon. Members objected to the sum proposed in the Vote as too large, and therefore there was an apparent reduction of £5,000 to make things look pleasant. But the fact
826
was, certain items had been transferred to other Votes, and, instead of a reduction, there was really an increase of £1,576.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to impress upon the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty the great importance of concentrating the offices of the Admiralty. The noble Lord had more than once acknowledged the grave character of the difficulties which existed at the present moment. The Admiralty had plenty of time; there was nothing to disturb them; and he trusted the Committee would receive some assurance that during the present year some steps would be taken towards centralization of the offices under one roof, instead of their being divided between Somerset House and Whitehall.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that no one paid a more willing tribute than himself to the ability with which the noble Lord had brought forwared his Estimates. But as regarded the argument which the noble Lord used in reply to the suggestions made to him, he (Mr. Bentinck) was not disposed to compliment him. The noble Lord said, that the present was not the right time to discuss the subject. Now, that was always the argument used by the occupants of the Ministerial benches whenever they found the subject inconvenient or they wished to avoid it. When his noble and gallant Friend said that a permanent Board would be under no control, he (Mr. Bentinck) must dispute the assertion, because he could not see any reason why a permanent Board should be freer from the control of that House as regarded its expenditure than any other Board. The noble Lord said that the Department, with several heads, was under the control of one first Lord. Now, that was what they complained of. The Department was really under the control of one person who was not responsible. He would remind his noble and gallant Friend of an answer given by the late lamented Sir James Graham when a question was put to him about the administration of the Board of Admiralty. That right hon. Baronet was asked this question —
"If you, while at the head of the Board, had a decided difference of opinion with the naval officers under you, would you hesitate to act upon your own judgment, or defer to that of the other Lords."
The answer given by Sir James Graham was this—"Unquestionably I should act upon my own opinion." Now, that reply of the late right hon. Baronet

827
showed the inconvenience of the present system, under which a civilian would think himself justified in overruling the opinion of naval men. He hoped, at a future time, his hon. Friend would bring this subject forward again. It was a mistake to suppose that the Board was attacked. It was not the Board but the system that was complained of. The country, willing as it was to contribute any amount of money which might be necessary for the support and maintenance of the naval service, did not, under the present system, get what he called its money's worth. It was a system of wasteful and useless extravagance, and hence arose those occasional bursts of economy which in the end, he believed, led to extravagance.
MR. WHITEsaid, that the defence of the system of the Admiralty which had been offered by the noble Lord was singularly unfortunate. The noble Lord said, that it was meritorious, because the functions performed by the First Lord of the Admiralty were analagous to those performed by the Secretary for the War Department. Now, he believed that the part of their administration which gave least satisfaction to the House and to the country was the functions performed by the Secretary for the War Department. On more than one occasion, attention had been called to the anomalous connection that subsisted between the Secretary of War and the Horse Guards. The comparatively irresponsible authority of the Horse Guards overrode the authority of the Secretary of War. So persuaded was the House of the fact, that on the Motion of the then Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) the House had solemnly resolved that an humble Address should be presented to her Majesty, praying that as the present system gave great dissatisfaction, she would place the Horse Guards under the control of the Secretary at War.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was of opinion that whatever might be the defects in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, there was no lack of zeal on the part of the individuals of whom it was composed—the fact, he believed, being that the illness and absence from that House of one of its Members was attributable to overwork in the discharge of his duties in the Department. It was also believed that the death of Admiral Dundas was caused by overwork.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £299,695, Goast Guard Service, Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, and Royal Naval Reserve.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to take that occasion to congratulate the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty on the manner in which the Estimates under discussion had been framed. A saving of over a million was effected, as compared with the Estimates of last year, and yet it was the result of no unwise economy. He expressed satisfaction at the statement made by the noble Lord, on Monday evening, to the effect that 17,000 seamen were enrolled on the Naval Reserve, adding that while he was glad to have such evidence of the readiness with which merchant seamen made themselves available for service in the navy, he hoped the Government would not, as a consequence of the success of the scheme, be led to make any hasty reduction in the number of men-of-war's-men. Such a reduction, he contended, would be as improvident as if the Secretary at War was to diminish the number of Her Majesty's land forces because of the existence of the Volunteers. He was of that opinion, because, notwithstanding that the best class of merchant seamen might be secured for the Naval Reserve, and notwithstanding that they might be most attentive in going through the necessary training, yet no admiral would like, for obvious reasons, to go to sea with a fleet composed solely of such men. There was, he might add, some discrepancy between the official Returns, which gave the number of men on the Naval Reserve list at 15,272, and the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, who had given a higher number; but be that as it might, he thought the noble Lord was over-sanguine in his estimate of the extent to which the Reserve would be available if a sudden emergency were to arise. Commander Brown, late Registrar of Seamen, an officer of great experience, who had been examined before the Commission to inquire into the best mode of manning the navy, had set down the strength of the Reserve required at 20,000; but he was more cautious than the noble Lord, because he did not calculate that more than one-fourth of that number would be forthcoming at a moment's notice. The great merit of the scheme, there could be no doubt, consisted in its capability of furnishing the means to meet a sudden de-

829
mand upon our resources, and he should, therefore, like to know whether monthly or quarterly returns were required from the various shipping offices giving information as to the whereabouts of the men, so that the noble Lord might be able to lay his hands upon them when he wanted them. He would express his approval of the plan of engaging seamen for continued service in the navy, but there ought to be no hasty and indiscriminate reductions, such as took place at the close of the Crimean war, even on the grounds urged by hon. Members opposite, namely, the strength and efficiency of our Reserves; for it was a breach of faith with the seamen, which could not be repeated with impunity. He should also wish to know, whether the Admiralty contemplated any change in the regulations of the Royal Naval Reserve? As the organization of that valuable force depended on the exertions of the shipping masters, he would also ask whether they, as public servants charged with onerous duties, would have some fixed payment assigned to them proportionate to the important services rendered to the country?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETthought he could give a satisfactory answer in reference to most of the points touched on. With regard to the Royal Naval Reserve, what he stated on the previous night, though he might not have expressed himself clearly, was that from the beginning there had been upwards of 17,000 men enrolled. The number was, of course, diminished by deaths, by desertions (though of the latter there had been very few), and by vacancies arising in various ways; and the present strength of the Naval Reserve amounted to 14,556 men. According to the last Return, it appeared that the number of volunteers available from the coasting trade amounted to 7,213, and that was the number he (Lord Clarence Paget) quoted to the House. Therefore, his hon. Friend would see that the great mass of the men were at home. The Admiralty hoped to be able to enrol at least 18,000 men. His hon. Friend had asked, whether any alterations were about to be made in the regulations? In reply he (Lord Clarence Paget) might state, on the formation of the Reserve, the age had been extended, five years beyond the limit recommended by the Royal Commission; but, now that the body had nearly assumed its necessary strength, it would be desirable to
830
draw back to the former age. [Mr. LIDDELL: That will apply to future entries only?] Yes; to future entries only. In reference to the payment of the shipping masters some complaints had been made, and he thought it was well worthy of consideration whether it should not be a fixed payment; but the Government did not intend at present to make any alteration. The Return which the hon. Member had alluded to was a monthly Return.
MR. LYGONasked for an explanation of the increase in the item of cottages built for the Coast-guards.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that there had been a considerable increase in the Coast-guard stations, and new cottages had been built. The increase of the force on shore was from 4,000 last year to; 4,300 this year.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he desired to have some explanation, respecting the efficiency of the gentleman who had been appointed to succeed Captain Brown as Registrar General of Seamen.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the appointment rested with the Board of Trade, and the Admiralty had nothing to do with it.
MR. LIDDELLobserved, that last year £5,000 were voted for subsistence allowances for officers of the Royal Naval Reserve under drill; and though, the House was led to believe that the number of these officers was largely increasing every day by accessions from the mercantile marine, yet, under the same head in the present Estimates, only £2,184 were asked for.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the Admiralty were gradually becoming acquainted with their actual necessities in reference to that portion of the Naval Reserve, and that they had taken for the first year a much larger sum than was requisite.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the Reserve, added to the 76,000 men voted the other night, would give a force exceeding 90,000 men. The question, therefore, was, had they efficient ships which they would dare to send to face an enemy if the country were involved in war into which they could put them. He believed that they had not, and that they had a far greater number of men than they could possibly use in efficient ships. He also thought there ought to be some distinguishing mark upon ships officered

