Sitting of 29 February 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Poor Relief, Mr. Buller added; on Dockyards, Mr. Leatham, Mr. Lawson, Sir James Elphinstone, and Mr. Hennessy, added; Railway Schemes (Metropolis) (No. 87).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland)* [Bill 38].
Committee—Vestry Cess Abolition [Bill 15].
Report—Vestry Cess Abolition [Bill 15].
Considered as amended—Malt for Cattle* [Bill 37]; Conveyancers, &c. (Ireland)* [Bill 5].

LANDS CLAUSES ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he proposes during this Session to amend the eighty-fifth Clause of the Lands Clauses Act, which enables Railway Companies to obtain compulsory possession of Land under order of Magistrates?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, in reply, I have to state that the Government have no intention of passing a Bill to amend the eighty-fifth Clause to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, he also wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he has any intention of proposing an alteration in the Law of Settlement, so as to prevent a recurrence of the case which lately occurred in the deportation of a pauper (William Adey), who, having passed sixty-seven years in Guernsey as a respectable labouring man, being worn out and unable to maintain himself, was taken out of the hospital of the parish of St. Peter le Port, and sent to the Union of Christchurch (the place of his birth), at the age of seventy-seven?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, in reply, that the Poor Law Department had no jurisdiction over the poor in the island of Guernsey, and that the case did not raise any question of law, either of removal or settlement. He believed that the authorities of Guernsey had assumed the right to remove any people who were destitute that were not born there. It was no aggravation of the case in question that they removed the person referred to to a place where he was chargeable. This law appeared to press very hard upon the poor of the Channel Islands; and the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Law of Jersey had strongly recommended the assimilation of the Laws of England and Jersey in this respect—that after a few years' residence they should be irremovable.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY—THE CIVIL ASSISTANTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of the Treasury, What provision is to be made for the Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Survey branch of the War Department, whose services were dispensed with on the 1st of November last?
  MR. PEELreplied, that a small reduction in the number of the Civil Assistants —about twenty out of 1,500—had taken place in consequence of the survey having been brought to a conclusion. With the exception of a few of them, ten or twelve, who had been superannuated and pensioned off in the usual manner, the remainder would be re-employed at the commencement of the financial year, and meanwhile they would receive retiring allowances.

COAST AND DEEP SEA FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he rose to ask the hon. Member for Stirling Districts, Whether the Royal Commission for inquiring into and reporting on the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom, of which he was a Member, will visit Ireland during the present year?
  MR. CAIRD,in reply, said, the Commissioners hoped to be able to finish the inquiry on the English coast by August next, after which they would proceed to Ireland.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to separate the County Meath from the Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum, which affords ample accommodation for the dangerous lunatics of the three counties; and, if so, whether the whole burden of its support will be imposed upon the counties of Westmeath and Longford?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that the matter had been for some time under the consideration of the Irish Government, but no definite course had yet been decided upon. The Government were anxious to do that which would be most agreeable he counties themselves, and for that purpose had communicated with the Grand Juries of the counties of Meath,

  1251
  Wicklow, and Louth, in order that the question might be satisfactorily discussed at the ensuing assizes.

CAPTAIN M'KILLOP'S COFFERDAM.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If Captain M'Killop's Flexible Cofferdam has been well reported of to the Admiralty; and, if so, whether it is the intention to develop the invention under Government supervision?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the invention had not yet been sufficiently tried to enable the Admiralty to form any decided opinion. Captain M'Killop, however, had received permission to carry on his experiments at Portsmouth, at his own expense.

WAR STEAMER IN THE CLYDE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, adverting to the statement that a steamer of 3,000 tons and 500 horse power, plated with 4½ inch armour from stem to stern, was launched on Wednesday from the yard of the builders of the Pampero, and said to be the property of the Danish Government, Whether, if such should prove to be the case, the Government will seize her as they have seized the Pampero, or will permit her to sail from the Clyde?
  MR. LAYARD: In answer, Sir, to the question of my hon. Friend, I will, with the permission of the House, state exactly what took place. Shortly before hostilities broke out between the German Powers and Denmark, the Danish Minister in this country informed the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office that a vessel, intended for the purposes of war, was being built in the dockyard to which my hon. Friend alludes. He stated that he had no desire to give Her Majesty's Government any inconvenience or trouble in the matter, and that he would give orders to stop the fitting of the vessel if that were the wish of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord thought it would be better to stop her fitting, but the builders remonstrated, and represented that it would be very hard on them, and would cause great inconvenience and loss if they were not allowed to finish the vessel, so as
  1252
  to enable them to get her off the stocks. The Danish Minister communicated this to the noble Lord, who stated that he had the most implicit reliance in the good faith of the Danish Minister, and that if he would give his word that the vessel should not leave the Clyde, he would consent that she should be finished so as to enable her to leave the stocks. The Danish Minister did give his word, and the vessel was completed, and left the stocks, but is detained in this country until hostilities shall have ceased. I cannot conclude without bearing my testimony to the great loyalty and honourable conduct of the Danish Minister in this matter.

COUNSEL'S FEES IN PARLIAMENT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Colonel Wilson Patten), he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to proceed with his Bills for the Amendment of the Private Business of the House, so as to enable parties to take advantage of them during the present Session; and whether the Parliamentary Bar has made any communication to him with respect to a change in the system of Counsel's Fees?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: The two Bills, Sir, to which the hon. Gentleman refers stand for second reading on Thursday next; and should the business of the House permit me to do so, I will proceed with them on that day, and with all convenient dispatch, so that the parties interested in them, should they pass, should have the benefit of them as soon as possible. With regard to the second question, I have to state that this day I have received a communication from a most influential Member of the Parliamentary Bar, which had the concurrence of the leaders of the Parliamentary Bar, as I am informed. The communication is satisfactory, as far as it goes, although not entirely dealing with the whole question. But to be quite accurate I will read the statement, which has been placed in my hands, and state what I am permitted to make known to the House. The words are these—
  "It is understood that it be not considered inconsistent with the etiquette of the Parliamentary Bar for any Counsel to appear before a Committee of either House of Parliament, if he should think fit, at a lower rate of fees in respect of daily attendance and consultation than that which has hitherto prevailed."
  From the conversation which passed, I

  1253
  understood the meaning of that document to be that any Counsel should be permitted to take a case with a small refresher, or without any; and with regard to consultation, that the fee upon consultation should be such as might be settled between the solicitor and barrister without reference to the present practice of having a minimum of at least five guineas for each consultation. I was further informed that this consultation fee is not for the future to be taken as a matter of course, but is only to be allowed in cases where a consultation had been considered necessary by the parties, and had been actually held. I believe, however, there was some misapprehension formerly as to consultations having been paid for and not actually held. I am told that that was not the case, and that I was rather incorrect in the statement which I made on the subject, and I am glad to have the opportunity of correcting it. I am told that no change is to be made in the fee upon the retainer and upon the brief, both of which are to be restricted to the present amount, as a minimum in each case that can be taken by a barrister—namely, five guineas on the retainer and ten guineas on the brief—so that it will be impossible to appear before the Committee in any case for less than fifteen guineas. At present, they cannot appear for less than thirty guineas, so that the House will see that a considerable reduction has been made by the Parliamentary Bar. That subject is under their consideration, and it is hoped they will be able to make such a change in that system as will enable Counsel to practise at the Parliamentary Bar under the same rule, with regard to fees, that prevails in the ordinary Courts of Law and Equity.
  MR. BENTINCK: I consider the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Parliamentary Bar very unsatisfactory, and I wish to ask, in the event of the Parliamentary Bar not taking upon themselves to alter the system as now proposed, is it the intention of the Government to deal with that question?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I can only say, that what the hon. Member has indicated is a possible course, but I would rather not commit myself upon the subject. I would rather leave it in the hands of the Parliamentary Bar.
  MR. HADFIELD: I wish to ask, whether the public are to be confined to the services of the Parliamentary Bar, or whether it is competent to them to employ
  1254
  other barristers to conduct Parliamentary business on such terms as they may think desirable?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I believe, so far as I am informed, that there is no rule of the Bar in general that would prevent Counsel from practising before Parliamentary Committees, taking the same fees which are permitted to be accepted in the Courts of Law and Equity. Whatever rule exists is made by the Parliamentary Bar itself. It is altogether a question of professional etiquette.

THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GODDARDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is able to inform the House on what day before Easter he will make his Financial Statement?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, his right hon. Friend had purposed being in his place to answer the question. However, he might state that it was intended to make the financial statement immediately after the Easter recess. He could not mention the day just then, but that would be done this day or to-morrow.
  Afterwards—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: A question was put during my absence with regard to the date at which the financial statement will probably be made. It is rather early at present to fix the date definitely, but it will not he before the recess, inasmuch as that takes place in March, and the financial year will not then have concluded. As far as I can judge, if that date should meet the convenience of the House, the statement will be made on Thursday, the 7th of April.

TELEGRAPHIC DESPATCHES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether the Danish Despatches that have been laid on the table contain the Telegraphic Messages that have been received by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. LAYARDreplied, that no Telegraphic Despatch was ever printed in Parliamentary Papers under any circumstances.

M. MAZZINI—THE GRECO CONSPIRACY.

  QUESTION. ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. COX: Seeing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) in his place, I wish to put a Question to him. I beg to ask, Whether his attention has been called to what is stated to have taken place at Paris upon the trial of Greco and his accomplices, and to what fell from the Crown Prosecutor on that occasion. The Crown Prosecutor is reported to have used these words—
  "He (Greco) was to write to that address in London if he was in want of money. It is as follows: — 'Mr. Flower, 35, Thurloe Square, Brompton.' I searched the London Directory. At page 670 I found what I was looking for, and it was not without sadness that I recognized the name of a Member of Parliament of England, who already had been in 1857 appointed to be the banker of the Tebaldi conspiracy against the Emperor's life."
  I also have searched the London Directory, and I found that the hon. Member for Halifax lives at that address. I therefore desire to know, whether the hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to this paragraph?
  MR. STANSFELD: I am much indebted to the hon. Member for Finsbury for having enabled me to answer at once the question, of which he gave me notice at an early period of the evening. My attention was directed this morning to the speech of the Procureur Général, from which my hon. Friend has read an extract, and I must say that the astonishment with which I read the speech was mingled with somewhat of a stronger feeling. For the Crown Prosecutor of a friendly Power in the first place to imagine, and in the second place to venture to insinuate, that one who has the honour of a seat in the British House of Commons, and who, however unworthily, happens to occupy the position of a Minister of the Crown—that he should directly or indirectly have ever participated, or even have been conscious of any supposed implication, in attempts which, if serious, must excite the execration of mankind—I say such a statement is more than I can understand, and I confess I read his speech with feelings not only of astonishment, but also of indignation. Sir, I trust it is quite unnecessary—in fact I should feel it, I may say, an indignity should I be called upon—to plead to an indictment like this, and to declare in this House that I share the feelings of all decent men with regard to attempts of this kind, about
  1256
  which there can be but one opinion. But if there be to my mind some sort of satisfaction in connection with the indignity of such a suspicion it is this, that it gives me the opportunity upon this occasion and from this place to hear my testimony to the character of a man whom all who know me know I have known for some eighteen years, and than whom I have never known, I have never heard or read of, any man who has been more cruelly and more shamefully maligned. I speak, as I have said, from a definite personal knowledge of nearly eighteen years, and I have yet to learn that that knowledge and the convictions which it produces will not have some effect upon the mind of this House and of the public. I say that M. Mazzini, whose name has been associated with this attempt—I pledge my personal knowledge of him for the conviction, that he is absolutely incapable of being concerned in it. And, Sir, I will go further. It is impossible that I could have read the extract which my hon. Friend has given to the House without having occupied the time which intervened since then in making some inquiries, and ascertaining how it was possible that such insinuations should have been uttered. I have made inquiries, and I am satisfied in my own mind—I will not anticipate declarations which it is the right of others to make in this case—but I have satisfied my own mind that if the case should come to be fairly tried, the answer to it will be complete and satisfactory in every respect.
  MR. HENNESSY: Sir, I think it somewhat unfortunate, looking to the fact that the hon.Gentleman—["Order, order!"]— Sir, to put myself in order I shall conclude with a Motion. The House, Sir, must feel that the hon. Gentleman was entitled to the fullest latitude in all that he could say in reference to himself; but I will venture to say that the hon. Gentleman has introduced other topics not strictly personal to himself, and which should on this occasion not have come before the House, but which, if they do come before the House, it is important should come in their true colours. Referring to Mazzini, I wish at once to say—what is the opinion of several hon. Members of this House— that it is unfortunate that the character of Mazzini and his proceedings should have been brought before us in this way, with a studied eulogium, but without notice, at a time when no one expected it, and at a time, too, when the language used by

  1257
  Mazzini himself must convince all who read it that grave suspicion attaches to him. For what did Mazzini write within the last few weeks? A certain criminal named Greco is arrested in France, along with other persons, for a conspiracy against the life of the Emperor of the French, and Mazzini subsequently writes to The Times and other newspapers to say "Greco is an enthusiastic patriot," and admits that he was in personal communication with Greco last year. Greco pleads guilty. I put it to the House—is Greco an enthusiastic patriot? What is the theory of those who believe that Greco and his accomplices were all induced by the French police to come forward to accuse Mazzini? They allege that he is a spy and a miscreant of the lowest order. [Hear.] The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) says "hear," and yet M. Mazzini calls him "an enthusiastic patriot." I will not now enter upon the question, which has not been denied by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), that M. Mazzini lived at the address designated by the writer of the letter to Greco, that he did write letters and receive letters there, and that money was called for at the address that had been given.
  MR. STANSFELD: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—
  MR. HENNESSY: These are facts, as an hon. Member reminds me, that are not denied, and they are most material to people of this country. Money was collected and letters received under a false name. Why? Why use a false name? These things are matters of interest to us, who are here the representatives of a country, I am happy to say, in friendly alliance with France. But, if attempts such as have lately taken place are made, what must be thought by the people and the Sovereign of France? I understand that it has been said by the friends of these parties that Mazzini never engaged in any attempt to murder the Emperor of the French, but that his only object is to keep the Emperor in terror. Even assuming for a moment that absurd and improbable defence to be true, does any one think that it is a defence which the people of this country will tolerate? Mazzini may assert that the cause he has at heart may be served by keeping the Emperor of the French in terror; but his avowed policy indicates a far more serious result, and he renders himself responsible for the acts of his subordinate associates; and I venture to think, that in this House
  1258
  and in this country, his conduct will meet with universal reprobation. The hon. Member then, pro formâ, moved that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. COX: I rise to second the Motion; and perhaps I may be permitted to say I hardly expected my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax would, in answering my question, have gone into a defence of M. Mazzini. What I desired to hear from my hon. Friend was some explanation of the charge publicly made against him. He used expressions that were perfectly justified by the occasion of the horror and disgust which he and every Gentleman in this House must feel at being charged as an accomplice in such an attempt as this. But he did not give me, or give the House, any explanation as to this Mr. Flower who resides at No. 35, Thurloe Square, Brompton—which is the result of a search in the London Directory by the French Procureur; but I, too, have searched the London Directory, and I there find that 35, Thurloe Square, is now the residence of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). I rise now to second this Motion for the purpose of giving him an opportunity of explaining that which seems to have been quite forgotten, and I am sure he will be able to give a most satisfactory reply.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. STANSFELD: I hardly understood that my hon. Friend was desirous of any explanation from me on the specific point to which he has referred. He has searched the Directory, and he has been enabled to ascertain a fact that was easily ascertainable—namely, my address. My address is 35, Thurloe Square. As to a letter stated to have been addressed to Mr. Flower, I understand my hon. Friend wishes to know if I have any knowledge of that letter. Now I have already stated in general terms—general because I wished them to apply to one and all of the accusations—that I never have had—it seems almost too great an indignity to have to answer such a question. I have not, and never have had, the slightest knowledge of proceedings of that character; and I will add, for I think I am entitled to add, that I have not the belief in them that some hon. Gentlemen have. I have been blamed by the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) for having taken the opportunity of defending the

