Sitting of 10 March 1864

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS— considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Intoxicating Liquors.
First Reading— Intoxicating Liquors [Bill 44].
Committee—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny*.
Report—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny*.

GAOL DIETARY.—QUESTION.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement recently made by Mr. E. Chadwick before the Society of Arts, that, "taking 104 prison returns,

1755
which enabled a comparison of the twenty gaols where the expense and the quantity of the diet were the lowest, the twenty where the expense and the quantity of the diet were the highest, and the twenty where they were intermediate, the results came out as follows:—

Oz. of solid food per week.

Cost per head per week

Sick per cent.

Deaths per 1,000

20 lowest prison diets

188

1s.

10½

3

1½

20 intermediate diets

213

2s.

4½d.

18

3

20 highest

228

3s

2d.

23½

4

and whether he will cause any inquiry to be made on the subject?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he had not seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and he was wholly in ignorance of the sources from which the figures referred to had been taken, nor could he vouch at all for their accuracy; but an inquiry was now going on into the whole question of the dietary in the Convict Prisons, and when completed, the result would be communicated to Parliament.

THE NORFOLK RIFLE VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Upon what grounds the prayer of a Petition to the War Office from four Companies of Rifle Volunteers—namely, the 5th, 16th, 17th, and 23rd, raised in the county of Norfolk, the Petition praying that according to the War Office regulations these four Companies should be formed into a separate administrative battalion, and having been presented to the War Office by the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Norfolk, was refused?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the request of the four companies could not be complied with, because the new Volunteer regulations fixed six as the lowest number out of which a battalion could be formed, and to which an adjutant could be allowed. Before the issue of the new regulations four companies was the minimum number allowed to form a battalion, and that number was fixed before the adjutants were paid by the Government. It was thought in the present case the better course to divide the four companies and attach them to other battalions rather than to form them into one separate battalion, and the Lord Lieutenant of the county entirely concurred in the views of the War
  1756
  Office with regard to that arrangement. Subsequently, however, as it appeared that these Companies wished to maintain their connection with each other, this arrangement had been altered, and instead of being divided between the two administrative battalions, they had been all attached to the first.

SUB-INSPECTORS OF FACTORIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps, if any, have been taken to comply with the requests contained in the Memorial of the Sub-Inspectors of Factories presented to him last year?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Memorial had been submitted to the consideration of the Treasury, who had sanctioned the arrangement for an increase of salary for those Sub-Inspectors who had served a certain number of years. Provision for that increase would be made in the Estimates, as the addition to this year's estimate would amount to £600.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Will there be any increase for travelling expenses?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: No, only an increase in the salaries.

  CONCENTRATION OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is intended to introduce any measure during the present Session for the Concentration of the Courts of Justice; and whether his attention has been called to the serious depreciation of property on the site recommended by the Commissioners of 1859, in consequence of the uncertainty which has prevailed during the last three years as to the intentions of the Government on this subject?
  MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that he was unable to give the hon. Gentleman as full an explanation as he would have wished upon this subject, but he hoped to be in a position to introduce certain Bills on the subject shortly after Easter.

  GUNNERY INSTRUCTORS.—QUESTION.
  MR. TRACYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, having regard to the demand for Lieutenants as gunnery instructors having

  1757
  become so much greater than the supply, that during the last five years no Officer has been allowed to remain in the school of gunnery long enough to obtain a competent knowledge of the subject, it is the intention of the Admiralty to hold out any inducements to Officers to qualify as Instructors?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, at present he could not distinctly state the intentions of the Admiralty on the subject; but if the hon. Gentleman would have patience to wait until he should make his statement, which would not be very late in the Session, with regard to the proposed improvement in the pay of officers in the navy, he would find that the gunnery instructors had not been overlooked.

  STOREKEEPERS' DEPARTMENT, PIMLICO.—QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, By whose authority an Order has been made in the Storekeepers' Department of the Royal Military Clothing Depôt at Pimlico, by which the Pensioner Clerks, Noncommissioned Officers, are required to apply for a Pass for the Police on incidentally leaving the building, the same Order not existing in the other branches of the establishment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that by the regulations now in force, the pensioner clerks were not obliged to apply to the police for a pass. They were only required to leave their names, written by themselves on a piece of paper, with the constable, at the gate, in order that the names of all persons who left the establishment and the hours of their departure and return might be inserted in the daily report which was prepared.

NAVY—ARMOUR PLATED SHIPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, What is the depth from the deep load water-line at the fore and aft ends of Her Majesty's Ships Enterprise and Research to the top of the armour-plating, and what depth of side above that is unprotected by armour-plating?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: The armour-plates of the Enterprise are only to the water line, and that part of the ship which contains her batteries. With regard to the Research, a much larger vessel, she
  1758
  has armour plates right up to the beam of the lower deck. I do not think it desirable to state the exact number of feet and inches the hon. Gentleman asked for, but if he will come to the Admiralty I shall be very happy to show him full details of each ship,

  CASES OF STARVATION IN THE METROPOLIS.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I wish, Sir, to ask the Chief Commissioner of the Poor Law Board, Whether he has had his attention called to one of the cases of starvation, which unhappily have been too frequent in the metropolis of late, and whether he has seen the verdict of the Coroner's Jury passed on that occasion; and whether in consequence of that verdict of the Jury he has directed an investigation to be made of the conduct of the relieving officer through whom that case of starvation took place, and whether he contemplates taking any steps in the matter?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) is not in his place, but I know he has had his attention called to this case. I cannot exactly state what steps he has taken, but if the Question is repeated to-morrow he will answer it.

  STIPEND OF THE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK AT OXFORD.—QUESTION.
  MR. G. CLIVEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any provision for placing the stipend of the Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford on a proper footing, he being appointed by the Crown?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had no power whatever to deal with any funds which were available for increasing or otherwise altering the stipend of the Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford; nor were they in possession of any facts which would enable them to know that the matter had been definitively settled, so far as the University of Oxford was concerned; at any rate, the Government had no funds for the purpose.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Sir JOHN PAKINGTON,
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would postpone the further proceeding on this

  1759
  Bill to Thursday next (the 17th), when it would stand the Second Order of the Day.

NAVY—THE CHANNEL FLEET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Channel Fleet has returned to the British Channel, and what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are in the event of the Austrian Fleet proceeding to the Baltic?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: The Channel Fleet has returned, but what its future destination may be I am unable to inform the hon. Gentleman.

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

BRITISH PROVIDENT SOCIETY— (MR. H. B. SHERIDAN.)

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: Sir, I hope the House will pardon me while I refer again to a statement made during the debate upon the Government Annuities Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That statement was sudden and unannounced; no notice was given to me, although it involved facts and figures referring back to nearly ten years ago, so that I was unable to make a full reply to it at the time, and it has taken me a day and a half to get at the facts and figures which would enable me to reply completely to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would have made that statement unless he had had faith in the information that had been conveyed to him. The first statement was, that the British Provident Association was established in 1851, and carried on business for eleven years, and that, during the whole of that time, it had three times only—that is from 1853 to 1856— registered its accounts as required by law. Now, Sir, the British Provident Society was established for eight years only, instead of eleven as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. It transferred its business in 1859—it did not commence business until 1852. It registered its balance sheets of 1852, 1853, and 1854; but at the end of that time the Act of Parliament which
  1760
  compelled that registration was repealed unintentionally, and the registrar refused to receive the balance sheet after that date. It so happens, therefore, that a most complete answer can be given to that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I find that I audited the accounts of that Company but once, and that was in the year 1854–5, when it was a very young institution, its business being under £3,000 a year, and that business being of a sound character. The next statement of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Manager of the Company was John Sheridan. If the House will allow me I will read the words, "An action was brought against the Manager of the Society for interpolating words in a deed which altered its character after execution." Now there is no foundation whatever for that statement. No action was ever brought against Mr. John Sheridan, the Manager, on any such grounds or any other grounds whatever. A feigned issue, as between the official manager and one of the shareholders, was tried in the Court of Chancery, but no charge was made by any shareholder against the Manager, and no action was brought; that statement, therefore, is unquestionably incorrect. The next statement of the right hon. Gentleman was that of course it was necessary that the Society should be brought to book and called on to make provision from the resources of the shareholders for the demands of the policy holders. Not only is that statement incorrect, but directly the reverse of what is the fact. So far from the Company having been compelled to go into the Court of Chancery to make provision for the policy holders from the sources of the shareholders, their business was transferred to another office in 1859; and, so far from the business being bad, a bonus of £6,000 was paid to the shareholders for the business thus transferred. That is such a remarkable fact that I cannot understand where the right hon. Gentleman can have got his information from. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman never would have made that statement unless he had received information of that character. I do not for a single moment suppose the right hon. Gentleman did not believe what he stated; but, supposing that to be so, I should like to ask the House, even if the action referred to had been brought against a Sheridan, what on earth that has to do with me. There are a great many persons of the name of Sheridan whose names have been

  1761
  before the public. There is one in Birmingham, an excellent actor; there is one who is the secretary of a society; and lately there was one of that name who passed through the Insolvent Court, and who, it was said, was my son, my son at the time being just ten years old, but I did not take the trouble to contradict the report. There was another of the name of Sheridan, a labouring man, who was accused of murdering his mother and sister. I beg to be allowed to assure the House that I am not the gentleman concerned in any of these cases. I hope, when the Government Annuities Bill is next discussed, I shall not be asked to make further explanations.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not certain even if I am in order in rising to say a single word on the present occasion; but I think I shall be dealing more fairly towards the hon. Gentleman if, before I attempt to establish what I said, I refer to the documents, papers, and books, upon which I spoke on a former occasion. Having had no intimation that the subject would be revived again to-night, I think it will be better that I should look carefully into the facts of the case; and I will then state precisely what I will undertake to establish, or I will then be prepared to acknowledge whether there are any errors in what I have stated, and if so, whether they are errors of form or substance.

RATES AND TAXES ON OFFICERS OCCUPYING PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Under what circumstances certain officers paid now and others are for the future to be called upon to pay Rates and Taxes for occupying Public Buildings which have hitherto been free, and also to move for Returns and Correspondence relating thereto? The hon. and gallant Officer instanced some of the cases to which he referred. He wished to know under what circumstances Sir Edward Blakeney, Sir Alexander Woodford, Colonel Sir J. Wilson, and several other officers who were now occupying apartments in Chelsea Hospital, some of the sitting rooms of which were only sixteen feet by nine, had been called upon to pay rates and taxes for their quarters? One of these officers had been sixty years in the service, had
  1762
  been wounded a great many times in battles in various parts of the world; in one battle he was wounded seven times, and he had now two bullets in his body. A demand had been made last week on General Hodges, commanding a brigade of cavalry at Aldershot, for his rates. He did not know under what circumstances the demand had been made, but trusted the Government would consent to produce any Returns which might be calculated to throw a light on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was sorry that he could not give his hon. and gallant Friend an answer, as he was not aware that the Question would be put that evening. His hon. and gallant Friend had had the notice on the paper for some time, and he expected a private warning from him as to the precise day when it would come on. He could only say now that the question of the payment of rates by persons residing in Government houses was a very complicated one. There were great differences in practice in the different branches of the service, and the rule adopted in the navy did not apply to the army. Last year a Treasury Committee inquired into the matter and gave certain recommendations, which had not yet been carried into effect. Before any measures were taken, the authorities at the War Office and the Admiralty would confer, with a view to the adoption of an uniform system. If the hon. and gallant Member would repeat his Question on some future day, he might perhaps be able to inform him what were the intentions of the Government on the subject.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was under the impression that he had given private notice of his Question to his noble Friend, whose courtesy he was bound to acknowledge, when leaving the House one night.

ARMAMENT OF THE ROYAL NAVY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to call attention to the defective state of the Armament of the Royal Navy. The welfare of the navy was naturally a matter of such deep interest in this country, that he felt he need make no apology for bringing this subject under the notice of the House. He trusted he might assume that a British ship ought to leave her port perfectly built, perfectly manned, and perfectly armed.