831
and manned by men belonging to the Naval Reserve.
MR. BENTINCKsaid the hon. Member for Sunderland, when he complained that they had more men than we could possibly employ in ships in case of a war, seemed to forget that in war there was a large expenditure of men. He had been told that some of the owners of large merchant vessels, whose officers and crew were composed almost exclusively of the Royal Navy Reserve, were exceedingly anxious that those vessels should be permitted to carry the blue ensign. He wished to know, whether under proper restrictions, that permission might be given?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), and backed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), whether ships commanded by officers of the Naval Reserve, and manned to great extent by men of the Naval Reserve, would be allowed to hoist the blue ensign, he (Lord Clarence Paget) would communicate to the Admiralty the wishes of hon. Gentlemen, and he was sure that anything that could be done with propriety in the matter would be done.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, who had been appointed in the place of Captain Brown, lately Registrar General of Seamen. He also desired to know, whether any increased remuneration had been given to the shipping-masters for their extra services consequent upon the formation of the Naval Reserve?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that Mr. Mayo had been appointed to succeed Captain Brown, who had retired after long service. He would inquire as to the shipping-masters and let the hon. Gentleman know.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he presumed that the appointment of Mr. Mayo had been made by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He wished to know, whether Captain Brown retired on his own accord, whether he wished to retire, whether he retired on full salary, whether he was entitled to retire on full salary, and whether any hint was given that his retirement would be agreeable? Captain Brown was the first person who held the office, so he could not appeal to any precedent as to the practice of appointing a person conversant with maritime affairs;
832
but he thought the Registrar General of Seamen should be such a person. Was Mr. Mayo conversant with maritime affairs, and what were the antecedents of Mr. Mayo?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he understood that Captain Brown asked to retire. If he had had some little notice, he would have taken care to be furnished with particulars. He was quite sure that it was by Captain Brown's own desire that his retirement came about, and that the cause of it was failing health and conscious inability to discharge the duties. Upon his retirement, Captain Brown had received, on the part of the Admiralty and on the part of the Board of Trade, the fullest acknowledgments of the manner in which, during a long period of years, he had discharged the duties of the office. It was quite true that Captain Brown was the first Registrar, and that he was a naval officer, professionally conversant with maritime affairs. At the outset that knowledge might be of advantage, but the duties were such as could well be performed by a civilian. Mr. Mayo had already performed many important duties in the Board of Trade in connection with the management of the seamen's savings-banks and collecting the effects of deceased seamen. Mr. Mayo had a fair claim to promotion on the vacancy occurring, and in appointing that gentleman he believed the Government had consulted the public interests, at the same time that they did justice to a meritorious public servant.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £71,961, Scientific Departments of the Navy.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know if the Admiralty would have any objection to publish the results of Captain Denham's exploring expedition to the South Seas? Captain Denham had been away ten years, and had made some most important discoveries.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that Captain Denham had been absent ten years, and had done good service to his country. The charts, surveys, and remarks he had made, particularly with regard to that very intricate part of the world, which hitherto was considered almost impassable—Torres Straits—were of the greatest value. By his great ability, and the zeal and energy of his officers and men, he had succeeded in making a survey which would tend to render the navi-

833
gation of Torres Straits not more than of ordinary difficulty. The Government were publishing the charts and remarks, which were extremely valuable, but he could not undertake to say that the journals of the voyages would be published at the public expense.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the noble Lord had done no more than justice to Captain Denham in what he had said. Captain Denham had rendered most important services to the country, and he (Sir John Pakington) would have been glad to hear that some substantial mark of the approval of the Admiralty had been given to him.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the right hon. Baronet's intimation should be conveyed to the Admiralty.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that last year a sum of £1,000 was voted for rewards for experiments, and only £300 of that sum had been expended. Out of such a fund as that the services of Captain Denham might be rewarded.
Vote agreed- to.
(4.) £183,316, Naval Establishments at Home.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved, that if the Government had determined upon building large iron ships of war, it would be better that the work should be offered to competition. In that case there would be a large saving in the number of artificers employed in the dockyards, as wooden ships, for the construction of which they were chiefly employed, were going out of use. In the present Vote, however, he noticed an increase of £6,692, as compared with last year.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the hon. Baronet ought not to suppose that, because they were building iron-cased ships, therefore the wooden ships were to be done away with. Corvettes, sloops, and gunboats must continue to be built of wood till some better material was found, and shipbuilding must go on in the dockyards. There was an increase of £4,000 in this Vote for clerks. That was caused by the changes which the Admiralty were making. Hitherto each naval establishment had had a staff of its own, but they were now going to amalgamate the different staffs, so as to be able to command the services of each clerk at any station they chose, without nterfering with the course of promotion.
MR. DALGLISHsaid, he was glad to
834
hear of the change, and he hoped that all the clerks would be placed under the control of the Accountant General, instead of being under the different departments of the dockyards.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that had been partially done. There was an Audit clerk in each dockyard who represented the Accountant General, and was under his control alone as regarded auditing accounts.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had a suspicion, from the maintenance of such large establishments, that Government were about to build iron ships in their own yards and withdraw them from private contract. If they did this, he warned them that they would have much worse ships, and they would be much more expensive. As to their requiring to build wooden ships, what purpose could they be built for when we had already more wooden ships of twenty guns and upwards than all the world besides? He was not satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord.
MR. LAIRDsaid, he was under the impression that stock was not taken in the dockyards; and if so, it was impossible that the accounts could be properly kept. There was an item of £10,000 for Deptford dockyard, though the last time he visited it he found it almost deserted, and only one or two ships building there. It would be wiser to sell Deptford and build all ships where the materials were more easily obtainable.
MR. CHILDERSobserved, that there were certain changes in the allowances to Wesleyan chaplains in some of the dockyards. He did not mention the matter by way of disapproval, but he wished to hear from the noble Lord on what principle these allowances were grounded.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the principle upon which these allowances were granted was taken from the army regulations, so that the remuneration for services was regulated by the number of marines attending each service. He would explain the discontinuance of the Wesleyan allowance. This allowance having been followed by demands from other Dissenting Churches, they were obliged to go to the War Office to know the course pursued in regard to the army, which was this:—The War Office considered that there were three national Churches—the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic—and to each of these they made allowances when requisite. The Admi-