  1259
  character of M. Mazzini. I had full reasons for that course—the one is that my name has been implicated in transactions that affect his character; and I think I am entitled—I think I should be shrinking from the duties of private friendship—if I had not taken this opportunity of testifying, what I will say is not only my conviction but my knowledge, of his character. Now what is the question?
  MR. HENNESSY: Who is Flower? I ask whether in truth this Mr. Flower is M. Mazzini?
  MR. STANSFELD: I can have no knowledge. I know nothing about this Mr. Flower. Did not the hon. Gentleman put a question as to collection of money? —if so, will he repeat it?
  MR. HENNESSY: I ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he at any time acted as treasurer or as an agent of a committee for the collection of any money to be distributed among the Italian patriots? [Cries of" Oh, Oh! Don't answer him!"]
  MR. STANSFELD: I will then give my answer to the House. Certainly not —No!
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I should like to know from the hon. Member for Halifax whether a Mr. Fiore is not his intimate acquaintance, and has not been at his house, and whether that person is not the secretary of Mazzini. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not rise to carry on this discussion, but I think that when it is read to-morrow it will appear as though it is an attempt to get information for the French Procureur Imperials. I am quite sure my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has answered all the questions that have been put to him which in any way effect himself in a manner that will be quite satisfactory to the country. I merely rise for the purpose of saying that the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) in alluding to M. Mazzini, stated, as though it were an acknowledged fact, and admitted by Mazzini, that although he did not enter into plots for the purpose of assassinating the Emperor of the French, he did so for the purpose of terrifying him. Now, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, as he cannot do so himself, will get a friend to state the reason for his. making that statement. I do not believe that Mazzini ever made that assertion. I have very little knowledge of 'M. Mazzini, but from what I do know of him I would take his denial as being true; and my belief is that he has had nothing
  1260
  to do with any such plots for any purpose whatever.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSE: I think the question which the House would like to have answered is this—Has Mazzini ever lived with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax? [Cries of "Oh, Oh!" and "Don't answer!"] It is right that the House should have that question answered. I am quite sure that it is supposed that it is a fact that he either lodged there or was living some time in the same house. Will the hon. Gentleman answer that question? [Cries of "Don't answer!"]
  MR. W. WILLIAMSmade some observations on the inconvenience of bringing questions of this kind before the House, irregularly and without notice.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—RELATIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN POWERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: As there is now a Question before the House, I take this opportunity of making some inquiry of Her Majesty's Government respecting our relations with the Continent of Europe. They appear to me, since I last addressed a Question to the Government on the subject, to have increased in anxiety and perplexity. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have been successful, after some fruitless efforts, in a new proposition —namely, that a Conference should be held by the great Powers, and those interested in the difference between Denmark and Germany, without an armistice. I understand that the noble Lord has made an announcement to that effect, and that the proposition had been accepted by the French Government. I have myself great distrust of Conferences pendente lite. I think it in the nature of things that these efforts should be generally fruitless, and sometimes productive of great disadvantage, however bonâ fide may be the intentions of those who go into council under such conditions. It stands to reason, that nothing can be more difficult than to come to a decision upon circumstances perpetually changing. And, if we study the history, not only of this country, but generally of diplomacy, we shall find that in nine times out of ten, where negotiations for peace have been carried on during war without an armistice, those Conferences have failed; because, though there may have been the greatest anxiety on the part of all present to come to a pacific solution of affairs, yet

  1261
  when they have arrived at some basis which promised a satisfactory result, a strong place has, perhaps, been taken, a battle fought, or some individual who exercises a leading influence on events—a Minister or a Prince—dies; the whole materials are changed in their aspect and character, and, with all the efforts exerted to bring the matter to a conclusion, failure has generally been the result. But, Sir, in the present case, I confess that I have more than an abstract objection to a Conference pendente lite, because we have experience of the influence of the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under circumstances of an analogous character, and they are not of a favourable or flattering character. Nine years ago there were Conferences held at Vienna at a time of war, and without an armistice, with the view of bringing about peace under circumstances which many considered not unfavourable. The noble Lord, now Foreign Secretary, but not then filling that office, was, though unusual, without any occupation at the moment. He was, therefore, chosen by the noble Lord opposite, then Prime Minister, to manage the negotiations. I need not remind the House—for it is part of our history—of the amount of indiscretion and disaster which was accomplished under these circumstances. I believe there is no page in the annals of our time—at least of the last twenty-five years —to which we can look back with less satisfaction. The noble Lord was sent to the Conference to negotiate a peace without an armistice. He came back to this country to recommend to his Colleagues that they should accept a peace, under conditions which were kept completely secret. Suspicions were excited in the House of Commons. I myself was requested by my friends to bring forward a Motion, calling the attention of the House to the ambiguity both of expression and conduct on the part of the Government in regard to the proceedings which were then taking place. The Government were vindicated on that occasion by a very large majority— not less than 100—expressing their confidence in the negotiations of the noble Lord and the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Lord himself appeared in the House, and made a powerful speech in favour of carrying on an uncompromising war against Russia. Yet, a few weeks afterwards, the secret came out that at that very period he was recommending a peace under conditions which the House of
  1262
  Commons deemed disgraceful. These negotiations at a Conference pendente lite led to a change of Ministry in France, and to other changes of great importance. So far as the English Government were concerned, although they had a majority of 100 on the vote of confidence before the Whitsuntide holidays, yet after that brief interval they were in such a position that the noble Lord who conducted the negotiations could save his Colleagues only by an ignominious retreat. Therefore, speaking both generally and particularly, there is nothing very encouraging to the country and the House of Commons in learning that Conferences are to be held with a view of terminating the deplorable hostilities in Denmark, and that they are to be conducted without the preliminary and salutary condition of an armistice. Besides these objections to the course which the Government are about to pursue, there is another reason why I think it my duty to request some information on this point from Her Majesty's Ministers. I daresay hon. Gentlemen have all of them more or less examined the papers respecting the Schleswig-Holstein question which we so anxiously urged the Government to produce; and I doubt not they have observed, that the noble Lord, who nine years ago conducted so disastrously and fruitlessly the Conferences at Vienna, now, as Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, impressed with the difficulties which every day surround him with regard to the Danish question, made a proposal to the French Government. I need not go into the despatch of the noble Lord in September of last year. It is a despatch characteristic of the writer, who, having to encounter great difficulties, suggests every feeble expedient that can be imagined. Affairs might be settled by a Conference; they might be settled by propositions; they might be settled by identic notes—by single notes—by joint notes— by all that diplomatic rubbish which characterizes, to use the happy language of the noble Lord the Prime Minister, a Government of antiquated imbecility. What was the answer of the French Government? No doubt hon. Gentlemen are perfectly familiar with the answer of the French Government, communicated by the English Chargé d'Affaires to Earl Russell. It is No. 126, I think, in the diplomatic Correspondence. M. Drouyn de Lhuys speaks with a very intimate knowledge of

  1263
  the character of the Foreign Secretary. M. Drouyn de Lhuys had been his colleague at those celebrated Conferences at Vienna, where he negotiated for a peace without an armistice, and had lost his eminent post in consequence of the arrangements he then made with the noble Lord. M. Drouyn de Lhuys had also been in frequent communication upon many very important questions with the noble Lord during the last year or two. Well, what was the answer of the French Government? I am sure hon. Gentlemen are familiar with it, for it is really the key to the whole of this voluminous Correspondence, part of which we have already received. The French Government reply—All this is very well—these propositions for conferences, for identic, joint, or separate notes, these means of conveying to Powers, pursuing a course which we think impolitic and unjust, our sense of their misbehaviour; but we have not forgotten that, under your influence and in your company, we have taken these same measures only recently in regard to Poland; and what was the result? It ended in the humiliation of both countries — to use M. Drouyn de Lhuys's own words, which I quote from memory, "in impairing the dignity both of France and England." Therefore, say the French Government, we will have nothing to do with these propositions, we will not interfere with these things; the Emperor is resolved on this, unless you are prepared to proceed further, and enter into a course of action. Now, Sir, what more legitimate question can we ask—especially before we go into Committee of Supply, which is the business of to-night—than this—What is the exact state of affairs? If, as the noble Lord tells us, France has listened with favour to this proposition of a Conference, and is ready at last to co-operate with us in that direction, is it not our first duty to ascertain from the noble Lord on what conditions the assent of France has been given, and whether the noble Lord has agreed with the French Government to go further and to enter into a course of action in order to effect a common object in Denmark? That is a question of vital and urgent importance. I will assume, however, for the moment, that the conditions of France have been mentioned and complied with— I will assume that France and England at least, have determined to enter into a course of action. I say it is also a matter of very great interest and importance to the House
  1264
  of Commons to know if these conditions have been agreed to, what that action is intended to effect, and what object we are to accomplish. So far as I can form an opinion, having listened to a variety of statements in both Houses from Ministers of the Crown on this question of Germany and Denmark, there seems so much inconsistency, so much contrariety, not only of views but of facts, that at last I feel quite in a cloud, and am at a loss to understand what, if the Government are going to act, it is that they intend to do. If I am to believe the noble Lord, there is a great and common object upon which the Powers are agreed and decided, and that is to maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark. Everybody, according to the noble Lord, is in favour of the integrity and independence of Denmark, and nobody more so than the Austrian and Prussian Governments. Sir, it is a great point, especially in conferences pendente lite, that there should be one, position upon which all parties are agreed; but then, unfortunately, very different meanings are attributed to the phrase, "The independence and integrity of Denmark." If, for example, by maintaining the independence and integrity of Denmark, you mean a union between the Kingdom and the Duchies, subsisting merely by the personal tie of being ruled by the same Sovereign, I, for one, should say that that, so far from being an arrangement to secure the object in question, would produce constant disunion and ultimate anarchy. Are we to adopt the alternative that aimed Europe is to interfere, and by force of arms to render the inhabitants of Holstein and Schleswig loyal and contented subjects of the King of Denmark? That is a solution not consistent with the principles of British policy, nor, to my mind, perfectly in harmony with the spirit of the age in which we live. Hence this is a situation which requires much explanation. But, Sir, it is possible—for I wish to view the question in every light, in order that we may, at this anxious moment, elicit some information from Her Majesty's Government—it is possible that France has generously consented to attend the Conferences without exacting those conditions which the French! Minister in the autumn said were a sine quâ non. What will happen then? In my opinion, what probably will happen will be that a great deal of time will be wasted, and then the spring will at last arrive. When the spring arrives that Power which, from our continual blundering, has had the oppor-

  1265
  tunity of assuming a position of so much forbearance and so much moderation, and of offering, through its Emperor, so many conciliatory suggestions, will, perhaps, be called upon to settle these perplexed and harrassing disputes, some of which are to be brought before this very Conference. I cannot doubt that, under the circumstances, the Emperor of the French will be very successful. People will be so tired, Governments will be so exhausted—they will have appealed so often in vain to England for a solution of these difficulties — that they naturally will turn to one who, to use a common phrase, will find himself "master of the situation." I dare say the Emperor of the French will not act in a very ferocious manner under the circumstances. No doubt in this civilized age France, like every other country — France, too, so enlightened — will feel the advantage of moderation even in ambition. Perhaps the revival of the Confederation of the Rhine, perhaps the rectification of the long and anxiously considered question of the Sarre-Louis frontier might be thought a sufficient compensation for the extreme anxiety which the Emperor of the French will naturally feel in settling disputes which we ourselves have assisted so much to complicate. What will happen then? There will be a great noise in this House, and probably in other Houses of Parliament, upon the matter. If we find some new arrangement of the map of Europe similar to that in the case of Nice and Savoy, we shall have screaming despatches and terrible invectives—terrible invectives, like those that have not yet succeeded in expelling the Pope from Rome or the Austrians from Venice, but which are recognized for their power and for the appropriate manner in which they are always introduced into the discussion of public affairs. But I should like to know what will be our position under those circumstances. I know the noble Lord opposite will say to me—" You make these remarks upon the Government in the difficult position in which we are placed, but you never make any suggestion of what you would do if you found yourself responsible for the conduct of affairs in the same situation." I should be very sorry to be in the position in which the noble Lord finds himself: and I cannot but believe that if we had been upon the Treasury bench instead of the noble Lord and his Colleagues, we should not have been in the situation which Ministers
  1266
  now occupy. That, indeed, is the whole matter. The sole cause of the present imbroglio may be found in the answer which the French Minister made to the plaintive representations of our Secretary of State. It is quite clear, that if Her Majesty's Government had not taken that unwise course with respect to the affairs of Poland — if they had not entrapped France into a false position, and when she was in a false position made no effort to extricate her from it—and if there had not been that consequent estrangement between the two Governments, France and England could have prevented those events which have occurred in the North of Europe. Therefore, those frequent taunts, that we criticize the conduct of Ministers, but do not say what we should do if we were in the same position, really come to nothing; because I believe that Her Majesty's present Ministers have themselves brought about the difficulties with which they are unable to deal. When we are asked whether we are advocates for war in favour of the integrity and independence of Denmark, my answer is, that I cannot say what the policy of England ought to be with respect to going to war for the integrity and independence of Denmark until I am acquainted with the engagements which Her Majesty's Government have entered into. But irrespective of that point—which I reserve—I assert, that if our affairs had been managed with due firmness and conciliation, with straightforwardness, and with common sense, the integrity and independence of Denmark would never have been endangered, and there need have been no question of war to preserve the integrity and independence of Denmark. That is the real issue. I cannot, I repeat, give an opinion as to what should be the ultimate course of this country on this question, because Parliament is not, at the present moment, fully in possession of information upon the subject, and because we do not know what engagements Her Majesty's Government may have entered into with the Danish Government, what expectations they have held out, and under what understanding, verbal or written, all parties may have acted. Nor am I too sanguine that we shall find that information in the papers which have been promised by the Government, and which are now appearing in instalments. I wanted those papers, not so much for the information they would give us as for the information I take for granted

