Sitting of 4 April 1864

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED— for Oxford City v. The Right Hon. Edward Gardwell, one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Morgan Treherne, esquire, for Coventry.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS — Committee—Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance* [Bill 50].
Report—Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance.

LISBURN ELECTION.
House informed, That the Committee met on Tuesday, the 22ad day of March
391
last, pursuant to adjournment, when they were informed that Mr. Stirling, one of the Members of the Committee, was prevented by severe illness from attending; and that the Committee had adjourned until Tuesday, the 5th day of April, at Eleven.
Whereupon, the House being informed that Mr. George Harrison, the medical attendant of Mr. Stirling, attended at the door, he was called in, and at the bar examined upon oath in relation to the state of Mr. Stirling's health on the 22nd day of March last; and then he withdrew.
MR. ADAIR,as Chairman of the Committee, begged to move that Mr. Stirling be excused for non-attendance at the Committee on the 22nd of March, and that he should have leave to absent himself from any of its further sittings.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Stirling be excused for not attending the said Committee upon Tuesday, the 22nd day of March last, and be discharged from further attendance on the said Committee." — (Mr. Adair.)
MR. HUNTsaid that, as regarded the first part of the Motion; which was to excuse the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling), for non-attendance on the 22nd of March, there could be no objection; but, as regarded the latter part, he thought the House ought not to assent to it, for upon it another question arose, whether, in consequence of the adjournment which had taken place, the Lisburn Election Committee was now in existence. The proceedings of Election Committees were regulated by an Act of Parliament, the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, which was very strict and precise in its terms, and by which the Committee was bound at almost every step. He would suggest to the House that the Lisburn Election Committee had inadvertently transgressed the rules laid down by that Act, and had, in consequence, ceased to exist as an Election Committee. The Committee began its sittings before the House adjourned for the Easter recess; and, as it was bound to do, continued them till the 22nd of March, when it adjourned in consequence of a Member's illness. On the 22nd of March the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) did not attend the Committee, who were, under the provisions of the Act, unable to continue their sittings until the excuse of the hon. Member was allowed by the House. The 73rd section stated that an Election Committee—
392
"Shall meet at the time and place appointed for that purpose, and shall proceed to try the merits of the election petition so referred to them, and they shall sit from day to day, Sunday, Christmas-day and Good Friday only excepted; and shall never adjourn for a longer time than twenty-four hours, unless a Sunday, Christmas-day, or Good Friday intervene, and in such case not more than twenty-four hours, exclusive of such Sunday, Christmas-day, or Good Friday, without leave first obtained from the House, upon Motion, and special cause assigned for a longer adjournment; and if the House be sitting at the time to which such Select Committee is adjourned, then the business of the House shall be stayed, and a Motion shall be made for a further adjournment for any time to be fixed by the House; provided always that if such Select Committee have occasion to apply or report to the House, and the House be then adjourned for more than twenty-four hours, such Select Committee may also adjourn to the day appointed for the meeting of the House."
Now the House, on the 22nd of March, stood adjourned for more than twenty-four hours, and therefore the Committee might adjourn for a longer period than twenty-four hours—namely, until the day of the meeting of the House, when it would be necessary for them to apply to the House in consequence of the hon. Member's illness. It appeared, however, that the Committee had adjourned until "to-morrow," and he would suggest, that the adjournment to an unlawful day was equivalent to an adjournment sine die, and that the Committee by that Act, having committed felo de se, had ceased to exist. There was only one case reported of an unlawful adjournment. That was the St. Alban's case on the 10th of April, 1851, and it appeared from the Report of Mr. John Clerk, well known for his cognizance of the duties of Election Committees, that—
"In a recent case the Committee on a Monday informed the parties that they should apply to the House for leave to adjourn until eleven o'clock on the following Thursday. They then adjourned until the next day, Tuesday, at eleven o'clock, in case the House did not give them power to adjourn till Thursday. The House gave the Committee power to adjourn, and the Committee omitted to meet on the Tuesday, in order formally to adjourn, thinking that the leave given by the House operated as an adjournment. The following entry was made in the Minutes:— 'The House having given the Committee power to adjourn, the Committee stands adjourned until Thursday.' The irregularity was not known to the parties at the time. Some days afterwards the counsel for the sitting Member were about to object to any further proceedings on the part of the Committee on account of the flaw in the proceedings, but the point was not discussed, for upon the application of the counsel for the petitioners for further time to procure the attendance of witnesses, the Committee refused to grant it and reported the sitting Member duly elected."

393
According to the opinion of the accomplished lawyer, Mr. Clerk—
"It would appear that in the case of an illegal adjournment such as that alluded to before, the Committee was dissolved by operation of law. Their powers lapsed from their not having been continued in accordance with the statutable authority. If this opinion be correct, that the powers of the Committee lapsed in consequence of the flaw in their proceedings, it seems quite clear that the House could give no relief. Their control over Election Committees is strictly defined by the Act of Parliament. They could not have appointed a second Committee, for that can only be done in the case alluded to in section 78."
The House, doubtless, would be very reluctant to stop the proceedings of an Election Committee on mere technical grounds; but hon. Members must bear in mind that, supposing the present Committee to continue its sittings and its Report to be adverse to the sitting Member, it might happen that the sitting Member might, nevertheless, be advised to take his seat and to vote in that House. An action might then be brought against him for penalties, and the case taken into a Court of Law, which might decide that the powers of the Election Committee had ceased under the Act. In the meantime a new writ might have been issued to elect a new Member for Lisburn, and the sitting Member be, notwithstanding, entitled by law to retain his seat. He had brought the matter to the notice of the House, and he now left the House to deal with it as it thought best.
MR. ADAIRsaid, that the hon. Member had referred to the 73rd section of the Act, but had overlooked the 75th, which provided that when one of the Members was prevented attending on account of illness, an Election Committee was obliged to adjourn and report the Member's absence to the House; and the section further stated that the Committee should not sit again until the excuse of the Member so absenting himself was allowed by the House, when the four remaining Members of the Committee would proceed with the investigation. It therefore appeared to the Lisburn Election Committee that they were no longer a Committee for any purpose whatever, until the excuse of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling), for not attending the Committee on the ground of illness, was allowed by the House; and if the Committee had adjourned till the present day, they would not then, on meeting, have been a Committee for sitting, deliberating, deciding, or even adjourning to the
394
following day. Seeing that their last act as a Committee, before they entered, as it were, into a state of trance, was to adjourn, they did not think there could be any use in meeting again at a time when, as no Report had been made to the House, they would not be a Committee for any practical purpose whatever. He might mention, incidentally, that the counsel for the petitioners had stated that if the Committee had met to-day, he should respectfully have declined to attend on behalf of his clients. Under those circumstances, believing that they were acting in accordance with the spirit, if not with the strict letter of the law, they had deemed it best to adjourn till to-morrow As to the opinion of the learned gentleman, whose works on election law commanded great respect, that was, after all, only the view of the writer, and not the decision of a Court of Law. He would not enter into the question of the further consequences which might attend the proceedings, but he believed it had been held in Courts of Law, that where words were merely directing, and were not followed by a statement that all proceedings taken in contradiction to those words would be null and void, any departure from these words would not be held sufficient to render nugatory any previous proceedings in the case.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the question was one of considerable importance, and he felt with the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) that it should not be hastily decided. Had it been generally known that the question would have come on for discussion that day, many hon. Members who were not present would have been in their places, and the Law Officers of the Crown also would have been in attendance. He thought the best course of proceeding would be for no discussion on the subject to take place that night, but that it be postponed till the following day, and that then the Report should be brought up by the Chairman of the Committee and printed, and then the House would have the question distinctly before it. The Motion, that the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) be discharged from attendance on the Committee, should not be adopted, as it would prejudge the question to be discussed by the House.
MR. HUNTobserved, that the first part of the Motion, excusing the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) from further attendance, might be agreed to at once.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he understood that the Committee stood adjourned till eleven to-morrow, and therefore they must consider the course the Committee should then take, as well as what the House should do to-day. He concurred with the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey), that the matter had better be postponed for the attendance of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he thought, therefore, that the question had better be deferred until to-morrow. The Motion consequent upon the Report of the Committee had better be deferred till to-morrow, and the House could then take the whole subject into its consideration. He apprehended, however, that the Committee had better meet to-morrow, or they might involve themselves in new difficulties, and then adjourn till the following day, reporting what they had done to the House.
SIR GEORGE GREYbegged to move that the Report brought up by the Chairman of the Committee be printed and considered to-morrow.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
Report to be printed.

MALTA DOCK.—QUESTION.
MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, as the papers respecting the New Dock at Malta are not in the hands of hon. Members, he will postpone asking for the Vote till next week?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETstated, in reply, that he should postpone Vote 11, in which the expense for the Malta Dock was included, until hon. Members had had a reasonable time for considering the papers on that subject, which he regretted to say, were not yet in their hands.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.

  THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I wish, Sir, to put three Questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which I have given him notice. The first is, Whether all the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of London of 1852 have consented to attend the Danish Conference; the second is, whether the German Confederation have consented to send representatives to that Congress, and if any basis has been settled for this Conference to discuss; and the third is, whether an Armistice has been agreed upon?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: All the parties who signed and concluded the Treaty of 1852 have consented to send representatives to the Conference. No answer has yet been received from the German Diet, who have been invited to send a representative. The basis proposed for the Conference to start from is an endeavour to restore peace to the North of Europe. We have not thought it desirable, upon the plea of establishing a basis, to endeavour to settle beforehand those subjects which can more properly be the subjects of consideration when the Conference shall be assembled.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: As to the armistice?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No armistice has yet been agreed to.

  RESIGNATION OF MR. STANSFELD.
  MR. STANSFELD(who sat on the second bench below the gangway on the Ministerial side of the House) said, Sir, I crave the indulgence of the House while I offer some explanations of a personal character; and in order to admit of discussion, if discussion be desired, on the subject with which I have to deal, I shall conclude by moving the adjournment of the House. Since the House last sat I have taken a step which the place from which I speak will have already sufficiently indicated to the House. I have felt it to be my duty to send in my resignation to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. The House will recollect that upon a former occasion I tendered that resignation, and that the noble Lord refused to accept it. I thank the noble Lord for the implicit credence which he gave to the statements that I made to him and to the House, and I thank him likewise for the courage he showed upon a former occasion in standing by me. But, Sir, there are occasions on which, I think, it becomes a man to consult his own conscience and his own sense of right as to the course which he should adopt, and the present appears to me to have been one of those occasions. I have become convinced, from what I have seen, heard, and read, that I have ceased to be—if I could ever believe myself to have been—any accession to the strength of Her Majesty's Government, and that I have become—or, at any rate, I have reason to fear I may have become—a source of difficulty and a cause of embarrassment to them*. Under those cir-