835
ralty adopted this scheme. They were very sorry to cease the allowance to their Wesleyan friends, but they could not continue it without extending it to other denominations.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was a new theory that there were three established Churches in this country. If the principle were carried out consistently, something might be said for it. On a question on which religious bodies were so touchy, it was most important to adhere to some rule.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I did not say established Churches—I said national Churches. Perhaps I should rather have said predominant Churches.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, that with regard to the alleged superiority of iron over wood, it appeared the Alabama was built of wood, and therefore it was not so clear that the efficiency of the navy depended altogether on our ships being constructed of iron.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(5.) £36,370, Naval Establishments Abroad.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,112,878, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had to complain of the total absence of any information on that important Vote. During the last two years they had spent £15,000,000 in stores and wages alone. Taking wages and stores together, the amount voted last year was, in round numbers, £3,500,000; and yet the Committee was in total ignorance as to how the money was spent. It seemed that about 14,000 workmen were employed, but how, why, or where nobody appeared to know. Such was not the way in which the Committee should be treated, and he hoped the noble Lord would favour them with an explanation.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that every year a detailed statement was laid before the House of the cost of every ship built during the previous twelve months. He regretted that that annual account had not yet been completed for the past year, but it would be produced in a fortnight, and he invited the criticism of the hon. Baronet upon it. Meanwhile, he
836
might state that he believed that by the end of the current year the Admiralty would have built 3–8ths of the iron armour-plated ship the Achilles, 19½–8ths of wooden armour-plated ships, 1½–8ths of corvettes, 7½–8ths of wooden armour-plated sloops, 8–8ths of despatch vessels, and 7½–8ths of yachts and other light boats. The annual account next year would show what they had done in the way of repairs during the current year.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, they appeared to have got very little for their money last year, and he would therefore suggest that the Vote should be delayed until the detailed statement had been laid on the table.
MR. P. W. MARTIN (Rochester)said, that three successive Boards of Admiralty had issued orders in which they endeavoured to impress upon the employés in the dockyards, and the public at large, that they retained no patronage in their hands whatever. A belief still existed, however, that the patronage of the dockyards was largely exercised for political purposes. He would, therefore, suggest that the orders should be converted into an Act of Parliament.
MR. DALGLISHsaid, it appeared from the statement of the noble Lord that 47–8ths were built by the Admiralty last year. The produce of the year was six ships, and as the wages amounted to £1,147,000, it resulted, after deducting half for repairs, that about £100,000 had been paid per ship for labour alone.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the hon. Member had made out a very neat sum, but he had not allowed a sufficient sum for repairs. Owing to the war in China, and other matters, the Admiralty had been obliged to repair nearly the whole fleet. They were doing, in fact, what should have been done long ago—bringing our ships into a course of repair, which would put the navy in an efficient condition. If his hon. Friend would wait until the accounts of the year were presented to Parliament, he would find that a much larger sum than half the Vote for Wages had been expended on repairs.
MR. LINDSAY: Wait till next year! Does the noble Lord mean to say that over £600,000 were spent in wages for repairs last year?
MR. LAIRDsaid, it was utterly impossible to understand the accounts in the shape presented to the Committee. If the sum of £600,000 had been expended

837
in one year in repairs, it was time they looker out for another material with which to construct their ships.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in a Report presented to the Admiralty it was stated by Admiral Robinson that the number of seamen and marines voted for the service of the navy told directly on the number of men required in the dockyards. For every man so voted there was an average expense in the dockyards of at least £10 for fitment, refitment, and repairs. That would give a sum of £760,000 for the wages of artificers alone.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, if the Government had expended £600,000 in repairs, there must be something radically wrong. The country was not getting value in labour for the money expended. It was the duty of the Committee to stop the Estimates until further information was obtained; and therefore he would move that the Chairman do report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. LAIRDsaid, the Estimates for artificers' wages and stores for the year amounted to the sum of £4,000,000. Taking £1,500,000 for repairs of the fleet and management, and £230,000 for repairs of the dockyards and machinery, there was left for new ships £2,000,000, which would give 30,000 tons of iron shipping at £70 a ton. He would like to see a correct statement of these outgoings, so that they might arrive at the cost of new ships built in the dockyards.
MR. DALGLISHsuggested that it was not desirable to stop the progress of the Estimates. He believed the present Controller was doing everything in his power to establish a proper system; and he arrived at that conclusion from the result of the Devonport election. If the Admiralty were not doing their duty there, the Government candidate would not have been defeated.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR HENEY WILLOUHBYasked, whether there was any manner of distinguishing that class of dockyard business which did not belong to the building and repair of war ships? A large sum was spent on yachts.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETobserved, that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) was acquainted with the endea-
838
vours of the Admiralty to put these things on a proper footing. There was an annual account of the expenditure. It was true the Admiralty did not take an annual survey of stores for the purpose of making a balance, because such a proceeding would be attended with enormous expense.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could assure his noble Friend that he had given the Committee a fair idea of the total want of arrangement which prevailed at the dockyards, when he told them there was no annual valuation of the stores on account of the expense. The firm with which he was connected had a larger stock in hand than the stores of the Board of Admiralty to go over. Some £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 of engagements in every part of the world must entail on the part of his firm some amount of labour in taking stock, and yet they did not shrink from it, because otherwise they would not know their position. There ought to be an accurate statement at the close of every year of the whole of the stock of every kind.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERpaid, he could not understand why a stock-taking should cost so much money. He supposed the Government had officers competent to the task; and, if so, it might be performed easily as a part of their ordinary duties, and without any expense.
MR. P. W, MARTINsaid, he believed that the officials in the dockyards were at present overworked.
MR. SEELYsaid, he was anxious that the system of accounts put forward by the Admiralty should be improved; but, from experience, he knew that taking stock was a costly operation; however, its expense, in time, trouble, and money, was fully compensated by the advantage it afforded of knowing how they stood. He believed that stock-taking by the Admiralty would occupy a fortnight or three weeks. Having himself inspected the accounts at Portsmouth last year, he found no double entry practised there, or, at any rate, none was produced. The Committee ought to know what each ship cost for building or repairs, but their present information was most delusive, because it did not show on one side what they got for the money they paid on the other.
MR. LAIRDsaid, he saw no difficulty, not only in taking stock, but in keeping a correct account of the cost of every ship built or repaired, for he had done it him-