  1267
  they omit; because, let me remind the House, it has twice happened with the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that, at critical periods in the history of this country, when he has been obliged to furnish Parliament for its decision with voluminous papers, the questions at issue have been decided, not on the papers which were laid before Parliament by the Minister, but on papers, which, in consequence of their publication, appeared abroad. That is a very remarkable thing to have happened twice to the same Minister. In 1853, when alarm first broke out respecting probable hostilities with Russia, which ended in the Crimean war, we had papers enough, as I told the House the other night. On the first day of the Session, the present Earl Russell appeared at the Bar, and gave us that surfeit of State Papers which the noble Lord opposite threatened and hoped might baffle the understanding of the House of Commons. He gave us 800 pages of Correspondence within forty-eight hours. What was the consequence? You had questions from all parts of the House; you had answers from Ministers; you had debates and discussions: but the House remained, as it remains now upon the Danish question, unable to fix the Minister, but with a deep conviction prevailing both sides that they were not masters of the real merits of the case. The noble Lord, in one of his speeches, with a great want of caution as it afterwards turned out, denounced the policy of Russia—the ambitious, irrational, and unexpected policy of Russia—for which the Government of Lord Aberdeen had not been prepared. What occurred? There appeared in the official journal of St. Petersburg a statement to the effect that, whatever might have been the errors of Russian policy, one thing was quite clear, that Her Majesty's Ministers from the first had been aware of the intentions of the Emperor of Russia, and had approved the principle upon which he had acted. What, then, happened? A Member of this House having some other information, made such an appeal that the noble Lord the Secretary of State was obliged to produce the confidential communications of the Emperor of Russia with Sir Hamilton Seymour, from which it appeared that at the very moment of the formation of the Government of Lord Aberdeen the Emperor of Russia, with the utmost frankness, had explained his views to the English Minister. Nay, not only had that occurred, but
  1268
  the Secretary of State had answered that confidential communication with such a total ignorance of the merits of the question, with such a total want of appreciation of the exigency, that he made an admission of the right of the Emperor of Russia to interfere in the Turkish dominions as protector of the Greeks, although it afterwards turned out that the very treaty under which that right was claimed gave no sanction whatever to the pretension, and must have been perfectly unknown to the Minister, who had, perhaps, neither the time nor the temper to examine it before lie gave the solemn verdict of the British Government upon its value and importance. I should have thought that that was enough for a Secretary of State to have done to entitle him to the lasting confidence of his Sovereign and of Parliament. But, what happened in those very negotiations at Vienna, which terminated so fruitlessly? I can remember no period when there was more anxiety, more disturbance and disquietude, in the mind of Parliament, as when those negotiations were going on at Vienna. Her Majesty's Government then was not constituted precisely as it is now, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, did not then sit on the Treasury Bench to denounce a statement of facts as "fireworks." On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly alive to the importance of the question then before us; and he was pressing the Government, as we were—though for a different object—in order to obtain the truth which was withheld and concealed from this House. What happened then? We had despatches and papers laid before us, as at the period before the commencement of the Crimean war, and as at this moment, in reference to the Danish question; for the noble Lord is always ready to produce papers enough to confuse the Parliamentary mind, and to prevent Members from complaining of the want of ample information from the Government. But it appeared to us on this side of the House, as well as to many hon. Gentlemen opposite—among the rest the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—that those papers indicated great ambiguity of conduct, and that some secret had been withheld from us. I myself brought the matter before the House; but I was defeated, as I said, in a full House by a large majority —a majority of not less than 100—who voted confidence in the intentions of the present Secretary of State and in Her Majesty's Ministers. We dispersed for the

  1269
  holydays. What happened afterwards? In consequence of some of the statements made in the House, the Prime Minister of Austria, Count Buol, published a confidential circular, in which he stated that the noble Lord the present Secretary of State, who had come back to England and made a ranting speech in favour of a vigorous prosecution of the war, had previously settled with him what he thought reasonable terms upon which peace might be concluded, and, in fact, had returned home for the express purpose of recommending and sanctioning that peace. Under these circumstances, what became of your majority of 100? I have already reminded you, that the noble Lord only saved his Colleagues by a precipitate and ignominious retreat. Thus, then, twice—once at the commencement of the troubles with Russia, and once in carrying on the negotiations with Austria, for the re-establishment of peace—you find that the House of Commons, with the most voluminous materials supplied by their own Ministry, have never been able to arrive at the truth, and it is with the forced publication of documents by foreign Governments that the secret policy pursued has been revealed. Let us, then, look at our present position. We have a mass of papers before us. There are none that have met my eye yet which throw any light on those engagements which it is, I will only say, rumoured about, that Her Majesty's Government have entered into with Denmark, but still rumoured by persons of authority. I hope I shall not be answered on this occasion by any quibbling about words. When I talk of engagements, I am not talking of solemn and formal treaties, which can, of course, be appealed to; but I want to know what have been the expectations which we have held out to Denmark? What has been the encouragement that we have given her? What has been the advice we have offered? What has been the moral obligation, at least, that we have incurred, which will explain the whole course of Danish policy at the present moment, or from the commencement of these troubles? Sir, we were reminded, before I made these inquiries, that the holydays were near at hand, and I do not suppose that before the holydays we shall find out this. But I have great confidence in the revelations which holydays bring forth. It was during the Whitsun recess, I think, that Count Buol published his confidential circular; and I shall not be
  1270
  surprised if, in due course of time, we have some remarkable documents published by Denmark, or some statement made by some person in authority there that will throw that light on the present position of Europe which, in my opinion, is now extremely wanting. If we gain that information, I have no doubt it will produce the beneficial results which always may be experienced by arriving at truth. At present, I can only say—and it is my duty, in the want of that information, to remind the House of the position in which the country is now placed— that that position is most unsatisfactory. It is impossible to suppose that, whether we may have entered into conditions with France, accepting her conditions probably, or whether France is entering into this Conference without any conditions—it is impossible to suppose that, before the summer passes away, something may not occur which will be both inconvenient and mortifying to this country. I hear nothing from Her Majesty's Government to guide, to enlighten, to animate the House and the country at the present moment. The drivers have lost the road; the reins have fallen from their hands; the horses are wild. And now we shall hear their answer to my inquiries.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman never is so great— never in his own opinion so successful, as when he has an opportunity of attacking an absent man. He was pleased the other day to take advantage of my temporary absence, I having been detained somewhat later than usual by public business that could not well be postponed, to attack me; and now he takes that which suits him still better—namely, the opportunity of attacking my noble Friend in the other House of Parliament. I am here; but my noble Friend cannot be. But the right hon. Gentleman chooses with wonderful dexterity and with somewhat of, I will say, simplicity of mind, the ground of his attack. The right hon. Gentleman has been absent from his place for the last three or four days. He has been studying, pondering over, getting by heart, making extracts from, and turning dog's-ears down in the papers presented upon Danish affairs; and finding little or nothing in them upon which to found an attack on my noble Friend, he ransacks Hansard, he turns over the pages of the Annual Register, he goes back to the blue-books of ten years ago for the purpose of founding a charge

  1271
  against my noble Friend as to what happened at Vienna in 1853. Well, Sir, I congratulate my noble Friend that the right hon. Gentleman has found the ice so hard in Danish affairs that he has been obliged to go back ten years for his topics of accusation. Why, Sir, my noble Friend performed with ability and fidelity the duties which were imposed upon him at that time at Vienna. By the admission of the right hon. Gentleman he did his utmost to bring about a peaceful solution of the then pending questions. Unfortunately, the proposals which he and M. Drouyn de Lhuys agreed upon failed, and war ensued, not by their fault, but by the fault of others. My noble Friend went on that occasion as far as it was possible for him to do in the performance of his duty, in concert with the representative of France, for the settlement of those affairs, and that attempt on his part is now made a charge against his conduct. The right hon. Gentleman has talked to-night of "diplomatic rubbish." Why, Sir, there is such a thing as Parliamentary rubbish, and that we are very often doomed to receive from men whose genius and ability ought to qualify them for better things. But the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are in what he thinks very unfortunate circumstances, and he seems to regret that he and his friends have not had the management of these affairs. "Very different," he said, "would be the condition of the country if we had the management of matters." Very different, indeed, if we are to believe in the sincerity of the line of argument taken by Gentlemen on the other side of this House. What are the circumstances in which we have placed the country? Why, we are at peace; we are prosperous; we have been occupied in communications with all the Powers of Europe in endeavouring to settle differences without war. If we were to be led by the language of those who sit opposite, we ought to have made war against Russia for Poland, and we basely abandoned France on the Polish question when she was ready to make war with Russia. That is the charge against us, if we are to believe the right hon. Gentleman's arguments to-night. He further says, "France proposed to join us in making war against Germany in defence of Denmark, and you shrunk from accepting her proposal." Well, the right hon. Gentleman would not have shrunk from that I
  1272
  suppose. I say, Sir, that in my humble opinion, and without, I am sure, begrudging any success, official or otherwise, which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends on those seats may be anxious to obtain here or elsewhere, the country is just as well served by those who are now in office as they would be, according to the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, if he and his friends, occupying our places, had acted up to the reasonings they have used on this grave and important European matter.
  But the right hon. Gentleman says the House is uninformed on this subject, and he asks the Government to enlighten his mind. Why, Sir, some people like to run away with half a story, because they find it far more convenient to express an opinion on that half than to wait and know the whole, being fearful that when they know the whole, the conclusion they wish to arrive at may not follow so legitimately from the premises laid before them. The right hon. Gentleman certainly puts the House in a very embarrassing situation, because when no papers are given he says, "How unfairly you treat the House; you leave it in the dark without any documents or information; we are unable to arrive at a conclusion." Then, on the other hand, he tells us this evening that, "If you overwhelm Members with 800 pages of information the House is then more unable than ever to come to any definite conclusion." How we are to please the right hon. Gentleman it is really very difficult to say. If we give him no papers, he complains of the absence of papers; if we give him the papers, he says he is unable to digest them and come to any rational result. Well, it is a natural fault with some minds that they are so constituted that they either do not choose to come to a conclusion, or they are unable to do so. But, one way or the other, it is quite clear that it is of no use giving the right hon. Gentleman papers, because he says, with or without them, he is equally unable to understand anything with regard to our foreign affairs. But the right hon. Gentleman, I assume, was speaking for others, and not for himself, for of course I have a higher opinion of the acuteness of his mind than to believe that if even ten times 800 pages at a time were offered to him he could not arrive at a clear and definite conclusion upon them, according to his own opinion. But I think he is quite right in the course which he now pursues. In common with

  1273
  the rest of the House, he has had delivered to him papers coming down to the latter end of last September. It was evident that these papers could only contain a portion of the communications which had passed between this and other Governments upon the Danish question; but the right hon. Gentleman thought, and he was quite right, that it was more convenient to get up and to make, upon imperfect information, a flourish about the conduct of the Government upon the Danish question rather than to wait until he should receive the papers to-morrow, which will bring these communications down to a later period. I can only say it would be a long story to tell the right hon. Gentleman what are all the contents of the mass of papers which he will be able to read for himself to-morrow; but I say let him wait, and let the House wait for these papers before coming to any conclusion as to the course we have pursued, either in accepting proposals or in answering proposals or in making proposals to other Governments. Let him wait until he gets the whole statement, which he will receive in the course of a few hours, and then he and the House will be better able to judge what the course of the Government has been. Our object has been from first to last to endeavour to conciliate differences, to bring together parties who are holding opposite and apparently incompatible opinions, to endeavour to modify exasperations, and to obtain a peaceable settlement of that which threatens to be the cause of a European war. Why, the charge which the right hon. Gentleman brings against my noble Friend is, that he was too abundant of suggestions for the attainment of these ends. That having failed with one suggestion he proposed another, and that is what he called "diplomatic rubbish." My noble Friend is fertile in expedients. Not succeeding in one suggestion, he proposed another; that other being unsuccessful, lie proposed still another, hopeful that he would eventually attain the desired end. Instead of that being urged as a charge against my noble Friend, it is really a compliment paid to him by one who is at the same time endeavouring to run him down. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we accepted the proposal of France made at one period, and whether we made at another period a different one. I ask him to have the kindness to wait only a few hours, when he will have the whole Correspondence in his hands, and I am satisfied
  1274
  that in a week's time, and when he again gets up on the question of going into Committee of Supply, with all the knowledge in his head which he has not got in his head now, we shall not have the same language from his lips which we have heard from him to-night.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I think, Sir, that no one who has listened to the noble Lord could have conceived it possible that that speech was a reply called for by the observations of my right hon. Friend, who was not so much referring to the various circumstances and events that have passed between this country and France and Denmark, with reference to the disputes now going on, as specifically desiring information as to the proposal of the Conference, and who, consequently, inquired of the noble Lord what information he could give the House as to the conditions upon which the Conference was to proceed. My right hon. Friend commenced by observing that the present condition of affairs was one of great anxiety, that the very proposal of the Conference, as the whole history of past years showed, was one not likely to conduce to any good effect, and, consequently, more likely to add to the humiliation in which this country is now placed, than to lead to any satisfactory solution of the difficulty; and the noble Lord has made a speech in reply to my right hon. Friend, and has not given the House any information of any sort, kind, or description with reference to this proposal of a Conference. Is not this information somewhat required? The noble Lord told us only a very few nights ago that there had been a proposal for a Conference, that he rather fancied France agreed to it, that he was not quite sure whether Russia would fall into it, and that as regards the Diet of Frankfort he rather considered that they had been asked to attend but was not quite sure about it, and since then he has told us that whether they had been asked or not it was obvious that there would be considerable delay, because there would be difficulty in giving instructions to their Minister. I asked the noble Lord the other night, whether any basis had been laid down upon which the Conference was to proceed; and what was the noble Lord's answer? He said that the principle of the Government was that the independence and integrity of Denmark should be respected. But, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, and as we know by the speeches of the noble Lord

  1275
  last year, and the speeches of a noble Lord in another place, and by all the despatches laid upon our table, the interpretation put by the English Government upon the words "the independence and integrity of Denmark" is not only different from, but altogether inconsistent with the interpretation of the same words by the German Governments. Therefore I think the question of my right hon. Friend was one that ought to have been answered by the noble Lord or some other Member of the Government—that is, what is the present condition of affairs with reference to this Conference? Has it been accepted by France, and if so, has it been unconditionally accepted? What is our position with reference to Russia, and has the proposal been unconditionally accepted by her? The noble Lord, the other day, told us that Denmark had required a short delay on account of some local reasons. Now we are informed by the organ of the Danish Government what the local reason is—that she would decline to enter upon the Conference as long as any part of Jutland is occupied by German troops. I want to know if Denmark has been invited to the Conference, and if so, upon what terms? When we are told that Austria and Prussia have agreed in principle to this Conference, I want to know what is meant by that? Has any basis been laid down? Have they made any statements to Her Majesty's Government as to the conditions upon which alone they will agree to the Conference? Because, as my right hon. Friend said, so long as there is no armistice and military operations are going on, the conditions will change from hour to hour. If the Danes gain a great victory, do you suppose that they will be as ready to listen to counsel as they are now —that they will put the same interpretation upon the cant words "the independence and integrity of Denmark" in the hour of victory as they would be willing to accept in a moment of defeat and disaster? Are we to expect a really pacific solution, or is this to be the last crowning act of humiliation, that having made proposal upon proposal, and having never found a single ally who would back up our proposals for Conference, for mediation, for an armistice, or whatever they might be, that this being the only arrow left in our quiver, we are about to expend it as fruitlessly as all our other efforts have proved? I think of all the extraordinary commencements of speeches that I ever
  1276
  heard the speech of the noble Lord was marked by the most extraordinary. What did he attack my right hon. Friend for? Because he said, "You are making an attack upon an absent man." Does the noble Lord mean to say that because a Member of the Government is a Peer that therefore he is to be privileged from criticism in this House, and that in the just exercise of his privilege here the leader of the Opposition is to say, "I could say a great deal more about the conduct of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but he is an absent man, and therefore I am obliged to leave his conduct without comment?" I must beg leave also entirely to differ from the noble Lord as to his recollection of those proceedings, which both the noble Lord and my right hon. Friend referred to, with reference to the Conference of Vienna. The noble Lord now says that all that passed at that time redounded to the credit of the noble Earl now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If it redounded to the credit of the noble Earl, I wonder why he left the Government. The reason that the conduct of the noble Earl was impugned at that time was, not that he was anxious to secure peace between this country and France and Russia, but that he went to Vienna and entertained propositions for peace; that he came back to this country and urged them upon his Colleagues; that all his proceedings behind the curtain were in favour of peace, while at the same time, knowing that such a policy was not likely to be popular in this House or in the country, he went on making warlike speeches. It was because he deceived the House by leading them to believe that he was a Minister who would do what they desired—that he would urge on the vigorous prosecution of the war— while at the same time he was urging peace propositions on the Cabinet; and it was because that was discovered at last by a chance question put by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden); and the noble Lord made a clean breast of it, explaining all that he had done—it was upon these grounds that the noble Earl was compelled to leave the Government; it was not, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government said, because his proceedings did great credit to him, but because the House of Commons felt they could have no longer any confidence in a Minister who made speeches in one sense, but whose policy was of a totally opposite character. What does the noble Lord say