  397
  cumstances, I felt—as I am sure every honourable man would feel—that it was for me, and not for others, to take upon myself the responsibility of saying that I could not, by any possibility, consent to be an enduring cause of embarrassment to a Government which I desired to support. There is another reason which has induced me to resign my appointment, and which the House will perhaps allow mo to state. The House will remember that on the first occasion, when the subject (which I need not name) was discussed here, fault was found with me for dealing too seriously, or, as it was said, in a tone of too much indignation, with a speech of the late Procureur Général of France. Now, Sir, after what has happened—after the speech of the successor of that late Procureur—I do not think any person will repeat that blame. I think the House will agree with me that I was fully justified in the inter prctation which I put upon the animus of that discourse. The attack having been renewed, I have to say to the Government and to the House, with all respect, that I prefer to meet it here alone rather than on that bench sheltered beneath the protecting aegis of the noble Lord. I desire to say a few words on the present occasion, because the House will understand that nothing can be more important to one of its Members than his relations with the general body. It has been said that I slid not originally deal candidly with the House. Nothing could by possibility be — I mean in the sense of being mistaken—more unjust. I do not wish to say it by way of boast, but I do think that among my faults a want of courage to avow my own opinions, or to accept the responsibility of any act of mine past or present, is not one which any Member of this House could seriously lay to my charge. The explanation of that which may have appeared at first to be want of candour—for on occasions like the present almost any misunderstanding is possible — must be extremely simple to those who believe what I say. I felt, with respect to the speech of the Procureur, as I have already stated to the House. I then defended a personal friend of mine from an accusation of which I believed—of which I still believe—him to be unjustly the object. Some questions were then put to me by hon. Members. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) explained afterwards, the House evidently had a disinclination that those questions should be addressed to
  398
  me; I think there was a feeling that, though it might not be so intended, it might bear the aspect of something like a Parliamentary cross-examination for the purpose of eliciting evidence for a criminal trial in a foreign court. I assure the House it was solely because such seemed to me to be the general feeling that at the moment I did not offer the distinct and explicit explanation which I submitted on a subsequent occasion. Now, I wish to look hack and consider honestly what were my motives at the time I spoke. I think there was another motive. I felt it to be due to M. Mazzini, and I may say that I also felt it was due to myself, that from him first should come public statements and explanations as to the use to which he, and not I, had put my house, which had been more or less at his disposal as an address. That was another reason for my not then having made the statement which I subsequently made: and I think it will be an answer to the imputation which I have heard—I think in this House—that that explanation was dragged from me by the letter of Bignor Mazzini published in The Times newspaper. Now, I wish to offer a word in reference to what I said about M, Mazzini. I said that from long and intimate personal relationship with him I believed him, in fact I knew him to be, incapable, of this kind of low and odious criminality which is laid to bis charge, and I now repeat that statement. And I would ask the House at least to allow me to say that I refuse to abandon the hope that in some calmer moments of the future to which I look, some perhaps of those who now hear me may cast their thoughts back to this night, and say that that man's testimony could not have been worthless, who gave the pledges which I have given of the sincerity of his convictions. Now let me state to the House, not at too great length, but with the greatest frankness, the nature of my relations with Signer Mazzini, and with the cause with which his name is connected, and to which his life has been devoted. I have long been personally and intimately associated with him. I have long had a very deep general sympathy with that which has been the object of his life—the unity and independence of Italy. If I am asked whether I have always agreed with the methods which have seemed to him wisest from time to time to achieve or progress towards that end, why, Sir, I should have to give the answer which may easily be anticipated—

  399
  that I have sometimes agreed with them, and that at other times I may have thought his views, his practical views, were less wise than they were sanguine and giving evidence of a great and strong hope. But that is not the question which has been raised in this ease. The speeches of the two French Procureurs point distinctly, not only to his implication, but—let there be no mistake about the matter—they suggest my implication—at least as far as some kind of knowledge is concerned—in plots against the life of the French Emperor. Now, statements of that kind are to be met in two ways—general and specific. I will deal with those statements first generally, hut completely, in the most explicit manner; and I would desire to use the plainest language which the forms of this House permit me to use. I say, then, that every insinuation of that nature is untrue; and I put it to the House, to those who may care to consider it, to look into the evidence upon which those speeches have been based, and to say whether, in their opinion, any honest man could upon that evidence have ventured to come to the conclusion that such insinuations could be put forth with any show or any pretence of truth. I come next to specific matters. Without detaining the House too long, I will deal with certain names, because, after all, the question seems to be what I have known of certain persons implicated in those French criminal proceedings. Now, the first name is that of Greco. I think I have already stated to the House that I never heard his name, that I neither knew of his existence, nor of the names or the existence of any of his supposed accomplices, until I saw in the newspapers, as every other Member of this House saw, the account of their arrest. Can anything be more explicit than that? I will go back to the year 1857—to the Tibaldi case. I cannot venture to say that I never saw Tibaldi, but I am utterly unconscious of ever having seen him. I have seen too many Italian refugees to be able to say that I have never seen this man or that man, or to pretend to remember the names of all the men I have ever seen; but I can say this, that I never saw any man, call him Tibaldi or call him by any other name, who in 1857 ventured to come near me to suggest the notion of plots like this. Two other names have been mentioned in connection with the affair of 1857—one of them is the name of Massarenti. I knew him very well. He was famous in re-
  400
  lation to the small commerce carried on by Italians in this city. He lived in the neighbourhood of Hatton Garden, and dealt in maccaroni and Italian pastes. He has certainly received money from me, but only in the shape of very moderate payments for the goods in which he dealt. The second name is Campanella, who, I believe, was condemned at the trial in 1857. I knew him well. He was a gentleman and a scholar, a student, almost a recluse. He was a man utterly incapable of soiling his fingers in dirt of this kind. And I know as a fact—because the House is perfectly aware that these things have been the subject of talk in France, Italy, and England—I pledge my knowledge of that man to the House, and I do him this act of justice to-night, when I say that he was one who expressed his utter contempt for plots of this description. Two extracts have been given of alleged letters, of which the House will understand that if they be genuine I am prepared to take the whole responsibility that may attach to them. I do not know—it is impossible for me, or for any one connected with me, to say—whether those extracts are genuine or not; but I will say this, that there is nothing in them that I have the slightest desire to deny. As far as I can judge, they may be genuine extracts of letters, which, by means to which I will not further refer, came into the possession of the French authorities. What do these extracts prove? The extract from the first letter proves nothing except the relation of friendship which I have admitted, and which it is perfectly well known has long subsisted between Signer Mazzini and myself. What is the purport of the second extract? It states that a remittance has been received, and will be applied according to instructions. Now, it is said that this House is not a court of justice, but, at least, it is a court of honour; and we speak here upon our honour. The House will believe me when I say that I am utterly unable, and those with whom I am connected by family tics are utterly unable, to imagine or recollect to what that passage—if it be a veritable passage—refers, But this I am enabled to assert, that it did not refer, because it could not refer—for that would imply knowledge—it did not refer to anything that would not bear' the test of the closest examination; and that, as far as I can judge, upon my honour and upon my conscience, I believe it must have referred either to some mere private transaction or

  401
  to the distribution of some probably moderate or trifling sum for a charitable purpose. Sir, I trust that I have now made an explanation which will not he unsatisfactory to the House. I have only to add that if any doubts remain upon the minds of any hon. Members, I not only am ready but I invite them to give expression to those doubts, and to enable me at once completely to satisfy them and to answer any questions which they may have to put to me. Meanwhile I leave this subject, and I throw myself upon the House, and I may add upon my countrymen, with reference to a question in which is involved that which is every man's clearest inheritance — an unblemished character and a fair name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, my hon. Friend has reminded the House that on the former occasion when he tendered his resignation I declined to accept it and requested him to continue in office. Upon the present occasion, as he has now state d, he left me no option. I can only say that I am convinced that the motives which led my hon. Friend to make that peremptory decision were highly honourable to him. He no doubt thought, having an explanation to make, which he has may made, and which I am persuaded the House will deem perfectly and entirely satisfactory, that such explanation would come from him with a better grace and with more effect if holding an independent position than if he made it from the bench on which we now sit. Sir, I can only express the great regret which I and my Colleagues feel at having lost the official assistance of a man whose great ability, whoso untiring industry, whose perfect truthfulness, and whose unswerving integrity of mind rendered him a must valuable Member of the Administration to which he belonged, and endeared him to all those who had the advantage of his friendship. With regard to those insinuations and aspersions to which he has referred, I can only say that with him I repudiate them with disdain. I am firmly convinced, and I am sure all (hose who know my hon. Friend must be equally convinced, that any charge of implication in those base proceedings, which charge I think had been basely thrown out against him, is altogether unsupported by proof and is utterly devoid of foundation.
  402
  I will not go into details, but I will say 'that I am convinced that my hon. Friend attaches the same value to the welfare and personal safety of that Sovereign who reigns over the Empire of France which any hon. Member of this House can attach to it; that he is as sensible as we are that that great Sovereign has upon many grave and important occasions proved himself to be a true friend and faithful ally of this country; and we all feel that his personal security and his dynastic welfare are not only of the utmost value to the loyal and attached people he governs, but are equally essential to the general interests of Europe.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn,

  SUPPLY,
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  THE MAILS IN THE PROVINCES.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. R. LONGsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee of inquiry respecting the operations of the Post Office, with an especial view to the improvement of the existing arrangements for the transmission of mails in the provincial districts. His object was duly to point out the defects in our postal system within the kingdom, and he hoped that the instances which he would lay before the House would he sufficient to convince hon. Members of the reasonableness of his Motion. Some time ago he had put a question to Her Majesty's Goverment on the subject, but the answer he had received appeared to him so ambiguous that he thought himself justified in now asking the House to assent to a Committee of Inquiry. He had no wish to make any attack on the leading principles of the postal system. On the contrary, he did not think that anything could he better than the general arrangements made some twenty-five or thirty years ago for the transmission of our mails from London to the most extreme points of the kingdom. Too little attention had, however, been paid to tin; public convenience in regard to the postal communications between certain provincial town- in which the arrangements still observed wore of an extremely objectionable character. When it was considered what an enormous increase had taken place of late years in the number of letters transmitted through the post, it became the

    403
    more necessary to accelerate as much as possible the communication between one provincial town and another. Now, it was undeniable that in many of our provincial towns advantage was not taken of facilities which really existed for the speedy despatch and delivery of letters, and the mails were still despatched by a horse and cart and sometimes even by messengers on foot. Notwithstanding the existence of railways, such clumsy arrangements were still adhered to, whereby three days were required for a letter to be received and an answer returned to the writer between towns of only a few miles distance from each other. Such facts proved distinctly a great want of supervision and of progress in the postal department. Remonstrances had been made over and over again against the continuance of such a system; private interest had likewise been brought to bear but without effect. That was the state of things in a district with which he was connected, and though improvements had been suggested they had been unable till January last to obtain the opinion of the Post Office on the subject. It was not, in fact, until February last, when a few hon. Members warmly took up the question, that the Treasury conceded certain facilities for the transmission of letters between some of those towns which complained of the inconvenience and delay of the then existing system. In many other provincial towns, however, the evil continued unabated. A memorial from Hereford had been forwarded to him, of which a copy had been presented to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. In that document it was stated that, notwithstanding the existence of railway communication between Hereford, Ross, and Gloucester, the mails were still conveyed through the district of those important towns by horse and cart along the turnpike road, which ran nearly parallel with the railway. That was, in his opinion, a gross piece of mismanagement, for which no defence could be set up. Again, he had received a letter from a gentleman residing near Newport, in South Wales, complaining of similar defects in the postal arrangements in that district. Between Newport, Cardiff, Merthyr, and other important towns, the mails were still conveyed by horse and cart, instead of by the railway, which communicated directly with them. With regard to the postal communications between Shrewsbury and Dublin, he had been informed by a gentleman, resident at the former, and having
    404
    large trade transactions with the latter place, that in consequence of the Irish mails arriving at Stafford one hour after the down mails left Shrewsbury, twenty-four hours' delay occurred in the despatch and receipt of letters between Shrewsbury and Dublin. That was an inconvenience to which the public had no right to be subjected. Then, again, with regard to the postal arrangements between Shrewsbury and Liverpool. A passenger could be conveyed from Shrewsbury to Liverpool in three hours, but it required twenty-four hours for a letter to reach Liverpool and for an answer to be received in Shrewsbury. That was a great grievance, and one which the public had a right to call upon the Post Office authorities to remedy. Coming nearer to London, he had received a letter from a gentleman, dated from Ash, near Sevenoaks, in Kent, complaining that letters from that place were sent by the South Eastern Railway by Croydon to Tunbridge, thence by omnibus to Seven-oaks, to Wrotham by mail cart, and the last seven miles to Ash by messenger. Remonstrances had been made over and over again to the Post Office, but the inhabitants could get no redress. Another letter from a magistrate resident at Uckfield, in Sussex, on behalf of the inhabitants of his locality, stated that it took two days to send a letter to a place only seven or nine miles distant. The letters were first sent to London, and then by a circuitous route to their destination, and when there happened to be a heavy fall of snow they were delayed several hours longer. Notwithstanding all their complaints they could get no redress from the Post Office authorities, and it was therefore to be inferred that no better arrangements could be made than that four days should be wasted in communicating with parties residing at a distance of only nine miles from each other, and in receiving an answer, in fact as long a time as would be required for a communication with Paris or Edinburgh. It would be easy to multiply instances of delay, but he had no wish to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily, in order to show that some beneficial change was absolutely necessary, and that the country generally had a right to expect to be provided with rapid and frequent postal communication. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury would, no doubt, ask what remedies he proposed to remedy the evils pointed out. Such remedies appeared to him very simple. First, let the Post Office