839
self in his establishment for thirty years. The men usually got holydays at Christmas, and the operation might be got through in a week or ten days. It was most essential that the Admiralty should know by taking stock, like private firms, what was the first cost, and what the expense of repairs, for every ship.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that having himself visited a Government dockyard and looked at the accounts, he must say he found the entries to be most carefully and precisely made, showing how each man was employed and every article appropriated.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he thought the information which hon. Gentlemen opposite sought might be easily obtained by having duplicate accounts for every separate dockyard.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, the description of the system of accounts in the dockyards, given by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, certainly did not tally with the report of the Royal Commission.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he spoke of a period subsequent to that Report.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he should be glad to see the accounts which were presented to the House, drawn up so as to show the cost of the labour, the material, &c., of each ship. He was at a loss to know how the Admiralty could balance their books, as they were said to do every year, without taking stock. It would not be necessary to turn over large materials, such as timber, of which a stock account ought always to be kept; but it was all important to have a proper annual balance-sheet.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he thought, if stock were to be taken at all, it must be taken with minute exactitude, otherwise it would be fallacious. It must extend to every article they had in the yards. That was done at present once every three years. The accounts were now kept by double entry under the Accountant General; and the documents which would be placed before the House would give, in a complete form, the expenditure on every ship and every manufactured article in the dockyards. When they had these accounts in as perfect a state as the cash accounts of the navy, it would become a question for consideration whether it would be worth while to take stock annually instead of triennially. The accounts now kept would furnish every particle of information for which hon. Gentlemen asked.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought hon. Members opposite were expecting a little too much. In the Government dockyards the stimulus to care and economy which existed in private establishments, was wanting, and though an alteration of the system might partially remedy that defect, it would nit wholly eradicate it.
Original Question put.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £69,957, Wages to Artificers, &c., abroad.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to inquire the cause of the increase in the number of hired men (133) employed in the naval yard of Bermuda.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it arose from the substitution of free for convict labour.
SIR JOHN HAYasked if all the convicts had been withdrawn.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: They have all been withdrawn, I believe.
SIR JOHN HAY: Where have they gone?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I do not know.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,334,051, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Stores for the Building, Repair, and Outfit of the Fleet, which, will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864."
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he rose to move that the Vote be reduced by £250,000. He did so on two grounds. The first was that it was not required; and secondly, because the Government had improperly taken that amount from a Vote destined for another purpose. In the year, 1861 the Vote for timber was £995,000, and his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland proposed, and I seconded his Motion, that it should be reduced by £300,000, but did not meet with very extensive support in the Committee. In the year 1862 the amount of the Vote was £560,713, and again his hon. Friend proposed its reduction by £100,000, but did not meet with the support which he had reason to expect. The Government had at present 112,000 loads of timber in the dockyard, which was equivalent to five years' consumption when timber ships only were built. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had given his pledge that no more, or at

841
least very few more, wooden vessels would be constructed; and if that was the case, and with 112,000 loads of timber in hand, was it necessary that they should come and ask for £266,000? But his second reason for proposing the reduction was that the Admiralty had taken the sum of £250,000 from a distinct Vote and appropriated it to the purchase of timber. From the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, printed in July, 1862, they found that in the early part of the year there had been a somewhat sharp dissension between the Lords of the Treasury and the Board of Admiralty in regard to this sum. The sum of £250,000 had been taken from a Vote for the construction of iron ships, and he asked why the Admiralty had taken that sum and devoted it to the purchase of timber? The auditor objected, but the Admiralty defended themselves, and said they were at liberty to take the sum voted for the construction of iron ships to purchase wood, inasmuch as the sum was taken under the Vote of Stores, and they could devote the sum to any branch of the stores they pleased. If that could be done there was no use of Parliament voting money for separate and distinct purposes; their sitting there was a sham and a farce. They gave Votes of money for the purposes which they thought best for the interests of the country, and he held that the Admiralty had no power, without not only showing marked disrespect to the House, but acting in a most unconstitutional manner, to appropriate any Vote of that House for any other purpose than that for which the House sanctioned it. He must refer to the exact words of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, when defending himself in Committee on this matter. He was asked, "In point of fact, did you not apply for the purchase of timber money which was voted by Parliament for the exclusive purpose of building iron ships?" and the noble Duke answered, "Yes I did. I did that on my own responsibility. I considered it a right thing to do. Parliament was not sitting when I bought the whole of that timber. I may have bought some whilst Parliament was sitting, but most of that timber was bought after Parliament was prorogued." When further asked whether it was while Parliament was sitting that he resolved to make the purchase, he answered, "Yes it was." The course which the noble Duke ought to have
842
pursued was to have asked the House to reverse the Vote for building iron ships, and to have asked a quarter of a million for timber. He had given notice to his noble Friend that he would call attention to the subject, and it was but right that he should have a full opportunity of explaining the course which the Admiralty had adopted. He should take the sense of the Committee on the reduction of the Vote by £250,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £266,663, for Timber, Masts, Deals, &c., be reduced by £250,000.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that undoubtedly, on the occasion to which his hon. Friend alluded, the Duke of Somerset did take on himself the responsibility, when great exertions were required, of using every means in his power of procuring timber, and hence the very contracts he now asked the Committee to agree to. He was obliged to tell hon. Gentlemen this, year after year; timber contracts were taken two or three years beforehand. They could not get timber just when they wanted it. If he waited to contract for timber till he carne down to the House for a Vote, he would get none. It was necessary to make contracts for timber two or three years in advance. Dantsic timber might be had as it was wanted, but the great bulk of the timber now estimated had been contracted for two or three years ago. On that occasion, when all the world were urging the Government to great exertions in ship-building, and when they were taunted over and over again for not having a sufficient stock of timber, it was the duty of his noble Friend the Duke of Somerset—to order a considerable stock of timber, and that was the reason why they found themselves in so satisfactory a position as regarded the stock of sound timber. He hoped the Committee, notwithstanding the appeal of his hon. Friend, would agree that it was the duty of the Admiralty to take these contracts, in order to procure a suitable supply of that important article.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the noble Lord had not answered the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury—Was the Duke of Somerset to overrule the decisions of that House?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in order to show how anxious the Duke of Somerset was that the Vote should be