  1763
  As regarded the construction of ships, they were for a long time disgraceful in that respect, the models being largely borrowed from foreign nations, and the best of them from France. Of late years the Admiralty had, however, made great improvements in shipbuilding, and we now possessed the finest navy belonging to any civilized Power. For many years there was also good ground of complaint as to the manning of the navy. Lord Dundonald drew attention to the very bad state of things which prevailed; but it continued for a long time afterwards; and in the time of Lord Minto it was so disgraceful, that one of the Board of Admiralty resigned his seat because he held that the Board did not do its duty on this point. At present, however, no ship was sent to sea without being perfectly well manned with a crew worthy of the British navy. He now came to the third branch of the subject—the armament; and here he regretted that he could not give the same approbation as in the two other cases. We had always been behind foreign countries, and particularly the Americans, in the armament of our ships. At the time when Lord Dundonald was complaining that our ships were manned with the sweepings of the gaols and by dint of press-gangs, the armament was also in a very defective state. We then sent out frigates carrying 18-pounders to cope with powerful ships carrying 24.pounders; and it was owing to that great mistake of the Admiralty that the Americans were able to take into port, with the British ensign lowered, our Macedonian, Guerrier, and Java, that two of our "jackass" frigates were captured at once by a single American frigate. The Admiralty unfortunately did not find out the blunder till too late; but then they despatched the Endymion, armed with 24-pounder guns, which fully vindicated the honour of our flag in the contest with the President. It could not be said that the latter was vanquished in fair fight, since she struck her flag to a squadron of frigates, but she was cut in pieces by the 24 pounders of the Endymion. The next improvement of our guns was introduced by Sir Thomas Hardy, by the equalization of the calibre of the guns throughout the navy, the 32-pounder being taken as the standard. For some time the Americans did not gain any great advantage over us in weight of metal, though they secured a very powerful gun called the Columbiad. We then introduced the Paixhan shell-gun
  1764
  into our navy, which was also used by the French, who however, in addition, had 36-pounders instead of 32-pounders, as we had. He believed that the French still retained their 36-pounders. But what did the Americans do? They were determined to procure a more powerful armament, and they succeeded. A very clever naval officer, Admiral Dahlgren, invented a gun on the Paixhan plan, of nine-inch calibre; and they equipped the whole of their ships with shell-guns of that one calibre. Although our frigates were more shapely to look at, the Americans contended that their ships, armed with nine-inch shell-guns, could pour forth a more formidable broadside. There could he little doubt of the prodigious effect produced by shells. At Sinope the Russians destroyed the Turkish fleet entirely by shells, and with one shell the Alabama sent the Hatteras to the bottom of the sea. On referring to naval history he found that in one case a French ship received 3,000 solid shot and never went down; but if that ship had received 300 shells, what would have been the consequence? He consequently contended that up to the last few years the American vessels carried more powerful batteries and were better armed than our ships. We had now arrived at the epoch of iron ships. He did not wish to criticize the building of iron ships; he presumed we were at least on an equality with other nations, and he was contented to believe that every Board of Admiralty would carry on the best system of construction. But he trusted we should not fall into the great mistake of supposing that, if we could build iron ships, the Americans could not do the same. Their iron was superior to ours, and the Americans were an ingenious go-a-head people, who would never allow themselves to be beaten by us in any work of this sort. Six years ago, at the battle of Solferino, the Emperor of the French made a complete revolution in the armaments of the world. He there produced a rifled gun which had a greater trajectory power than any that had ever appeared in a field of battle before. So great was the improvement supposed to be that all the nations of Europe set to work to arm their navies and armies with rifled guns. The French had already armed their navy with these weapons. What had we been doing to place ourselves on an equal footing with other countries, and how had we succeeded? We had spent £3,000,000, we had been six years

  1765
  hard at work, and now at last we were going back to the old gun which had been well termed the" Brown Bess" of the navy. The history of our operations was rather curious. It appeared that the Duke of Newcastle met somewhere with an engineer named Armstrong who made a few guns. The hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) during his administration at the War Office laid hold of the same Armstrong, and it must be confessed that he got more out of him than any one else, for he set Armstrong upon doing that which Armstrong could do, and did not try him beyond his means. Under the superintendence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, Armstrong produced 12-pounders which were excellent field-pieces, and he also turned out 40-pounders. It was not for him to decide whether the breech-loading principle was the one that ought to be preferred above all others; but this he knew—that it was not the general opinion throughout the Artillery service that the breech-loading system was the best. However that might be, Armstrong made 100-pounders and 110-pounders for the navy; but it was a remarkable fact that all the guns he produced other than those ordered by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon, were dead failures. As our seamen said, they fired at both ends; they blew away their breech plugs, and destroyed the hair and whiskers of our artillerymen with what was called a "mild escape of gas." The evidence taken before the Select Committee was decisive that these guns were faulty and perfectly useless for the navy. Captain Wainwright declared they were the worst guns he ever saw in a sea-way; and his evidence was confirmed by the proceedings at Japan, where the guns were devious in their firing, and in some cases actually refused to go off at all. What was to be done? Were we to go to sleep in the happy belief that the Americans were in the same position as ourselves? He hoped we should do nothing of the kind. The Times always befriended Armstrong, but it was remarkable for its excellent correspondence, and it not unfrequently happened that its correspondents went very much in opposition to the gentlemen who wrote the leading articles. In one of his letters, the Richmond Correspondent of The Times had stated that Parrott guns in the North and Brooke guns in the South possessed penetrative powers against which no armour plates could avail; he raised a
  1766
  warning voice to his countrymen in England, and expressed his astonishment at the apathy of our War Office and Admiralty, which did not send over competent persons to watch the progress of armament in America, and see it brought to proof in actual warfare. The same gentleman, in a second letter, wrote as follows:—
  "Again I feel tempted to raise a warning voice about the disparity of the armament on board of the English and American navies. It is impossible for those who have been many months absent from England to be well informed as to the actual state of public opinion at the present moment upon this vital subject. But, judging from the officers of Her Majesty's navy, who have at rare intervals brought vessels of war into Confederate ports, it appears still to be held that the 68-pounder, or 8-inch smooth bore, is England's best weapon of offence against ironclad vessels. The experience gained at Charleston enables me confidently to affirm, that as well might you pelt one of the Yankee Monitors or the Ironsides with peas as expect them to be in any way damaged by their 8-inch shot. Another disagreeable question forces itself upon an Englishman's attention, when he is cognizant of the terrific broadside thrown by the eight 11-inch guns of the Ironsides—one of the most formidable broadsides, in the opinion of the defenders of Charleston, which has ever been thrown by any vessel. Have we any ship in existence which could successfully resist such a broadside, and respond to it with anything like commensurate weight and vigour? I should be faithless to my duty if I did not mention that it is the universal opinion of all the English officers serving in the Confederate army with whom I have conversed, that England is behind America in the weight and power of the guns sent by both nations to sea."
  The other day there sailed from Portsmouth one of our armour-clad ships, the Hector. She was originally intended to carry 34 guns; but her present armament was 24, of which 20 were the old 68-pounders and four were Armstrong rifled 110-pounders. The facts were given by The Times' correspondent at Portsmouth, and The Times remarked that when it was considered that the guns on board the Hector only fired cast-iron projectiles, it could be of little consequence, as against armour-clad ships, whether she carried 1 or 50 of such weapons. That ship was going to the Mediterranean, and would anchor alongside the Solferino and the Magenta, which were armed with 6½-inch guns, on the pattern of a certain gun that was tried in 1860 near L'Orient, which carried 27lb. of powder, and which, at 1,100 yards, sent its shot through and through a target representing the side of La Gloire. Suppose a war were to break out, and the Hector fell in with either the

  1767
  Solferino or the Magenta, what would become of her? But how were we in that state? Because in this age, when our Ministers propounded the doctrine of throwing everything open to competition, they yet allowed a profound monopoly to exist in guns, shutting out all our most competent engineers. Everything must be done by Sir William Armstrong, who, when he made an expensive failure, was not discharged but was left to try again; whereas everybody who opposed him received the cold shoulder. Mr. Whitworth said he had never had a fair trial, though it was said he was now about to get one. Yet Mr. Whitworth had declared that he had no faith in the persons whom the War Office trusted in these matters. Again, there was the Mersey Ironworks Company, represented by the hon. Member for Liverpool, and which had made the Horsfall gun—a weapon allowed by engineers to be of the finest wrought iron that ever came out of a workshop. Their gun had stood every test, and it was presented in the handsomest manner by the company to the Government. Yet, when it was done with, it was thrown into the mud, and the company were never thanked for what they had done, nor employed to make other guns, because that would interfere with Sir William Armstrong. Why were not other persons to be allowed to compete with Armstrong, with Whitworth, or with any one else? To such men the Government turned the cold shoulder, and they were compelled to seek customers elsewhere. The Mersey Ironworks Company were now making excellent guns for foreign Governments. Then there was Captain Blakeley, who was making guns successfully for America and Russia—the same kind of gun with which the Alabama sunk the Hatteras. He offered to try his gun against the guns of Armstrong or Whitworth at his own expense—offering, Englishmanlike, to back his weapon for a thousand guineas. Our Government, he repeated, gave the cold shoulder to native talent, and that talent was now seeking a market elsewhere. He thought that in bringing the question of our artillery under the notice of the House, he had done no more than it was his duty to do.

  THE "PRINCE CONSORT" AND THE "LIVELY."—QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admi-
  1768
  ralty, The circumstances under which Her Majesty's Ship Prince Consort was ordered to Liverpool in November last, the state of the Ship when the orders reached Devonport, the period which elapsed before she was reported ready for sea, the state of the weather when she put to sea, whether she was officered and manned by her regular establishment or by a crew assembled for the occasion, the circumstances that occurred in the Irish Channel which caused her to put into Kingstown, whether since she returned she has not been found to have been in an unseaworthy condition on that occasion, and the nature of the repairs and alterations she received subsequent to her return, and before she was finally fitted for the pennant? It was necessary that he should explain his Question. Two cases had lately occurred, in the first of which one of Her Majesty's ships was lost, and in the second another was placed in the most serious jeopardy by being sent to render services for which there could have been no ostensible occasion, and services which, in one instance, it was perfectly impracticable and impossible for the vessel which was sent to perform. It might be recollected, that towards the end of November there were very heavy gales in the North Sea. At that time a considerable number of vessels, some of them fishing smacks, and other coasters, were blown off the coast and deemed either to be lost or in great danger, and their whereabouts unknown. The Admiralty were applied to to take measures for rescuing these vessels, and orders were sent to Berwick requiring a gunboat called the Lively to proceed to sea for the purpose of finding a number of these vessels whose locality was unknown, in a state of the weather when it was utterly impracticable for her to render any assistance to vessels which were themselves in a far more seaworthy condition than the one which was sent after them. The result was very much what might have been expected. The gunboat was lost under circumstances that were well known to the public; but by whose orders she was moved, or for what reason a vessel of such a character could have been sent on such a wildgoose chase, had never transpired. Indeed, while the Admiralty continued to be administered in an irresponsible manner, it was impossible to discover how and by what means Her Majesty's ships came to be put in danger. The second case was that of the Prince

  1769
  Consort. His information as to this case was derived from the public papers. It was stated that two steam rams, alleged to be constructed for the Confederate Government, were ordered to be detained at Liverpool, and that it was thought necessary to strengthen the force available for maintaining the capture, as it was believed that forcible possession would be taken of those steam rams in the harbour of Liverpool. That was the statement which was generally circulated. At that time the Prince Consort, which was then understood to be fitting for the second-class steam reserve, but was certainly not out of the hands of the shipwrights, was all of a sudden ordered to proceed towards the Mersey. The circumstances under which she started were, he believed, these:— The orders came down from London by telegraph, and a crew was instantly turned over from the Royal Albert and placed on board the ship. They were very good men and officers, he had no doubt; but the Prince Consort was in an incomplete state, and in the month of November, with the appearance of threatening weather, having just time to swing for her compasses, she was forced into the Irish Channel. It was also reported that her behaviour in the Irish Channel when a gale sprung up was bad, that she was so uneasy, that she shipped so much water, that she rolled the whole arc in six or eight seconds, that her scuppers were choked, and that the number of cocks and pipes with which she was fitted was such, that it would take the men three months to understand their use, whereas the ship's company had been turned over suddenly into a vessel with that novel and complicated machinery; that the result was, that in an ordinary gale of wind, in which a ship with close-reefed topsails might have been as safe as a duck, she was reduced to such a distressed state that, with her after furnaces extinguished, she was obliged to seek shelter in the anchorage off Kingstown harbour. He wished, therefore, to have from the Secretary of the Admiralty a categorical answer on these points; and if the noble Lord desired to give such an answer, he (Sir James Elphinstone) would move for the Reports of the officer who was in command of the ship; for he was convinced that there was no sailor in the House who would not agree with him, that to place, at a few hours' notice, a ship of that kind, in a rude and unfinished state, with a crew perfectly new to her, with officers who had
  1770
  not been together—to place her in a position of such jeopardy, was one of the most extraordinary exercises of power of which an Admiralty had ever been known to be guilty. But the House must, sooner or later, get at the source in the Admiralty from whom these orders emanated. It was all very well to go into a Committee-room,' and for one First Lord after another to come forward and tell them that they were responsible. Was there any sailor who would have ordered ships in such a condition to sea? Why, was it not monstrous to send a cripple to sea after seaworthy vessels? But that was not the only case. In 1857 a number of Dundee vessels were adrift, and then it was of importance for the Government to secure the votes of certain Liberal Members. In the middle of winter the Admiralty sent two sloops of war, the Salamander and the Bulldog, to cruise in the North Sea for the five missing Dundee vessels—totally forgetting that as soon as they reached latitude 60 they got into utter night. When they could not see the length of their own ships how could they possibly render assistance to others? Yet the safety of these ships and the lives of their crews had been imperilled by what he could not designate otherwise than as a most profligate proceeding, which no sailor ever could justify. These were cases which it was the duty of the House of Commons to investigate. Two of Her Majesty's ships were endangered, and, he had no hesitation in saying, for political purposes in both cases—in the one instance to oblige some Member of Parliament who wanted to favour his constituents by getting a man-of-war sent after missing merchant ships, and in the other for the purpose of "Bunkum," to show the American Government that we were determined to keep the rams in safe custody, although one had no rudder and the other was incapable of moving, by sending the Prince Consort to reinforce Her Majesty's ship Majestic, an 80-gun ship, under whose guns they were placed, backed by a sloop of war and a gunboat.