    405
    authorities adopt the railway system in its entirety; and secondly, let them place the central Post Office in the heart of die railway system. If the chief and central Post Office was removed from St. Martin's-le-Grand to Charing Cross, the old building might be advantageously sold, and thus a large sum might be placed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's disposal, either for the building of a worthy national gallery, or for other purposes. Then there ought to be post offices at all the railway stations, and the letter boxes should be cleared and the letters forwarded by every train. Such a plan would multiply communications in definitely between different places on the line, in which case all delays arising from cross posts would be obviated. The adoption of such a system would greatly increase the revenue and give great satisfaction to the public. There should also be a free delivery of letters all over the country, the same as in the metropolitan districts, and an additional expense should not be thrown on remote districts, as was now the case. Local newspapers ought to have the privilege of transmission through the Post Office, as well as newspapers generally, by the issue of a cheap postage stamp. The ability now displayed in the conduct of the cheap press, the increased intelligence of the people who read those newspapers, and the immense number now in daily circulation throughout the country, rendered it necessary that such accommodation of cheap and easy transit should be given to the public. But so far from the Post Office authorities having done anything to assist the diffusion of knowledge in that respect, they levied 100 per cent tax on every penny newspaper transmitted through the Post Office. Hitherto the Post Office had allowed the mail carts to take packages of newspapers into the rural districts, but an order had recently been issued prohibiting the continuance of that arrangement unless each paper bore a stamp. So far from the present system being advantageous to the revenue it was the reverse, but the issue of a cheap stamp such as he had referred to would, he was certain, add considerably to the Post Office returns. In that opinion he was borne out by a passage in the last Post Office Report, which stated, that whilst the Post Office had incurred additional expense by reason of the improved arrangements throughout the country to the amount of l½ per cent, the increase of revenue in 1862 over 1861 was 3 per cent; clearly showing, he contended, that every
    406
    advantage given to the public was appreciated, and was made a means of usefulness and a positive benefit to the revenue. He hoped he should not plead in vain to the House for that support which he now ventured to ask for his Motion for a Select Committee.
    MR. CLIVEbegged to second the Motion, and said, when he came down to the House he was under the impression that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Long) would not have brought it forward until to-morrow, and he was, therefore, not prepared with the facts which he had intended to bring forward in order to fortify the arguments of the hon. Member. He might state, however, that several complaints of delay in the transmission of letters through the post had come under his own personal knowledge. He particularly referred to Hereford and its neighbourhood, where the greatest inconvenience was experienced, owing to the mails being sent round through Shrewsbury, He had been in constant communication with his constituents on the subject for the last two years, and had made several representations to the Postmaster General, but without success. They were much obliged to the Postmaster General for some improvements he had effected, but grievances remained unredressed which subjected the public to much inconvenience. He hoped that the statements that had been made would have some influence on the mind of the noble Lord Her Majesty's Postmaster General.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Post Office, with an especial view to the improvement of existing arrangements for the transmission of Mails in the provincial districts,"— (Mr. Richard Long,)
    —instead thereof.
    MR. PUGHsaid, the country was much indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Long) for having brought forward the subject. Great dissatisfaction had existed in the neighbourhood of Carmarthen for some years past relative to the postal arrangements of the district The great cause for complaint was that sufficient use was not made of the facilities afforded by railways for the transmission of letters; and he was able to endorse the statements of the hon. Member with regard to the insufficiency of the arrangements at Gloucester and Car-

    407
    marthen. He could give other instances but he thought it unnecessary, feeling satisfied that right would be done on the proposed Committee. He was sure that the districts in South Wales, especially Carmarthen, would derive great benefit from the labours of such a Committee.
    MR. AYTOUNsaid, he could corroborate the statements that had been made with reference to the great dissatisfaction that prevailed in country districts with regard to the present postal arrangements. The inhabitants of the rural districts of Scotland had also great reason for complaint, and he hoped the Committee would not be refused. The indifference shown by the Post Office authorities to the convenience of important places in the country, and the great delay in remedying a grievance when stated, were universally condemned. He brought a grievance complained of by his constituents before the notice of Her Majesty's Postmaster General in October last; and though the remedy for the same was, in itself, but a simple matter—an additional post in the middle of the day— five months elapsed before it was applied. The insufficiency of the present system was complained of in all parts of the country, and he hoped the Committee would be granted.
    MR. WYLDsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would accede to the Motion. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Long) had not complained so much of Post Office mismanagement as of the persistent non-adoption of modern facilities offered by railways for improved postal arrangements. He spoke for the inhabitants of a large portion of the West of England, and though they were very thankful for what had already been done—and they knew how much they owed to the great man, who had till very recently held a high position in the General Post Office—still much remained to he accomplished, in order to give even absolutely necessary accommodation. He believed, that so far from Her Majesty's revenue losing by the improvements which were suggested for facilitating the delivery of letters, it would be greatly augmented thereby.
    MR. LIDDELLbegged to remind the House that the subject of the postal arrangements of the country was a very wide one. In 1853 he obtained a Select Committee of Inquiry, similar to the one now asked for, and they found it an Herculean task. He, therefore, ventured to
    408
    suggest the expediency of defining, as correctly as possible, the precise branches of inquiry into which the Committee ought to enter, Without such definition, our postal arrangements were so extensive that several Sessions would elapse before the inquiry would be concluded. It was now urged that our postal arrangements had not kept pace with the requirements of the times, and he, as the representative of a large commercial community, could add his testimony to many of the statements of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Long) with regard to the great complaints that were made in many parts of the country, that our present postal arrangements did not meet the requirements and growing wants of the public. The right hon. Baronet the present Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) gave some valuable information before the Committee of 1853 relative to his own locality, and some of the suggestions he then made had, he believed, been since carried out. He had received a letter from the largest journalist in his neighbourhood, complaining of the serious inconvenience to which the public had been put, in consequence of the order recently issued by the Post Office, forbidding the Post Office messengers from taking parcels of newspapers into the rural districts, without each paper were stamped. He would urge the Government to grant the Committee which had been asked for, the scope of its inquiry being strictly limited to the matters of grievance which were wished to be remedied.
    MR. HENRY SEYMOURbegged to corroborate what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld), as to the dissatisfaction which prevailed in the West of England respecting the present postal arrangements. Scarcely any use was there made of the railways for postal purposes, and the inhabitants were at present absolutely worse off, with regard to the transmission of letters, than they were before the ago of railways. In one district there was only one post a day where formerly there were two. A few years ago, he brought before the House the case of a parish in Wilts, where a letter received from a place only five miles distant, occupied four days in its journey, having been taken round by Bristol, London, and possibly to other places. He had hoped that the Post Office authorities might have been able to improve the system, but nothing whatever had been done. He had been on deputation after deputation to the Post-

    409
    master General, having for their object the facilitation of the conveyance of letters, but no remedy had been devised. He, therefore, thought it time that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the existing arrangements, and to suggest improvements therein.
    COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the postal communication with Aberdeen had been thrown into the greatest confusion in consequence of the discontinuance of the direct mails from Aberdeen. The railway companies were always ready to make the most liberal arrangements for the conveyance of the mails, and which would ensure the convenience of the district, but they were met by the remark, "Oh, you are too costly; the Post Office cannot afford it." But, in his opinion, whether the arrangements were costly or not, they ought to be adopted if the convenience of the public would be thereby enhanced. He thought that out of the large revenue of the Post Office a portion might well be devoted to remedying the grievances now complained of.
    COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that in ninny cases improved arrangements had not been carried out, in consequence of the extravagant sums demanded by railway companies for the conveyance of mails. With regard to the complaints which had been made, he believed that the Post Office authorities had made great efforts lo meet the wants of the public, but in so widely extended a system there must always be some particular cases of grievance, and it was impossible to satisfy every one.
    MR. PEELsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Lonjr) sought to establish two propositions, first, that country places and provincial districts were not well and satisfactorily served with regard to their local correspondence; and secondly, that it was expedient to appoint a Committee to consider what improvements could be made, and in what manner they could be carried out. He thought that country places, generally speaking, had no great reason to complain of the present postal arrangements. The hon. Gentleman admitted that they had shared to the full extent with other parts of the country the advantages of a low and uniform rate of postage, and all the other improvements with regard to the registration of letters, money order offices and Post Office savings banks; and there was scarcely a place, however out of the way
    410
    and remote, that a letter did not reach its destination in the course of a single night. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the restriction on free delivery of letters at the residence of the persons to whom they were addressed; but the Report of the Post Master General stated that more than 95 per cent of all letters were delivered free at the residences to which they were addressed, and that this percentage was being continually enlarged. He by no means wished to imply that the system was perfect, or that there might not be ground for complaint in particular cases. Indeed, if it were possible to perfect the system to-day, change of circumstances would render it imperfect to-morrow. What was wanted, however, was not the enunciation of some new principle within the scope of a recommendation of a Committee of Inquiry, but rather arrangements in detail for the consideration of the heads of the Post Office Department. The hon. Member for Chippenham had cited a number of particular cases with the view of showing that there was ground for inquiry on the part of the House; but it was very difficult to form any positive opinion as to whether those cases proved defective management, for the House had not the contra statement of the Post Office, nor could they have had it, because the hon. Gentleman's notice did not state the cases on which he intended to rely. Doubtless, as the hon. Member had stated, there were isolated cases in which the arrangements were not perfect; but probably the inconveniences resulting there from were greatly outweighed by the advantages of the general system on which the business of the Post Office was conducted, from which some inconveniences could not be severed. The hon. Gentleman had complained of want of expeditious communication between contiguous places. But he did not think it was the duty of the Post Office to establish communications between places merely because they were near, and without taking into consideration the correspondence which passed between them. The places might be very near, and the number of letters very small; and, in that ease, the Post Office would not be justified in incurring a large expense to meet the demands of a very small correspondence. Again, it was conducive to the general convenience that the mails of the different localities should arrive at the same time as the London mails. The correspondence between London and any particular locality