  1277
  with regard to the present condition of affairs? He tries to fix upon this side of the House a desire to go to war, and claims for himself the credit of desiring to maintain peace. I believe the one imputation is just as much deserved as the other. For those who sit on this side I will say, that there is no more desire for war than there is on that side of the House. What we feel is a distrust of the Government, who by their conduct have brought us to the brink of war. And I believe equally that the credit of desiring to maintain peace is as little deserved by the noble Lord. Is there anybody who can have noticed the tone of the public journals, and particularly of those which are considered to be in the confidence of the Government, or of important members of the Government, without knowing that the tone always held out to Germany was, "Take care what you do, because if you advance in this course of aggression, you will find yourself arrayed in hostile action against England, France, Russia, Sweden, and Italy." And it is only now, when France will not go with you, when Sweden distrusts you, when Italy looks rather to France than to England, and when Russia, remembering the correspondence with the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, will not go with you in anything— it is not until they find themselves alone and deserted by all their allies, that the Government begin to talk of peace, whereas before they were talking of war. I believe myself that we are at this moment in a most critical position. I believe that the country attributes this critical position to the want of firmness, to the vacillation, to the bragging language at one time and to the subservient language at another, of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that the country attributes our position at the present moment to this policy on the part of the Government; and I am sure that the speech of the noble Lord this evening will not have contributed to disabuse them of that impression.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
CHURCH AND SCHOOLS AT BROMPTON.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty,
  1278
  according to notice he had given, On what grounds the Admiralty have declined to apply to Parliament for a Grant of Money in aid of the erection of a Church and Schools at Brompton, it being understood that the Admiralty did apply for a Grant of £4,000 for the erection of the Church of St. James, Devonport? Probably his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) would be able to give him this information in the absence of the noble Lord, who was not in his place. The district in question, in the neighbourhood of Chatham, had been created almost entirely for the accommodation of the artisans and workmen of Her Majesty's Dockyard, and the population now numbered about 6,000. This population lived, for the most part, on the fruits of their daily labour, and had little to spare from their earnings, but nevertheless a sum of £2,000 had been raised partly by them for the object in question. But this sum was insufficient without being supplemented, and the consequence was that these poor men had no place of worship within a moderate distance for themselves, and no schools for their children. An application was made to the Admiralty in 1862 to assist their efforts, and thus afford them the direct advantages of a local church and schools. The applicants thought themselves entitled to make the request, because a grant of £4,000 had been made to the church at Keyham, near Devonport, and a grant had been made under very similar circumstances by the War Department, for Plumstead. In their reply, dated March, 1862, the Lords of the Admiralty pleaded inability to make any grant then, inasmuch as the Estimates for that year had already been laid before Parliament; but they added, "they will, however, take the case into consideration when the Estimates for the year 1863–4 are being framed." They even told the clergyman that he must not expect them "to propose a grant at all approaching in amount" that which had been voted for a church at Keyham under special circumstances. The following year, when the application was renewed, their Lordships on the 12th of February, 1863, expressed regret that "they cannot, this year, propose to Parliament a grant for carrying out the object in view "—in each instance leading the applicants and subscribers to the Church fund to believe that they would eventually do so. It was not till February, 1864, that, in reply to n memorial having 823 signatures, their

  1279
  Lordships stated, to the surprise and regret of all concerned, that they did not "feel justified in applying to Parliament for this contribution." £2,000 would not provide the church accommodation required, and that would include no provision for schools. He was not on advocate for public money being applied to provide church accommodation as a general rule; but this was a special case. The men congregated in the locality to which he referred were brought there by the Government, and the extension of Chatham Dockyard would increase their number. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty led the public on two occasions distinctly to understand that some aid would be given, and it would be very hard now, if, after three years, the Admiralty should turn round and contribute nothing. He hoped the noble Lord in next year's Estimates, or in a Supplemental Estimate this year, would include a sum for this object.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that if a Dissenting Chapel would be acceptable, he was quite sure that the body to which lie belonged, without troubling the Government, would endeavour to serve the people in that locality.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETgave the hon. and gallant Officer great credit for watching over the interests of his friends, and he, for one, should be extremely glad if he succeeded in his object. The hon. and gallant Officer had omitted to state one thing—that the clergyman who took charge of this subscription had made rather an immoderate demand on the public. In his application of September 30, he told them he should not be satisfied if the Admiralty subscribed a less sum than £3,000. It was true they had a small sum at their disposal, and they endeavoured to appropriate it to the purpose of church accommodation and other charitable objects at the various ports where there were a great many artisans; but of late years no sum so large as that asked had been given by the Admiralty—that he was aware of—for a church and schools; and, he must say, it would have been more reasonable if the gentleman had asked fur a smaller sum. If a smaller sum had been asked, he thought the Admiralty would have been disposed to assist if they had had it in their power. It must not be supposed that the public do nothing for the artisans of Chatham in the way of church accommodation. There was a dockyard chapel, which was kept up at considerable expense,
  1280
  and where seats were provided for persons connected with that naval establishment. There was no reason to suppose that seats in that church had been refused to any of the artisans. [Sir FREDERIC SMITH: That church is always full.] He had only to repeat that, if a much smaller sum had been applied for, a different response might have been given by the Admiralty; and he hoped, on some future occasion, a much more moderate demand would be more favourably received.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Original Question again proposed,
  "That 71,950 Men and Boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, including 18,000 Royal Marines."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £2,874,647, Wages.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, had introduced these Estimates in a very elaborate and able speech, which he regretted he had not the opportunity of hearing. The noble Lord took great credit to himself and the Government for having saved £303,422 on the Estimates this year as compared with the extravagant expenditure of last year. He wanted to compare the Estimates of the present year with those of the year before preparations were made for the Russian war, and which, therefore, was a fair standard of comparison with the present time. For this purpose he took the year 1851–2, when the present occupants of the Treasury bench were almost all in the Government of the day. The expenditure on the navy in 1851–2 was £5,727,000, and this year the Naval Estimates amounted to £10,432,610, showing an increase of no less than £4,705,000. The Secretary to the Admiralty had made reduction in some items of the present Estimates, no doubt, but he had made a corresponding increase on other items. Thus he had reduced the item of stores by £170,000, but the wages of artificers had been increased by very nearly the same amount. There were 18,000 Marines, 10,000 of whom were serving on shore, making an addition to the standing army by that amount. The coast-guard also seemed more numerous than necessary, for when he found himself near a coast-guard station

  1281
  he was told that there was no such thing as smuggling now. He observed that there were already thirty-seven General officers of Marines, yet an hon. Gentleman had put a notice on the paper that sixteen were necessary. Now, he had never heard of a General of Marines commanding that force on active service either on board or on shore. He trusted the noble Lord would tell the House why £12,000,000 more for the army and navy were required this year than in 1851–2. He was as anxious as any one to maintain the supremacy of the navy; he only objected to money being expended unnecessarily.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would like to call the attention of the noble Lord to one item of the Vote—namely, the pay of the Marines. That valuable and distinguished corps had very seldom an opportunity of having their interests represented in that House. The Royal Marines being a seniority corps, provision had already been made for quickening promotion among the officers, which, by some accident he supposed, had not been fully carried out by the Admiralty. In the year 1854, at the commencement of the Crimean war, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the promotion of the seniority corps —the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. In consequence of the Report of that Commission, which recommended that a certain sum be bestowed upon those two corps for the purposes of retirement and promotion, an Order in Council was obtained by the Admiralty in 1854, with a view of benefiting the corps of Royal Marines. About that time the normal condition of the corps was 12,000 men. The Artillery force was then 20,000 men. The Royal Commission had recommended that £32,000 a year should be bestowed in furthering and purchasing promotion in the Artillery, and £16,000 in furthering promotion in the Engineers. The Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers had ever since received the benefit of the full sum recommended by the Royal Commissioners. But although in consequence of the recommendation of the Order in Council of 1854 the Admiralty had ever since at their disposal in each year the sum of £35,000 for quickening retirement and promotion in the Royal Marines, they had never spent that sum. The sum voted last year for the retirement, &c., of officers of the Royal Marines amounted to £32,000; this year a Vote was taken for £30,000; so that there remained a balance of £5,000 or
  1282
  more in their favour, accumulating each year. He contended that the full sum recommended by the Royal Commission ought to be expended in promoting retirement in the Marine force. The number of Generals fixed for the Marines was ten. That was the number when the Marines amounted only to 12,000. They were 12,050 on the 1st of January, 1854, but on the 13th of January, 1854, they were raised to 15,500 for the Crimean War, and on the 22nd of February, 1860, were still further increased to 18,000. It would appear proper, then, to increase the number of Generals belonging to the force; such a step would expedite promotion, and would give the same opportunity for rising as was enjoyed by the officers of the Artillery and Engineers. What he would suggest was that £5,000 which was not now spent should be applied to increase the number of General officers of the Marine force to sixteen. He trusted the Admiralty would take the matter into their consideration, and he begged to move that the number of General officers of Marines be increased to sixteen, in accordance with the spirit of the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1854.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that as the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member proposed to increase one particular item beyond the amount proposed by the responsible Minister of the Crown, it could not be entertained by the Committee.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, his proposal would not go to increase the number of men or the amount of money. The sum of £35,000 was at the disposal of the Admiralty, annually, for this purpose, and they did not exhaust or spend the money. He proposed that six Colonels should become Generals. He made that as a suggestion.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the explanation would appear to divest the Motion of its objectionable character; but, as it would appear on the Journals of the House it would be a Motion for an increase, and it was sufficient for him to say that such a proceeding was contrary to the usages of Parliament and the express rules of the House. He should therefore decline to put the Question.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there were thirty-seven Generals of Marines, and that number appeared to him quite sufficient.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it struck him, there was some disposition in the House and in the public journals to keep the pub-

  1283
  lic in ignorance of the real strength of our resources for manning the navy. The House was asked to vote wages for 53,000 men and boys, 18,000 marines—10,000 on shore and 8,000 afloat—making a total of 71,000. There was, besides, 950 civilians for the coast-guard service, and if we added 16,000 reserves there was a grand total of resources available for manning our ships of 87,950. In his experience there never was such an amount in figures under the consideration of the House before. In the very next Vote, provisions were asked for no fewer than 85,167, out of the 87,950, so that a goodly proportion of the 16,000 reserved men were likely to prove their effectiveness by the consumption of rations. He trusted these figures would establish, to the satisfaction of the country at large, the efficient state of our means for manning the navy. There was an additional sum of £162,438 for artificers in Her Majesty's dockyards. His noble Friend stated, that sixty-four ships would require repairs in the present year. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET said, there were generally about fifty-three or fifty-four ships requiring repairs annually.] There never had been any such extra charge for any such service before, and he did not understand why it had been made now. A new word had been introduced into the Estimates. A charge was made for the superintendents of the dockyards and their "retinue," thirty in number. Did the superintendents propose to make circuits of the dockyards, with drums beating and colours flying, and were these accompaniments to constitute their retinue?
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked for an explanation of an increase of £13,000 in the third article of wages, the number of commissioned officers and men being less.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he shared in the regret which had been expressed by many hon. Members at the proposed reduction of 2,000 boys. In the war from 1793 to 1815 we had recourse to the merchant navy, to the assistance of apprentices, and to the collier vessels, but we could not look to large assistance from those quarters now. The Admiralty deserved the highest commendation for having placed training ships at our large mercantile ports in order to obtain a promising set of young men for the navy; and the training ships were of the utmost value. On board of those ships the boys would be trained in habits of industry, cleanliness, self-respect,
  1284
  discipline, and subordination, and when they entered the navy would become attached to it, and would not desire to leave it, and in the course of four or five years they would be among our most promising men, upon whom the country might rely in any emergency. He would earnestly express his hope that if it should be found disadvantageous to the service to reduce the boys, their number would be quickly restored. The hon. Member opposite (Colonel Sykes) had remarked upon the large number of ships, sixty-four in all, that would be put under repair this year. But a cloud was gathering in the horizon, and remembering that our commerce was equal to that of every other country in the world, and that there was no water upon which the British flag did not float, it was absolutely necessary for the protection of that commerce that our navy should be everywhere. The Admiralty were under the necessity of calling home the vessels after a time, and, therefore, it was easily to be understood how in the course of the present year sixty-four vessels might return home. As it was a moral impossibility for any man to tell beforehand what they would cost in repairs, they were obliged to take a round sum for the purpose; but if the whole of the money was not spent it would be accounted for in the next Estimates. Under all the circumstances, it was to be hoped that the Admiralty would look to the efficiency of the service, and not too closely count the cost, so that at all times the country might rely on the naval service for the maintenance of its reputation and honour.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked, how it was that, while the number of men was reduced, the number of officers was increased? Last year there were 3,661 principal officers for a larger number of men, and in the present year there were 3,667 for a smaller number, besides an additional expense on this head of more than £15,000. The increase also extended to the case of the subordinate officers, who numbered 842 for last year and 857 for the present. The same was the case with the warrant officers.
  MR. C. P. BERKELEYobserved, that in the Estimates of the present year the account of naval old stores, money, &c, applied to the period between the 1st of April, 1862, and the 31st of March, 1853; but in last year's Estimates the account appeared to have been made up between the 1st of January and the 31st of De-

  1285
  cember, 1862. This discrepancy ought to be explained, as it would otherwise seem that three-fourths of the money for old stores, &c, had been received twice over.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen had complained of the number of men to be employed during the year. [Colonel SYKES said, he did not complain." He was glad to hear the disclaimer. As for himself, he saw with regret any diminution in the number. He also regretted the proposal of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, to reduce the number of boys. No man valued the merchant seamen more highly than himself, but they were of less value now to the fleet than formerly, when the navy consisted entirely of sailing vessels. In the present day, the fleets of Europe were manned by seamen gunners, and the motive power being steam, the ships did not need to have the same description of seamen as formerly. It was therefore important that the British fleet should be manned by persons well qualified as gunners. A smart seaman from the merchant service was not equal to a boy trained up for the navy, who knew every part of the ship, who was qualified for a gunner, whose education, too, was superior to that of a merchant seaman, and who was better disciplined, for the discipline of the merchant service was a different thing from that of the navy. He should, however, be very sorry to stop the stream from the merchant service to the Queen's service; but the right time for bringing the merchant seamen into the fleet was the period of war, and during peace they should be left to the duties of their own service. If they adopted the system of bringing merchant seamen into our ships of war at once, they would raise the rate of wages in the merchant service; and he should, therefore, be glad if the noble Lord would ask the House to Vote 1,000 more boys. The noble Lord had told the House that the conduct of the sailors in the fleet was most admirable, and it could not, he believed, be surpassed. That, then, was a reason for keeping up a disciplined force, and the present were certainly not times to part with the naval strength of the country or with the Militia. The noble Lord very wisely contemplated to add to the navy a force of artificers or mechanics, but appeared to be in doubt whether to attach that force to the seamen or to the Marines. In his opinion, they ought to be attached to the Marines. If they were attached to the seamen, when a
  1286
  ship was paid off the artificers would be dispersed, and the country would lose their services; but if they formed an integral part of the Royal Marine corps, they would remain with that force during the whole period of service, and when a ship was paid off they would go to their division, their military discipline would be kept up, and they might -be, until placed on board ship again, employed in the dockyards. He recommended that these military artificers should be taught the art of diving, as sappers used to be trained at Chatham, and there would then be on board the iron-clad ships men competent in harbour to inspect the ships' bottoms, and even to clean them from barnacles. The noble Lord had had his attention directed very much to Lock Hospitals, or to Lock wards in some hospitals; but the noble Lord seemed to be in doubt as to what else to do. He would tell the noble Lord that the next step to having Lock Wards, was to have refuges for the fallen wherever there were Lock Wards. Many of the fallen in the ports might be rescued by the expenditure of a small sum for this purpose. The noble Lord drew a lamentable and heart-rending picture of the ravages of a particular disease, and it was to be hoped that he would turn his attention to this important subject, and endeavour to raise the fallen as well as to cure the sick.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had listened with great pleasure to the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, and he should have listened with still greater pleasure if he had announced that it was intended to add to rather than diminish the number of men in the navy, and to make greater exertions to increase the number of armour-plated ships. In consequence of the existence of the Naval Reserve, the number of men was of less importance than it used to be; but, under present circumstances, he did not think that 3,000 men was a sufficient naval force for us to have in our home ports. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: These men were not included in the Naval Reserve.] He knew that; but he contended that such a number, even coupled with the Naval Reserve, was not sufficient to meet the contingencies which might shortly arise. His opinion was that no reduction in the number of men ought to be made; on the contrary, he believed that both the House and the country would cordially have supported a proposal for increasing the number of men in the navy. The question of ships was