CASE OF MR. THOMAS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: As my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty can only speak once, I beg leave, before he replies, to put to him the Question of which I have given him notice, relative to the case of a young man whose

  1771
  name is Thomas, a clerk in Portsmouth dockyard, which is one of deep interest to the House and to all the public Departments, as affecting the principle and extent to which the system of competitive examinations for the Civil Service are to be carried. I had no acquaintance whatever with the young mail until a short time since he wrote to me, and brought his ease under my notice. I do think it one of great hardship, and I cannot help hoping that my noble Friend will reconsider the circumstances of which I complain. The case is simply this:—In 1855, Mr. Thomas was appointed a temporary clerk in the High Court of Admiralty. A few months afterwards he was moved to the dockyard at Malta, and there he became temporary clerk in the Superintendent's office. There he remained until last year. In 1861, after five years' service, he applied to be placed on the establishment as a clerk. The answer of the Admiralty was, that he would be placed on the permanent establishment if he would consent to go through a competitive examination. Very wrongly, as I think, for himself, he consented to undergo a competitive examination with three other candidates. The natural result followed. After five years' highly satisfactory public service he failed, as my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would, no doubt, himself have failed, and as I am sure I and most other Members of the House would have failed under the circumstances. After this, his case was warmly taken up last year in the most generous spirit by Admiral Codrington, who had been five years Superintendent of the dockyard at Malta, and whose warmest approbation this young man had obtained. He wrote a letter to the Admiralty, and entreated, for the sake of justice, that the young man might be placed on the establishment. Admiral Codrington received the following answer:—
  "Admiralty, March 3, 1868.
  "With reference to your communication of the 16th ult., No. 36, forwarding a request from Mr. Thomas to be placed on the establishment, I am to acquaint you that Mr. Thomas, having been afforded an apportunity for obtaining an established appointment in June, 1861, on which occasion he passed anything but a satisfactory examination, and being now over the age of thirty, no prospect of being placed on the establishment can be held out to him."
  Thus, after two years more of exemplary service, he is reproached with the misfortune of age, which, of course, is a growing misfortune. Admiral Codrington, acting
  1772
  with the greatest kindness, made another strong remonstrance in these words—
  "Malta, April 30, 1863.
  "I feel bound, before resigning this superintendence, to solicit a reconsideration of that case. I enclose a certificate, which I felt bound to give Mr. Thomas; and, as I have had the fullest experience, extending over a period of almost five years, of this gentleman's capacity as a very efficient clerk, I would respectfully deprecate that the examination which he passed in June, 1861, should be taken as a test of his value and efficiency."
  I will not trouble the House with the remainder of the letter, or the strong certificate which was enclosed; but I will read the certificate of Admiral Codrington's successor, Admiral Austin, given last July—
  "These are to certify that Mr. Henry Carleton Thomas served as extra clerk in my office from the 4th of May, 1863, when I entered on this superintendence, to this date; and I am happy to confirm the high opinion entertained of him by my predecessor. The cause of his leaving Malta yard is to take up an appointment at Portsmouth yard; and his loss to my office is a source of great regret to Mr. Innes, who conducts the duties of my office."
  The only other paper I shall read is one of the strongest testimonials I have seen. It is from Mr. Henry Innes, Senior clerk of the dockyard, Malta, and is dated April 30, 1863—
  "Mr. Henry Carleton Thomas has discharged the duties of clerk in this office (temporary list), under my immediate direction, as senior clerk, for considerably over seven years. I have had the fullest opportunities of knowing his value, and appreciating his undoubted intelligence, usefulness, and zeal. From an experience in these departments, in the position of Dockyard Secretary, extending to twenty-one years, I do not know a more thoroughly useful and valuable clerk. In exigencies he has borne the responsibilities of the whole office; and he has proved to me at all times as useful as a right hand."
  That is as hearty a testimonial to the merits of this young man as any I have ever read, and was sent to him at the expiration of nine years of public service. It so happened that this young man, when he left Malta, succeeded a gentleman whose case came before me when I was at the Admiralty. A clerk was transferred to the Admiralty who was in the office of the Controller and the Controller asked mo to make him a permanent clerk. There was no better man in the service; but I was told he must go through the Civil Service Examination. I immediately replied I would not allow him to go; he had given a better test of efficiency than any competitive examination, having

  1773
  filled the office of clerk for six years with the highest honour to himself. The Civil Service Commissioners said they had no option, but I had the power of appointing him. I had no hesitation in putting aside the Commission, and I appointed that man a clerk. Two years ago, when we had a discussion on appointments to the Civil Service, I mentioned this case, and I was followed in the debate by my late lamented friend Sir George Lewis. I beg my noble Friend's attention to the passage I will read from the speech of Sir George Lewis—
  "There were a great many temporary clerks in the War Office, and, as the result of inquiries instituted by a Committee, it was recommended that a number of these should be transferred from the temporary to the permanent branch of the establishment. That change has been recently effected in the appointments to the Accountant General's Department, and then arose the difficulty, which my right hon. Friend has just pointed out—namely, the injustice of subjecting to competitive examination clerks who, having been for some time in the public service, may be supposed to have forgotten whatever literary attainments they possessed when they left school; or, at all events, who, if their attainments when young were not very extensive, have shown by their conduct in office their fitness for the position of public servants. It appeared to me, as it did to my right hon. Friend, that there was considerable hardship in subjecting those persons to a competitive examination, and, therefore, I decided, after conferring with the Civil Service Commissioners, that such temporary clerks should be subject to a qualifying examination only if they had not previously qualified for the establishment. The Civil Service Commissioners admitted the justice of that view, and made arrangements by which they agreed to grant a certificate upon the candidates passing a qualifying examination." [3 Hansard, clxi. 372.]
  The case of Mr. Thomas was precisely one of those cases, and I appeal to the noble Lord to carry out the principle so clearly laid down by Sir George Lewis, and to allow this young man to be placed upon the permanent staff. He is married and has a family. His health has suffered from his long service in the climate of Malta, and I have shown the high estimation he is held in for a public servant of his class. The House will understand that the question is one of importance to this gentleman, because upon it depends his claim to superannuation when he retires. What can be urged against him? I hope we shall hear no more about his failure to pass an examination after I hare quoted the language of Sir George Lewis. Neither ought his age to be used against him. If it be put forward it is, I think, conclusively
  1774
  answered by the fact, that I have seen a letter signed by the Secretary of the Admiralty of that time, approving of his appointment in the dockyard at Malta. I believe that at the time Mr. Thomas was first appointed a clerk in the High Court of Admiralty he was a few months over twenty-five years of age; but that objection, if urged, is disposed of by the fact that he was appointed to the High Court of Admiralty and afterwards appointed a temporary clerk in Malta dockyard with the sanction of the Board of Admiralty. It would not now be just after a faithful service of nine years to urge that he is disqualified by that very length of service from obtaining the position which he seeks.

FRENCH BREECH LOADING CANNON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DAMERsaid, he would also beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there has been any trial in this country of the French breech-loading cannon, firing 30 lbs. spherical shot (and 60 lbs. cylindrical shell), which have by French accounts so well answered, piercing four and a half inches of iron at 1,000 yards?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, I will first answer the question which has just been put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Damer). We have not had in this country any trial of the French gun to which he alludes, but I think the report which has reached this country of that gun is open to doubt.
  I will now notice the observations of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droit-wich (Sir John Pakington). Nothing can be said than what the right hon. Baronet has said with regard to the merits of Mr. Thomas. I believe him to be an excellent clerk, and to be deserving of an appointment if it can properly be given. The right hon. Gentleman stated the case very fairly, but I think he omitted one or two circumstances which are not unimportant. Mr. Thomas, as I understand, was a temporary clerk in the High Court of Admiralty, which, as the right hon. Baronet knows, has as little to do with the Board of Admiralty as with the War Office. He was a temporary clerk, not continuously employed. That is an important point to consider. He was next appointed a temporary clerk under the Admiralty, being then above twenty-five years of age. Now, there is a rule that no person shall be appointed to the establishment who is above twenty-

  1775
  five, unless they have been previously entered as temporary clerks before that age, and employed in the department continuously, in which case the age is extended to thirty. That is the rule by which our proceedings must be governed. The certificate which entitles an officer to superannuation, does not come from us, but from the Civil Service Commissioners. The Duke of Somerset, when he received Mr. Thomas's application, was anxious that that gentleman should be placed upon the establishment, and, therefore, although not strictly within the regulations, he allowed him to be examined competitively (as is the custom for the Admiralty appointments) by the Civil Service Commissioners for an established appointment. Mr. Thomas failed; but I do not think the Duke would have allowed that circumstance to injure a useful public officer; but, unfortunately, Mr. Thomas failed not in competition, but in the subjects which are required by the Civil Service Commissioners as a test of the qualifications of persons who are to be placed upon the establishment. Under these circumstances, the Duke of Somerset had no alternative but to reject him as a permanent clerk under the Admiralty; but he has done all he could for him. Mr. Thomas has been brought home from Malta, and the Duke would be glad if the regulations would permit him to place him upon the establishment. But if rules are made they must be observed. I admit that these rules may, and in this case do, press hardly upon an individual; but so with all general rules there will be cases of particular hardship. If this gentleman had simply failed in competition, the Duke of Somerset would probably have given him an appointment notwithstanding; but as he failed in the necessary qualifications, it was out of his power to do so. In the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet as having been dealt with by himself, in the case of a Mr. Parker, I believe there were some circumstances which differ from the case of Mr. Thomas. In the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet, the gentleman had been a temporary clerk in the Department of the Admiralty, while Mr. Thomas was a temporary clerk in the High Court of Admiralty, which is a different thing altogether.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Mr. Thomas went to Malta in 1856, having been only a few months in the High Court of Admi-
  1776
  ralty. He succeeded Mr. Parker in his position there.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I wish to point out that the gentleman who was put upon the establishment by the right hon. Baronet had been a temporary clerk in the department, and was simply removed from the temporary to the permanent list.
  I now come to the Questions of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who found fault with the Admiralty in regard to their proceedings in sending the Prince Consort to sea, and also in sending out the Lively gunboat. I must say it required great ingenuity on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to attribute political motives to the Admiralty for what they had done on these occasions; he thought he would find it more difficult to establish any such motives. The case of the Lively was this. There were, as we all know, fearful gales in the North Sea, and a great number of trawlers were caught in them. Great alarm was excited among the families of the fishermen, and among the population of the various ports, and very urgent application was made to the Admiralty to send out vessels to search for and rescue, if possible, the boats that had been blown out to sea. It happened that the only vessels we had available at the time were the Medusa, a fair-sized paddle-steamer, and two gunboats. A deputation from the Mayor and Corporation of Hull appealed to the Admiralty. What political influence was there in that?—a mere municipal deputation, without the interference, I believe, of any Member of Parliament. I think that will get rid of the political aspect of the matter. I ask the House what would have been said if the Admiralty, in those awful circumstances, had not sent all the vessels they had at their command to rescue, if possible, the missing crews? We should have been condemned from one end of the country to the other; and my hon. Friend knows that the order of the Admiralty was, that the officer in command of the coast-guard ships should despatch their tenders without loss of time to search for those vessels, and we sent the Medusa, a larger vessel. A recurrence of the gale occurred, and caught the Lively gunboat when off the coast of Holland, not far from the mouth of the Weser, and she carried away her foremast. Vessels of that class have been all over the world, and why should it be supposed that they are not fit to be sent into the North Sea? The