    411
    had to be considered in the first place; and the delivery of letters in rural districts must be regulated in connection with that correspondence. Complaints had been made of the few deliveries in the country; hut it must he remembered that letters could not be delivered on the arrival of every mail without an army of letter carriers. The arrangements must be so contrived as to make one or two deliveries suffice for all the correspondence of the place. It sometimes happened that the mail course between two places near each other might be circuitous and yet not inconvenient, as for instance when mails were dispatched by an up-train on one line to be met and brought back by a down-train on another. Another complaint had been that the facilities afforded by railways were not sufficiently made use of by the Post Office. The Post Office had power in some cases to demand the running of a mail train; in others, to arrange for the use of particular trains; and in others to make use of all the trains, letter carriers being sent as passengers carrying the mail hags with them. It was for the public convenience that the Post Office should make a large use of railways; but the Post Office had to consider also the amount of the expense, and in the Scotch case referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) the charge was considered too high, and the inconvenience complained of arose from the Post Office and the railway company not being able to agree to terms. It was the duty of the Post Office authorities to provide as much public accommodation as possible; but it was likewise their duty to obtain as large a revenue as possible, and to guard against useless expenditure. If an inflexible rule were laid down that the Post Office must use every railway as soon as constructed, a greatly increased tax would be laid on the public. The time in which the mails were in transit was principally at night, a period when railway companies might fairly urge that a train would have few passengers, and could not he remunerative. What was wanted, then, was to get the train on moderate terms. The case of the Shrewsbury and Aberyst-with Railway had been instanced. In that case, if the Post Office had demanded mail trains on the opening of the line they would have had to pay a heavy charge. They waited till the traffic had been somewhat developed; and then arrangements were easily concluded by which the mails
    412
    were carried at fair rates. The Post Office acted on a fair rule. When a country place claimed increased postal accommodation, the question asked was, whether such increase would he likely to he self-supporting? He did not think that the surplus revenue of one part of the country should be employed in defraying the expenses of another. If the question of remunerative postal arrangements were to be ignored, the Post Office would speedily cease to bring in any revenue at all. He was far from saying that there was not room for improvement in details, but he thought that the desired improvement could be best effected by the Post Office authorities. In point of fact, improvements were constantly being made. The annual Report of the Post Master General gave an account of the improvements effected during the year. They consisted mainly of acceleration of the mails and extensions of delivery. The Post Office authorities had special facilities for obtaining local information. They had surveyors constantly travelling about the country, making personal inquiries as to the operation of the Post Office, and wherever improvements were needed they were introduced as speedily as possible. The suggestions which had been made in the course of the debate were entitled to consideration, but he did not think the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry would be the best means of remedying the defects complained of.
    MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that the county which he had the honour to represent, enjoyed fewer facilities, in the way of postal communication, than any of the districts to which allusion had been made in the course of the debate. The question to be considered was entirely one of principle. It was, whether the Post Office ought to give increased accommodation to those districts only the inhabitants of which were able and willing to pay for it; or whether, having a large surplus revenue, the business was so to be conducted as to be altogether at the service of the country, although some of the correspondence would not be remunerative. The rule of the Post Office was to give increased accommodation only where it could be proved that it would pay, or where a guarantee was given against a possibly accruing deficit. He had presented a petition praying for increased postal facilities from the Isle of Skye, where, with a population of 20,000 inhabitants, there wag a mail

    413
    only three times a week. The answer of the Post Office was, that a daily service would cost £1,200 a year, and that they had not been assured that what was demanded would be attended with adequate returns. He had likewise presented a similar petition from Fort William, which had only a mail twice a week, and though distant only sixty miles from Inverness the mail was forty-eight hours on the road, and the request was for a mail which would take only twelve hours. The Post Office authorities made a similar reply in this case —it would not pay. He thought these cases worthy of consideration by a Select Committee. Was the Post Office established for the occasion of revenue, or for the general benefit of the public? Believing the latter to be the case, he would support the Motion.
    SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peel), had complained that specific cases of grievances had not been adduced. In a case represented to him as occurring in the district which he had the honour to represent, he thought there was a substantial grievance. By recent orders of the Postmaster General, the letter carriers were no longer to carry penny newspapers unless they were stamped. The consequence was that those papers were thereby doubled in price. It had been suggested that a smaller stamp might be adopted. That was altogether another matter. A grievance of that nature— which was entirely in opposition to the assistance which the Post Office ought to give to the diffusion of information—might very well be inquired into by the proposed Committee. He considered he had furnished the right hon. Gentleman with a specific case of grievance, and he should certainly support the Motion.
    MR. BENT1NCKthought that the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peel) favoured, rather than otherwise, the Motion which he intended to oppose. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Long), who brought forward the Motion, had no wish to pass any censure on the general conduct of the Post Office; but, being fully aware of the enormous difficulties attendant on the successful working out the complicated details of the system of the Post Office, he had moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into those difficulties, and also into the best means of affording facilities to the Poet Office for meeting the evils
    414
    the existence of which scarcely a Member of that House would venture to doubt. He complained, in the first place, that the facilities for transit afforded by railways were not made the most of, and secondly that, in consequence, localities within a few miles of each other might as well, for purposes of postal communication, be 500 miles apart.
    But the real grievance was, that in the present, as in most other cases, the convenience and the advantage of the metropolis and large towns was studied before that of rural and thinly peopled districts. He admitted the difficulties of the case; and that the order of reference to a Committee such as had been proposed, ought to be very carefully worded, lest the subject should become unmanageable. But there were two points which, he thought, would well repay investigation, and both related to money. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of losses sustained by the Post Office through the employment of railways. He thought that, considering the practical monopoly which the railway companies had obtained, they ought to be compelled to carry the mail bags at a reasonable rate. The other question was, whether in cases where it could be shown that the correspondence would not be sufficient to pay the extra expense, the Post Office might not be empowered to charge additional rates? [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] An hon. Member said "No" He thought it a question well worthy of serious consideration whether, in such cases, the inhabitants of these districts might not be allowed to decide whether they would not pay an increased postage-rate in order to obtain the advantage of improved postal communication. A Select Committee, he was convinced, would facilitate the labours of the Post Office authorities, and he would therefore support the Motion.
    MR. KINNAIRDthought the Post Office authorities were sometimes in error, proceeding as they did upon the principle, that because the number of letters for a particular locality would not pay live expense of conveyance and delivery, therefore increased postal facilities should not be extended to that locality. At the same time, he was of opinion that the attention of the Treasury should in the first instance be drawn to the subject, and then, if that Department refused to provide remedies for the grievances complained of, recourse might be had to a Select Committee of Inquiry.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Baillie) had broadly and fairly laid down the principle that the Post Office ought not to be considered as a source of revenue to the Government, but that the surplus revenue derived from it ought to be expended in providing increased postal accommodation. For his own part, however, he should be very reluctant, by acceding to the proposal before the House, to commit himself to the acceptance of such a principle. The Post Office now yielded a net revenue of a million and a half; that million and a half was received in return for services, and stood in the place and performed the functions of a million and a half raised by taxation. If, therefore, the suggestion were acceded to that that million and a half was to be laid out in providing additional accommodation, the result would be that there would be a gap to that extent which would have to be stopped by the levying of a now tax, or by the augmentation of some tax already in existence. Now it was desirable to know, whether the principle involved in such a scheme was one upon which hon. Members were prepared to proceed, because any Committee appointed to try a particular case, would evidently derive the greatest possible light and assistance from the possession of information as to whether the House did or did not deem it right that the funds of the Post Office should be applied freely and without stint to the extension of local accommodation. Independently of that objection, which he naturally felt, as the person who would be expected to discover the unpleasant substitute for the revenue which was now raised without taxing anybody, he was disposed to doubt and question the justice of the doctrine which had that evening been laid down by more than one hon. Member; for what did it amount to, and where would it lead them? It would lead them to the conclusion that, while a largo revenue was raised in populous districts, in connection with the Post Office, that revenue might be appropriated to supplying the wants of remote districts with isolated houses difficult of access. Under that seemingly popular proposition, that the Post Office should not be a source of revenue, was concealed, not intentionally of course, a doctrine of a very different nature—namely, that one portion of the country ought to be taxed for the purposes of another. He did not agree with the doctrine that the Post
    416
    Office was never to extend the facilities for communication, except when there was a moral certainty of a remunerative return. Such a doctrine, in his opinion, involved a most narrow, undue, and improper view of the functions of the Department. The Post Office ought to consider particular cases in a liberal spirit, and if the hon. Member was correct in stating that the Post Office excluded from its view the extension of the means of communication, that was wrong; but he thought his hon. Friend was misinformed. He wished, at the same time, to remark that the Department of the Post Office was not directly represented in the House of Commons, and it, therefore, devolved on his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Peel), or upon himself, to speak on behalf of that Department when it became the subject of discussion in that House. Consequently the means at the disposal of his right hon. Friend and himself, as regarded forming a correct opinion and expressing their views to the House, must entirely depend on whether they had, or had not, been put in possession beforehand of the nature of the complaints to be made; if that had not been done, to invite the House to appoint a Committee of Inquiry, was to pass by the Executive Government. He did not deny the right of the House to take that step if it pleased; it had rather been to refer executive questions to be dealt with by the Executive; and if the redress sought was not obtained, then to bring the matter before the House. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Long), that the best course to pursue would be for him to bring before the Treasury, by way of appeal, some of the cases which he had cited, and thus give that Department an opportunity of seeing how the difficulties could be best met. If, after reviewing the matter, in conjunction with the Post Office, they declined to act in the direction which he indicated, then it would be open to him to appeal to the House, and to call upon it, through the medium of a Committee, or otherwise, to take the question into its own hands. The hon. Member for West Norfolk laid down a reasonable doctrine, that localities should be allowed to contribute where they were not sufficiently large to render them remunerative to the Post Office, and that was to some extent already done. He hoped the hon. Member for Chippenham would adopt this suggestion, and give the Treasury an opportunity of reviewing the matter.
    MR. W. WILLIAMShoped that no consideration would induce either the House or the Government to increase the rate of postage, or to make in any district the slightest variation from the uniform rate that now prevailed. Of all financial reforms that had taken place, the reduction in postage rates was the most important.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he should not have taken any part in that discussion but for an observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told the House that the Post Office gave a revenue of a million and a half; and if that were taken away he must find some other means of raising that sum. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that it would not be just to the taxpayers at large to call on them for that amount in order to give the convenience of additional postal communication to sparsely populated districts that would not pay the expenses.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I expressly guarded myself against saying that in no case should there be increased accommodation unless the service were remunerative. My argument went to the extent of controverting the principle that the revenue of the Post Office ought generally to be applied to furnishing such accommodation to thinly inhabited localities.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he perfectly understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not say in no case; but he thought if the principle were to he applied to the packet service different results to those which existed would he produced. He apprehended that the packet service was not included in the expense of the Post Office. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had so flourishing a figure as a million and a half after deducting the packet service, which was only for the advantage of those persons using it. He hoped the principle would not he carried too far, that districts were to he deprived of postal privileges because they were not sufficiently populated to make them remunerative to the Post Office. Not only was there the local advantage, but the advantage to the sender, and it must he remembered that a great deal of the Post Office business was the carrying of circulars from populous places, and where there were not postal facilities for delivering these circulars, private individuals in large towns were put to considerable expense to deliver them. He should be the last person to say that the
    418
    Post Office was not an immense advantage to the community in all parts of the country, but those persons who had not its advantages, seeing others in possession of them, of course became dissatisfied. He hoped the Government would not draw the line too tightly. He, for one, did not think it unreasonahle that all those cases should be brought before the notice of the Treasury, because, if they could not provide an I adequate remedy, an appeal could then he made to the House; in fact, he considered that course the most likely to be attended with success.
    MR. T. BARINGsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), that the packet service was merely for the benefit of those persons who sent letters by it; it was an advantage to the whole country. That service involved an outlay, whether too large or not was not then the question, which was not merely for the advantage of the individuals who sent those letters, hut for the good of the community at large. Any other view of steam communication would he narrow and one sided, seeing that the advantages extended to the whole productive industry of the country,
    Question, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  NAVY ESTIMATES considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. £1,164,100, Naval Stores.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, with reference to the item £120,000 for gunboats to be built by private contract, he should be glad of some explanation. Our former gunboats had been such lamentable failures, that he thought the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty ought to state the nature of the gunboats he intended to build.
  MR. C. BERKELEYbegged to call attention to the number of ships removed from the effective list of the navy since the Return dated Feb. 1, 1863. At that date the number was 669, but at present was represented as 630, thus showing that thirty-nine vessels had been removed from the effective list; and he thought, as there had been some vessels added, the number might