  1287
  of still greater importance. His noble and gallant Friend stated, that at the end of this year we should have nineteen, and in the course of next year twenty-five armour-plated ships, and the noble Lord spoke of this as a marvellous exertion on the part of this country. Now, in his (Mr. Bentinck's) opinion, the exertions that had been made were not adequate to the wants of the country. Wooden ships were now so entirely useless for all purposes of warfare, that what this statement amounted to was, that in the course of next year we should have a navy of twenty-five ships. That was a most unsatisfactory, a most melancholy statement, and he regretted that the Government had not come boldly to the House and said that they intended building a new navy. This year his noble Friend had, rather to his disappointment, omitted his usual comparison between our naval strength and that of France. France was the only Power in the world which was capable of rivalling us upon the sea, and therefore we ought to bear in mind what was the actual navy of this country. He should be glad to see the realization of that state of things which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) imagined to exist at the present moment—namely, that our navy should equal those of the whole world. Unfortunately, that was not the case now. [Colonel SYKES: Figures show it.] Figures were not always to be relied on, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been completely misled. Nothing could be more delusive than the statements made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the strength of the French navy. He said that the French had only 214 ships, while we had 592. That might be so, but considering the duties which the extent of our colonial empire and our commerce imposed upon our navy, we required, even in time of peace, five or ten times the navy of France. The hon. and gallant Gentleman dwelt upon our twenty-five armour-plated ships. Those vessels might form the nucleus of a very fine navy; but to attempt to perform with them all the duties of our naval force was idle and absurd. You might as well attempt to do them with a collier brig. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had been much misled by the information which he had received upon the subject of transports. He said, that the French had only a few transports of 800 tons burden. Why, he himself had been on board a number of fine screw frigate built ships of 2,000 tons'
  1288
  burden intended especially for cavalry transports. Two years ago there were forty of these vessels, and he was told by the authorities of Rochefort that they hoped to have upwards of eighty; they hoped to name one after every Department in Franco. [Colonel SYKES: That is not in their Budget.] His hon. and gallant Friend said, that the French had only 44,000 sailors afloat. Was he not aware, that by reason of the maritime conscription, they could in forty-eight hours procure any number of men who had been trained to the sea for years? The hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was true, quoted the French Budget in support of his statements, but it was notorious that that Budget was a farce so far as related to the affording information as to the expenditure of the Imperial Government, which could command any amount of money for the prosecution of any object which it sought to accomplish. We must, therefore, form an opinion with respect to the strength of the French navy, not so much from what was said on the subject, as from what hon. Gentlemen could learn in the dockyards of France from actual inspection. For his own part, he looked, under all the circumstances of the case, at the reduction of our military and naval force as a measure based upon a system of wretched parsimony, which seemed to be so greatly favoured by some Members on the other side, but which would ultimately lead to enormous expense.
  MR. BAXTERdeprecated these attacks on the Government for reducing the expenditure connected with the navy. Hon. Gentlemen who, like the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), were continually crying "wolf," and who seemed to revel in such excitement as that which was created some time ago by the panic of a French invasion, appeared to be anxious for such an increase of taxation as it was impossible the country could bear. He, for one, should protest against that state of feeling, because he believed it to be unworthy of us as a nation, and because he felt quite assured that, whenever real danger arose, nothing would be left undone to repel it from our shores. In order that we might do that the more effectually the policy of Great Britain ought, in his opinion, to be to husband her resources in time of peace, and that being the view which he took, he saw no cogent reason why the Government should propose to keep up even so large a naval or military force as that which they now asked the House to sanc-

  1289
  tion. He knew no reason why the Government should have asked for so large a number of men either for the army or the navy as they had done; but he would accept the small reduction they had made as an earnest of the principle he advocated. He must also express his satisfaction that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty had omitted to make that comparison between the French navy and our own to which the hon. Member for Norfolk referred. That to him (Mr. Baxter) was one of the chief recommendations of the noble Lord's statement. No good result could, he thought, arise from the annual adoption of such a course. But he might, in corroboration of what fell from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) be allowed to state that, while similar statements had been over and over again made in that House by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), and by himself, a friend of his who had gone to France, and who was connected with our volunteer force, had informed him that, in comparison with those of England, he found Cherbourg and the other naval ports of France comparatively deserted. We had altogether 592 vessels afloat and 38 building, and that number—630—represented very closely the aggregate of the navies of the other Powers, excepting the vast flotilla which the Federal Government had improvised for a special purpose, and which was not fitted for ocean service. Surely the hon. Member could not mean to say that in the event of war we should commission only the 25 armour-plated ships; for there could be no doubt that our 59 wooden liners and our 57 large frigates would be able to do excellent service of some kind or other. The continual cries for an augmentation of our naval as well as military forces were absurd, and would lead, if they were carried out, to dire financial embarrassment. He thought that very great reliance should be placed upon our reserves. The hon. Member for Norfolk had complained that his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen had left out of his reckoning the maritime conscription of France, and that France could within forty-eight hours get any number of men she required for her navy. But the truth was the maritime conscription had proved an utter failure. It had been found that the reserves could not be called up effectually, and the French Government were at that very moment considering what other system could be substituted for that
  1290
  which had been so often used as a bugbear in the House of Commons, but which had now so lamentably broken down. For his own part he did not believe that an efficient naval reserve could be successfully established where the population was not fond of the sea, and that was certainly the case with the French. He did not believe they could by any means maintain a naval reserve worthy of mention in comparison with the naval reserve of England. No nation had such advantages in this respect as England, with her magnificent merchant navy, and almost inexhaustible supply of able seamen—to say nothing of the great number of magnificent merchant steamers, which in the event of war could for many purposes be used as vessels of war. He believed that our system of naval reserves was one of the best systems of defence that had ever been instituted, and if fully carried out it would place a most powerful weapon in our hands. He was glad to observe an increase in the Vote for the Royal Naval Reserve, as he held that it was by such means we ought to strengthen our maritime power. The tonnage of the port of Dundee was 48,078, and at that port there were no fewer than 859 seamen who were enrolled members of the Naval Reserve. Now the tonnage of England by the last Return was 3,969,356; of Scotland, 642,337; and of Ireland, 238,504; making a total of 4,860,191 tons; and if the whole country supplied men in the same proportion as Dundee the Naval Reserve would number 90,605 men. He was glad to find not only that the Reserve was very popular among the merchant sailors, but that those who had joined it had undergone a great improvement both in appearance and habits. He did not join in the complaint that the Government was not building more large iron-plated ships, for it was to be feared that they might fall into the same mistake as the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) when he built new line-of-battle ships —that of having too many ships of a particular class. Entertaining this view, he was pleased to hear that the Government proposed to build some ships upon the twin screw principle; and he also wished to impress upon them the necessity of having afloat a number of very fast frigates of such speed as to be an effective police of the sea capable of catching any Alabama, if foreign countries should in time of war imitate the deplorable example which we had set, and fit out such vessels to prey upon our commerce.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that having on a former occasion expressed his opinion in regard to this Vote, he rose only to correct a mistake into which the hon. Member (Mr. Baxter) had fallen with regard to himself (Sir John Pakington) and the Government with which he had been connected. The hon. Member had said more than once—what had been previously said in the House, and also out of doors—that the naval administration, of which he had had the honour to be the head, had continued to build wooden line-of-battle ships at a time when a great change was impending in naval construction. The fact, however, was not so; he believed the fact to be, that during the period when he had the honour of being connected with the Admiralty, they commenced the building of one, and only one, line-of-battle ship. When he and his colleagues entered on their duties they found that the navy of this country was far weaker than it ought to be; and it therefore became their imperative duty to strengthen it; but the mode which they adopted was to place screw steam-engines in such line-of-battle ships as were lit to receive them, and to hurry forward to completion other ships that bad been already commenced building. During that time they also determined to try a somewhat anxious experiment, that of building armour-covered ships. They commenced building the Warrior and the Black Prince; hut it must be remembered that at that time building such ships was entirely an experiment, and he had no doubt that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty would agree with him that until after the Warrior had been to sea no man could say whether a ship could safely go to sea in all weathers with 1,200 tons of armour upon her top sides. He was sure that hon. Members would acknowledge that any Board of Admiralty would have been deeply to blame that allowed the navy to remain in a weak and defective state, merely because there was an experiment to be tried which might or might not be successful. In fact it did succeed, and the existing Board of Admiralty had most properly built other armoured ships; but if the Board with which he had acted had neglected to strengthen the navy pending the experiment, and had adopted no precautions in case of failure, they would, in his opinion, have neglected their duty.
  SIR JOHN HAYwished to allude to one or two observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Mont rose (Mr.
  1292
  Baxter). The hon. Member urged upon the Government that it would be desirable, in the event of hostilities, that wooden line-of-battle ships should be sent out to protect the honour of England. But he (Sir John Hay) trusted that those ships would not be used for such a purpose. It would be most unfortunate if we should be compelled to meet the fleets of Europe with such ships, and nothing else. An experiment had been tried at Shoebury-ness which was conclusive upon the point. A wooden frigate, the Tartar, had been fired at with a 100lb. Armstrong gun, and before a dozen shells were fired she was in such a state that it was found impossible to extinguish the flames. The same thing might occur to any other wooden ship. With only seven iron-plated ships, it might be necessary to risk our reputation and the lives of our men in wooden line-of-battle ships, but it would be a great misfortune if we were compelled to do so. He had understood from the Secretary to the Admiralty, that there were 2,510 men disposable to be put on board ship at any moment. On the other hand, it had been asserted that during the present month some difficulty had been experienced in manning the Duncan, the flagship of Admiral Hope, and that the crew was actually completed by drafts from the coast-guard ships; and, assuming that to have been the case, he should like to know why the Admiralty did not draught some of the 2,510 men into the Duncan, instead of drawing upon their reserves. He also understood that pensioners were again being entered for the Reserve, which would seem to show that the coast-guard ships were not so easily manned as to make it advisable to trust to the merchant service, instead of to the boys hitherto kept in training. At the present moment the walls of Portsmouth were covered with placards announcing that men were wanted for the navy, and intimating that merchant seamen were received on board the Victory. In such a dearth of men, he could not understand why the Admiralty should reduce the number of boys under training for the navy.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) seemed to object to reduction in the abstract, for he always rose when the Estimates were brought forward, and deeply regretted that the Government had not asked for more. He (Sir Francis Baring) had himself no such objection; but he quite concurred that it was the duty of the Government—

  1293
  looking to the circumstances of the time— to have the navy of this country upon a safe and honourable footing. After the statement of the noble Lord (the Secretary of the Admiralty) it appeared to him (Sir Francis Baring) that never was the navy, especially as regarded men, in a more satisfactory state. The great difficulty had always been to find men upon the breaking out of war; and he did not think that at any time in our history had we been better able to meet this difficulty than at this moment. As to building ships, it was not an easy question to decide: he believed that very few people would venture to prophesy what sort of ships would be required ten years hence. But the duty of the Admiralty was to be always prepared to meet any foreign attack; beyond that he should be very sorry to see them go. He believed that if the Government took the advice which was given and built a large fleet of any particular kind of ships, as the hon. Member for Norfolk seemed inclined to recommend, they would find before ten years were over that they had wasted a great deal of money, and would have to commence anew. In a state of uncertainty it was the duty of the Government to be provided even with wooden ships; and he was far from blaming the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) for having built wooden ships when it was thought that they were adequate. The same observation applied to guns. He was not surprised at the difficulty of finding men at this moment, for he had always contended that the continuous service system, whilst it would work well in time of peace, would break down in time of war, because when they were obliged to have recourse to the merchant marine they would find there but very few men who had ever served on a man-of-war, or knew anything of its duties. He admitted that the system of reserve met this difficulty to a great extent; but they must not be surprised to find, upon war breaking out, that they would have to draw largely upon the mercantile navy, that there was considerable difficulty in getting men, and that the men they got were perfectly ignorant of the service. Upon the subject of naval barracks, he must say that he was not sanguine. Under the old system the men were not in barracks, but afloat; and he doubted whether putting sailors in barracks would be found economical; and he also doubted whether the men in barracks would be as efficient and as well
  1294
  disciplined as those that were kept on board ship.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would first reply to the numerous questions addressed to him. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) had just remarked that though there was a considerable reduction in the number of men, there was only a very small reduction in the Vote for pay. There was a reduction of upwards of 4,000 in the number of men, but the Vote for pay was reduced by no more than £47,000. The explanation was that employment of smaller crews increased the pay per man, because there was a larger number of officers of all ranks in proportion to men. Another reason for the increased expense was, that the Admiralty were increasing the pay of some classes. The pay of ship's stewards required an increase in the Vote of £8,873, and chief stokers were also getting a higher rate of pay. There was also an increase of allowances here and there to officers of some classes who were before inadequately paid, and thus there was a tendency to increase the cost per head. The arrangement tended to procure more efficient men; and with the improvements in the merchant service, he must warn the Committee that the expense would go on increasing. The hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) was desirous to make a Motion to increase the number of generals of Marines, but not being in order he was very properly prevented making his Motion. He (Lord Clarence Paget) professed great attachment to the corps of Marines, and therefore he did not like to pass the subject over without remark. The Government had shown their desire to improve the condition of that magnificent body of men, and the hon. and gallant Officer had not stated what had been done for the Marines since the number was increased from 15,000 to 18,000. The Committee ought not to forget that an Inspector General of Marines had been appointed — a very necessary appointment for the good of the service, but at the same time of advantage to the officers generally, as it tended to promotions; and last year the Government appointed five colonels of divisions. General officers of Marines were not in the same proportion to general officers of the army; but he did not wish the impression to be conveyed that the Marines had been altogether overlooked. Another question had been put with great inge-