843
brought under the consideration of Parliament in a distinct shape, and that there should be no transfer of a sum given for one purpose to another purpose, he might mention that His Grace had himself divided the Tote into two sections. The object of the division was to prevent the Admiralty from having the power of applying money voted for the first section towards the purposes provided for under the second section.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYremarked that a considerable change had lately taken place in the system of accounts. The House had made an important alteration in the Appropriation Act, which prevented any transfer of money from one Vote to another, and required that any excess should be surrendered to the Treasury. If an emergency arose, the Department could apply to the Treasury for a temporary advance, which must afterwards come under the notice of the House as a distinct Vote. If those regulations were disregarded, the House had the remedy in their own hands.
MR. LAIRDcontended that before the Admiralty proceeded further in the construction of iron-plated vessels, the merits of the turret ship ought to be fully tested by experiments; and that if it was found to be superior, it should be adopted. They had two cupola ships building. Let them be tried, and let the ships on Mr. Reed's plan be also pushed on. The Admiralty should act as they did in France, where they did not keep on building all sorts of ships, but proceeded with their iron-cased ones and stopped the others, and thus did not require any larger estimates for the reconstruction of their navy.
MR. SEELYsaid, he wished to ask whether the Vote was required for timber already bought or to be bought?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: For timber contracted for in 1861.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he thought that more information was required. The noble Lord had told them that they must regulate their progress by that of other countries. The noble Lord had also told them that by April of next year this country would have eighteen iron-coated ships. It was desirable to know the tonnage of those vessels, and also what number of iron-plated ships France would have by April of next year. In order to
844
afford the noble Lord an opportunity of giving that information, he would move that the Chairman report progress.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 74: Majority 61.
Original Question again proposed.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished for some information respecting the extent the Admiralty were building wooden ships covered with iron armour, and how far it was their intention to construct such vessels? That was a plan of building, the wisdom of which he very much doubted. They had been accustomed for the last year or two to make comparisons between the progress of the French navy in armour-plated ships and the English navy, and their consolation had been, and he always felt reasonably, that though the French were superior in point of numbers, England had the advantage in point of quality and construction. Now, he believed that one of the principal reasons why they were justified in claiming that advantage over the French ships, ship for ship, was that the majority of the armour-covered ships in England were built of iron, while the majority of the French were of wood. He understood the noble Lord to say, that the Admiralty were beginning to deviate, to some considerable extent, from that plan. They could not expect large wooden ships, carrying an immense amount of armour, to bear the wear and tear of every weather like iron ships. When they considered the large amount of machinery those vessels had to carry, they must see it was desirable that the best mode of construction should be adopted. He believed the best mode was to have iron ships covered with armour, and not wooden ships covered with armour. He begged to ask the noble Lord to explain to what extent they were preparing wooden ships to be covered with armour.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the position of the country was very peculiar. They had now a large and very fine stock of timber, and that to him was a source of unmitigated satisfaction, whatever might be thought by others. Having a very good stock of seasoned timber, the Government proposed, during the coming year, to cut out the frames of five

845
ships. Their forms were not, in truth, yet exactly decided upon, but they would be ships very much like the Royal Oak, though, perhaps, somewhat larger. If it was found that the turret principle succeeded, the frames which were now to be cut out would come in for turret ships, as there was no difference between the bottoms of turret and of broadside ships. The Government also proposed to convert one line-of-battle ship, the Repulse, into a wooden armour-plated ship. Undoubtedly, there were great advantages in iron. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Then, why build of wood?] Because they wanted to build quickly and cheaply. Under all the circumstances, he thought the Admiralty were justified in cutting out those wooden frames.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought the Committee must have heard with great surprise the explanation of the noble Lord. It was true that, as far as experience went, it was very desirable between the iron frame and the armour to put a certain thickness of wood as a protection, and to have a wooden sheathing for the support of the copper. But the proposal to convert a certain portion of superfluous timber into frames, which could not be nearly so durable as iron frames would be, was a very extraordinary one. Nor did it follow, because other countries used the inferior article for their ships, that they should use it too, when they were able to use iron, which was so much better.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—No doubt iron-framed ships, covered with a backing of wood and then armour-plated, are, as far as experience has yet gone, on the whole the best, although everybody knows there is a difficulty about the iron bottom, which gets foul unless properly protected. But the Committee will recollect that last year and the year before a great pressure was exercised upon the Government to get an iron-cased fleet equal in number and in power to the iron-cased fleets of other Powers. The Admiralty, therefore, had to get these ships as fast as possible, and it was found that a given number of iron-plated ships could be gut ready at a less cost and in less time by making use of the timber which was in store, and by plating wooden ships with iron, than if we had constructed the necessary number of ships of iron. Although the iron ships on the whole are the best, yet what my noble Friend has said is true—that, in
846
comparing your armaments with those of other countries, you must not forget that other countries have cheap wooden ships covered with iron-plating. I believe the French have only one ship, the Couronne, of iron. The Solferino and Magenta are of wood, armour-plated. Therefore, you are at least on a par with other countries, though if you have the time, and do not mind the additional expense, iron ships are preferable.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved, that he was sorry to say that the explanation of the noble Lord could not be considered satisfactory. It was perfectly true that it was desirable to increase the number of plated ships, and he should have felt grateful to the Government if they had applied wooden ships, which were in progress, for this purpose by having them plated. That, however, did not apply to what they were now told the Government were doing. What the noble Lord said was no justification for commencing de novo to build wooden ships, which it was admitted were inferior to those whose frames were of iron. He thought the course taken was a very serious mistake upon the part of the Admiralty. They had found out this at all events, that iron-framed ships were the best; and this being so, why should they build wooden ships? He was not one of those who thought that, with their extended territory and large commerce, wooden ships would be altogether superseded; but that had nothing to do with the proposition that when they were building plated ships they should build them in the best manner. From the form of the Estimate he was unable to say what portion of the Vote applied to the five ships; but if the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty would inform him upon that matter, he would move to reduce it.
MR. LAIRDsaid, that Spain, Turkey, Sardinia, Russia, and America were all building iron ships in this country, and in France private establishments were building large iron frigates, to be plated with armour. He did not agree with the noble Lord as to the facility of converting the wooden frames into turret ships; turret ships ought to be planned and built as such. There was an impression abroad that cupola ships could not be made seagoing vessels, but he believed that that was quite an erroneous impression. The Monitor was a totally different thing. She was built merely for coast service. He

847
trusted that the Admiralty would push on the Prince Albert, which was now building, in order that it might be ascertained whether the views of practical men were correct, that we should have to a great extent to adopt these ships; and if the answer were in the affirmative, the country would save a large sum of money in the navy in future.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the reason why the Admiralty had decided upon cutting out these frames was that the wooden frames could be constructed a great deal more rapidly than iron ones. It would take two years at least to build a ship wholly of iron. It took two years and a half to build the Warrior. Another reason why the Admiralty thought it best to build wooden frames and coat them with iron, rather than convert wooden ships into iron-plated ships, was that they had used all the large wooden ships, with few exceptions, and the state of the remainder was not so good as to make it a matter of economy to convert them. Then they had a certain number of a smaller class of ships, but those ships had not flotation sufficient to carry iron plates. They could give them greater floating power, but that would be a costly operation, and, on the whole, it was more advantageous to build wooden frames, giving great capacity to carry these heavy plates. With regard to wooden sheathing, it was found that galvanic action took place, and the iron bottom became full of holes.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the Vote contained an item of £160,000 for armour-plates for wooden ships. Five-sixths of that would be for the plates for these five ships which were to be built, and, in order to take the sense of the Committee, he would move the reduction of the item by £134,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item £160,000, for Iron for Armour Plates for Wooden Ships, be reduced by £134,000.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not think that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was calculated to attain his object. The objection entertained by some Members of the Committee was not to the plating of these vessels, but to the construction of the frames, and their desire was that the ships to be plated should be built of iron instead of wood. The effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be, that there would be no plates to put upon
848
either wood or iron ships. Old ships covered with armour-plates would not be as good as ships newly framed out of timber for the purpose, because the latter would be constructed on a different principle and would not contain unsound places. What the country wanted was the best ship that could be had. The best ship undoubtedly was an armour-plated iron ship; but it would cost more and take longer in construction, and we were in a hurry. It was quite clear that it would be cheaper to use timber already paid for than to use iron which would have to be paid for. It would take two years and a half to construct iron ships, and even then they would not be able to obtain as many as they required.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the arguments of the noble Lord had not reconciled him to the course taken by the Admiralty. He had no desire to check the progress of armour-covered ships. On the contrary, any wooden vessels, completed or in progress, ought to be armour-plated. But where ships were about to be constructed de novo, they were bound to build them on the best principle in their power, and they certainly ought not to be made of wood. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETexplained that the armour-plates, of which the Amendment sought to deprive the Government, had nothing to do with the embryo ships. They were intended for vessels already in existence.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would certainly vote as he had just stated unless he received an assurance from the noble Lord that the five new ships should not be built of wood.
SIR MORTON PETOthought the Committee had reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in the matter. In 1861 the noble Premier came down to the House, and asked a Vote of about £1,000,000 for iron ships; and that Vote the Government had used most improperly in the purchase of timber. In 1862 another large Vote (£600,000) was taken; and when that evening he proposed to reduce the Vote for timber by £250,000, he was told by the Government that the timber was ordered in 1861, and must be paid for. If the Committee failed to treat the question as business men, they might as well vote the Estimates in a lump, and go home to dinner. What the country