  419
  be larger. Some were sailing vessels, which it was possible had been transferred to the harbour list; but, looking into the details, thirty-three or thirty-four he found to be steam vessels struck off during the past year. Many, if not all those vessels, were quite unseaworthy, and the reason he called the attention of the House to them was that he thought it desirable that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty should explain if any others now in the service, especially gunboats, were in a similar condition. Some of them were gunboats built about ten years ago. One of the vessels condemned was the Victor, and as there were five other ships of the same class built at the same time, it was desirable that the House should be informed as to the present condition of those vessels. Perhaps, too, the noble Lord would explain under what circumstances it was that two frigates which were now upon the stocks—the names of which he did not know—were to be pulled down. A system had lately sprung up of putting into the Navy List, and allowing to remain there for some time, the names of vessels on which little or nothing had been expended. Such cases were those of the Sappho at Deptford, the name of which was published in the list for three years, and then disappeared, and of the Alligator. He should like to have some explanation of these circumstances. It would be convenient if the noble Lord would give the House some more information than had yet been vouchsafed with regard to the character and form of the vessels building on Mr. Reed's plan. In successive Navy Lists vsesels not only appeared and disappeared, but the same vessels seemed to alter their tonnage. It was stated, for instance, that the frame of the Circassia, of 950 tons, had been appropriated to the Enterprise, building on Mr. Reed's plan, in July, 1862; but in the Navy List for 1861 a vessel called the Enterprise was included as well as the Circassia, and since the appropriation referred to another vessel called the Circassia had appeared on the scene. Different tonnages and armaments were given in every case with regard to these vessels. He was not to be understood, however, as insinuating that any wasteful or improvident practices existed in any of the dockyards. The very best guarantee against anything of the kind was afforded by the appointment of such men as Sir Baldwin Walker and Admiral Robinson.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must com-
  420
  plain that there was no real reduction in the Navy Estimates for the present year. No credit was due to the Admiralty, for the only apparent reduction was in the Vote for material. But if the Admiralty wanted more materials of any kind it would, without hesitation, purchase them, and then submit a supplementary Estimate to the House. The Vote for wages was £170,000 more than it was last year.
  MR. CORRYsaid, as he had been prevented from attending in his place when the Navy Estimates were under discussion, he was anxious to make a few remarks on this occasion, and there was no part of those Estimates—not even the reduction of 4,000 men—which he had read with greater dissatisfaction than the diminution of about £200,000 in the sum proposed for the building of armour-plated ships. From the statement of his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, he concluded that it was not intended at present to exceed the number of the twenty-five now built or in progress. Of these, they were told nineteen would be available next year, and in the following year the whole number would be ready for service. He appealed to hon. Members whether, if armour-plated ships were to supersede wooden ships, that was a force adequate-to the wants of the British navy, or one with which it would be possible to carry on a great war. In the event of a war occurring in 1866, he would like to know how the noble Lord would propose to appropriate those vessels? How many of the twenty-five would he allot for the defence of the Channel; how many to the Mediterranean, where we have interests at stake not less important; how many to the Baltic; how many lo the North Sea, to the West Indies, to the coasts of China and India, and how many to the Pacific, where a large and important colony had lately sprung up? It was nonsense to talk of defending our vast interests on those stations with twenty-five ships, when it was well known that all the principal nations of Europe were acquiring largo fleets of armour-plated ships; and America, too, was largely increasing her strength in ships of that description. His noble Friend had abstained this year from speaking of what the French were doing, but the information had been furnished by France herself. In a letter from the Paris correspondent of The Times, he found that—
  "According to statistics recently published the French Government possesses at present,

  421
  either finished or in progress of completion, 43 screw iron-plated vessels, being altogether of the force of 24,000-horse power, and 1,356 guns; of these, four are liners (of which Eng land has none), 19 frigates, 19 gunboats, and 1 ship with a spur."
  We were promised twenty-five ships and six gunboats, of the united horse-power of 23,000, against the French forty-three vessels of 24,000-horse power. It was true that many of the French vessels were of a small class, but among them they were, told there were four line-of-battle ships and 19 frigates. In former days an opinion was entertained that it was necessary for the interests of England that she should possess a far larger navy than that of France; but in the present day, as far; as armour-plated ships were concerned, all that we aimed at was equality. He did not think that condition of things safe; and he complained of the policy of the Admiralty in not during the present year laying down additional armour-plated ships, because, as two years were required to; build a large armour-plated ship, it would now be impossible to add to the number of twenty-five till the year 1867. There could be no difficulty about a good model, because, according to his noble Friend, the Bellerophon was the perfection of what an armour-plated vessel should be. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer being in easy circumstances, his noble Friend would do well to induce him to increase the Vote for contract-built ships to the amount taken last year, and thus obtain the means of laying down two or three vessels similar to the Bellerophon during the present year. But, although he disapproved of the policy of the Admiralty in respect of armour ships, be rejoiced to learn, from reading his noble Friend's speech, that some attention was about to be paid to our steam reserves. In the opinion of some persons, wooden; ships were at the present time altogether useless; but that was a view which he did; not share. If we had the great misfortune to be engaged in a war with France, did anybody suppose that all her sailing ships would not be employed to cripple our trade, or that we should keep ours in harbour while hers were scouring the ocean? An efficient steam reserve was therefore necessary, and from all the information he had been able to collect, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the state of our steam reserve at this moment. His attention had been drawn to this subject by a paragraph which appeared last
  422
  year in The Times, under the head of "Naval and Military Intelligence." The writer was a gentleman possessing accurate means of information, for he was, he believed, the correspondent of The Times at Portsmouth. He asserted, that of the whole of the "steam reserves" not more than seven or eight vessels could be pronounced ready to proceed to sea; that others would take months to get ready, and the remainder could never be made available under any circumstances. "In proof that no part of this statement was exaggerated," the writer added, "let one port be selected as an example—-say Portsmouth." The substance of his statement was as follows:—That, exclusive of gunboats, the first division of the steam reserve at Portsmouth consisted of one line-of-battle ship and two screw corvettes; that the line-of-battle ship, the Duncan, could not be got ready for sea in three months; that one of the corvettes, the Esk, was ready for sea, but that the other was rotten; that in the second division there were four line-of-battle ships, three screw corvettes, and one paddle sloop; of these, the four liners would each take three months to make ready; that two of the corvettes were rotten, and the third of iron, so slight as to be unfit for war service, and that the paddle sloop might be placed in the useless category; that in the third division there were seven line-of-battle ships, eight first-class frigates, six sloops, and two troopships, all screws, and screws with a vengeance, for of these one of the line-of-battle ships had never been to sea, but would take six months to complete, and that the remainder would engage the whole of the resources of the yard six or eight months to make them ready for sea; that the hulls of the six sloops were all half rotten and their machinery in want of heavy repairs, and that the five paddle sloops were all useless; that the two troopships had both seen long foreign service, and required repairs; that in the fourth division the Penelope and the Retribution, paddle frigates, were both rotten from the keel to topsides. The writer added—
  "Out of all the vessels so enumerated in the four divisions there is only one vessel—the Esk, of 17 guns, and 250 horse-power—that is ready for sea."
  He then went on to say that the annual cost of the "preservation and repair" of these vessels, exclusive of wages to stokers and engineers, was £45,000, and that for that sum Portsmouth possessed only one

  423
  vessel ready for sea, and it would require years to complete the remainder. That was the state of things last year. This statement naturally excited great alarm in his mind, and he had made it his business to make inquiries as to the state of the steam reserves at the other dockyards; and he found that the state of the steam reserves last autumn was much the same as at Portsmouth, at Devonport, and at the Nore. Of forty-three line-of-battle ships, exclusive of gunboats, composing the first, second, and third divisions of the steam reserve, only six were ready. Of twenty-six frigates in the three divisions, only two were ready. Of six corvettes in the three divisions, none were ready. Of twenty-six sloops, only three were ready; and of thirteen gun vessels only one was ready. The general result was, that of 115 ships of the above classes in the three divisions, all of which ought to have been in a seaworthy state, only twelve were ready for sea. That was a most unsatisfactory state for the steam reserves to be in, especially as he could state that means were taken when Lord Derby was in office to place them in good condition. He should be glad to hear that matters were not so had as he had been led to suppose, and that the Admiralty would make every effort to place the steam reserve in a proper state of repair. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), in explaining Vote 8, said that it was the intention of the Admiralty to bring up some of the arrears of the first division of the steam reserve. He trusted that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell the Committee that it was the intention of the Admiralty to place the whole of the three divisions in a substantial state of repair, for if war broke out, and our steam reserves were not in an effective condition, the country would run great risk of disgrace and disaster.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had observed that The Times correspondents abroad were usually very accurate in their statements. Did the right hon. Gentleman give the stamp of his own authority to the statement that France at that moment possessed 43,000 tons of armour-plating?
  MR. CORRYsaid, that the statement he had quoted was that the French now had ready or in process of completion forty-three armour-plated ships of 24,000 horse power.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that this statement was still more startling. No hon.
  424
  Member ought to make such statements unless he was prepared to vouch for their accuracy. If the figures were correct, the navy of this country was in a most unsatisfactory position. Although he had long opposed an excessive naval expenditure, he was ready, if the statement just made was accurate, to support the Government in any Votes to increase the number of armour-plated ships. England ought to possess a navy, not merely equal to that of France, but equal to that of France and any other great European Power combined; and he should not be satisfied unless England maintained that position, for the protection of our commerce and the safety of our homes to a great extent depended upon the strength of our fleet. He trusted that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would tell the Committee what number of armour-plated ships France really did possess. Perhaps the number quoted in the paragraph referred to was simply that of French ships ordered to be built, the construction of which might he spread over a great number of years. He believed that the Admiralty could now send to sea armour-plated ships equal to those of any two European Powers, As long as that was the case the House and the country would be satisfied. With regard to wooden ships it would be found that they would be worthless in action against armour-plated ships. But he did not therefore hold that the Admiralty ought to sell their wooden ships. We ought to keep the same proportion of wooden vessels with respect to other countries as we did of iron-plated ships. What he objected to was the repair of obsolete wooden ships to be laid up in ordinary. In his opinion it would be far better to employ the money in building vessels as fleet and as powerful as the Alabama, which might act as the police of the seas. Pie saw in the Votes a large sum for stores for the Government dockyards. It would be more satisfactory if these Votes were given more in detail, and stating how the stores were to be appropriated. Having visited the Chatham Dockyard, which was 100 acres in extent, and refreshed his memory by going to see the private yard of the Messrs. Laird Brothers, which covered a space of only twelve acres, he had no hesitation in saying that the Messrs. Laird turned out a larger amount of work—and of splendid work too—than was done in the Chatham Dockyard. Hon. Members knew now the money voted for wages for the Chatham