  1295
  nuity, and it was a very little question, based upon the assumption that, whereas be had stated they had 2,500 men in reserve, there was great difficulty in manning the Duncan. That was not the case. They had no difficulty in manning the Duncan, because they had this number of disposable continuous service seamen of the navy; but they were anxious that there should be a flow of merchant seamen into the navy: still the difficulty was apparent from the fact that although, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) had stated, the Government had a notice at Portsmouth inviting able seamen of the merchant service to enter, there were none to be got. What they were still more anxious to get was an increased corps of artificers; and he had told the Committee very frankly that they were badly off for artificers. But as to the Duncan, they could have put as many men again on board if they had chosen to draw upon the Reserve of disposable continuous service men. Then the hon. and gallant Member who made the inquiry about the Duncan also said they were obliged to appoint pensioners to harbour ships. They had appointed pensioners to harbour ships—but why? Because the pensioners felt it to be a grievance that they were not allowed to serve in the fleet. The Admiralty did not wish them to be in the fleet, but to keep them as reserves; yet as to harbour ships, they thought it only fair dealing to have a proportion of pensioners out of consideration for them. The hon. and gallant Officer said that the Admiralty had been obliged to draw men out of the coast-guard ships. That was one of the reasons for which those ships are maintained. A certain portion of new men went into the coast-guard ships, and when they had served a year they were draughted off for service in the fleet. He explained all this in detail the other night, but he supposed the hon. and gallant Officer was not listening to what he said. His gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) found fault with the "retinue" of the superintendents of dockyards; but the secretary, and flag lieutenant and clerks at the various ports connected with the personal retinue of the superintendent had always been voted in the Estimates. The gallant Officer the Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) touched upon another matter — one of very great and very melancholy interest,
  1296
  that of the Lock Hospitals, and submitted that aid should be given in reclaiming the unfortunate females. He (Lord Clarence Paget) alluded to the subject on Thursday evening, and from what he knew of the facts, and from what he knew of the sufferings of the men, he thought that anything which the Government could do would be well received in that House. But there was a distinction to be drawn between Sanitary measures and higher moral and religious questions. The Government were ready to undertake anything in relation to sanitary measures, but they could not profess to deal with any higher considerations. As to the forces of this country, when compared with other countries, it was no doubt a mistake to suppose that our French neighbours were not making great exertions. We had to look after our own navy so as to bring it to a proper position, and he did not think it very advisable to make comparisons between our navy and that of France, as it would certainly not lead to any good. All he could do was to assure the Committee, that in the exertions which the Government made year by year, they had their eyes upon what was going on in other countries, and he must add that he thought the progress which had been made was satisfactory.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, there seemed to be some misunderstanding between the noble Lord and the Committee with respect to the number of men the Admiralty had disposable at home. The noble Lord on Thursday alluded in a very strong and a very satisfactory manner to the Admiralty having at their disposal 2,500 men in the home ports, and he said he thought that number below the proper mark; but he understood the noble Lord now to say that the fleet was manned from the coast-guard. Fearing there might be some misunderstanding, he begged to ask who and where were the 2,500 men referred to by the noble Lord.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGEThoped the question would now be set at rest. He was disposed to diminish rather than exaggerate the number of men. On the 17th of February there were—men available in the ports, 840; men on leave, 759; men in the steam-reserve, exclusive of pensioners, 816; trained boys, available, 75; boys on leave, 71 — total, 2,561. The total was more than 2,500, and the Admiralty were not quite satisfied, thinking it should be brought op to 3,000. The number varied, and six weeks ago was

  1297
  as low as 1,500; but he had given the numbers on the 17th inst.
  MR. ADDINGTONdoubted the wisdom of the Admiralty in depending so much as they did for their seamen upon so precarious a source as the mercantile marine. That and the cutting off of the supply of boys were the main faults to be found with the present Estimates. To enable us to cope with other Powers we ought to have a large permanent body of seamen. He was sorry also to see so little done towards the erection of naval barracks either at Portsmouth or at Plymouth. There was not that attention paid by the Government to the domestic interests of the sailor as was shown in the case of the sister service. You could not place the same dependence, in a moral point of view, on the petty officers of the Royal Navy as you could in non-commissioned officers of the army, and this arose, in some degree, from the want of barracks for the former. Men were governed a good deal by kindness. There was not a barrack in the United Kingdom in which there was not something done for the education of the children and the comfort of the wives of soldiers; while, in contrast therewith, the poor sailors must see their families almost subsisting on charity.
  COLONEL SYKESthought the observation of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), as to putting no faith in French Budgets, was tantamount to saying a French Budget was a gigantic fraud. Now, he (Colonel Sykes) had based his statements, respecting the French navy, on the French Budget, signed by the Minister of Marine. The last Budget, as laid before the Chambers, gave infinitely more details than our Navy Estimates, improved as they were, and afforded Members better means of testing the accuracy of the demands made by the department; yet, the hon. Member refused to place the least faith in it.
  MR. BENTINCKwondered that a man of the hon. and gallant Member's acute-ness could place implicit faith in the statement and figures put forward in the document which he had quoted. He (Mr. Bentinck) had not the slightest faith in French Budgets, for the simple reason that the French Chamber, to which they were submitted, had no control over them or over the general expenditure of the country. This was the result of the attempts to introduce liberal institutions in France. If a proof were wanted that these
  1298
  documents could not be relied on, it would be found in the fact that the hon. and gallant Member assured the Committee on their authority, that the outside tonnage of the French transport ships was 800 tons. The hon. and gallant Member had been imposed upon; for he himself (Mr. Bentinck) had seen a large number of the very class of ships the existence of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman disputed, and the French authorities looked forward to having one of those large transports named after every Department in France. It had become a very favourite custom of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side to accuse Members on the Opposition side of advocating wilful and deliberate extravagance. That accusation was wholly unjust. Hon. Members on his side had to bear their full share of the public burdens as well as other people, and were not likely to be in favour of squandering the funds to which they must themselves contribute as taxpayers. It was the best economy to maintain the efficiency of our armaments, the great source of wasteful expenditure being the cheese-paring system pursued in time of peace, followed, as it inevitably must be, by a sudden and enormous outlay in the event of emergency.
  MR. LAIRDcould confirm the statement of the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Bentinck) as to the size of the French transports. He had himself seen such a vessel in France of about 3,000 tons, or from three to four times the size named by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had been charged on the other side of the House with extravagance during his tenure of office at the Admiralty. Now, he (Mr. Laird) had looked over the Estimates, and he found that since the noble Lord came into office £58,000,000 had been spent upon the navy, and for such a vast sum the country was entitled to some return. He found that the naval expenditure in 1857, 1858, and 1859 upon various items, including the building and fitting out of ships, was £9,678,500; whereas in 1861, 1862, and 1863, when the noble Lord was Secretary to the Admiralty, the same expenditure amounted to £14,659,000; being an excess during the noble Lord's tenure of office of nearly £5,000,000 sterling over the three years preceding. That was, in some degree, an answer to the charge of extravagance brought against the right hon. Member for Droitwich and

  1299
  the Opposition generally. The total amount expended, from 1860 and including 1864, for the dockyard establishments at home, and abroad, wages of artificers, &c., was £24,000,000. It had always been alleged that wooden shipbuilding had been put a stop to, except those ships which were to be iron-cased. This year we should have seventeen armour ships afloat, and they represented between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, leaving about £18,000,000 to be accounted for, which could not all have been spent in repairs. He hoped the hon. Member for Halifax would give some explanation of this.
  MR. STANSFELD, in reference to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Mr. C. Berkeley) as to a seeming inconsistency between these accounts and those for previous years, said that the accounts for old stores in the Estimates for 1863–4 contained the old store monies, including the sums produced by the sale of old ships, paid quarterly into the Exchequer between the 1st of January and the 31st of December, 1862. In this year's Estimates it had been thought better not to take the account over to the Exchequer, but to carry on an account during the financial year 1862–3. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was right, therefore, in saying that nine months of the former account was included in the present Estimates, but the Committee should know that it was customary to pay over their balances only quarterly, and the time which the accounts overlapped each other was not three, but two quarters. The net result was this, that this year's accounts included about half the time of last year's.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had expected that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had risen to make the statement as to the accounts, the desire to hear which had induced him to move that the Chairman report Progress the other night. [Mr. STANSFELD: It will come on Vote 8.] He certainly thought that the Committee ought to have it before any Vote of money was taken, considering the increase which was asked for on the dockyard expenditure. He was, on the whole, well satisfied with the statement of his noble Friend, with the exception of Votes 8 and 10. With regard to the reduction of men, he thought it was a wise and judicious step. The continuous system was all very well in time of peace, but in time of war we should have to go to the merchant service; and if
  1300
  the continuance service system kept merchant seamen out in time of peace, we should have great difficulty in getting them to enter in time of war, except, of course, it were a war for the defence of our shores, when the patriotism of our sailors would remove all obstacles. In 1858–9 there was great difficulty in getting men for our ships, in fact, it took four or five months to get a crew—now it was done in less than a month. He was glad to be able to endorse the statement that our fleet had never been in a more efficient state than at present. Some little time ago he happened to be in the Tagus when the Channel fleet was lying there, and it was impossible to conceive a fleet in finer condition than he found it. Flogging in the Channel fleet was nearly totally unknown. The men seemed full of respect and even devotion to their officers, and the officers seemed devoted to their men. One thing pleased him very much. He noticed that the officers in the ships he visited seemed to know all their men by name. The old "Come, you Sir!" had gone quite out of fashion; it was "Thompson or Jackson, do so and so." He was also glad to observe that on shore there were fewer of those scenes of drunkenness which he had witnessed on former occasions. Jack hired his donkey for a ride and had his fun in other harmless ways, and would return to his ship at night or in the morning ready for duty; but there was very little drunkenness. If the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen had really said that the French had no transports above 800 tons, he must have made a mistake, for he himself had been on board French transports of from 2,000 to 3,000 tons. But this was a branch in which it was only natural that the French Government should wish to supply its previous deficiencies. The hon. Member for West Norfolk was of opinion that we had not enough either of ships or men; but why did he not say what, according to his idea, would be sufficient, so that the Committee might know what he wanted? He himself during the Crimean war had had under his own management, on an average, about 100,000 tons of shipping employed as transports for the conveyance of French troops from Marseilles to the Crimea — some of them British ships, and some of them American. It was very curious, by the way, that some of the men in New York who made the greatest outcry against our violation of neutrality were the owners

  1301
  of ships which in the Crimean war carried French troops to fight against a country which at that time was a friendly ally. France, however, was only supplying herself with that which she wanted, and which we possessed to an extraordinary degree. Did the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Norfolk really mean to say that he did not believe in the accuracy of the accounts laid before the French Minister of Marine? From these Returns it appeared that the French had got 214 ships in all, including transports; whereas, we had 630 ships, and our vessels were very much larger than those of France. We were not only superior to France, but equal to the whole world. The hon. Member for West Norfolk desired that at all times, and under all circumstances, we should be in a position to cope with the whole world. [Mr. BENTINCK: Yes!] He did not think the House and the country went so far. He thought they would be satisfied if we should be able to cope with any two of the great maritime Powers. Though he was, on the whole, satisfied with the state of our navy, he was not content with our dockyards. When the Royal Commissioners were conducting their inquiries, it appeared clear that we did not get as much work out of the men in our dockyards as we had a right to expect. It was perfectly true that we never could expect to get as much work out of them as was got out of workmen in private yards, where the owners had a much greater interest in the quantity of work done than overseers in the dockyards could be expected to have; but he wanted to know whether the Admiralty had ever attempted to throw in any of the private element. That could easily be done. Again, he should like to know whether the reduction of which the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had spoken was real or merely nominal. The noble Lord had spoken of his anxiety to increase the remuneration of officers. He presumed this was to be provided for in a supplementary Estimate. If it had been provided for in the Estimates then before the Committee, perhaps the Estimates of the present year would not compare as favourably with those of past years as they did in their present shape. Before the Committee went further, he should like to hear the promised statement of his Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld.)
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that when the Committee came to the proper
  1302
  Vote for considering the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, a clear statement would be given by his hon. Friend.
  MR. LINDSAYheld that one Vote bore on the whole of the Estimates, and that his hon. Friend's statement would be more appropriate on the Vote before the Committee than at a later period.
  MR. STANSFELDcould assure his hon. Friend that, if he would only have patience, nothing would be withheld from the knowledge of the Committee. On one of the Votes a large increase of money was asked for; and the Admiralty must, of course, give reasons for that increase.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £1,304,119, Victuals and Clothing.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £168,605, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."
  MR. LINDSAYasked for some explanation. The Royal Commission had alluded in very distinct terms to the reforms necessary in the offices of the Admiralty.
  SIR MORTON PETOwished to know the intention of the Government with reference to consolidating the Admiralty Offices at Whitehall. A division of the offices in two separate buildings was an acknowledged evil.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETwas not at all disposed to retire from what he had stated last year. It was most important that all the departments of the Admiralty should be under one roof, as he believed such an arrangement would be productive of ultimate economy and increased efficiency. All he could say, however, was that the expenditure for increased armaments and iron-plated ships had been so great, that he had not yet been able to place a Vote upon the Estimates for the purpose of concentrating the departments. He hoped, however, that some time or other steps would be taken to arrive at that consummation. The hon. Member for Sunderland wanted to know why the Board of Admiralty had not been reorganized. The Report of the Royal Commissioners had been very carefully considered by the Government, but they were not of opinion that sufficient reasons were shown for upsetting the present system.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he was not satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation. If an additional Vote were really necessary for the efficiency of the navy, he was convinced there would be no difficulty in obtaining the sanction of that House.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHinquired, whether any estimate had been made of the cost of bringing all the departments under one roof, and of the mode in which it was to be done?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that two propositions had been made—one that the Admiralty should be removed entire to Somerset House, and the other that some additions should be made to the buildings at Whitehall, and the whole business concentrated in the Admiralty there. A question had arisen as to the amount of accommodation that could be afforded at Somerset House, and how it could be adapted for Admiralty purposes. The result was, that it would cost more to locate the Admiralty at Somerset House than to build an efficient wing at Whitehall, the estimate for which was about £150,000.
  MR. WALPOLEthought it due to the Admiralty to make one remark. For twenty years the money expended in some of the departments had been greater than the sum voted. The Public Accounts Commission had recommended that the transfer of accounts should not be made so freely as had been the practice—the supplying of Votes which were unpopular out of Votes which were popular. He was happy to find that, for the first time, the Admiralty had brought the expenditure within £2,000 of the Estimates for the year.
  MR. LINDSAYthought, that no sufficient reason had been given for not carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. Unless he received a satisfactory answer, he should move that the Vote be reduced by £5,200, which was the total of the salaries of the junior Lords. He did not complain of the amount of those salaries, nor of the manner in which the present recipients performed their duties, but he objected to the system.
  MR. STANSFELDthought the question of the re-organization of the Board of Admiralty thus started was a large one, which could not be fairly discussed on a Vote like that now under the consideration of the Committee. As to the present constitution of the Board, he thought the hon. Member for Sunderland would understand that business could be carried on well in private firms where one partner was the
  1304
  executive partner, like the First Lord, and the other partners applied themselves to special departments. The objection of double or divided responsibility was hardly sound, because the First Lord was responsible for everything; but if it was desired that a special department should be placed under each Lord, such a change could easily be made.
  MR. LINDSAYwished all the heads of departments to be in direct communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty. What, he would ask, were the duties of the five junior Lords of the Admiralty? Were they to look after the Controller and the other heads of departments? If so, the work would be more efficiently done by the department, as he suggested, being in direct communication with the First Lord, who was responsible to that House. There was no Board required for the Admiralty any more than there was for the army, or any other Department of the State. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £5,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £163,405, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."—(Mr. Lindsay.)
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was perfectly astounded at the proposition which his hon. Friend, who was such a skilful naval man and man of business, had made. It was perfectly Quixotic. The First Lord of the Admiralty when he was first appointed knew nothing of his duties. The very language of his department was Greek and Hebrew to him, and the other Lords of the Admiralty were simply his dry nurses, and helped his feeble and tottering steps on his first entry into office, and yet his hon. Friend would cast all the responsibilities of the management of the navy upon such a Minister. Why, the First Lord of the Admiralty generally knew as much about navigating a ship as his hon. Friend did about navigating a balloon. The withdrawal of the salary of the First Lord would have been an intelligible proposal, for this gentleman was probably the most useless member of the Board; he was an inconvenience and an incumbrance. But no more ill-advised thing could be done than to take away the salaries of men who were the life and soul of the Admiralty.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that the strongest argument against the constitution of the Board of Admiralty was, that its very existence now guaranteed that there should be a civil First Lord of the Admiralty, who did not know, and never would know, his duty. If the House desired to have a proper person to conduct the affairs of the Admiralty, that end was best attained by abolishing the Board. He should vote for the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYthought it was desirable that the Committee should bear what the improvements in keeping the dockyard accounts had been before they disposed of this Vote. He wished to know who was responsible for repairs. Vast sums were expended in the repairs of ships; the Committee tried to find out who was responsible in this department. They had asked Sir Baldwin Walker and Admiral Robinson, and were told to go to the dockyards; but at the dockyards they were told they had nothing to do with cost, but only with ship materials and wages. In all the vast outlays which must take place under this head was there no estimate? Did no one know what a thing was to cost? Sir Richard Bromley gave the very best evidence. He said, where work of £5,000 or £6,000 was to be done the cost was ascertained; but the vast expenditure on shipbuilding was undertaken without estimate and without check.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that in all private mercantile firms the various heads of departments were responsible to some one partner, who again was responsible to all the other partners. There was thus a well arranged and clearly understood line of action adopted. But at the Admiralty no one appeared to be responsible; no estimates were made, and there were no means of knowing what they were about. The noble Lord said the other evening, that a large expenditure would be incurred in the repairs of vessels coming home. Was there any careful preliminary survey conducted by proper persons as to the state and condition of each vessel, and the amount that ought to be expended? He was bound to say with his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), that they did not get money's worth for what was spent, and until they had accounts which would enable them to check the various departments of expenditure, they would never have a clear or satisfactory view of their operations. They wanted
  1306
  that simplicity of scheme which characterized the working of mercantile firms.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), he should like to ask him who was responsible for the vast expenditure on barracks, fortifications, and the commissariat of the army? No doubt he would be told the Minister for the Army—and if the hon. Baronet asked him who was responsible for the navy, he would say the Minister for the Navy. The responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty was equal—he had heard it said, greater—than that of the Secretary of State for War. The hon. Baronet had gone back to the Controller of the Navy; but he forgot that the Controller had since been put on a much more proper and responsible footing. He would read a paragraph from the instructions which had been issued to the Controller of the Navy in order to prove this—
  "Your duties consist in the control of all expenditure incurred for the building, the repairs, and the outfit of vessels in Her Majesty's navy. These works, therefore, whether they be performed in the naval yards or by contract, are placed under your direction and management. For the discharge of these important duties you are invested with such authority as will enable you by the exercise of due vigilance to regulate the numerous sources of expenditure, for which you are responsible to the Board of Admiralty."
  Could anything be more clearly defined than the duties of the Controller in this paragraph? He was responsible to the Minister for the expenditure in the dockyards, and he was invested with full powers with that view, being enabled to give orders to the dockyards, which before he could not do. It was said they made no estimates for ships; but what they were now doing was laying the foundation for that. Their object in going carefully into what the Achilles cost, was to enable them to make an estimate for succeeding ships. Nothing could be so fallacious as estimating for repairs going into dockyards. Gentlemen who had a yacht going into dock well knew it never would be turned out for the sum stated. It was notorious that an accurate estimate could not be given of the extent of repairs which would be requisite until the ship was "opened," and then it was discovered for the first time that this, that, and the other parts required to be replaced.
  THE CHAIRMANhere intimated that the noble Lord was now discussing another Vote.
  MR. LINDSAYobserved, that one Lord of the Admiralty took charge of finance; but what then were the duties of the Accountant General? Another looked after the stores; what, therefore, was the use of the Storekeeper General?
  MR. SEELYwished to know why the cost of our central department was £160,000, whereas the cost of the corresponding office in Prance was only £40,000. Perhaps the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken might suggest an answer: we had two persons to do the same work.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, on this occasion he was about to vote in opposition to his ordinary principles of economy. But he did so, knowing that where appointments were made to high offices on the ground of political influence or high connections, "nurses" were indispensable to the performance of the duties.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 10; Noes 109: Majority 99.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) £300,718, Coast Guard Service, &c.
  COLONEL SYKEScomplained that this Vote, which professed to give the number and cost of all the men in the coast-guard service, in reality did not do so. In that respect the Vote contrasted unfavourably with the detailed information given in the French Estimates.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty were anxious to show what each department cost the country. The hon. Member would find that the total charge of the coast-guard service was £721,697.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he could not understand how it happened that every year there was a Vote of £30,000 for building cottages for the coast-guard, without any sensible reduction in the Vote for rents and the hire of buildings occupied by the men.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, as the building of new cottages progressed, the item of allowances for lodgings would necessarily be reduced.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £71,276, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of
  1308
  the several Scientific Departments of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwished to know what had been done towards the establishment of a Royal Naval College?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that it was intended to establish a School of Naval Architecture. The Admiralty were desirous that the school should be open, not only to the pupils of the dockyard schools, but also to the public. With regard to the former, it was intended to choose some of the most intelligent and better educated youths among the dockyard apprentices, and to teach them the higher branches of mathematics. These youths would form a considerable portion of the Admiralty pupils of the new institution, and some of them would, it was hoped, become the future master shipwrights and draughtsmen of the Royal dockyards. All the advantages of the school would be open, however, to the public on payment of a fixed Bum. The school would be placed under the Science and Art Department at Kensington, where apartments would be provided. Lord Granville would undertake the charge of it, with proper officers under him, and that would be a guarantee that the system of education required for the Admiralty students would be properly carried out. He did not wish to express too sanguine an opinion, but he had great hopes of the success of the proposed institution. It was proposed to ask for £2,300 this year, which would pay for preparing the rooms, and also for two lecturers and instructors. The Admiralty did not propose to put more than thirty students into the school at first.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONinquired, when the School would begin, and under whose management it would be placed?
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHwished to know whether he understood the rooms for the new schools were to be built? [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: No; they are built.] A worse situation for a naval school than Kensington could not be conceived. The Vote was one of those of which the House had seen too many. It was a small sum at the commencement, but it pledged the House to go on, and to incur, probably, a heavy expense in the end.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid that, no doubt, a larger sum than £2,300 would be required when the School became developed. The apartments belonged to the Department of Science and Art, but they