  1777
  Lively would probably not have been lost had she not had the misfortune to carry away her foremast, and thus become unmanageable.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Was not her foremast stepped on deck?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Vessels masted as she was have gone all over the world. What ground is there for the declamation against the Admiralty?—that there was a want of proper administration, and that if the Admiralty had had a responsible head these things would not have happened? I will tell the House that the responsible officer who sent these vessels to sea was the Duke of Somerset, who is quite willing to take the responsibility for doing so. Now as to the Prince Consort, I need hardly repeat to the House the reasons which induced the Admiralty to require the services of the Prince Consort in the Mersey. There were reports that certain vessels in the Mersey would probably put to sea, and it was necessary that these ships should not be allowed to go. The Prince Consort was not unfitted. She was ready; and, moreover, the Controller of the Navy had expressed a wish that she should have a trial at sea under steam. The crew was put on board—for under our present arrangements we can put a crew on board in twenty-four hours—and within forty-eight hours after the order was issued she went to sea. It is true that the men, having been only so short a time on board, did not know all the various arrangements of the vessel with respect to stores, and hatches, and matters of that sort: and, unfortunately, the moment she left Devonport there came on a very heavy gale of wind, and when she rounded the Land's End she experienced one of the heaviest westerly gales that have been known for a great number of years. She rolled—I need not tell you that our armour ships do roll; it is a peculiarity of our armour ships that they do roll. Had she been in a long sea—had she been on the Atlantic—probably she would not have shipped any water, because we know that a long sea is better than those short seas which prevail in the Channel for a large vessel like the Prince Consort. Well, she got into the Race of Holyhead, where, as every one knows, the sea boils. She took in water; the water was over her engine-room, and matters began to look serious. She came up to the South Stack; but the captain, finding that he could not bear into Holyhead with safety hauled his
  1778
  wind and made for Dublin. It so happened that for some time the vessel lay to; and while she lay to she did not take in water, but when her head was forced against the sea she took in water over her bows and over her sides; in fact, she shipped a great deal of water; and when they reached Dublin all on board were very glad to get her anchors down and her pumps rigged. It was found that the vessel had not leaked, but it was reported that there had been some straining. I will state what was the cause of this fine vessel having such difficulty in clearing herself of the water she shipped. We did not like to make holes in the armour-plates of these ships, and therefore the scuppers were carried below, coming out under the armour-plates in the Prince Consort; but the result proved to be, I believe, that there was no free escape for the water. Having found by experience that this plan of placing the scuppers is not a secure one, we have made a change, with the view of avoiding a recurrence of what took place in this instance. When the Prince Consort came back, she was thoroughly examined, and wishing to see her with my own eyes, I went and saw her in dock. Nautical men know that if a vessel is strained you can tell that by the streaks which appear on the copper of her bottom; but there was nothing like an appearance of straining about this vessel. I had better inform the House that I shall not be understating the matter when I say that the cost of repairing the accident to the Prince Consort will be under £1,000. It is quite true that, while she has been in dock, we have laid out a great deal of money on her; but that has nothing to do with the gale, but is for work done to prevent galvanic action from taking place between the copper bottom and the iron plates. I do not suppose my lion. Friend means that we should condemn one of the finest vessels in the English fleet. We have proved the Royal Oak, which is her sister ship, in every respect. The Royal Oak is out in the Channel squadron, and the captain reports that she is a first-rate seaboat. I think that is an answer to my hon. Friend, with regard to the misfortune which happened to the Prince Consort.
  With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), I should have wished that my noble Friend the Under Secretary for War had had an opportunity of answering the remarks of the hon. Member, because we are not in

  1779
  charge of the manufacture of guns. All we do is to make requisitions on the War Office, and to grumble if we are not well served; and I do not disguise from the House that, on several occasions, we have been disposed to find fault with the Armstrong guns we have had to carry. The hon. Member seems to think that, for tome time past, the Americans have had guns more efficient than ours, and carrying shells, while we have had only the old round shot and a few shell guns. The hon. Member is quite mistaken. For a great number of years we have had shells for every gun in our ships; for our 32-pounders, our 68-pounders—in fact, for all our guns; and, therefore, we are not behind the Americans in that respect. I do not mean to deny that the Americans have attached more importance than we have to guns for shells only; but this raises a very important point of dispute between the Americans and ourselves. The Americans attach great importance to what they call "smashing effects of heavy projectiles with low velocities" but they do not estimate, as we do, that high rate of velocity and range which we strive to obtain in our guns. They think that a heavy projectile with a low velocity will have a greater effect than a lighter projectile with a high velocity. There is much to be said on both sides of this question, and I do not mean to enter on it; we have attached more importance to guns of great range. Their guns have not the same range as ours. The hon. Member said that we had nothing but the old "Brown Bess." He could not have attended to what I said in moving the Navy Estimates, or he would not have arrived at such a conclusion. I said on that occasion that the Admiralty was not satisfied with the 110-pounder Armstrong; but while I said that, I do not mean to convey that we condemn altogether the Armstrong guns. These guns were used during the action at Kagosima. From the flagship, the report of performance was this—that some of the vent pieces broke or blew out, and in one ship the vent piece did what was a great deal worse than blowing out—it jammed. The consequence was, that the gun was hors de combat for some time—for about half-an-hour. But it is stated that the precision and range of these guns were extraordinary, and likewise that the precision in the bursting of their shells was something marvellous. It is true that on board other ships they did not give a good report.
  1780
  They said that the guns did not show very great precision. In fact, they condemned the 110-pounder Armstrong. On reading these reports, I am disposed to admit that there are great defects in these guns; but, at the same time, I think that they have considerable advantages in respect of range. Still, we have not been satisfied, and consequently the Duke of Somerset within the last two years communicated to the War Office—and he did so before the death of Lord Herbert—his earnest desire that there should be a good, wholesome, simple smooth-bore gun for the navy. He said, "I shall be very glad to use Mr. Whitworth's guns and Captain Blakeley's guns if they succeed; but meantime, while all these difficulties exist, let us at least have for the navy something simple which will pierce these armour-plates." Accordingly the War Office prepared drawings for a gun of this description. They were limited to 6¼ tons, because we considered that that was the limit of the weight which seagoing ships should carry in their broadsides. The War Office said that for that weight they could give us a 9-inch gun, a smooth-bore; to carry a spherical shot weighing 100lb. Experiments were made, and we are satisfied with the gun—for the time at all events. We have had very successful trials of it; that is to say, it has pierced 5½ inch plates; and accordingly we have made our requisition upon the War Office for a certain number of these guns for the armament of our ships. But we have not rested satisfied with this, and our very heavy ships, the Minotaur and the Bellerophon, will be armed, experimentally, with 300-pounder Armstrong guns—that is to say, with 12 ton guns, carrying spherical shot of 150lb. weight. The hon. Member would say that Mr. Parrott's or Mr. Brooke's guns were better than these. I am not prepared to say upon the whole whether they are or are not in advance of ours. As regards America, I give my opinion to this House that we are not in a position to say which country has the best of it. With regard to the French, my honest belief is that we are more advanced than they are. That is the state of the case, and if you ask any intelligent French officer I believe he will tell you the same. The French navy depend upon the 36-pounder gun bored and rifled and carrying a rifle projectile of 60 lbs. weight. I know the French navy have tried breech-loading guns on board the Magenta and Solferino, but I likewise know that their

  1781
  officers do not like them and do not think those guns successful. By the courtesy of the American Government we have been able to send an intelligent officer of the navy over to that country. He is looking at their gun manufactories, and I hope we shall have full information as to what guns the Americans prefer and what progress they have made. I can assure the House, however, that in this matter of guns, notwithstanding what is said out of doors, it is very doubtful yet whether any country is more advanced than we are.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he did not admit the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord, that the War Office was responsible for the ordnance of the navy. On the contrary, if there was one thing distinctly shown before the Ordnance Committee, it was that the Admiralty was responsible for what guns they put on board their vessels. The Admiralty decide what guns they will have, and then send their requisition to the War Office for smooth or rifled guns, as they thought best. The Government, with which he was connected, decided on the Armstrong gun, because the Committee confined their Report entirely to guns for service in the field. The only guns ordered were 12-pounders and 40-pounders, and he believed it was admitted that the 12-poun-der was the best field-piece in any service, and he had the satisfaction of hearing the noble Lord say the other night that the 40-pounder was equally satisfactory. The only gun ordered by Lord Derby's Government larger than the 40-pounder was a 70-poun-der, on the requisition of the Admiralty, for the purposes of experiment only. It was for the Admiralty to decide if they approved of a gun or not; and, having been a member of the Ordnance Committee, which sat two years ago, he did not blame the Admiralty for ordering a particular gun, but he did blame them for ordering 500 110-pounders without first making sufficient inquiry. Lord Derby wrote an official letter to the War Office, in which he stated, the Ordnance Committee having approved of 12 and 40-pounder guns, he strongly recommended that guns of a larger calibre should not be introduced into the service without much further trial. He did not, however, blame the Admiralty for having ordered these heavy guns, because there was a great pressure upon them at that time, and they took what was believed at that time to be the best rifled gun that could be had. All he said was that the War Office was not responsible, but that
  1782
  it was on the requisition of the Admiralty that these large guns were ordered.
  LORD LOVAINE,in reference to the case of Mr. Thomas, said, that it appeared extremely hard that a man who had served nine years in a continuous service should be informed that he could not be permanently employed, because he had served for five months in another department. He had been deprived, in consequence, of the advantage of over eight years' service, whilst Mr. Parker, a more fortunate person, and who "had not committed the irretrievable fault of being in another department for a few months, was placed on the permanent establishment after five years' service only. He thought it a very poor excuse, and that it was not dealing out even-handed justice.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he understood from the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, that the Duke of Somerset was prepared to overlook the small objections in Mr. Thomas's case, but the latter was unable to pass the qualification examination, and that, consequently, he had no alternative but to withhold the appointment. He called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hardship of this case, and asked him to consider whether an alteration could not be made beneficially for the public service. There were several similar instances which had caused considerable dissatisfaction. It had often occurred that a temporary clerk had for many years discharged his duties with the greatest satisfaction to the heads of the department, and had obtained the highest character in the office, but when he went up for the qualification examination he was unable to pass, and the Examiners, as they were bound to do, rejected him. The qualification examination was used as a test whether or not the person was able to perform the duties; but what better proof had they that he was able to do so than that he had efficiently and satisfactorily discharged them for a number of years? He was unable to see how the Duke of Somerset could have done otherwise than he had done under the existing rules; and he (Sir Francis Baring) mentioned the circumstance in order to bring it under the consideration of the Government with a view of their remedying the evil so justly complained of. He suggested that in future where the head of the department certified that a clerk had performed his duties satisfactorily for a certain number