  425
  Dockyard and the expense of the permanent staff; but they had no idea of the amount of money sunk in that yard in the shape of plant, timber, and materials, That was a thing which they ought to know, and on the opposite side of the account they ought to have the amount of work turned out in the yard in the course of twelve months. If they had that they could get the sums expended in private yards and the amount of tonnage turned out, and in that way they would have the materials for useful comparison. In Messrs. Laird's yard for instance, every piece of timber was cut by machinery, and the saw-mills were situated in the most convenient place, quite close to the water. But in Chatham Dockyard the timber was even now to a very great extent sawed by hand, at an enormous extra cost, and a saw-mill was placed on the top of a hill — of all places in the world the most inconvenient. All the timber had to be drawn up by ingenious machinery and then let down to the water's edge again. The circumstance put him in mind of an officer in Somerset House, whom the Admiralty appointed to answer the questions that were put to his department. He was an efficient officer, but he was deaf and dumb. Much had been said about the excellence of the work turned out from Her Majesty's dockyards, but that was all matter of opinion. He had seen an iron ship building in the yard of Messrs. Laird; it was sister to another which was being built in Her Majesty's dockyards, and he could say that so far from being in any way inferior to the latter, in strength and in seasoned timber it was quite equal and in some respects superior. He regretted that the Committee should be called upon to Vote this year £246,000 less for building in private yards, because the meaning was that £246,000 more would be devoted to building in Her Majesty's yards. That involved a question of policy. He did not wish Her Majesty's Government to give up shipbuilding. But supposing the country were to be suddenly involved in an European war, how could dependence be placed upon private yards to supply the necessary vessels especially treated as they always were by the Admiralty? Though the private yards might be able to produce gunboats and ordinary vessels, they would not be able to build those large classes of armour-plated ships that would then be required, because for that purpose they
  426
  would require to have a large sum of money invested in the necessary plant. But Messrs. Laird's dock would be as valuable to Her Majesty's Government in the event of war as any dockyard for which the Committee might be asked to vote a large sum of money. That firm had created an establishment which might be of great value to the country in time of need. It was a dangerous thing, then, to throw overboard the private yards. Foreign nations were obliged to come to the private yards of this country, but Her Majesty's Government were shutting the door against a class of men who might be of the utmost value to the nation. He begged, therefore, to enter his protest in the strongest possible manner against the proposed increase of the plant in Her Majesty's dockyards.
  MR. CORRYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) sought to make him responsible for the statistics with regard to the French navy which he had quoted, but be had taken them from a letter of The Times correspondent, who stated that they had been recently published. He had often heard hon. Members say that every statement of that kind published by the French Government was most accurate.
  COLONEL SYKES: Does he say they were published by the Government?
  MR. CORRY: He says the statistics were recently published.
  COLONEL SYKES: Aye, but not by the Government.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he was very glad to find that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland had been employing his time in the recess last autumn so profitably. He could have wished that he had been with his hon. Friend on the occasion of his visit to Chatham, as he had no doubt he should have come to a different conclusion from his hon. Friend as to the amount and quality of the work turned out there. His hon. Friend had not said that the Achilles was not of admirable shape; he had been unable to find a flaw in her; but not content to let the case stand on its own merits, he had proceeded to compare this ship with another built in a private yard. And for once in his life, somewhat illogically, his hon. Friend had argued, that if the Government did not at the present time apply to the private yards, it would not be able to have recourse to them in times of emergency. Yet it was admitted that those

  427
  private yards were building now men-of-war for all the other maritime Powers of Europe. No doubt Mr. Laird's was an excellent establishment, but was it fair on that account to say that there was no good work turned out of the Government dockyards? He believed that the ships that were being constructed by Mr. Reed were giving fair employment to the private yards. It was not fair to say, therefore, that the Government was not giving fair play to the private yards. His hon. Friend had carried his criticism upon Chatham so far as to object to the position of the saw mill. That position was selected forty-five years ago. He was there when it was constructed, and he remembered that the mill was placed there by the elder Brunel, the inventor of the system of block machinery, and the then very able Surveyor of the Navy (Sir Robert Seppings) thought it not desirable to fix it close to the water's edge; but the timber was floated up a channel to a point under the saws, then lifted by hydraulic pressure, and sent down an inclined plane to the water's edge when converted. The process was very simple, and was not justly liable to the criticism passed on it by his hon. Friend. The interruption of the navigation of the Medway was thus left unobstructed, as the mast pond was in an internal basin, instead of in the river. If his hon. Friend said that ships built in the Government yards were built on a defective construction, on a defective plan, he replied that that objection would be equally applicable to ships when built in private yards, as the designs in both cases were those of the chief constructor of the Navy. There was great variety of opinion as to what constituted the strength of ships; but his hon. Friend had not been able to assert that the Achilles was built upon defective lines. She was designed upon the most scientific principles, with the aid of the most practical shipbuilder in Her Majesty's service. Mr. Lang, in the Chatham dockyard, was a very remarkable man and a practical shipbuilder, and there was no doubt that if that gentleman had had any objections to make to the designs of the Controller, the latter would have listened to them. If there were any improvement in any vessel of the Messrs. Laird over the Achilles, it must be owing to their having had the advantage of first seeing the Achilles. Mr. Lang no doubt was originally a wooden shipbuilder, but he had had the advantage of the science of Mr. Samuda, one of the most experienced authorities on iron shipbuilding. These two gentle-
  428
  men had been schoolfellows together, and when any difficulty occurred, Mr. Lang invariably had recourse to Mr. Samuda's assistance, and vice versa. He believed that the Government were right in employing in private yards a certain amount of men to supplement the labour in the public yards; and as far as he could judge of the Northumberland, built in a private yard, he should say that she would be a most perfect ship.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the system which the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) wished to see carried out — namely, that the dockyard authorities should be accountable for all their receipts and outgoings and that there should be periodical stock takings—was in contemplation by the junior Lord of the Admiralty, whose services the Government had just now had the misfortune to lose, and whoso indefatigable inquiries during the last autumn had resulted in laying down a system which was explained in what was called the "labour chart." That hon. Member was possessed of an acute mind and unbounded zeal, and his services had been in the highest degree advantageous to the Government. It was to be hoped that he would be replaced by another officer of equal capability. As the Estimates were now framed, no one could properly judge whether the sums asked for were founded on a proper basis, or whether it was not all guess-work; for the sums were asked for in a lump, without the slightest explanation of the quantities or of the cost of the materials. Nothing short of the plan projected by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) would be satisfactory to the House or to the country. He had been very much astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) quote a paragraph from a newspaper in reference to the relative strength of the French and English navies. If the hon. Member had referred to the French Estimates for 1865 or for 1864, he would have seen that the ships of the English navy were, both in number and power, beyond all comparison superior to those of the French navy. There had never been a time when our navy, in regard either to ships or men, was so powerful as at present.
  MR. BENTINCKbegged to express a hope that in future the Votes would be so arranged as not under one head to embrace such a multiplicity of questions, the effect of which was to lead to debate desultory and somewhat confused. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone

  429
  (Mr. Corry) in his observations on the armour-plated ships, which to the number of twenty-five were promised to be in readiness next year. He did not imagine that his noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) was prepared to tell the Committee that because a great revolution had taken place in the construction of the navy, therefore wooden vessels were to be entirely dispensed with, nor did he think that he would be prepared to state that twenty-five armour-plated ships were as many as would be required for fulfilling all the duties of the navy of this country. It was obvious that either our navy must for the future be confined to iron sheathed vessels, or that we should have to draw very largely on the services of our wooden ships. Now, he wanted to know in what position the country stood; if it was understood that in future we were to be solely dependent on iron-plated ships, why, in that ease, were not immediate orders given for the construction of a much larger number? And, on the other hand, if it was admitted that there was still occasion for the services of a very large number of wooden vessels, he wished to be informed why a more satisfactory account of the state of the Naval Reserve with regard to those ships had not been presented. It was said that iron-plated ships were not fit to fulfil all the duties required—and the Committee ought to know whether iron-plated ships were to be depended on exclusively, or whether wooden and iron-plated ships should be combined. He wanted his noble Friend to define the policy of' the Government on that subject, and to state what the future navy of Great Britain was to consist of, so that the House might know with what they were dealing. With respect to the somewhat old question of the amount of reliance that ought to be placed upon the public and private yards for supplying the requirements of the navy, he must say that he differed from the views of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He believed that nothing could be more injurious to the interests of the British navy than in any way to restrict the operations of the public dockyards. It was utterly impossible that this country, with the demands which existed upon her naval power, should ever be reduced to a total dependence upon the resources of private yards, without being placed in a most defenceless state. The more work that was done in public dockyards the more was this country likely to be placed in a; position to meet any possible emergency,
  430
  and the true principle was to execute all the work possible at those establishments, leaving the surplus to be performed by the private yards. What he deprecated was: this annual discussion as to the comparative merits of the two systems, because he believed that a feeling of rivalry ought not to be encouraged and ought not to exist-As to the difference in the cost which his hon. Friend desired to see equalized, it must be borne in mind that in the private yards the employers of labour have a direct interest in obtaining the largest possible return from the labour employed—an element which they could never have in the public yards, For that reason alone, he did not think that any amount of ingenuity would ever enable Government establishments to work as cheaply as the private yards could; but that, he contended, was a fact which ought not to weigh with the Committee in comparison with the efficiency of the public service.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he could not think with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), that the hon. Member; for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) was to be blamed for calling attention to the comparative merits of the two systems. Great service was done by the discussion as to the comparative merits of public and private dockyards, as it had the effect of keeping the Government up to the mark, and urging them on to improvements. He quite agreed that in the Government dockyards I such a number of ships should be built as I would render the country prepared for any emergency; but, at the same time, he wanted the accounts of the Admiralty to be so I presented that hon. Members might know the cost of building every single vessel, with the amount of tonnage accurately defined, so that having the same data in the case of a vessel constructed in a private yard, a comparison might be instituted between the two. It would then be seen what was actually doing, whether the country was obtaining value for its money. He agreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck), that it was important that they should know the future policy of the Government with respect to iron and wooden vessels. Were they prepared to vote money for the repairs of an immense number of wooden vessels which, at the present moment, were practically useless, and which nobody imagined could be sent out against an enemy? With regard to those which were coining home, he trusted that his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would follow the practice which was