  1309
  had been placed at the disposal of the Government. He had not himself seen the rooms, but he was told they formed a suite of apartments well adapted to the purpose. If the hon. Gentleman would move for the details connected with the expenditure of the proposed Vote of £2,300 he should be happy to give them.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that the School was to be opened to all qualified youths, but what was the use of placing it at the west end of the town when all the dockyards were at the east?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the very object of placing it at Kensington was that the School should be in some central place. The Admiralty were anxious to accommodate youths from Liverpool, Glasgow, and other maritime ports. They therefore selected London as a central place, and Kensington, because they did not wish the school to be too much under the shade of the Admiralty. Moreover, Kensington was chosen because there were eminent lecturers and masters already established there who would be very useful to the Students of the Schools, many of the subjects taught there being well adapted to the education of naval architecture. The School would be opened, indeed, quite as much for the public as for the Admiralty. At present there was no great establishment in this country for the education of shipbuilders, and it was high time, not only for the sake of the public, but for the sake of private shipbuilders, that youths should be enabled somewhere to acquire a scientific knowledge of shipbuilding. In answer to the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) he would state that the School was to be opened immediately, and that it would be placed under Dr. Woolley, one of the Government Inspectors of Schools. He would be assisted by the Controller of the Navy, who would represent the Admiralty, and by Mr. Cole. Between these three gentlemen the School would, he thought, be in very good hands.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS: Why not have the School at Woolwich? There is plenty of science there.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that a School of Naval Architecture at South Kensington was mere rubbish. The pupils did not want mere theoretical knowledge, and they would no more learn shipbuilding at Kensington than they could learn anything else there. It was perfectly plain that this would be only throwing away the public money.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he stated the other night that the six winter months of the year were to be devoted to the theory, and the six summer months to the practice of shipbuilding in the dockyards.
  MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, that under the head of "Scientific Branch, extraordinary expenses," were some expenses which were very extraordinary indeed. There were "Galvanic contingencies," £100; "Subterranean apartment for magnetic instruments," £240; "Self-registering barrel for record of earth's currents," £50; "For determining the longitude of New Milford, in connection with the operations for measuring the great European are of parallel from Valentia, in Ireland, to Orsk, on the Oural," £60—in all, an increase of £463 on the sums voted last year. Perhaps the noble Lord would give some explanation.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHthought the noble Lord's explanation about the Naval School of Architecture incomplete and unsatisfactory, and that the school, if established, might hereafter lead to unlimited expense. He wished to enter his protest against the proposal. He should move to reduce the Vote by £2,300.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUdid not think the hon. Member would have moved the reduction of the Vote if he were aware of the value of the proposed establishment. The old School of Naval Architecture had been given up; all the men who knew anything about naval architecture had been educated in that school; and if we were not to get a new supply from a new source, we should be totally destitute of persons capable of designing ships for the navy. He would give an instance of the value of such a school. Professor Wray, at Devon-port, was the principal schoolmaster of the dockyard, and a short time ago Lloyd's Committee offered a number of prizes of £60 for the best designs, and no less than six of those prizes were carried off by the pupils of that Professor. The boys who carried off those prizes were the sons of working men, and they actually beat many men who had been employed all their lives in designing ships. That instance was enough to show the advantage of having a school of naval architecture.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that the old School of Naval Architecture was at Portsmouth, and he thought the new school should be placed in one of the dockyards.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked, was such an establishment called for by the country? He should like to hear the opinions of hon. Members connected with shipbuilding on the necessity of such an institution, and if it were necessary, where it ought to be established with the greatest probability of success. But to found an institution of that kind in the particular locality named for it would be the commencement of the most extraordinary expenditure. Such an establishment ought to be at some such place as Portsmouth or Woolwich, and he, therefore, felt it necessary to take the sense of the Committee upon the question.
  MR. ADDINGTONsaid, he thought it desirable that young officers should know-more of naval architecture than they did. He wished to ask, whether the noble Lord's attention had been directed to the circumstance that Naval Instructors were not required to pass any examination in steam, nor were naval officers until they had been six years in the service?
  MR. BUXTONinquired, why the old Naval School had been done away with?
  CAPTAIN JERVISasked, whether the pupils of the new Naval School were to meet with the same fate as those of the old School; and whether men who might have distinguished themselves were to look forward to being passed over by persons newly brought into the Admiralty? No one knew better the object of having this School at Kensington. It had been for many years on the cards to establish such a School there. If the Admiralty -were inclined to bring forward a bonâ fide scheme, let the School be established at Portsmouth, or some other of the ports of the country where the pupils could obtain a practical knowledge of their business.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the object of fixing the School at Kensington was upon these grounds. The old Naval School, which he regretted had been ever done away with, had failed in this—that there was no provision, no adequate outlet, for all the students that belonged to it. The wants of the navy proper were not sufficient for their employment. But it was contended, and with very great reason, by the Institute of Naval Architects, and urged on the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty and himself by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), that it would be desirable to have such an establishment, in which the higher branches—not only the
  1312
  form of ships, but likewise the chymical properties of iron, and all those minerals that are requisite for shipbuilding—might be studied. If such a School were established, and kept up with a due regard to economy, it would, notwithstanding the alarm of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith), be of immense national importance. But the School at Portsmouth was felt to be a purely Government school, nor did the public generally benefit by it. In the present case it was proposed to provide for a certain number of students connected with the dockyards, and at the same time to invite the public to come to the School upon payment of a fixed sum, and enjoy all the advantages of the School. If the School were put at Portsmouth, or any one of the dockyards, it was thought by the Government it would have the air of an Admiralty establishment; but they did not want that, nor did they desire that the Admiralty should interfere with the details. To make it a national establishment, it was necessary that it should be placed in some central situation; and the question was, where could a central situation for it be found? Lord Granville took the matter up, and put himself in communication with Dr. Woolley, Mr. Cole, and others, and all agreed that South Kensington was the best place for the School. The institution at present there was eminently a school of art, and a great many branches of art were taught in it which would be useful to young persons studying shipbuilding.
  CAPTAIN JERVISdesired to know what it was intended to teach specially in this school? The great object of a school of naval architecture must be to teach people to build ships capable of holding such guns as were required at the present day, but what opportunity was there at Kensington to test the displacement of water? It was absurd to teach a number of boys to draw lines upon paper. What was wanted, was to enable them to lay down lines for ships —to become practical shipbuilders — and that could not be done at Kensington. The proposition was mere rubbish. Mr. Cole was an able man, and had conducted the establishment at Kensington in an able way for the improvement of art; but he knew nothing about shipbuilding, and no person who knew anything about the subject would think of placing a school of naval architecture under him. Though this proposition came from the Admiralty, they did not, it seemed, wish it to be con-

  1313
  sidered as emanating from them; and he desired to know, therefore, whether it was their intention to open the school to all the public?
  SIR JOHN HAYbelieved the proposition to be a step in the right direction; but he wished the noble Lord to explain more fully what the summer vacation of these scholars was to be, and how they were to be occupied at the time when they were not at Kensington?
  SIR BROOKE BRIDGESfeared that, as during a portion of the year the students were not to be at Kensington, two establishments would be required instead of one. It appeared to him a most extraordinary proposition, that a School of Naval Architecture should be placed at Kensington. This was only the beginning of the expense, and the House would soon be asked for a larger sum. He should like to know what was to be the annual expense of the establishment?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the annual expense of this School, when developed, was calculated at £5,000. He did not like to tell the Committee that it would not cost more, because a certain percentage might generally be put on an estimate of that nature, and he should add that many supposed the School would ultimately be self-supporting. At Kensington, there were three class-rooms and a large model room; so that, instead of keeping the naval models shut up in a dark room at Somerset House, he hoped that the models would be neatly arranged in a fine room, specially adapted for the purpose, at Kensington. The Admiralty students would have a certain sum allowed them per annum for food and lodging. During the winter they would be studying at Kensington; and if the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich had been in a ship draughtsman's office and seen the beautiful geometrical problems and the various calculations there worked out, he would know that it required a good deal more scientific acquirement than the mere mechanical building of a ship, in order to become a naval architect; one was mere mechanical art, the other one of the highest branches of science.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONhoped he might infer that the doubts entertained by the Committee with respect to this proposition referred rather to the locality than to the question, whether or not there should be a School of Naval Architecture. He could not express too strongly his convic-
  1314
  tion that for the interests both of the navy and the mercantile marine the establishment of a School of Naval Architecture was most necessary. He, therefore, hailed with pleasure the beginning made by the Admiralty. Whether or not Kensington was intended to be the permanent place for this school he knew not, but his belief was that it had been selected for the time merely from the accident that Lord Granville had it in his power to grant rooms there. So strongly was he convinced of the importance of such an establishment, that he anticipated that, as from all parts of the country students were sent to the Universities and the great schools, in like manner students would resort to the School of Architecture, wherever it might be established.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDwished to know, whether placing the School at Kensington was a temporary or permanent arrangement? If the arrangement was intended to be permanent it was most objectionable. He thought that the proposition to place a School of Naval Architecture at Kensington permanently would be just as reasonable as to fix a School of Agriculture in the heart of London.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETwas afraid that he could not undertake to say that the arrangement was only temporary. Was it likely that hon. Gentlemen representing the taxpayers of the country would permit him to bring in an estimate for building a college in another place?
  CAPTAIN JERVISwanted to know, whether the noble Lord would state what sum he proposed to allow for each of the Admiralty students in the school—because £2,300 appeared a small sum for the establishment, with a number of men living and lodging in London?
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Item of £2,300, for School of Naval Architecture, and maintenance of Students in the same, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Augustus Smith.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 100: Majority 85.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (7.) £192,574, Naval Establishments at Home.
  SIR MORTON PETOasked, what the Government intended to do with the dockyard at Sheerness, when the extensions and improvements of that at Chatham were completed?
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSinquired, Whether it was intended to discontinue

  1315
  Deptford dockyard? He hoped that, if it was, the yard would not merely be shut up, but that the site would be disposed of, so that it might be occupied by private trade.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he could hold out no hopes that Sheerness dockyard would be abandoned, because, although not a first-rate yard, it was very useful for North Sea purposes. He could give no promise as to what would be done with Deptford; but he hoped and believed, that as soon as the extensions at Chatham had made such progress that the Government could do there the work now done at Deptford, it would be disposed of. This, of course, applied merely to the dockyard, and not to the victualling yard.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that his inquiry was limited to the dockyard. As an additional reason for the abandonment of that yard, he might state that, on visiting it a short time ago, he found a man employed in rooting up the grass which was growing between the stones.
  MR. ADDINGTONasked for some explanation of the expenses of management of the naval asylum for lunatics at Yarmouth, which he saw exceeded those incurred in county lunatic asylums.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that although there were not many lunatics in the navy, still a hospital was required for their reception. Formerly, Haslar was used for that purpose; but, as the accommodation there was required for other objects, they had been removed to Yarmouth.
  MR. ADDINGTONthought that £3,000 was too large a sum to take for a hospital containing no more than 120 patients.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was afraid the expense was likely to in. crease rather than diminish.
  SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, that it was impossible that the hospital at Yarmouth could be maintained for a less sum than £3,000. No money could be better laid out than that which was expended on the Yarmouth Hospital. Dr. Ray, the head of the medical staff, said that the situation chosen was by far the best that could have been selected for the purpose.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £37,666, Naval Establishments Abroad. Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

  VESTRY CESS ABOLITION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 15.]—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Every Vestry Clerk, Cess Collector, Beadle, Engine Keeper, &c., deprived of any Salary or Emolument by this Act, compensated).
  On Motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, words inserted providing that the rate to be levied for compensation in the City of Dublin shall not exceed one-halfpenny in the pound.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On Motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, clause added giving power to Town Councils or Town Commissioners to award Compensation to Parish Officers for loss of salary, fees, or emoluments under the Bill, with an appeal to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions.
  MR. HENNESSYmoved a clause giving Guardians the power of maintaining deserted children out of the workhouse up to the age of twelve years.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that such a provision would be inconsistent with the Act of 1862.
  Motion withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  POOR RELIEF COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. BULLER be added to the Select Committee on Poor Relief."—(Mr. Villiers.)
  MR. LYGONsaid, that as his side of the House had not been consulted in regard to these additions to the Committee, he must move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Lygon.)
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSwas not aware that there was any objection to the names. He would, however, only propose one— that of Mr. BULLER—to-night.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, "That Mr. BULLER be added to the Select Committee on Poor Relief."

  DOCKYARDS COMMITTEE.
  On the Motion of Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Mr. LEATHAM, Mr. LAWSON, Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE, and Mr. HENNESSY were added to the Select Committee on Dockyards.

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes in Ireland, presented, and read 1°. [Bill 38.]
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Railway Schemes (Metropolis) — Report presented. [No. 10]
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Insane Prisoners' Act Amendment Bill [No. 14].

AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES ACT.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he wished to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a question with reference to his explanation, given a few days ago, of the results of the Act for the Augmentation of the Livings in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, and with reference to which there appeared to be some misapprehension out of doors. Several of the newspapers stated, that the Act would place a very large sum of money at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now he (the Earl of Derby) was well aware, as was the noble and learned Lord, that this was not the

  1241
  case; but if it were supposed to be so it would occasion misapprehension and considerable dissatisfaction if it were believed that the sums of money in the hands of the Commissioners were not to be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings. He thought he was not mistaken in saying, that the Commissioners had nothing further to do than to receive the money and apply the interest to the augmentation of the livings of the sale of which it was the produce. There was another portion of the Act providing for the sale of other benefices the income derived from which would not be applied to the augmentation of those livings, but to the augmentation of the other livings retained in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. In point of fact, the Commissioners exercised no jurisdiction or authority over any portion of the funds derived from these benefices.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Earl had correctly apprehended the Act and stated its effect. The monies receivable under it were divisible into two classes, one of which was applicable to the augmentation of the livings, from the sale of which it was derived, and the other portion, derivable from the sale of a hundred livings not specified, which might be sold to landowners upon defined terms, and the produce of which was to be applied to the augmentation of livings retained in the patronage of the Lord Chancellor. Of the money arising from the sale of livings which was applicable to their augmentation, the first moiety was certainly paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but upon these terms, that they should grant to the incumbent a life annuity at the rate of £3 10 s. per cent for every £100 so paid over. The other moiety was suspended, and directed to be accumulated until the avoidance of the living; and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who had offered every facility for the working of the Act, had kindly consented to take charge of the accumulation and of the investing of the interest of this second moiety. With regard to the first moiety, they paid an annuity in return for it; and with regard to the second, they were merely trustees for the accumulation of the capital and interest. The money derived from the sale of the hundred livings would not go into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at all, unless he (the Lord Chancellor) requested them to take charge of it, and in that case they would take charge of it merely as trustees.

THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office a Question, of which he had not given him notice. The public were perfectly well acquainted with the evidence which had been given in the recent trial of the conspirators against the life of the Emperor of the French in Paris, and there could be but one feeling, that if Signor Mazzini or any else in this country had, either by the receipt or despatch of letters, or in any other way aided or encouraged the conspiracy, they had been guilty of a most detestable action. There was, probably, no legal evidence of any such participation; but if there was moral evidence of it, and if a moral conviction was produced upon the mind of the Government, that either Mazzini or any one else in this country had been so engaged, he hoped that they would take up the matter by anticipation, and without waiting for any representations upon the subject, either by means of the powers which were given to them under the Alien Act, or by any others which they might possess, show to the world that such things would not be allowed to continue or to be repeated in this country. The Question he wished to ask was, Whether the Government, in the event of the powers of the Alien Act not being sufficient to enable them to deal effectually with the matter, would take it into their mature consideration, with the view of warding off from this country the suspicion of being mixed up in acts which must be repudiated by all honourable and honest men?
  EARL RUSSELL: I quite agree with the noble Marquess that any persons conspiring for the purposes of assassination are guilty of a detestable crime; but I have no right to say that Signor Mazzini, or any other person living in this country, is guilty of that crime. I have no such evidence, and no such powers are invested in the Executive under the Alien Act as the noble Marquess supposes. I can only answer that I am not going to take any steps in the matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHwas aware that there was no legal evidence which could be acted upon, but had hoped that the Government, acting on the moral evidence to which he had alluded, might have been able to take up the matter by anticipation.

RAILWAY SCHEMES (METROPOLIS).

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  EARL GRANVILLE presented a Report from the Select Committee on Railway Schemes (Metropolis). The noble Bail said he would take the opportunity of testifying to their Lordships, that the Committee had paid great attention to the subject, and had worked most harmoniously. There had been differences of opinion on one point of the recommendation only, and in the division on that point there were two Peers and two Commoners on each side; one Peer and one Commoner on each side were Conservatives, and one Peer and one Commoner on each side were Liberals.
  Report to be printed; Minutes of Evidence, together with an Appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 10.)

  INSANE PRISONERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.— [No. 14.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, the measure had been introduced in order to correct an evil which, he believed, was very generally admitted. By the existing law, which was based on an act of her present Majesty, it was provided, that where two justices of the peace and two medical men signed a certificate as to the insanity of a prisoner, it should be obligatory on the Secretary of State for the time being, to remove that prisoner to a lunatic asylum. There was no desire to take the responsibility with regard to the certificate from the local authorities; on the contrary, it was of advantage that the persons on whom the duty devolved, should be persons who were likely to make themselves well informed upon every case brought under their notice. It was, therefore, proposed by the Bill still to require the certificate to be signed by two medical men, but such medical men were to be appointed by the visiting justices, and their certificate was not to be binding upon the Secretary of State. This was the essence of the Bill, but if any further information were required, he should be happy to afford it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he wished to call their Lordships' attention to the causes which had led to the introduction of
  1244
  the Bill. In doing so, he had no desire to find fault with the Government for the steps they had taken in the matter, but he always, he must say, regarded it as undesirable to endeavour by legislation to provide a remedy for a mischief immediately after the occurrence of any event which led to the prevalence of excitement with respect to it. The occasion of the present measure was the well-known case of the convict Townley, a man who, for twenty-five years, had lived in a free country, under the protection of the laws, who admitted that he believed in God, that he thought the woman whom he murdered was in heaven, and who, when the body of his victim was taken to the house of her grandfather, seemed to have the consciousness of a man who had committed the deepest crime. It was very important to bear in mind the character of the man, in order to see how all this difficulty had arisen, which by this Bill they would prevent ever again taking place. All through his life he had never shown the slightest token of insanity. He was rather amiable in manners, was liked in society, had won the regards of the lady whom he murdered, unknown to her grandfather, and was never supposed to be a person of evil passions. He was accomplished, possessed a knowledge of French, and was an excellent musician. He wrote a very sensible letter to the young lady. His family had never suspected him of mental unsoundness; and it was by their advice that he sought the fatal interview with his victim. It was, therefore, quite evident that they regarded him as utterly incapable of committing the crime of which he was found guilty. Upon the trial there was not, and could not be, any doubt that he was responsible according to the well settled law of England, which had never been more accurately and soundly laid down, than by the learned Judge who presided at the trial, and the jury brought in the only verdict they could have brought in, that of guilty. The only evidence of insanity was that of the surgeon of the gaol and that of Dr. Forbes Winslow. The evidence of the gaol surgeon was hardly worth mentioning, for it appeared by the entries in the prison books that he regarded the prisoner as sound both in mind and body. As to Dr. Forbes Winslow, he had no disrespect for him, but he had disrespect for the opinions which Dr. Forbes Winslow entertained, and he believed that such opinions were not only not well founded in law, but opposed to

  1245
  all law and justice. If anything could unsettle men's minds, and predispose them to commit crimes, it was such a defence as had been set up in this case. The criminal in his examination stated, that he could not resist the impulse he was under to take this young lady's life. The doctrine of impulse was a perfect absurdity, and if allowed to prevail must give escape to the deepest dyed criminals. Equally absurd was the deduction that the performance of an abominable act of itself indicated insanity. As to delusions, there were no delusions at all. Townley said there was a conspiracy, and so there was in the sense in which he meant it—a combination among the lady's friends to take every means in their power to prevent the marriage. He said himself there never was any conspiracy or combination except to take her away from him. Again, it was argued that the offence was not premeditated, but all the evidence tended to show that there was no foundation for such a statement, and all the facts appeared to prove that the deed was a most cold-blooded murder. Then it was said he entertained opinions which no sane human being ever did entertain—namely, that he had the sole command over himself and his own actions; that he could commit any action without being called to account; and that, as he had not assisted to bring himself into the world, he was not bound by the laws of the country. It was a singular thing that he had never communicated any of those opinions to a human being before the murder. His father said they came upon him by surprize, and he said himself he had never communicated them to His father. But why? Because he never entertained them, and it was an afterthought to profess them in order to save his life. It had been said that there had been no premeditation, but all the facts of the case showed that it was a premeditated and cold-blooded murder. If Townley had not lived in a respectable circle the case would never have assumed such a magnitude. Within the last two or three years several similar cases had occurred without exciting any particular amount of public attention. For instance, they not unfrequently read of a man in humble circumstances of life, after "keeping company" with a girl as it was called, when the girl no longer desired to continue the courtship, going to her father's house, asking to see her, and Urging her to accept his attentions, and when she refused, shooting her dead without any ceremony. Or sometimes even
  1246
  when a man had never been accepted as a suitor and his addresses had been refused, he would make up his mind that if he could not have the woman nobody else should, and would put her to death. Or sometimes the parties had been cohabiting together and the woman left the man. Finding that he was less comfortable without her, he had gone to persuade her to resume cohabitation; and, on her refusal to return to him, has murdered her. These cases had been disposed of by the courts of justice, without attracting the least attention. These examples would certainly spread, if some means were not taken to check the evil. Brutal men would get to suppose that a woman was their property, as Townley did, and would think themselves at liberty to sacrifice her if she wished to break off all connection. If Townley had been left in the asylum he would have experienced much greater punishment than in penal servitude. It was hardly fair to the other criminals to place such a man among them, and probably few of the common run of criminals would like to approach a man who had committed such a crime, and who considered himself entitled to avenge his fancied injuries as he pleased. The statute to which the noble Earl had referred enacted, that when two magistrates and two medical men certified that a prisoner was insane, the Secretary of State should issue his warrant for his removal to a lunatic asylum. Nothing could be further from his thoughts than to say a word against the Secretary of State, who was as competent as any man to form a judgment on these matters, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had been actuated throughout by the most conscientious desire to discharge the difficult and painful duties of his office. He (Lord St. Leonards) did not take upon himself to say that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in the course he had taken with regard to Townley. It was said indeed, that the Act under which he had respited Townley was imperative, but he (Lord St. Leonards) very much doubted it. It seemed to him that the object of the statute was to prevent the discharge of a prisoner who had become insane until he had recovered; but in this case Townley had never been insane at all. What had occurred was simply a trial of skill on the part of the prisoner's solicitor to throw over his client the protection of the certificate of insanity, and the warrant of the Secretary of State for his removal to an

  1247
  asylum—an object in which he had proved perfectly successful. He (Lord St. Leonards) could hardly conceive any case like that of Townley occurring again. It was a case of representation of insanity throughout, but there was no real foundation for supposing him insane. In ordinary cases in which a commutation took place, the prisoner had been properly convicted, but had afterwards been certified as insane and transferred to an asylum. In these cases, if the person recovered from his insanity while in the asylum, it had not been thought proper to send him to execution. But this was not Townley's case. Townley had never been insane at all; he had never been a fit subject for transfer from the gaol to a lunatic asylum, and therefore the same reason for not carrying out the capital sentence did not exist in regard to him. Was the case of Townley to be considered a precedent? If so, there could be very little doubt that the Secretary of State would have many such cases to deal with. When the magistrates spoke of money in connection with the commutation of the sentence on Townley, they did not mean to say that there had been bribery. What they meant was that, in respect to such proceedings as were taken by Townley's friends, a convict with money had a, very great advantage over a poor one who had neither money nor friends. As the law stood, if the medical men and the justices sent a certificate of insanity to the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman considered himself bound to act upon it. By the Bill before their Lordships, it was proposed to remedy that state of things and give the Secretary of State a discretion. If the Bill passed he might, on receipt of the certificate, either send his warrant for removal or withhold it. So far the Bill was good. But what he conceived to be a defect in the Bill was, that it did not state what was to be done with the prisoner if the Secretary of State decided on withholding his warrant. Was he to be executed, or was he to be kept in gaol? He would suggest that an Amendment should be made in Committee to meet this defect.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he did not intend to enter into the particular case of Townley, but he wished to say a few words as to the machinery of the Bill, The noble and learned Lord had pointed out that there might be inconvenience from the wording of the Bill, if the Secretary of State did not think proper to act on
  1248
  the certificate of the justices. Now he (Lord Wodehouse) thought it exceedingly doubtful whether the machinery of the visiting justices ought to be employed in the case of a prisoner sentenced to death. In other cases that might be a very useful machinery. If a prisoner were thought insane, it was natural that the visiting justices should consult the surgeon or physician, and then upon their report the prisoner be sent to a lunatic asylum; because, supposing it to be afterwards discovered that a mistake had been committed, it was easy to send the man back to prison. But if, where a man was under sentence of death, the visiting justices put in motion the machinery of the Bill, two gentlemen among them might possibly be found who did not possess all the discretion and all the knowledge which were necessary in so grave a case. Again, though surgeons of gaols were, as a rule, very competent men, some might have a particular theory on the subject of lunacy, and might thus be disqualified from pronouncing a reliable opinion. It was true that the Secretary of State, if he thought fit, might throw overboard the recommendation of the visiting justices; but if the responsibility in these cases rested, as it should rest, directly with the Secretary of State, it was far better that he should order the inquiry to be made by the best qualified persons whom he could select, and upon the report of these persons should decide whether the prisoner ought to be executed or not. On this point he would suggest that the machinery of the Bill might be made simpler and more satisfactory, so that the Secretary of State might be relieved from the invidious duty of saying that the visiting justices and the surgeon were not persons he could trust.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 8th of March.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.