  1783
  of years, that clerk might be relieved from examination.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) seemed under the impression that Mr. Whitworth had not had fair play; but, as one of the members of the Ordnance Committee, he was able to state that the whole of the case was most closely investigated. The Committee had before them Mr. Whitworth and Sir William Armstrong, and they were both examined. But the fact was that Mr. Whitworth seemed never to have his gun ready for the trials that were thought necessary. He was ordered to make a gun, but when the Committee assembled it was found he had not made the gun, and consequently he was not there to try it. He was, however, glad to find that Mr. Whitworth had received an order to make some guns, as Sir William Armstrong's guns had not answered to the extent that was expected. He thought there was no reliable inference to be drawn from a comparison of the American guns and our own, with our present amount of information, because there would always be a variation in the strength of the targets, however carefully they might be constructed; and, besides that, we had to consider the calibre of the gun and the charge used. It had been acknowledged by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Commander - in - Chief, in evidence before the Committee, that we had no gun of a large calibre that we could rely on, and the Captain of the Warrior and others thought that large breech-loading guns would be dangerous weapons to use at night quarters. No naval or military officer who had seen the 110-pounder guns could doubt that if they were to be used as breech-loading guns the charge of powder must be reduced, and then probably they could only be used for shells and not for shot. That was a matter that required great consideration and investigation, for if one of these guns should burst between decks when in action, there would be great difficulty in getting the men to fight the remainder of the guns, should the ship he armed with them. He hoped the Admiralty and the War Department would continue to give their attention to the improvement of this gun. He had not the least doubt that if they would offer a suitable reward to any one who would make this 110-pounder a safe breech-loader, some mechanical genius would be found to do it.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the present Session, to introduce measures for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries in England, which were promised last Session? The subject had been brought before the public for some years, and the present state of things was a great hardship to the poor working clergy. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not fulfilled his promise of last year, that he would bring in a Bill; but week after week had passed without any Bill being introduced, and it was said that there were great difficulties in the way, in consequence of the impossibility of getting the Prelates to agree to the provisions of any Bill. If they waited for that, they would have to wait a long time, and he hoped the Government would introduce measures at once on their own responsibility to remedy the evils which had long ago been proved to exist. He trusted that another Session would not be permitted to pass without the introduction of a measure to remedy these admitted evils.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not given any promise on the subject last Session, but he had said that the Lord Chancellor had a Bill in preparation, and, indeed, it was shortly afterwards prepared. He quite agreed that it would be wrong of the Government to abstain from bringing in a Bill until all the Prelates were agreed; but last year the Lord Chancellor had a meeting, at which several of the Prelates and other persons were present, to endeavour to ascertain what amount of support the Clergy Discipline Bill was likely to obtain. The Lord Chancellor was satisfied that there would be great difficulty in passing the Bill which he had then prepared, and he had abandoned the case as hopeless. Nor did he (Sir George Grey) entertain any sanguine hope that he should be able to pass a Bill this year. With regard to the Courts and Registries, about which there was not the same difference of opinion, he had communicated with the Lord Chancellor, and, without giving any positive promise, he might say that the Lord Chancellor hoped to be able to introduce a Bill this Session.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1,275,316, Wages, to Artificers and others at Home.
  Vote agreed to
  THE CHAIRMANbeing about to put the next Vote for Wages of Artificers abroad—
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY—Is the Vote passed? [The CHAIRMAN: Yes.] Why, there was a distinct declaration and promise on behalf of the Government that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty should make a full explanatory statement of the causes which had led to the large increase in this Vote. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) rose to make that statement, but sat down again without doing it, and the Vote was passed. Why has not the statement been made according to promise?
  MR. LINDSAY: I move that the Chairman report Progress. Upon the Vote, which it appears has been passed with great hurry, the Government gave a distinct pledge that we should not be asked to grant a single penny until the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had fully explained the reasons of this great increase of £300,000 in the expenses of the home establishment. He was ready to do it, if I mistake sot— he had his papers in his hand—but for some reason or other he was told to sit down, and the Vote was hurried through. Is that the way in which the Committee of Supply is to be treated?
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I second that Motion. A more extraordinary proceeding I never saw. The Vote is put, and hey presto!—and before we know where we are—it is passed. The Committee is taken completely by surprise. We come down to hear the hon. Gentleman who has shone in this House as the champion of oppressed nationalities under a new character, and we are disappointed in this way. He promised us that on this Vote he would explain this huge volume, which is called a Labour Chart; and, though I have had some experience of charts, I should not like to sail my ship by it, for I understand from Gentlemen who have filled his position that it is based altogether on wrong principles, and will be found, in fact, to be a wreck chart. No doubt that is a convenient mode of proceeding for the Government to get out of promised explanations in this way; but I hope the Committee will not submit to it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I should be sorry if, through any inadvertence of mine, any irregularity has occurred. I beg to say that there was nothing like hurry in passing the Vote. I put it in the usual way, paused on it to give any hon. Gentleman the opportunity of rising to speak upon it—and, as no one rose, passed it. I was not aware that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) wished to make any statement upon it. If it is desired to reduce the Vote it must be re-committed; but if it is only desired that the hon. Member for Halifax shall make his statement, it is competent to him to do so on the Motion for reporting Progress.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: In answer to what has just fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am sure I only express the sense of the Committee when I say there is no inclination to attribute any blame to him. I do not think any one complains of him, for he only fulfilled his duty in putting the Vote which had been placed in his hands in the usual way. But what has occasioned surprise, and something more than surprise, was the rapidity with which the Vote was placed in the Chairman's hands. There certainly was an understanding on a former evening that, looking at the magnitude of this Vote, and its great importance, involving a very large expenditure in the dockyards—a branch of expenditure towards which it was generally understood the attention of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had been specially directed during the recess—we should hear from him the results of his labours. We were all startled to find that, notwithstanding all his investigations, instead of being diminished by his economical views, the Vote had increased by £160,000, and we expected to hear some explanation upon it. As an illustration I may mention that, meeting a friend in the street, he said to me, "Do you think we shall get to Malta dockyard to-night," I said, "I very much doubt it, as it is generally understood the Civil Lord will speak for two hours on Vote 8," and I believe every hon. Member fully expected that, following the arrangement of a former evening, the Civil Lord was ready to give a full explanation of the Vote and of his labours during the recess.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was not fortunate enough to

  1787
  catch the Chairman's eye, or I might have spared the hon. Baronet the trouble of the remarks which he has just made. A miscarriage has occurred, and we have to see in what way it can best be overcome. Of course, the object of the Government is to place the Committee in the same position as if the mistake had not occurred. There must be some inconvenience, but, in order substantially to prevent the liberty of discussion being fettered, we are ready to give a promise that the Vote which has passed prematurely and inadvertently shall be recommitted, so that the House may have the same opportunity of considering it as if it had never been proposed. There is one thing in the way. It cannot be recommitted to-night. The only mode is to report the Vote, and then re-commit it, and we cannot report it the same night as it is passed. If it suit the views of the Committee, as the next Vote refers to the same subject-matter, my hon. Friend will make his statement upon that, and the discussion can then be taken on his statement. As far as voting is concerned on the Vote which is passed, there will be an opportunity on the next evening of Supply to deal with the items as the Committee please. I wish the forms of the House would permit a more convenient course, but in substance this arrangement will permit full liberty of discussing and voting on Vote 8.
  MR. BRIGHT: It seems to me the plan is not a very good one of discussing one night and voting on the subjects of discussion on another night. This is not exactly what I call a miscarriage. It appears to me to have very much the appearance of a trick. I do not know who is guilty of it. I do not think the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) acted upon his own mere Motion. I was attending to what passed at the table, and so was my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, who takes a most intense interest in the Vote, and yet this million of money slipped through without our knowing it. The hon. Member for Halifax, it is notorious, had intimated his intention of making a speech on the Vote; but, on rising, he was told to sit down. There appears to me something in what has occurred very insulting to the House, and very unfair; and, although it is difficult to provide a remedy, we ought not to allow such a thing to be done with impunity. The very last tiling which anybody connected with the Government should endeavour to do is to
  1788
  take advantage of the House and the Committee upon a question of money and upon a Vote of this magnitude. I think the proper course to be to report Progress, so that we may have the discussion and the Vote on the same evening.
  MR. LINDSAY: If we report Progress now, we shall be brought into the exact position we were in when this Vote 8 was taken. I cannot withdraw my Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) has made use of expressions which I do not quite see how he can justify. He said something about something having been done insulting to the House, and bearing the appearance of a trick. What is insulting to the House and bears the appearance of a trick must proceed from some person. A mistake has happened. It is not an insult to the House, and it is not a trick. The hon. Member for Birmingham should not use such terms unless he is prepared to indicate the person who has been guilty of that insult or that trick. The matter was done within the view and hearing of many hon. Gentlemen. My desire was to save the time of the Committee, and not to lose entirely the discussion to-night, hut we will cheerfully be bound by what is thought to be the convenience of the Committee. If, in consequence of this miscarriage, the hon. Member for Sunderland, the right hon. Baronet, and others, are desirous that Vote 8 shall not be discussed to-night, we will not proceed further with the Navy Estimates. But we cannot accede to the Motion to report Progress. There are two supplemental Votes—one for the probable deficiencies of the grants for army services, and the other for the Scheldt tolls, with which it is really necessary to proceed, because, if we do not pass those Votes tonight, the House must sit on days when it does not intend to sit, in order to get the Appropriation Bill before the Recess. We ought to proceed with the Supplemental Estimates, and therefore it will be our duty to take the sense of the Committee on the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: I think that this matter has arisen from an unintentional error of the hon. Member for Halifax. His mistake was in putting the Vote into the hands of the Chairman before making his statement. The correct course would have been to make his statement first.
  MR. LINDSAY: I am entirely in the

  1789
  hands of the Committee, I do not wish to stop the Supplemental Votes. As long as no Votes in the Navy Estimates are taken to-night, so that we may be placed in the same position as when the Chairman took the chair, I shall be satisfied, and will not press my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRIGHT: I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that he was not in my eye when I thought something unfair to the House had been done. I know he is not capable of it. If anyone else was, I hope he regrets it.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: As the hon. Member exonerates the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must inculpate either the hon. Member for Halifax or myself. I am perfectly certain my hon. Friend had no intention to deceive the House. He got up to make his statement, and when he found that the Vote had been put and decided, he sat down.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH: I must complain of what has occurred, as when it came on, I was prepared to bring forward the case of the Joiners. I hope the Government will afford an opportunity on another occasion for a discussion on the subject.

SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTAL ESTIMATE.

  THE SCHELDT TOLL.
  MR. PEELmoved a Supplemental Estimate of £175,650 for the redemption of the Scheldt dues. He had to state in explanation of this Vote that a treaty had been entered into between the various Powers of Europe, and Holland and Belgium in particular, the object of which was to redeem the tolls leviable by the former country on vessels navigating the river Scheldt and proceeding to and from Belgian ports. With that view, it was provided that Belgium should pay to Holland the capital sum of £1,450,000; and that Belgium should receive a certain amount of money from other countries, which were called upon to contribute according to their relative interest in the navigation of the Scheldt, as represented by their respective amounts of shipping in that river. As regarded the obligation to pay the money in the case of this country, he need, of course, hardly say that the matter was entirely subject to the approbation of Parliament. By the Treaty of 1839, which provided for the final separation of Belgium from Holland, it was agreed that Holland, as being the
  1790
  Power which occupied both sides of the lower part of the river, in consideration of her former rights over that river, and of her having consented, also, that the navigation of the river should be free, subject only to the payment of a toll, should be empowered to levy two florins per ton on every vessel going up or down the Scheldt to or from any of the Belgian ports. The Government of Belgium, finding that the effect of the toll would be to act as a differential duty, to the prejudice of the interests of its own commerce, especially at Antwerp, and in favour of the rival port of Rotterdam, undertook—not being obliged to do so by the treaty—to relieve their own vessels and foreign vessels from paying the toll, reimbursing the Government of Holland in the same manner as if Holland had herself collected the dues. The arrangement thus entered into by Belgium had since continued in force; but some time ago Belgium began to complain of the increasing sums annually required to satisfy the demands of Holland under the treaty, and represented the probable necessity she would be under to discontinue making the payments in question on behalf of foreign vessels, and to call upon those vessels to pay the toll on their own account. Now, in the Treaty of Commerce, which was signed a year or two ago between this country and Belgium, it was expressly provided that the latter should pay the tolls on English vessels so long as she continued to pay them on her own; but in the course of the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of that treaty, the Government of Belgium called the attention of the various Powers of Europe to the existence of those tolls, and the increasing sums annually demanded because of them by Holland. The amount of the tolls paid by Belgium in 1851 on British and foreign vessels was, it appeared, only 823,000f.; but it had gone on increasing year by year, until in 1856 it reached l,499,000f., in 1860, l,886,000f., and in 1861—the last year for which there were any Returns— 2,176,000f., or about £87,000. Finding that the annually growing charge thus created very much embarrassed their finances, the Government of Belgium had called the attention of the other Powers of Europe to the subject, pointing out the resemblance which existed between the redemption of the Stade dues in 1861, of the Sound dues in 1856, and that which in the case of the Scheldt toll they proposed,

  1791
  Their scheme of redeeming the toll was not, however, at once acquiesced in by those Powers to whom the proposal was addressed. There could, at the same time, be no doubt that Belgium might at any moment call upon foreign vessels to pay the charge for themselves; and eventually it was deemed expedient that the toll should be redeemed. That decision having been arrived at, it was, he thought, desirable that it should be redeemed as soon as possible, inasmuch as the amount payable to Holland was rapidly increasing. The sum, for instance, paid upon English vessels in 1851 was only 200,000f.; while in 1857 it had risen to 536,000f., and in 1861 to 668,000f. The total amount guaranteed to be paid by the Government of Belgium to that of Holland, under the Treaty of 1839, on account of those dues, was, he might further observe, 17,141,640 florins—a sum which appeared to be arrived at by giving thirty years' purchase for the average amount of the toll for the last ten years. The proportion with which Belgium charged herself was £550,000. Great Britain was to contribute towards the redemption of this toll the sum of £350,000. This amount had been arrived at by the value of twenty years' purchase of the average amount hitherto paid by Belgium on behalf of British vessels during the last ten years. It might appear to some hon. Members that the consideration for the payment of this sum was rather of a contingent character. Up to the present moment the Belgian Government had paid these tolls for British vessels, but they had the power, and might use it, of requiring the different countries to pay the toll for themselves. The Belgian Government had in some measure compensated itself by levying heavy tonnage and pilotage dues on British vessels; but they now consented to repeal the tonnage dues altogether, and to make a great reduction in the pilotage and harbour dues in consideration of the payment in question. The relief afforded by these reductions and remissions would. amount, it was calculated, to several thousands a year. With this explanation he would leave the Vote in the hands of the Committee.
  (2.) £175,650, Moiety of Charge for the Redemption of the Scheldt Toll.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the Treasury never produced the Civil Service Estimates as soon as they ought
  1792
  to do. [Mr. PEEL: This is a Supplemental Estimate of last year, 1863.4.] He did not see how such a Vote could be put into the accounts of last year, and the right hon. Gentleman's explanation only showed that the House ought to have had this Estimate before it on the first day of the Session, if not indeed at the end of last Session. The proposition now before the House was of the most extraordinary character. It went further than the redemption of the Stade and Sound dues, because those were payments to redeem charges for which this country was actually liable; while this was a proposal to redeem a toll for which we were not liable, and which we were not now actually paying. The opportunity ought to have been taken by this treaty to make some arrangement in regard to our reciprocity dues with Belgium. He wished also to know why it had not been made a condition that Belgium should take off the duty on rags. Belgium not only levied an export duty on rags, but also levied a duty on the import of paper from this country. When the Foreign Office were dealing with a Power like Belgium, they ought to have taken steps to put our manufacturers on a fair footing with those of Belgium and other countries. The Committee had been told that one of the advantages to be gained by this payment was a great diminution of pilotage dues, and a reduction of the local taxes imposed by the city of Antwerp. A tariff of the reduction of the pilotage dues was given, but there ought to have been likewise a tariff of the local taxes of Antwerp and the amount reduced. With regard to the present sum he thought the country was called upon to pay more than its fair proportion. The share of Great Britain appeared to be about one-half of the sum paid by foreign nations, and would amount to about two-sixths of the whole sum to be paid; while he could not perceive that the United States were called upon to pay anything at all. He trusted that some further explanation would be given of this Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question immediately before the Committee was not very intimately connected with the commercial law of Belgium, to which his hon. Friend had referred. The commercial policy of Belgium was far from having attained that progress which they would desire to see; but then it was not to be judged either by the abstract truths of political economy or even by the best