  431
  adopted by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) in his own case-namely, when he had a vessel that did not suit his purpose, to break her up and dispose of her, and substitute better in her place.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he did not blame hon. Members for drawing comparison between public yards and private establishments. It was right that those things should be inquired into, and that, indeed, was the reason for the Admiralty for the last four years endeavouring to place their accounts on such a footing as would enable them to lay before Parliament the sums expended on each ship. They were now in a position to do so, and he was prepared to challenge the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to move for a Return for any or all of the dockyards, of the number of ships built in 1862–3 and their tonnage, the expenditure on the one side, and on the other the progress made in their construction, showing in fact the value obtained for money. The hon. Gentleman would then be able to express an opinion to the Committee, but it was not fair that he should persist in making broad statements without proofs as to the superior workmanship and administration of the private yards as compared with the public establishments. No doubt the work in the latter was more costly; but he believed that the repairs of the wooden vessels built in the public dockyards were not on so large a scale—not so expensive—as those of similar ships constructed by private traders. At all events, he was ready to repeat the offer made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld)—who, unfortunately, was no longer his Colleague, and who was a great loss to the Admiralty— that all those matters should be carefully gone into with any mercantile man who might chose to undertake the business. Certainly, the Admiralty would be only too happy if they could improve their system by a comparison with that in vogue in private yards. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had asked him a difficult question as to the future policy of the Government with regard to the construction of ships. He must protest against having to look into futurity in a matter of such magnitude. First of all, it must depend a good deal upon foreign countries, and especially upon France, because the great object of Her Majesty's Government was to maintain at all times the navy of this country in such a state of efficiency as to enable us to cope successfully
  432
  with foreign Powers. One could not advert to the subject without more or less dealing with foreign nations, and especially with France. He generally avoided as much as possible any statement of the actual numbers of the French navy, but he could not allow the alarming picture drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) to pass without notice. He did not know the source from which the right hon. Gentleman obtained his information, but he believed that on the 8th of February the French had eight armour-cased frigates afloat, and eight building, making together sixteen. They had also of new floating batteries—a small class of vessels for the defence of their coast—four afloat and seven building; also one turret-ship building; making, with the foregoing, a total of twenty-eight; besides which they had five small iron gunboats, of a kind that could be taken to pieces. That was all that Her Majesty's Government knew of the French navy. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) asked what their policy was. It would be to go on building armour-plated vessels which were undoubtedly the class that must take the place of line-of-battle ships, and to build them in such numbers as would enable this country always to be in a proper position as regarded foreign Powers. That, he believed, was their position at the pro sent moment, and it was that belief which justified the Government in not asking this year for a very large Vote on account of contract-built ships. The Admiralty had a high opinion of the private shipbuilding firms of the country, and relied on them in a great measure for the construction of its armour-plated fleet. Although it should not be unnecessary to enter into any large contracts during the present year, yet those firms might rest assured that recourse would be had to them as the construction of that fleet proceeded. The vast majority of the armour-ships now in existence, taking into consideration the tonnage, had been built in private yards. The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) asked for some description of the armour-plated gunboats about to be constructed by contract. Those vessels would be of over 700 tons, their engines of 160 horse-power, their length 160 feet, their speed was expected to be about 9J knots, and they would carry an armament, as at present advised, of two 100-pounder guns, of 125 cwt., and two 24-pounder howitzers.

  433
  Although he had before alluded to the intention of the Admiralty to build six of those vessels, he might state that they now proposed to set about the construction of two. both of them being vessels on the twin-screw principle, and being likewise an experiment of a wooden bottom combined with an iron frame. It was manifest that if they could combine wood and iron in that way, they would overcome one of their greatest difficulties — namely, the defect; of wooden construction in regard to the liability to rot. That liability to rot existed, not so much in the planking as in the frame. Our iron-armour ships, though be near home that they could be continually docked, soon got so foul as to lose their speed and become unmanageable. Therefore, the system of wooden planks with an iron frame was about to be tried. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) drew his information from sources which were often very accurate —namely, the articles of newspaper correspondents at the ports; but, undoubtedly, those gentlemen sometimes used very highly coloured language in describing the defects in ships and the state of our fleet at those places. Perhaps his noble Friend would be good enough to look at the Return of the state of the steam reserve for March. [Mr. CORRY had spoken of it last June,] He would admit frankly that our reserves were not in a satisfactory state; and that was the reason why they asked for upwards of £100,000 increase on Vote 8, to bring them up to the condition in which they ought to stand. At the same time, he must protest against the statement that the reserves in the home ports were in a most disgraceful and inefficient state. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Berkeley) asked what had become of two ships —namely, the Sappho and the Alligator, They had been removed from the list in common with a good many others, A custom had prevailed of putting the name of a ship in the Navy List when it was contemplated to build her, and before she was in actual existence. That practice had been brought under the notice of the Admiralty by the Controller, and, accordingly, a number of ships had this year been removed from the list, which had no existence except on paper. With regard to the Enterprise and the Circassia, which had been referred to, those two vessels had exchanged names. With regard to the lengthening and altering of vessels, where wooden ships had been converted into iron-plated ships, the Admiralty had
  434
  been obliged to enlarge the frames and alter the floors, in order to give the additional floatation necessary for carrying armour-plates. With those explanations, he trusted the Committee would allow the Vote to pass. He would again request the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to cease making these sweeping accusations against the management of the dockyards, but, instead thereof, to move for a Return of the cost of any ship built there during the past year; and then lot the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) persuade his talented son either to give a similar Return from their yard, or to allow the Admiralty to inspect their premises and institute a comparison between the cost of the two establishments. The Admiralty had no desire to shirk this question. The Achilles would soon be at sea, and the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) might then get at every shilling that had been expended upon her construction,
  MR. LAIRDsaid, that having been challenged by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, he thought it right to state that, although the building of ships in the Royal dockyards and by contract had been a good deal discussed in that House, he was not prepared to admit that the principle of building by contract had ever yet been fairly tested. The present system was a bad one. The designs were all made by the Controller of the Navy, assisted now by Mr. Reed, and until lately by Mr. Watts. The entire designing power for the navy of this country was, therefore, concentrated in one man. The plans were made by the Government, and the contractors were not allowed to exercise their own talent or their own ingenuity, but were bound down in every way to carry out the precise orders issued to them. He did not at all depreciate the talents of the Controller of the Navy or his assistants, but he did say it would be much better for the Government, if they determined to go on building ships by contract, to throw open the designs for the vessels to the whole talent of the country the to waste the public money on a school of naval architecture. He had never thought it desirable that the ships of our navy should be built altogether by private contract. He thought it would be madness to propose such a system, It would be injudicious to altogether discontinue the present system, but the Government should import into it all the talent of the country. What did Government do in the engine department?

  435
  When they contracted for a pair of engines they did not send any particular plan with the order, but requested those persons who were allowed to tender to send in designs. When sent in, these were referred to the head engineer of the department, who, as he was not allowed to compete himself, was able to give his important judgment as to whether the engines were likely to answer the object for which they were designed. The question was decided not by mere reference to price, but on the merits of the designs and the capability of the party to carry out the work. And what had been the result of that system of competition? That all other countries came to us for their machinery. If the Government adopted the same course with reference to their ships, a much greater amount of talent would be brought to bear, and they would have vessels of a much more perfect character than heretofore. There was an advantage in doing a portion of their work out of the Government dockyards. In time of war, the Government could not do all their work in their dockyards. But by doing part of their work in private building yards in time of peace, there would always be a number of men who knew how the Government work should be done, and the amount of dockyard accommodation would be thus doubled or trebled, and the facilities for repairs necessary in case of war would be greatly increased. It would be much better to keep a staff of workmen employed during peace on the Mersey or the Clyde than to have to import men to Portsmouth and Plymouth in time of war. He had not intended to make these remarks; but having been called on by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to say whether parties were allowed to visit the building yard at Birkenhead, he must be allowed to observe that he believed private yards were open to the inspection of any body, and if private individuals were allowed to inspect the Government accounts in their building yards much good would result.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he quite agreed with his hou. Friend the. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), that it would be a great advantage if the Government could be assisted in their designs for the navy by the whole available talent of the country. The country had suffered by placing the construction of ships in the hands of individuals. Uncontrolled by any supervision, or by the operation of contemporary science, the ships of Sir W. Symonds had cost the country dear. He did
  436
  not doubt that Mr. Reed was a very clever and talented man, but he very much doubted the policy of letting him enter upon such large works perfectly uncontrolled. It was not fitting that such vast sums of money should be expended upon the knowledge and experience of a single individual, especially when that individual had not, up to the present moment, sent a single ship afloat. He had seen in The Times newspaper a list of the number and description of ships Mr. Reed had designed and had under construction without having had an opportunity of trying a single one of them. They were all in progress, and many of them exhibited features in their construction in a great degree foreign to all previously received ideas of shipbuilding. Those might be steps in the right direction, but they might also be steps in the wrong direction; and he maintained it was not proper thus to expend the money of the country on the sole responsibility of one individual. He should be one of the last to imitate American example in anything; in fact, he thought America one of the most unfortunate countries on the face of the earth; but we might do worse than borrow from America her plan formerly acted on, of submitting designs for shipbuilding to Congress, taking the opinion of the best shipbuilders in the country as to the merits of those designs, and very good ships had been built in that way. He did not wish the Government to act precisely in that manner, but he certainly did think, in the present transition state of the navy, that they should avail themselves of all the scientific assistance they could possibly command.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had found no difficulty in ascertaining at Birkenhead the amount of money expended in wages, materials, rent, insurance, plant, &c., but he had sought in vain for similar information with regard to Chatham Dockyard. He was, therefore, driven to make general charges for want of specific information. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty himself had resorted to general charges. Five years ago, it would be recollected, he had spoken of a mysterious sum of £5,000,000. He had been five years in office, however, without giving those data which would enable hon. Members to ascertain the relative cost of those ships constructed in private yards and those in Her Majesty's dockyards. With respect to the article of coal, the Admiralty was also to blame. In the present Estimates there was a charge of £275,000 for coal.

  437
  The coalowners of the North had called the attention of the Admiralty over and over again to the unnecessary expenditure under this head. Nothing but Welsh coal was used for ships of war, under the impression that it caused no smoke, while North of England coal caused a great deal. The Welsh coal was delivered in large lumps, which ground the small into dust, which thereby became utterly worthless and could not be used. By adopting: a mixture of one-half Welsh coal with one-half North of England coal, the dust of Welsh coal, which hitherto had been worthless, could be made as available as larger coal, while by that mixture the quantity of smoke emitted would be as small as that from au equal quantity of Welsh coal. For two years those facts had been laid before the Admiralty without result, and persons who complained of the present system were taunted with making general charges without stating details. Some months ago the Government had instituted a trial between those two kinds of coal, and the result proved the correctness of what he had, years ago, said on the subject. But now that the Government officers had certified to those facts, and tenders had been issued, the Admiralty, instead of asking for tenders for half Welsh and half North country coal—which mixture had been proved to he the best—asked for tenders to supply only one-third North of England coal. Another point he would urge on the noble Lord was the different qualities of the various kinds of coal on the Admiralty list. There were some thirty different sorts of North of England coal, and perhaps twenty different kinds of Welsh coal on the Admiralty list; yet the contractors were allowed to ship any one of the kinds specified in the Admiralty list, though these kinds differed in value, some being as low as 7s. a ton, while others could not be got for 10 s. A; contractor would, of course, supply the; cheapest and the least valuable coal that was included in the Admiralty list. He hoped the noble Lord the Secretary to the I Admiralty would go further into that question, and allow the different kinds of coals: to be classified and tested as to their relative qualities, and that in future only the best kind of Welsh and of North of England coal would be placed on the Admiralty; list. A few years ago they were told that only two firms could build engines for the Government, though they discovered after- wards that twenty or thirty firms could build
  438
  them. The result had been a considerable reduction in the cost of engines, and he hoped the number would be still further increased. If the Returns he had asked for were faithfully made, he would undertake to prove to the House that, quality considered, they had been paying too much for ships built in Her Majesty's dockyards, and that, therefore, it was neither wise nor just to the taxpayers that they should go on increasing the plant in Her Majesty's dockyards, and thus create great establishments for the building of ships which could be built as efficiently and more economically in the private yards of the country.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, had not exactly dealt with the question raised by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) and afterwards alluded to by himself. That question related to the number of iron-plated ships about to be commissioned, either in private or in Her Majesty's dockyards. In asking the noble Lord what the future policy of the Admiralty with regard to the building of ships was to be, he wished to place no restrictions on the noble Lord. He only desired to know the views which the Admiralty entertained on so important a question as the future construction and state of the navy of this country. On a former occasion the noble Lord said that it was not intended to continue to build wooden ships, but to devote larger sums to the building of iron-plated vessels. But nothing confirmatory of that statement was to be found in the present Estimates. If the noble Lord thought that wooden ships would be useless against iron-plated ones—and the noble Lord had admitted that much—he wished to know what his ideas were as to our navy for the future. With the exception of one vessel, not a shilling was asked for in the present Estimates for the building of any additional iron-plated ships. Was our navy to be limited to the twenty-five iron-plated ships at present in existence, or were more to be built?
  MR. LAIRDsaid, that as there had been a discussion as to the respective number of ships in the French and English navies he would quote what he believed to be an accurate statement of the strength of the French navy. He found that our neighbours possessed four iron-cased ships of 3,750 tons and 900 horse-power, two of 4,200 tons and 1,000 horse-power, and ten of 3,780 tons and 1,000 horse-