849
wanted was not an iron fleet, but an effective iron fleet. There was an item in the Estimates under consideration of £750,000 for wages paid for the repair of the fleet; but if they had an iron fleet, scarcely any repairs would be needed. An iron hull, practically speaking, would only require repairs once in fifty years. The House had resolved that the fleet should be an iron one, and the Government were not justified in disregarding that Resolution, and continuing to build wooden ships. The noble Lord said, the best thing they could do with timber in their possession was to use it; he denied that. They had better let it lie where it was, or sell it.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he hoped the Government would make some concession to the feeling of the House on that point. It was obvious that timber, into which a saw had never been put, could readily be converted to purposes other than the construction of ships. As to the question of time, everybody conversant with the subject knew that iron frames could be rolled in a much shorter time than the most zealous and active shipwright could put together a wooden frame.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would be sorry to see the Government placed in a minority on a question of the kind. Opinions would be reconciled if something like a pledge were given that the five wooden ships would not be built without further consent on the part of the House.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the House had a right to ask for something more than a pledge. The Vote should be withdrawn, and reproduced in a shape which would admit of a definite Vote being taken with regard to these wooden ships.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the Vote had nothing to do with the five wooden ships. All that was wanted, was for the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to withdraw his statement of the intention to build these ships.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he would suggest that the Vote should be postponed. At present the Committee were about to Vote without understanding the subject.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he begged to add his recommendation to the Government to postpone the Vote. At the same time, he would not take it upon himself to dictate to the Admiralty how these ships were to be built.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the Committee had the same object in view as Her Majesty's Government, which was that the country might obtain, at the smallest expense and in the shortest time, an effective fleet able to compete with the fleets with which, under certain circumstances, they might—he trusted at a distant day—have to come in conflict. Let the Committee first examine the course intended to be pursued by the Government, and then the course recommended by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend proposed to omit from the Vote the cost of the iron plating which it was proposed to provide. He seemed to think that by cutting off that part of the Vote he would open up that part of the question which related to the five ships it was intended to prepare. But he would do no such thing. The Admiralty did not come down to the House for a Vote for armour-plating until the ships were in a state to receive it. In this Estimate the Govern-did not ask the Committee to vote for armour-plating for ships until they were begun. The iron plating now to be voted was for ships that were ready to receive the armour. He (Viscount Palmerston) did not suppose his hon. Friend, or the House, meant that ships which were now ready to receive the armour-plates should not receive them. That would not be the way to provide the country with an adequate fleet. Whether ships in future were to be built of wood or iron was another question. The right hon. Baronet, he believed, thought it better that old ships should be converted. He (Viscount Palmerston) believed that the present ships had new frames, and his hon. Friend asked that they should be deprived of the armour which they were ready to receive. He thought, that if his hon. Friend saw the actual result of this Amendment, he would not press it. Then came the question of the future. That was a question to arise between the House and the Government. There were three descriptions of armour-plated ships which they had to consider. One was the class of ships with iron skin-plates, backed by teak, upon which the iron armour-plates were fixed, such as the Warrior and Black Prince; and he (Viscount Palmerston) thought it very possible experience would show they were the best. But experience had also shown that they were by far the most costly, and took the longest time to complete. The Warrior, Black Prince, Resist-

851
ance, Revenge, and others were a very long time in building, and experience showed that it was possible to cut out timber and construct wooden ships and put iron upon them in a much shorter time. Therefore, if the Committee wanted, within the shortest period, to equal the number of ships possessed by foreign Powers, they would arrive at the result by pursuing the course the Admiralty were taking with regard to these five ships. Then there was another consideration which the House was not always disposed to keep out of view, the consideration of expense. According to the calculation made by the Admiralty a certain amount of expense only would be required. If, on the other hand, his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty consented to build these ships of iron instead of wood, as some hon. Members wished, they would cost more money, and his noble Friend would have to come down with an additional Navy Estimate. The Committee must, therefore, consider whether the advantage to be gained by building iron ships was such as to induce them to urge the Government to come down with an increased Naval Estimate. The Government had proposed an economical arrangement, by which the object in view would be gamed at an early time and at a moderate cost. The House of Commons had been urgent, during the last two Sessions, in recommending the Government to pratice economy. Hon. Members had declared that the cost of the navy was greater than it ought to be, and they were gratified by the reduction of £1,000,000, which the Government had effected in the Navy Estimates. But if the House, instead of the Admiralty providing five ships at an early period and at a cheap rate, insisted on the ships being built at a greater expense, and in a longer time, it was not for the Government to be more economical than the House of Commons. The Government were quite ready to take these views into consideration if they were not permitted to take their own more economical course. But that question was not involved in the Vote now under consideration. There were seven or eight ships ready to be plated with iron; and if the present Amendment were carried, the Committee would only refuse the necessary plates for those ships without accomplishing the prospective object they had in view. He hoped his hon. Friend would
852
not persist in his Motion. Another point that had been raised had been fully answered by the right hon. Baronet. A sum estimated for iron ships was applied to a different purpose, but that was perfectly legitimate and was owing to the difference between an Estimate and a Vote. The Estimate that was submitted to the House showed the different elements of which the aggregate Vote was made up; and when the House resolved upon the aggregate Vote, nothing prevented the Admiralty from applying to one portion of the Vote what was estimated for another. But when the House is asked for a Vote for a specific purpose, it is not competent for the Admiralty to apply the money to a different object. But, with regard to the point now at issue, he begged to say, on the part of the Government, that the question of the relative advantage of iron and wooden ships should be considered, and that the Government would, at a proper time, state to the House, after full consideration, the conclusions at which they should arrive.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not quite understand by the last words of the noble Lord whether the Government would consent to withdraw the Vote, or whether he wished to have it passed on the ground that the point which had been raised did not strictly apply to the item in question, and that the Government would afterwards take the question of the wooden ships into their consideration, and state the result at which they had arrived. But he would warn the House, that if the doctrines which the noble Lord laid down were to pass without protest, the House of Commons would lose all control over the Supplies. They were told that Government intended to proceed in a certain way which many hon. Members on both sides of the House thought objectionable. When hon. Gentlemen were ask to vote a large sum for the Navy Estimates, they were bound to consider whether the money was to be properly applied. Well, they objected to applying it to the putting of armour-plates upon wooden ships. First of all came the Vote for wooden ships, and hon. Members were told they could not diminish it; and next came the Vote for armour-plating, and again they were told that that did not apply to wooden ships. It was absolutely necessary, then, that the House of Commons should make a stand. The House did not wish to refuse the money if they received a pledge that the Government would

853
not proceed with those other wooden ships without the sanction of the House. But if they got no pledge, but had the matter put in such a way as to prevent their expressing any opinion upon it, they would be obliged to stop the Vote until such a pledge should be given by the Government.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the best arrangement would be to pass the Vote, and he would pledge himself that no steps should be taken with respect to the five wooden ships in question until the matter had been submitted to the House. The Government would submit a statement to the House showing what would be the cost of the five iron ships, and the time that would be required to complete them, and also the cost of the five ships intended by the Admiralty, and the time when they would be ready, and then the House would be able to judge. But it should be understood that the present Vote had nothing to do with those ships, but was intended for ships already completed.
SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, he had no objection to the course proposed, but he thought there was no pressing necessity for building our navy in such breathless haste. He had heard the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) say, that it would be very easy to furnish twenty Alabamas in a very short time and for a very small sum of money. The worst thing they could do, however, was to build inefficient ships. When they remembered what happened in 1814, how English frigates were sent to compete with American vessels of the same name but of greater power, and how British seamen were obliged to haul down their pennons, though their hearts almost broke in doing so, they would see the necessity of taking their time, and when they put a ship upon the sea that it should be one that would be able to maintain the honour of England against any opponent in the world.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he understood the pledge to be this, that no steps should be taken in building those live wooden ships, of which they had heard that night, until a statement had been laid before the House, showing the comparative time and expense of building those ships, or of building iron ships instead, and until the House should have an opportunity of distinctly expressing its opinion upon the subject.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: That is distinctly the pledge I intended to give.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question, put, and agreed to.
(9.) £857,349, Steam Machinery, also agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

  [BILL 22.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he rose to express a tope that a postponement of the second reading would be agreed to, in consequence of the absence of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard) who took great interest in its proposed enactments.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Bill had been in the hands of Members a considerable time, and he did not think the neglect of an hon. Member to be in attendance was a good reason for the proposed postponement.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, the preamble confined the Bill to those savings banks which wished to wind up; but the clauses referred to all savings banks in the kingdom, and would affect the regulations of some of the best of the old banks, restraining the transfer of the accounts of minors, unless it were shown to the satisfaction of the directors that there was good reason for the transfers, such as the advancement of the minor, emigration purposes, and so on, which restrictions had been found to act very favourably to the interests of the younger depositors.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if any attempts had been made to discredit the old savings banks by persons over whom the Government had no control, the Government could do no more than regret the circumstance; but, if otherwise, the Government would express a regular official opinion on such conduct in conformity with that expressed by the hon. Baronet. He could not accede to the demand to limit the operation of the Bill to cases of the deposits of minors in savings banks about to wind up. He proposed that minors should be allowed to transfer their accounts backwards and forwards between the old savings banks and the Post Office savings

  855
  banks, because the principle was laid down that there should be perfect freedom of choice for all persons between one class of banks and another. It was not a question of drawing out the money altogether, but of the transfer of money between establishments sanctioned by law and approved by the policy of the State.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND NOTES (METROPOLIS) BILL— [BILL. 33.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, he would suggest that the Bill should extend to Tuesday, the 10th, as well as Saturday, the 7th of March. It would be a great boon to clerks and persons in that station of life, who desired to make the 10th of March a general holiday.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the reason for the present Bill was, that on the 7th there would be great crowds in the streets, and it had been represented to him that there would be great risk in bankers' clerks going about on that day. The same remark would not apply to the 10th—the marriage day—because, although the day might be observed as a general holiday, there would not be great crowds in the streets. The holiday would be purely a voluntary one, and it was not desirable that Parliament should make it compulsory.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for To-morrow.

MARRIAGES REGISTRATION (IRE LAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the Registration of Marriages in Ireland. The object was to provide for the registration of marriages which were not at present registered—namely, the marriages of Roman Catholics, and he had no intention to touch the separate question of the Law of Marriage in Ireland. Care was taken in the provisions of the Bill not to make the priests in any way servants of the State, and to adopt the principle of the Scotch law for the registration of Roman Catholic marriages in Scotland. The parties to the marriage would be bound, within three days after its celebration, to send a sche-
  856
  dule to the registrar of births and deaths, under a penalty of £10, and the registrar would forward it to the Registrar General.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that as to mixing up the questions of the registration of marriages and the law of marriages, they had the authority of the hon. Member for Dundalk that the two questions were intimately blended together. He trusted some provision would be made to prevent the possibility of forged schedules being sent to the registrar. It was very desirable that some Bill should be passed, and he should be happy to give any assistance in his power. But he hoped some little time would be given for the consideration of the Bill before the second reading.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, he doubted whether the Bill would work at all.
  MR. MAGUIREwas sure his hon. Friend would give ample time for the consideration of the Bill before the second reading.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he retained the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had acted wisely in not including marriages in his Bill for the Registration of Births and Deaths. The great desideratum was to have a register of the bare fact that marriage between certain parties was solemnized on a certain day, without regard to the validity of the marriage. It would be difficult to keep the legal question separate, but he wished the hon. Gentleman every success.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to provide for the Registration of Marriages in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONSELL, Lord NAAS, and Mr. HERBERT.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 39.]

  MARRIAGES, ETC. (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Marriages in Ireland, and to extend the provisions of the Act of the twenty-second year of Her Majesty, chapter twenty, to the Consistory Courts of Armagh and Dublin, ordered to be brought in by Sir EDWARD GROGAN, Mr. VANCE, and Mr. LONGFIELD.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 40.]

  DISEASES PREVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  Bill to regulate the removal in hired or public Carriages of Persons labouring under infectious Diseases in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Dr. BRADY and Sir FITZROY KELLT.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 41.]

  SALMON EXPORTATION BILL.
  Bill for prohibiting the Exportation of Salmon at certain times, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 42.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — First Reading.— Prince and Princess of Wales' Annuities (No. 24).
Second Reading.—Gardens in Towns Protection (No. 14).
Committee.—English Church Services in Wales [H.L.] (No. 7).
Report. — English Church Services in Wales [H.L.] (No. 7).

ITALY—AFFAIRS OF ROME.

  QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he had given notice to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of his intention to put two Questions to him that evening. The first of these had reference

  791
  to the delay in the production of certain Despatches which his noble Friend quoted in his speech on this subject a few evenings since. Although his noble Friend had read extracts from these Despatches, they had never been printed; and his noble Friend had failed to lay them on the table immediately afterwards, as was the invariable practice to do in the case of documents from which extracts had been read in the course of debate. His noble Friend near him (the Earl of Ellenborough) stated most truly the other night, that no Minister of the Crown ought to read extracts from any public document, unless he were prepared at once—he emphatically stated at once—to lay the document upon the table, because, if delay were to take place, incorrect impressions might be produced. Inasmuch as the whole question turned upon the balance of recollection, he hoped the noble Earl would not permit any further delay in the presentation of these documents. These despatches ought to be produced at once; and he believed that when the noble Earl's attention was called to them again, he would readily admit that they would not bear the interpretation which the noble Earl had sought to place upon them. There was another Question which he would put to the noble Earl, of a more serious nature. Within the last few weeks a statement had been printed in some of the German papers, and had been copied into other journals without contradiction, to the effect that Cardinal Antonelli in a Despatch to M. Chigi, the Papal Nuncio at Paris, informed the latter that Mr. Odo Russell had made a further attempt to induce the Pope to quit Home, and had quoted a letter from the noble Earl expressing some disappointment that the Pope had not followed this advice, and had even gone so far as to intimate, that if he did not speedily avail himself of the offer, he might be compelled to do so. It was also stated that Cardinal Antonelli had demanded what right Mr. Odo Russell, being only an attaché, had to address the Pope in these terms, and had declared that he would in future only hold communication with Mr. Russell in his private capacity. He wished to know whether the noble Earl knew of any such Despatch.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that with regard to the despatches of the noble Marquess from which he had quoted in a former debate, he had more than once stated that he had no objection to pro-
  792
  duce them, or extracts from them. He had not understood that the noble Marquess had formally asked for them—but they would be laid upon the table to-morrow. There was no doubt that it was conformable to the general rule that all despatches quoted by a Minister should be laid upon the table; but he also knew that that rule had not been observed on more than one occasion, and particularly he remembered in the other House of Parliament a Chancellor of the Exchequer quoting extracts from despatches of his and not only not producing them till a late day, but not producing them at all. In this case he would give the extracts to-morrow. He was rather surprised that the noble Marquess should so constantly harp on this theme. He considered that the despatch from which he had quoted the dictum, that if England's advice in the cause of national liberty was neglected, it would reflect no discredit upon her, was to his noble Friend's honour. He knew nothing in his noble Friend's diplomatic career which reflected on him more credit; and if his noble Friend succeeded in effacing it, he knew of nothing in it which would remain to do him equal honour. It was quite natural that in reference to the French occupation of Rome the English Government should make representations in favour of national liberty. If these representations were well taken, they produced good; if not, they could reflect no discredit on the English Government. No doubt, there was a great difference between the position of the French and English Governments in reference to this question. With respect to the other Question, as to some supposed despatch from Cardinal Antonelli to M. Chigi, he was certainly not at all responsible for what Cardinal Antonelli might have written to the Papal Nuncio at Paris. It was a very odd story altogether. As to his having written a letter to Mr. Odo Russell to the effect that the Pope ought to leave Rome, and that if he did not, he might be obliged, and which Mr. Russell read to Cardinal Antonelli, he (Earl Russell) had certainly never written any such letter. As he certainly did not expect that the Pope would leave Rome, knowing well that the Emperor of the French by a change of Ministers for Foreign Affairs had indicated his intention to maintain the French troops at Rome, he would never have thought of writing such a letter as had been represented; and, con-

  793
  sequently, he had never felt disappointed that the Pope would not follow his advice. Mr. Odo Russell, who was the other person immediately concerned, said he went to pay a visit of courtesy about the time mentioned; but he never mentioned any letter of his, he never had such a letter, and he never read such a letter to Cardinal Antonelli. Whether Cardinal Antonelli was under that impression or not he could not tell. Nor could he say whether there was such a despatch or not, but as far as it related to a letter of his the statement was without foundation. The noble Marquess asked what business had an attaché of the embassy at Turin to go to Rome? Mr. Russell was not an attaché of the Embassy at Turin. At one time he was an attaché at Florence and Naples; but the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the King of Naples having quitted their respective dominions, of course he could no longer be an attaché at their courts. Cardinal Antonelli inquired of Mr. Russell in what character he was at Rome; and, after some observation, he went on to say, that as the King of Sardinia was an excommunicated Sovereign, it would not be agreeable to the Roman Government to receive an attaché from an Embassy to an excommunicated Court. The Foreign Office could have no objection to meeting the views of the Roman Government in this respect, and Mr. Russell was made an attaché directly from the Foreign Office. If Mr. Russell had ever spoken to Cardinal Antonelli on State affairs, it was entirely owing to Cardinal Antonelli, who had taken the initiative. The Cardinal had often conversed with Mr. Russell on State matters in the most confidential manner, stating, at the same time, that there was nothing official in the communications. There could be no possible harm in Mr. Russell listening to what Cardinal Antonelli had to say.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the noble Earl had not answered the really important portion of the Question which had been put to him. His noble Friend had not asked him to produce a despatch from Cardinal Antonelli—which of course he could not do—but whether he had any reason to know that Cardinal Antonelli, in a despatch to Monsignor Chigi, had declared that the representation made by Mr. Odo Russell was incorrect with respect to what had taken place; and that be much inconvenience had in consequence
  794
  arisen that Mr. Russell was not to be recognised in any official capacity, and was merely to be considered as a private person having no more authority than any other private individual. The question really was, whether a person accredited by the British Government, and charged by them to speak in their name, was not to be so received, but was merely to be regarded as a private individual.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, it was, of course, impossible that he could have received such a communication from Cardinal Antonelli—and Mr. Russell had not said a single word on the subject, though he had only just lately received a private letter from him.

DURHAM UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERcalled attention to the fact that the Ordinances relating to Durham University had been laid on the table sixteen days before the close of last Session. The Act of Parliament provided that they should lie on the table for forty days; and if in that time an Address were not carried by either House of Parliament requesting Her Majesty to withhold her consent, the Queen in Council was empowered to confirm the Ordinances. He wished to know whether it was intended that the forty days were to be forty continuous days, or whether it would be deemed a sufficient compliance with the statute if they remained on the table unchallenged sixteen days of last Session and twenty-four days of the present?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the question raised by the right rev. Prelate was one of considerable importance. He was of opinion that the forty days must be taken to mean forty Sessional days; injustice might otherwise result, if Ordinances were laid on the table a few days before the recess, and were, by lapse of time, confirmed at a period when an opportunity of objecting to them could not be afforded. That the forty days should be continuous days would require stronger expressions than were to be found in the statute, and, as he understood the Act, they were to be forty Sessional days, and therefore the sixteen days of last Session would count in the present case.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that as to-morrow would be the last day on which Parliament would be able to deal with

  795
  this question, he begged to give notice that he should then move an Address to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold her confirmation from the Ordinances of the Commission of the Durham University.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.