  1793
  existing standards. What ought to he taken into consideration was what advance the Belgians had made. Belgium was one of the most prosperous and enlightened nations of Europe, and if in one respect it was somewhat backward, still it had made a very great step in advance, with which they were bound to be satisfied. But with regard to the original question, the proposal was one which did not stand so much upon any one broad abstract principle as upon a consideration of the combined effect of all the circumstances which bore upon the case. In the first place, the precedents which were set in the case of the Sound and Stade dues was a vital element in the question. It appeared, after the example of the Sound dues, it was impossible not to take the same course with the Stade dues; and though it was open to argument whether we were not much more liberal than we ought to have been in the case of the Sound dues, that was all past and gone. It would be hardly worthy of a country like this, for the sake of the sum involved in the settlement of this the last case that could arise, to create insurmountable difficulties where the precedents drawn from its own conduct ought to have led it to go forward. The Stade dues were paid by ships going to Hamburgh, but which also went to the supply of the whole of Germany; and the same was to a great extent with the Sound dues. In the case of Antwerp a considerable part went to the supply of Belgium, but not exclusively for Belgium, for there was a large transit trade which brought it within the analogy of the Sound and Stade dues. It had been said that the Sound and the Stade dues were actually paid by our ships, whereas the Scheldt dues were not. But that objection was more important in theory than in practice; because though up to the moment of extinction Belgium was not induced to cast that burden upon our shipping, she had it in her power to do so, and she could and would have done it. Therefore, it was much better to have made an arrangement which would remove for ever a subject of disturbance than to have allowed the toll to be imposed and afterwards to seek for its remission. But there was another important matter which ought to induce the House to give a favourable consideration to the proposal. It must be remembered that these dues grew out of political arrangements necessary for the peace of Europe. Nothing was more vital to the peace of Europe at the period he al-
  1794
  luded to than that the relations between Holland and Belgium should be placed upon an amicable footing, and nothing was more creditable to the Government of Lord Grey than the wise and effectual manner in which they brought the influence of this country to bear by peaceful means upon the allaying of disputes which at one time threatened, and very nearly became, the cause of a general and aggravated European war. The title of Holland, in point of law, anterior to the separation was unquestionable. It was true the toll upon the Scheldt had long been in abeyance, because when France obtained possession of the Flemish provinces and separated them from Holland, she did not allow the toll to be levied. And, again, when by the Peace of 1815 Holland and Belgium were united, the toll was not exacted. But immediately that the two countries separated the title of Holland revived, and she was not to be expected to give up her right. On the other hand, the living generation of Belgians were not disposed to submit, and a great variety of complicated negotiation was the consequence. His noble Friend at the head of the Government, in connection with the other Powers, had taken a great deal of trouble to arrange the matter, and they were content with an imperfect arrangement rather than run the risk of still further disagreement. We incurred a great responsibility in placing this toll upon Belgium, and, looking at the matter practically, it was very difficult to take an active part in arrangements connected with the foundation of new States, or great alterations in their condition without incurring heavy pecuniary liabilities. England did not get out of her intervention in the affairs of Greece without having incurred this liability; and France, which was now engaged in the foundation of a new order of things in Mexico, was not likely to get out of the business without incurring a large pecuniary loss. In the case of Belgium we took part in a most beneficial arrangement, to the great advantage of commerce, and now we were called upon to pay a sum which, perhaps, in point of abstract right, we were not under an obligation to pay; secondly, the arrangement would lead to the remission of taxation, which the Belgians were entitled to levy on our trade; and lastly, we were influenced by political considerations. As to the United States, it was a rule with them not to enter into joint mixed treaties with European powers; but they had a

  1795
  separate treaty of their own, in which they took precisely the same share as if they had entered into the treaty with the other Powers. Holland was not one of the Powers named; hut then Holland thought fit to exempt her own ships, and the effect of that was to give a bounty to Dutch ships engaged in the trade of the Scheldt. That was another reason for justifying the course which Her Majesty's Government had pursued. With regard to the amount, he admitted that it was a large sum, but that proposed was a great deal larger, amounting to nearer £500,000 than £400,000. By great exertions the sum had been reduced to £350,000; and he believed that, upon the whole, the House of Commons, taking that equitable view which it was accustomed to do on those questions, which were of a mixed character, would consider the arrangement a wise and a sound one. With regard to local taxes, his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Smith) would, on reflection, see that these were not matters that could not enter into an international treaty. They were levied for purely municipal purposes, and on that account could not be included in an arrangement such as that which he had explained.
  Vote agreed to.

  SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTAL ARMY ESTIMATE.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that in moving the first Vote of the Array Estimates the other night, he stated that he should have to lay on the table a Supplemental Estimate, to be added to the Estimate of the current year; and this Estimate, now on the table of the House, would show that the description he gave of it the other evening was entirely borne out. The largest item in the Estimate is £119,892, for disallowances made by the India Office on the accounts rendered to that Department by the War Office for advances for regiments serving in India during the period from 1854–5 to 1860–1, at which date the system of capitation allowances first came into operation. Up to that time certain charges were incurred for keeping up a British force in India, and there were likewise certain charges at home. This became matter of account between the Government of India and the Government of this country, and it was obviously impossible that the account could be made up to a late date. After 1861, when the capitation system came into operation, he did not believe that there would be any
  1796
  more accounts of that nature. The Committee should also bear in mind that the sum of £119,892, taken for this purpose, would be much more than covered by a sum of £301,349, which the India Office paid into the Exchequer; but by the system now in force it was necessary to ask for a Vote for the £119,000, without being able to take credit for the other sum of £301,000. The war in New Zealand was almost the sole cause of the rest of the Vote of £409,000 now asked for. A large sum was required for increased regimental pay for the troops serving in that colony. The numbers of the regiments serving in New Zealand are raised considerably above the establishment at which they would have stood at home, and consequently the amount of the regimental pay and allowances was increased. A large expense was occasioned by the purchase of horses for the Artillery and Military Train, by the high price of provisions, resulting from a great influx of military into the colony, by the high rate of lodging for the officers and troops, and by providing store-houses. After the very detailed statement which he made of these charges on a previous occasion, he did not think that there was now any necessity for occupying the time of the Committee on the subject further; and he therefore, to propose the Vote, the total of which was £409,000, moved that the sum of £409,000 be granted to provide for the probable deficiencies of the grants for army services for the year 1863–4.
  (3.) £409,000, Supplemental Estimates for Army Services beyond ordinary Grants for 1863–4.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSfeared that the war in New Zealand would cost an enormous amount of money, and considered it a great error for the English to be going all over the world and taking away territories from those to whom they belonged. He should very much like to know how much the New Zealand war was likely to cost.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know if the Indian army accounts would really be closed by this Vote to the year 1861? Nothing, according to the evidence taken before the Army Commission, could be more vicious than the state of those accounts. With regard to New Zealand, he feared it was only a foretaste of what was to come. He could only regret that the taxpaying people of this country should have such burdens thrown upon them for the sake of putting down a number of

  1797
  savages who were only striving to maintain their right to certain tracts of land which they claimed as their own. If the public only knew the amount of money which they had been called on to pay during the last twenty years for destroying savage nations, they would be very much astonished. These wars brought upon us undoubted disgrace; and he could not see how we could hope to gain either honour or advantage from them.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONbelieved that the Vote would completely settle the accounts between the War Office and the Indian Government up to 1861. As to the cost of the New Zealand war, he had stated the other evening that, as compared with the Estimates of 1863–4, a sum of about £300,000 in the amount taken for next year was attributable to that cause. He had added, however, that that would not be the whole cost of the war, and that he thought the sum of. £500,000 would be thus expended.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Resolved,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, for the service of the year ending the 31st day of March, 1864, the sum of £584,650 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  (2.) Resolved,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £4,500,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Power to inflict Corporal Punishment).
  MR. COXsaid, he had very little hope that anything he or any other Member could say would induce the House at present to do away with the brutal and de-
  1798
  moralizing punishment of flogging; but he was determined to invite attention to the matter, because out-of-doors a strong feeling existed on the subject. The favourite argument in favour of the system was, that it was necessary to the maintenance of discipline; but would Gentlemen undertake to say that the discipline of the English army was superior to that of the French and Austrian? Yet, in the armies of those two countries the system of corporal punishment was unknown. He would assert that the discipline of the Austrian army was equal, if not superior, to that of the British army. If it were necessary to retain this punishment, there ought always to be sufficient reason for inflicting it. Now, according to the wording of the clause, flogging might be inflicted for disgraceful conduct, for misbehaviour, or for neglect of duty. Now, what was "misbehaviour?" According to a Return in the course of the year 1862 nearly 35,000 lashes had been inflicted in the navy, and 5,999 in the army. Was it possible that the services could be in such a state of insubordination as to require the infliction of nearly 50,000 lashes in a single year?
  "That in the captain's but a choleric word,
  Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy."
  And, accordingly, one man had been sentenced to receive forty lashes for "bad language." If the same severe justice were meted out to Members of the House of Commons, how many of them would 'scape whipping? Was it right to punish a civilian for theft by two or three months' imprisonment, and to give a soldier forty or fifty lashes for a similar offence? Was it consistent to sympathize with the Federal States, because they were free from the reproach of using the lash, and to raise our voice against the employment of the knout in Russia, while we perpetuated in our own services a system which was at once a disgrace to them and to civilization? He felt quite sure that, whatever might be the decision of the House now or next Session, public feeling eventually would make itself felt in a manner not to be mistaken. "Were the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, he could corroborate the statement that there was not a single meeting at the last election for the borough of Southwark at which disapprobation was not loudly manifested of this disgusting and degrading punishment. He would, therefore, more the omission of Clause 22.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion. He was unable to see why flogging should be necessary in the British service, when in some of the largest armies in the world, the French, the Austrian, and American, it had been abolished. His own belief was, that discipline might be maintained without it.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that nothing was more easy than to gain hustings popularity by declamations against flogging; but he could tell hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the officers of the army would be greatly obliged to them if they would suggest some effective mode of punishment in lieu of it. Nobody felt more repugnance to the use of the lash than the officers themselves. But the great difficulty was to punish a man effectually, and, at the same time, not to keep him too long from the performance of his duties. Many a lazy blackguard would as soon be in gaol as out of it; so that mere imprisonment would never do. Reference had been made to the usage in foreign armies. Why, in France, they shot where we flogged. Would the English public like their soldiers to be shot in that way? In Prussia they had a torture chamber, the floor of which was composed of angles, arranged in such a way that a prisoner could neither sit nor stand at ease, and the punishment was so severe that offenders could not be retained there for long at a time, but were taken out for a little while and then put back again. The non-commissioned officers carried sticks, and the officers could inflict a certain number of cuts upon the private soldiers at their own discretion. In our army, it should be remembered, that a flogging could be inflicted only on the sentence of a court-martial. British officers were always very sorry to have to enforce this punishment, and he was surprised to hear hon. Members talk as though they imagined it was a personal gratification to the officers to see a man under the lash.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that formerly corporal punishment was inflicted to the extent not of fifty, but of 500 and 1,000 lashes; and when complaint was made on the subject, the stereotyped answer was just what the hon. and gallant Member had given—that discipline must be maintained. In consequence, however, of repeated remonstrances in the House, the thousand lashes were reduced to fifty as a maximum, and it had not been found that the discipline of the army had suffered from the change.
  1800
  That was rather encouraging to those who now thought that that mode of punishment might be altogether dispensed with without inconvenience. He wished particularly to call the attention of the Under Secretary for War to the state of the case in India. There the Asiatics who composed the Native army, and who had for generations been governed by the lash, were exempted from all flogging; and the service had got on as well without it as with it, if not better. It was a remarkable fact that the regiments at Madras and Bombay, in which there was no flogging, behaved well during the mutiny. At the same time, the British soldier was still subject to the degrading punishment from which the Native had been relieved. He had been told that the result was most disastrous in regard to the relations between the two classes of soldiery, and that the Natives pointed the finger of scorn at the Englishman who was amenable to the lash. That was not a state of things which ought to be tolerated in India; and if flogging were abolished among all the troops there, it could not be retained elsewhere. It had better, therefore, be done away with at once and altogether.
  COLONEL NORTHobserved, that the question was not now as to a reduction of the amount of punishment by flogging, but as to dispensing with it altogether; and he repeated that those who were in favour of such a course ought to suggest a substitute for flogging. He repeated that it was no pleasure for an officer to have a man flogged, for there was no truer affection to be found than that which existed between the British soldier and his officers.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he had several times brought this question before the House, and he now renewed his protest against a mode of punishment so degrading, so repugnant to common decency, so cruel, and un-Christian. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel North) said it was only by flogging that discipline could be maintained. [Colonel NORTH: No!] Well, it was the belief of the gallant Colonel that the soldier could be deterred from certain crimes only by that means. That, however, was not the opinion of some distinguished military authorities. He was sorry his gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) was not in his place to speak for himself; but he might refer to him as having long been opposed to the use of the lash. [Colonel NORTH: Quite the contrary!] He could only say that his hon. and gallant Friend had him-

  1801
  self told him so, and that he gave evidence to that effect before a Committee of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that some hon. Members had spoken as though it was the opinion of British officers that the army could only be governed by the lash; but a little reflection would show them that it was not so—the conclusion was contradicted by the smallness of the part which the lash played in the government of the army. What he understood to be the opinion of the most experienced officers was that there was a class of men in the army—and it must be remembered that we did not recruit our army from the most respectable classes, but took a good many of the most degraded—who were nearly insensible to every sort of punishment except that of the lash. When this subject was discussed in 1860, Lord Herbert, then Mr. Herbert, entered very fully into the reasons which, in his opinion, rendered it necessary to the discipline of the army that the punishment of flogging should be retained; and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen would agree with him that there must have been a very stern conviction of the necessity which made such a man as the late Lord Herbert speak so emphatically as he did of the necessity of retaining corporal punishment. Hon. Members who had taken part in this debate appeared to have forgotten a very salutary change which had been introduced during the last few years, according to which no man was liable to be flogged, except for grave offences of a mutinous nature, until he had for previous bad conduct been degraded into the second class. He was happy to say that the Returns showed that, of late years, the total number of floggings in the army had materially decreased. In 1858 the number was 218 in the army in Great Britain and Ireland, and 13 in the militia; he had not been able to find the Return for 1859; in 1860 the number of men flogged was 179; in 1861, 168; and in 1862, 126. If these Returns did not prove much, they at least showed that officers were not inclined to flog more than they could help. Hon. Members had referred to the discipline of other armies as being maintained without flogging; but he believed that in most of the European armies the punishments were more severe than our own, and that in many cases where we flogged they would shoot a man. Some hon. Members had mentioned the
  1802
  American army. He should be very much surprised if the House of Commons did not require our army to be kept under somewhat sterner discipline than that which existed in America; nor was he certain that if hon. Members inquired they would not find that in the American army it had been found necessary to resort to very severe punishments to check mutiny and desertion. He was certain that British officers would not advocate the retention of this punishment if they did not think that it was necessary, and he believed that it was the wish of all of them to inflict corporal punishment as seldom as possible. He did not think that it could be said that the liability to the lash was a degradation to the soldier. Hon. Members must recollect that by recent legislations civilians had been made liable to the same punishment; and, though he might be told that he paid the army a bad compliment by comparing soldiers with garotters, it must not be forgotten that no man in the army was liable to be flogged unless he had by repeated and serious offences proved himself to be a man of bad character.
  MR. BASSsaid, that both the noble Marquess and the gallant Officer the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), had maintained that the discipline of a large part of the army was independent of the lash. Why, then, should not the lash be done away with altogether? The noble Lord said that there was a class of offenders in the army who were so abandoned that they were insensible to any punishment but that which was only fit for brutes; and the gallant Colonel asked the House to suggest a remedy for that evil. He said, "Get rid of such men altogether." That was what had to be done with them at last. We heard every day of men being drummed out of regiments because they were so abandoned and worthless as to be no longer fit to associate with human kind, and he suggested that that should be done before flogging them, instead of afterwards. The army was mainly composed of men of high spirit and great bravery, and why should they be degraded by having to associate with men who could only be classed with felons. Men who could only be kept in order by the lash should be turned out of the army at once.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the only means of avoiding the necessity for having this bad class of men in the army would be to double or treble the pay of the

  1803
  soldier; and he should like to see what the house would say if they were asked to tote the pay of the privates at the rate of 2s. 6d. a day. Was there no flogging in gaols? Why, if he was in command of a regiment in the City of Oxford he could not flog a man without holding a court-martial upon him; but if he took off his red coat and went into the gaol he could, as a visiting magistrate, order a man to be flogged without any trial.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that there was an ample substitute for flogging contained in the provision of the Bill, which enabled the Queen to commute that punishment into forty-two days' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.
  COLONEL NORTH: Who is to do his duty?
  MR. W. WILLIAMS: Who is to do his duty while his back is bleeding?
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the effect of the arrangement proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth would be to make a good soldier perform forty-two days' duty for a blackguard.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSpointed out that, after men were flogged, they were, in most cases, sent to the hospital, and some one must do their duty for them while they remained there. In consequence of some strong representations of the flogging at Woolwich last autumn, he believed that some less severe system of punishment had been adopted, and he had not heard that the discipline of the garrison had suffered in consequence. Even admitting that some flogging might be necessary, he thought that it was an unnecessary cruelty to the well-behaved men of a regiment to compel them to be the spectators of such an unpleasant and disgusting punishment.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURasked whether the figures quoted by the noble Marquess included floggings in India, and, if not, whether he could furnish the House with Returns which would show the punishments inflicted there? He did not think that flogging could be entirely dispensed with in the army, but he thought it might be still further reduced. For violence to superiors, disgraceful conduct, and insubordination it was proper to flog; but that punishment ought hardly to be inflicted for such offences as making away with necessaries, or even desertion. What was most remarkable was that the greatest amount of flogging appeared to take place
  1804
  in a force which was recruited from the higher class than the rest of the army—namely, the Royal Artillery. An artilleryman possessed a considerable amount of education. Many of the Artillery were drawn from a class superior to the rest of the army. ["No!"] Did hon. Gentlemen mean to say that the Artillery, as a body, were not superior to common soldiers?
  COLONEL NORTHremarked that a private artilleryman was enlisted for his size, and passed the doctor in the same way as any other soldier.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURmaintained that the education he received after he joined rendered him superior to a common soldier, yet there were more punishments inflicted in proportion in the Artillery than in any other part of the army.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he could not regard making away with necessaries for the purpose of exchanging them for drink as a minor fault. It was, in fact, an offence on account of which it was necessary to continue the punishment. But in many cases flogging was the maximum of punishment to be allowed, and instead of it the minimum was in general inflicted. In fact, if hon. Members looked over the list of punishments inflicted, they would find that the punishment of flogging was inflicted in very few of the cases for which it could be inflicted. In his five years of embodied militia service he had never seen a soldier flogged, nor sat upon a court-martial which assigned that punishment; but there were instances in which no other punishment reached the aggravated nature of the crime. Then there were places in which there was no Government prison, or the prison was already full, and flogging was the only means left to inflict a proper punishment. There were instances of soldiers being sent to prison and coming back confirmed in crime and repeating the same offence; and, on the other hand, the first flogging had had the effect of bringing the soldier to a sense of duty. This showed that there were certain natures which could be best reached in this way. He hoped to see the time when the Return of men flogged in the army would give not 130, but twenty or thirty in the year. But this was not a change to be effected at once. Education would do it by degrees. With reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Seymour), he (Lt.-Colonel Stuart) would say that the men in the Artillery were recruited in the ordinary

  1805
  way; and the question asked was, whether he had a good chest and a strong arm; not whether he was of quick head. It was when the man went into the Artillery that he received the education; and this in time had its proper effect. Men are not flogged for drunkenness, as for that there are other punishments. But drunkenness leads to crime of all sorts, particularly insubordination, which must be severely punished and that at once. In general, a man from drink becomes insubordinate in his corps; and unless he were flogged there would be an end of discipline, and the lives of the superior officers would not be safe. Any person who had seen the manner in which the men in foreign armies were punished would not wish to see our men treated so. The French soldier was stripped and exposed for several days and nights in a deep pit like a den, where he was fed from a pole like the bear in the Zoological Gardens. An officer who had been in the Crimea told him he had once seen a French soldier so treated in the Crimea. And there was not with the British soldier the running the gauntlet which was practised in the Austrian army.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYinstanced a regiment in which the commanding officer had not used the lash for six years, and in which crime had decreased in a remarkable manner. He would be sorry for the present to say that the punishment of the lash should cease, because he feared the discipline of the army might be impaired, but he hoped the time would come when that change would be brought about.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he feared many would be led by the statement of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Seymour) to suppose that there was more flogging in the Artillery than in the rest of the British army. He (Colonel North) found that out of fifty-nine instances of flogging there were eleven of men in the Artillery. It was supposed by many that all the flogging at Woolwich must be among men of the Artillery; but there were in that garrison 7,649 troops of the different branches of the service. Out of fifty-nine cases of corporal punishment no fewer than forty-four occurred in the Marines, one of the most meritorious corps in the service. The explanation was that men who received a lump sum on returning from long service abroad could not be expected to be so orderly as soldiers who had been steadily performing their duty at home.
  MR. COXreminded the gallant Colonel, who had asked what punishment could take the place of flogging, that he had taken no notice of what fell from the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who stated that the punishment of flogging had been abolished in the Native Indian army. The gallant Colonel ought to write to some of his friends in India, and from them get information how they maintained discipline in the Indian army without resorting to the lash. If the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) found a gratification in the diminution of the cases of flogging in the army, he would feel a much greater if he could say there was not an instance of flogging at all.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, with respect to certain observations made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the army would never forget the name of Lord William Bentinck, for they regarded the doing away with flogging in the Indian army, while it was retained in our own, as a great outrage. [Cheers.] He was happy to hear those cheers, but so the fact was. What was the result of the abolition of flogging in that case? Why, that the Indian army en masse mutinied. ["Oh! Hear, hear!"]
  MR. COXsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets had told them that the abolition of flogging had nothing to do with the Indian mutiny.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he should be sorry to be thought to have said that our army was recruited from the very lowest part of our population. There were many exceedingly respectable persons in the humblest ranks of the army; but in its enlistment they could not be very particular as to the character of the men. Provided the recruit appeared fit to become a soldier, they took him; and, as there were many wild, reckless, and, he might almost say, criminal persons in the service, mere mild, ordinary punishment would not be sufficient for them; and the power, at least, of flogging ought to be retained.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 42: Majority 3.
  Clause agreed to
  Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to
  Clause 26
  MR. COXsaid, he was utterly at a loss to know what possible reason could be

  1807
  given for retaining the still more brutal punishment of branding. If a man were so bad as not to be fit to remain in the army, they should at once get rid of him, and afford him the chance which privation might offer of retrieving his character. This clause was a disgrace to our statute-book. It enabled courts-martial, in addition to any other punishment, to order the letter "D" to be deeply marked on the left breast of a deserter, with ink or gunpowder, or other preparation, in such a manner as to "be clearly seen, and not liable to be obliterated." They might also recommend that the letters "B C" (bad character) should be branded indelibly upon his person. He knew one case of a man entering the army, who, as the noble Lord said, was rather "wild," and who was afterwards guilty of all sorts of military offences. After he had had his flogging, he at last came under the operation of Clause 26, and received both the brands of "D" and "BC." He turned out some few years later to be an honest, worthy, and hard-working labourer, and as such obtained the recommendation of several respectable persons as a candidate for the police force. He was rejected, but he would unquestionably have been successful in his application, but for the indelible marks showing that he had once been a bad man. He maintained that it was not a Christian mode of punishment to brand a man with infamy for life without leaving him a locus penitentiœ. Such a punishment could never conduce to the benefit of the army. He moved the omission of the clause.
  COLONEL NORTHobserved, that branding was a protection to the public at large, and unless a deserter was branded he might possibly obtain admission into other regiments.
  MR. LOCKEexpressed his surprise, when so many remarkable improvements bad taken place in science and art, the army and navy should be selected for the exercise of the greatest brutality. The flogging of criminals had been abolished ["No, no!"] except in the case of garotters. When that punishment in the case of criminals tried in courts of justice had been abolished, it was most extraordinary that officers in the army and navy should desire to retain such a disgraceful system. But whatever might be said as to the necessity for flogging, not one word could be said in justification of the detestable torture of branding. The man, what-
  1808
  ever his offence, had suffered for it in the army, and when they branded him and turned him adrift, they closed against him every opportunity of regaining a position in society. Nothing could be more terrible. Suppose a man had deserted. [Colonel NORTH: HOW often?] Well, suppose him to have deserted six times. Why not, as was the practice in our gaols, employ the photograph, in order to identify deserters and prevent them again getting into the army? That would be much better than stripping a recruit to see whether he was branded or not? Flogging, so far as civilians were concerned, had been abolished. ["No, no!"] With regard to all offenders above the age of sixteen, that punishment had been abolished. ["No, no!"] It was very easy to say "No" when a man did not possess any knowledge on the subject.
  COLONEL NORTHrose to order, and begged to say that he had referred to documents which had been placed on the table of the House. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. LOCKEwas aware that the gallant Officer was referring to Mr. Adderley's Bill, against which he (Mr. Locke) had voted; and having voted against a Bill authorizing the flogging of garotters it was not likely he should support a clause authorizing the branding of the brave defenders of our country upon their backs, or breasts, or anywhere. Let an offender be photographed, and an end put to the brutal course which was now pursued.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that on referring to the papers on the table he found that two boys of the ages of fifteen and sixteen had received forty-eight lashes in some place in Lancashire. The lashes were not inflicted with a birch rod, but with a cat-o'-nine tails, for tearing leaves out of a Bible and Prayer Book. In many of the prisons there was flogging without end.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that few persons had had more dealings with the working men than himself, and he believed the working man and the soldier to be the same—they were very much what we made them. He should have no hesitation in following his hon. Colleague into the lobby and voting for the omission of this clause. If a man was unworthy of serving in the army let him be dismissed; but they ought not, by branding, to deprive him of all locus penitentiœ.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he sympathized very much with those who opposed flogging, and he should be very glad if they

  1809
  could dispense with flogging in the army; but he could not conscientiously say that discipline could be maintained without it. This, however, was a different matter. A great deal of zeal and humanity had been wasted in this discussion. In point of fact, there was no pain—not the slightest—in the operation of branding. He might say go personally from his recollections at school; many boys had their arms marked for the pleasure of the thing. Marking for dismissal from the army was comparatively of recent introduction. A. man of bad character was no sooner dismissed than he immediately enlisted in another regiment. Talk of leaving a man room for repentance, but marking did not in the slightest degree interfere with that; it only affected his power of getting into another regiment. He had had cases brought before him by hundreds; dismissed men would be continually getting into other regiments, unless some means were adopted of identifying deserters. Photography would not afford the desired means of ready identification. It would be rather difficult to place photographs of all deserters in the hands of every recruiting officer.
  MR. BRIGHT: I should like very much to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he could tell us what number of men in a year are branded. I dare say the number is very small. ["No, no!"] Any hon. Gentleman opposite connected with the army would do great good to this discussion if he would give us the number. I dare say my hon. Friend behind me can do it. But this matter reminds me of the answer which some people make when capital punishment is objected to—namely, what will you do with ten or a dozen men if you keep them alive instead of hanging them. I have no doubt it would be found that this—punishment I am not allowed to call it now, but this practice—arises from a superstition. The number of men branded in all probability is very small—probably not more than one in every thousand in the army. The hon. and learned Gentleman further says it is not a punishment, for it does not give torture when inflicted. But it may be that it is intended to be a great punishment. It is to prevent a man being re-enlisted, and that costs so much for bounty. You do not give so much for bounty; and even if a re-enlistment cost this country £5, that does not seem to me to be a sufficient reason for keeping up what I must say is an ignominy and a
  1810
  barbarity which ought not to be heard of in a civilized country. The only place in which, as far as I know, branding is practised, and now it is dying out there, is in the slave States of America, where it is not an uncommon thing for the owners of negroes to brand them with the initials of the owners' names. The object is that if those slaves run away they may be discovered and known wherever they can be laid hold of. There is one view which I would recommend to Gentlemen connected with the army. This country at this moment is approaching a period that I will not hesitate to call a period of revolution in regard to labour. You see enormous emigration to the United States and to the Colonies. Every man in the manufacturing districts who knows anything knows that the demand for labour is overrunning the supply, and wages in all probability will rise very much; and I should not be at all surprised if ten years hence we should find labour, even in the agricultural districts, 25 or 50 per cent higher than at this moment. Well, if that be so, you will find much greater difficulty in recruiting for the army than you have in time past. You have enormous forces in the West and East Indies. Including the depots here, I think you have nearly 80,000 men; and you require to raise 10,000 a year to keep up that army. If I was one of those who thought it necessary to maintain these great forces, and was anxious that we should always be able to obtain a full supply from the population, I should be disposed to make the army as little distasteful to the people as possible, and so far as it can be made to appear to them an honourable service. It is not to your advantage merely to pick up the most reckless and most unworthy of the population. I should think that every officer of a regiment would wish to have under his command respectable and honourable men. Well, that being so, would it not be worth your while to try whether the army of this great empire could not be enlisted and could not be maintained in sufficient order without having recourse to that which on the face of it strikes every man and woman in England, and every man and woman in the world, as a punishment degrading, barbarous, and wholly unsuited to our time. I think the noble Lord said that a great many of these soldiers were fast and wild. But I have heard of a great many cases in which officers are very fast. You have a great number of men in the army,

  1811
  stationed in different parts of the country, with very little to do. You have taken them from all the comforts and from all the inducements to good which men have who live at home. It is not to be wondered at that there are many cases—I am only surprised that there are not more—in which men give trouble to their officers and to those superior to them. But if I were one of those officers I should like to try the plan of mercy and kindness and fairness and sympathy with the men under my command. You find that when officers of regiments practise these qualities the men conduct themselves properly without flogging; and you find that the men in some of your ships of war will go off for a year or two years, and traverse the ocean, and come back without the punishment of flogging having been once inflicted. You may-rely upon it that this depends almost as much upon the character of the officers as it does upon the character of the men. When this House tries the principles of humanity on any portion of the population it never fails to succeed, and I believe that to-morrow, if the people of this country should read that the Government had consented to omit this clause, all classes in the United Kingdom would rejoice. I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he had heard the speech of the Judge Advocate with the greatest pleasure, because the right hon. Gentleman was the best informed person in the House on the subject. If this clause were struck out, desertion would go on ad infinitum, and the country would thereby be put to an enormous useless expense by the blackguards deserting and re-enlisting, and receiving the bounty.
  CAPTAIN JERVISreminded the Committee that these Acts of Parliament were prepared and passed by civilians; the officers of the army had only to carry out the Acts which Parliament had passed. He would also remind them of the distinction between punishments at home and in the presence of the enemy. When a force was in the presence of the enemy officers were bound to protect the honest men by seeing that cowardly scoundrels did not shirk their duty; and the choice of punishment in that case was only between shooting and flogging. In the Continental armies shooting was the rule, and in the English army flogging. The Committee could decide which was the most humane. At home it was a question of economy, and
  1812
  that was the work of civilians. No officer in the army would not rather see a man discharged than flogged. This was nothing more nor less than a question of money. In the Life Guards the men were never flogged, because their officers had the option of discharging them, and of replacing them by well-behaved men; and, if the House of Commons would only go to the same expense in other cases, commanding officers would hail the abolition of flogging with the greatest pleasure, drawing the distinction he had already mentioned between service at home and service in the face of the enemy. Nor had commanding officers any wish to brand a single man; on the contrary, they would be only too glad to get rid of such characters. But when soldiers deserted, it was the officer commanding the company who was responsible for their kit; and the public purse also suffered in the loss of the bounty. If, however, hon. Members opposite, who begrudged every shilling that was necessary for the army, would only vote the money necessary to replace these deserters, this clause might be omitted as soon as they pleased. Branding was adopted by the late Lord Herbert because desertion and re-enlistment had gone on to a great extent in the army. It had been said that we did not flog any portion of the civil population, but the fact was that flogging was inflicted in every gaol in the country.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate was repugnant to his feelings. He saw no reason why this peculiarly barbarous punishment should be kept up in the army. If it was good for the army, it ought to be made a part of the ticket-of-leave system, and civilians ought to have a perpetual mark upon them, to remain to the end of their lives. But was it right to brand any man with the disgrace of an irremediable offence which would never be forgiven or forgotten? The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) said that the officers were obliged to protect themselves, because they had to pay for the kit of deserters. But why had they this detestable system in the army?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the extension of the practice of branding of soldiers dismissed with ignominy, was due to one of the most tender-hearted and humane of men, the late Lord Herbert, one who, of all civilians who ever had to do with the army, devoted himself with the most untiring

  1813
  application to the amelioration of its condition. He did not think it would be satisfactory to introduce an important change in the discipline of the army at a moment when this subject was not expected to be under consideration, and when, consequently, a great number of Members were absent, who would otherwise have been in their places. There was something very painful in the discussion of these personal punishments, and it was necessary to steel one's self by conditions of rigid prudence in opposition to first feelings and inclinations. But the punishment was not a cruel one in the ordinary sense of cruelty, and in this respect it differed from flogging; nor was there the painful exhibition before a soldier's comrades which took place when the punishment of flogging was administered. In declaring that it was a mere question of money, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Jervis) had defended branding on too narrow a ground. If this were so, even the most ardent economists would be bound to substitute other arrangements on the part of the public. But other considerations than those of money were involved. Desertion was an offence which it was very difficult to check. When a man deserted from one regiment, almost his first thought, as soon as he fell short of money, was to re-enlist in another; and it was not unnatural that some effectual means should be resorted to for establishing his personal identity. In the case of men dismissed with ignominy, Lord Herbert's proposal stood on strong grounds. The Committee would remember that the vast majority of our soldiers had nothing to do with flogging; and among the minority there were many who, though subject to flogging, yet ought not to be placed in the category of hopelessly bad subjects. Some, however, of this class there were, and when these were dismissed with ignominy, was it not desirable to prevent re-enlistment upon other grounds than those relating to the bounty—that is, upon high moral grounds and grounds of discipline? When these bad and hardened characters went into another regiment, they did not merely obtain a certain bounty; they carried a poison with them and made other men as bad as themselves. And seeing that re-enlistment was the object and resort of these men, it seemed right that some special provision should be taken against it.
  1814
  The comparison made by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) between branding the deserting soldier and branding slaves in the Slave States of America, did not apply. In America the brand was put on a part of the body visible to the world but as regards the soldier, the law clearly pointed out that it was to be put where it could not be seen. It was only seen by the commanding officer and the surgeon. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would not take upon itself the responsibility of introducing the proposed alteration.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, that branding stamped a man for life, whatever position he might look for; and the hon. Member for Finsbury had shown that the brand would prevent a man from being admitted into the police. Why not use photography instead of branding, as was done with regard to the ticket-of-leave men? In former times it was thought necessary to brand civilians, but they had to give up the practice. Notwithstanding his respect for the high character of the late Lord Herbert, he (Mr. Ewart) would vote against the system of branding.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 50: Majority 30.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and the Preamble agred to
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with regard to the course of business for to-morrow, it was uncertain how long the discussions on going into Committee of Supply were likely to last, but it was the intention of the Government to go on with the Army Estimates, not, however, including Vote 6.
  House resumed
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL— [BILL 44.]

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. LAWSONmoved, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable Owners and Occupiers of property in certain districts to prevent the common sale of Intoxicating Liquors within such district.
  MR. H. A. BRUCE: The Government does not object to the introduction of the

  1815
  Bill; but in taking that course they do not pledge themselves to assent to its further progress.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable owners and occupiers of property in certain districts to prevent the common sale of Intoxicating Liquors within such districts."—(Mr. Lawton.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 36: Majority 34.
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. LAWSON and Mr. BAZLEY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 44.]
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Inclosure* (No. 25); Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland)* (No. 26); Land Drainage (Provisional Orders)* (No. 27).
Committee — Chief Rents (Ireland)* (No. 15).
Report—Chief Rents (Ireland) (No. 15).
Third Reading—Sir John Lawrence's Salary* (No. 10).

LEGAL PROCESS.—PETITION.
LORD CHELMSFORDpresented a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Carlisle complaining of the difficulties entailed by the unsatisfactory state of the law affecting the commencement of legal proceedings, where the subject matter of dispute lay partly in England and partly in Scotland. The inconveniences were particularly felt in all questions connected with the railway companies the lines of which extended into both countries. The petition prayed that a law should be passed rendering valid legal service in either kingdom.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the rule of international law was that the plaintiff should follow the defendant into the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose. That had been so far altered with respect to Scotland and Ireland, that in cases of real estate the plaintiff could bring the defendant within the jurisdiction he lived in, and also with regard to cases respecting stocks in the public funds. The question was a difficult one, owing to the difference between the two legal systems and the jealousy of the Courts as to any encroachments upon their respective jurisdictions; but it was of so much importance that if his noble and learned Friend would give his assistance, he (the Lord Chancellor) would not despair of finding some remedy.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.