  439
  power, making together sixteen vessels, built, or which would be ready in the course of the present year. In addition, the French had five floating batteries of about 10 ft. draught of water, four of from 8ft. to 10ft. draught, and seven of 6 ft. 6 in. draught, all in an advanced stage of construction. Then, they had five small batteries, built in sections, but not armour-plated, thus making a total of 37 iron-cased ships or batteries built or building in France. In this country we had 17 iron-plated ships built or in course of construction — eight upon Mr. Reed's plan and seven floating batteries, or a total of 32 against the French 37. Now, there was certain information which the Committee ought to have. It appeared that for wages, materials, and dockyard expenses we should spend this year about £3,000,000. They ought to know how much was for iron-plated ships, how much for wooden vessels for the police of the sea, and how much for repairs. Without such information the accounts before them were useless. They had at the present time a large number of ships which would cost as much to repair as to build. He wished to learn how many ships of various classes they were to have for the £3,000,000, and how large a sum was to be expended on the repairs.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he begged to express his satisfaction that the coal question had been brought before the Committee, and hoped the noble Lord would tell them what he proposed to do in reference to the future supply of coal. It was only by incessant, he might almost say persecution of the Admiralty, that the Government had granted the prayer of the coalowners of the North of England. The coalowners had not obtained their requests as matters of favour, for the reports of the engineers of the Admiralty were, in all respects, favourable to them.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, it would be desirable if the noble Lord would state the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to the repairs of iron-coated vessels. When the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) stated the proportion between our ironclads and those of France to be as thirty-seven French and thirty-one English, he ought to have mentioned the difference in their tonnage. The largest of the French vessels was 4,000 tons—most of them were of 2,000 tons—while in our own navy many of the ships were from 5,000 to 7,000 tons.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he believed that it was understood in the House that the Government could not do away with their wooden ships, as they required a vast number of such vessels to perform the duties of what might be termed the police at sea, and at the present time they had not arrived at the position of being able to do without frigates and corvettes. They were obliged, to a great extent, to put their forces upon the same footing as those of other countries. With regard to the question of coal, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had made such a grievance, and in connection with which he showed so much antipathy towards the Government—
  MR. LINDSAYbegged to disclaim the idea of having either a grievance or an antipathy. He was merely performing his duty to his constituents by seeing that they obtained a fair return for the money they were called upon to expend.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty exhibited no partiality in the choice of their coal. The naval officers certainly preferred the Welsh to the North country material; and to test the value of each the Admiralty had instituted a series of careful experiments, the result of which was already before the House in a report which he had lately laid on the table. He could only inform the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), and also the North country coal owners, that the Government had no desire to employ the Welsh coal exclusively, but simply to obtain the most satisfactory mixture they could for the use of the fleet, and orders had been given to supply the Fleet with both descriptions, which were to be combined in various proportions, and careful reports to be made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) wished to know in what manner the Admiralty proposed to devote so large a sum of money to shipbuilding during the forthcoming year. Their proposal was to build of iron armour ships, 6–8ths; of wood armour large ships, 15½–8ths; of wood armour corvettes, 8¾–8ths; of frigates, 5¾ –8ths; of despatch vessels, 7½–8ths; of gunboats, 12½–8ths; of a fast vessel of new design, which he might term a species of Alabama, 6–8ths; and one tank vessel, for Simon's Bay. There was also some work to be done upon smaller vessels. He did not pledge himself for the Government's following out that programme in its entirety, because,

  441
  as the House well knew, they were influenced in a great measure by their repairs, which, if heavy, would largely disturb their building operations. They were in arrears as to repairs, and it was proposed by the end of the year to Lave the reserve in a satisfactory state, He acknowledged that the figures he had given to the House did not represent the ultimate number of armour vessels, because, although the amount of building was considerable, he had no hesitation in saying that if greater exertions were made elsewhere, it would be his duty to ask the House for additional supplies. The Government believed that the progress that was now being made, was so far satisfactory, that this country might be said to occupy the position to which she was entitled as compared with Foreign Powers
  MR. LAIRDsaid, that it might be found necessary to take men engaged in shipbuilding from their duties and to place them upon repairs, but that fact would not prevent the noble Lord from replying to his question. He would again ask how many ships were to be built for the money that was about to be voted?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would give the hon. Member the names of the ships it was proposed to construct.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE,though he did not personally anticipate such an event, considered that six-eighths of a vessel like the Alabama would be of very little service in ease of the war with America, which the occupants of the Ministerial bench appeared to regard as so probable. If hostilities really were imminent, they ought, to construct twenty ships like the Alabama, or at the present moment to be in possession of twenty-five such vessels.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET,in reply to Mr. Laird, said, that the wooden ships, not armour-plated, to be completed during the year 1864–5 were the Endymion, screw-frigate at Deptford; a tank vessel for Simon's Bay; the Helicon, despatch, paddle steamer; the Minstrel, gunboat; the Cherub, gunboat; and a fast vessel of the Alabama class, of new design.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £662,212, Steam Machinery.
  MR. COHRYobserved, that the item ''for engines ordered to be built," £17,000, seemed very small, and did not seem to indicate that any great effort was to be made.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that
  442
  the Admiralty were making very good progress with their engines.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked what were the iron gunboats for which there was an item of £120,000?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty were going to build two of those boats in the first instance, and not to commence any more until it was seen how those two answered.
  Vote agreed to,
  (3.) £64,350, Medicines and Medical, Stores.
  SIR MORTON PETOasked what steps the Admiralty intended to take with respect to mitigating the prevalence of a disease which was at present so great an evil in the navy?
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSobserved, that the announcement of the intention of the Government to do away with the dock- yard at Deptford had given rise to a good deal of alarm among the men employed there and in the vicinity. He hoped, if such was the intention, that the claims of those men would be taken into consideration.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the subject referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) had engaged the serious attention of the Government, and he hoped that at a later period of the Session a proposal would be brought before the House with the view of checking that frightful disease which was so great an evil in the navy. With reference to the matter brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons), he was afraid it would be a considerable period before Deptford dockyard could be done away with; but when the time arrived the interests of the men employed in that yard would be duly considered.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £102,320, Naval Miscellaneous Services.
  COLONEL SYKESobserved, that there was an item of £2,000 for subsistence and travelling expenses of dockyard officers and others superintending ships building by contract. He would beg to ask how many of those persons were there, how often in the year did they make their superintendence, and what was their allowance?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, there were Inspectors in the employ of the Go-

  443
  vernment at all the large armour makers and shipbuilders, to see that the contracts were properly carried out.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbegged to urge the expediency of establishing sailors homes, and of combining therewith recruiting offices. There was a great want of the former as temporary barracks when the men came on shore; and with regard to the latter, he must say that recruiting was conducted on the primitive style of a hundred years ago, and that the public-houses were the recruiting offices of the navy. He would suggest that some money might be advantageously expended in improving the system?
  MR. LINDSAYremarked, that different plans of fitting prevailed in the different public dockyards, and when the officers from those yards were sent out to inspect work under contract in private establishments, each carried with him the system that prevailed in the particular dockyard from which he had been sent. Much inconvenience was thereby caused to contractors when the Inspectors were changed during the progress of a contract. Could not an arrangement be made for leaving the one Inspector in charge throughout the execution of a contract, or for introducing a uniform system of fitting?
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked, Whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to appoint a Chaplain General to the navy in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee which had recently reported in favour of the appointment of such an official?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET,in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir James Elphinstone), said there was an increase over last year of £200 for contributions in aid of sailors' homes and charitable institutions in the neighbourhood of the dockyards. If the gallant Member proposed to have sailors' homes all over the coast, a new principle would be involved which could not be adopted without asking the House to consent to it. The scheme would entail considerable expenditure, since if carried out in England it must also be in Scotland and Ireland. In reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), he might say that the Duke of Somerset had taken into consideration the evidence laid before the Select Committee, and had found that, although it would be advantageous in some respects that a Chaplain General should be appointed, yet the arrangement had
  444
  corresponding disadvantages, as the appointment might interfere with the discipline in ships if the chaplain had any other superior than the captain to look to.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to explain that his question referred only to sailors' homes in dockyards.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £697,790, Half Pay, Reserved Half Pay, and Retirement Officers of Navy and Royal Marines.
  MR. LINDSAYwished to know when the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty intended to bring forward his plan for the increase of pay in the navy.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the matter was not yet fully matured, but due notice would be given.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £490,201, Military Pensions and Allowances:—agreed to.
  (7.) £193,983, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked, Why the full superannuation allowance of £1,000 a year granted to Sir Richard Bromley, the retired accountant general of the navy, was not included in this Vote? That pension had been allowed under a Treasury Minute of 1863, and the amount now asked was only £481 12 s.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was true the Treasury had awarded Sir Richard Bromley a pension of £1,000, but the appointment which he now held at Greenwich, to the advantage of the public service, entitled him to receive £600 a year, and the amount on the Vote was to raise his pay to that which he would have received as accountant general. When he resigned his present appointment, he would be entitled to draw the entire pension fixed by the Treasury.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £314,230, Freight of Ships, &c.
  COLONEL SYKESbegged to call attention to the increase in several items over the Estimates for last year.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, this was owing to the war in New Zealand and the surrender of the Ionian Islands. That step had rendered necessary the transport home of the stores hitherto collected there. Other portions of the increase were caused by the large force which had to be kept up in Canada and the local disbursements in China.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, a Committee had sat on the transport service, which recommended the consolidation of the several departments, and that the responsibility should be fixed. He regretted that those recommendations had not been carried out,
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty, as he had on more than one occasion before stated, were perfectly ready to carry out the transport service in connection with the Colonial Office, but that owing to the very weighty reasons which had been urged by the Duke of Newcastle against any alteration in the present system the change had not been made. Negotiations were, he might add, now going on with a view to bringing the Indian transport service between this country and Alexandria under the control of the Admiralty.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEremarked, that while the Himalaya and Orontes were very good ships for the transport service, that was not the case with other vessels so employed. He wished, therefore, to know whether the Government intended to increase the number of vessels of the Himalaya class, and whether they proposed to lay on the table any Returns with respect to the transport of men in private ships and in those belonging to the Admiralty, specifying the expense in each instance? He asked the question, because he fancied it would be found that such vessels as the Himalaya would convey men at a much smaller cost than any vessel which the Government might hire.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Baronet bear testimony to the economical working of the Admiralty transports. The Tamar and Orontes, which had been built by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) for the service, were very fine vessels. He could not say that it was the intention of the Admiralty to do anything further in that direction at present, but it was under consideration to build two large Government transports for the Indian Government.
  MR. LINDSAYobserved, that however the matter might now stand, the last Returns which had been published on the subject clearly showed that the conveyance of troops in the Government transports cost just double that which was expended on private ships.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbegged to repeat his question as to whether there would be any objection to give the Return to
  446
  which he had alluded, stating the relative cost of the conveyance of men in the vessels employed,
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, if the hon. Baronet would visit him at the Admiralty, he would endeavour to procure for him such information as he required.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed,
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow,
  Committee to sit again on Wednesday.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock.