Sitting of 26 May 1865

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Azeem Jah (Signatures to Petitions) (No. 317).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OP PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) *; Militia Ballots Suspension *; Defence Act (1860) Amendment.*
First Reading—Inland Revenue * [169]; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) * [171]; Militia Pay *; Defence Act (I860) Amendment * [176]; Militia Ballots Suspension.*
Committee—Dockyard Extensions [145]; Inclosure (No. 2) * [154]; Railways Clauses * [114].
Report—Dockyard Extensions * [145]; Inclosure (No. 2) * [154]; Railways Clauses * [170].
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 3) * [152], and passed; Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland) * [147], and passed; Dogs Regulation (Ireland) * [151], and passed.

RAILWAY BILLS—(GROUP 8).
MR. THOMPSONsaid, he rose to move that the Special Report on Group 8 of Railway Bills be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. It was a matter of great importance, so far as the public business of the House was concerned, that the proceedings in reference to Railway Bills should be in accordance with the

875
Standing Orders of the House. The number of Railway Bills was increasing instead of diminishing yearly, and nine-tenths of them were got up by engineers and solicitors who had got nothing to do, and the public were deluded into schemes that rested upon no solid foundation. The Standing Orders should be framed so as to put a stop to this as far as possible.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Special Report from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders, together with the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the said Committee on the 18th day of this instant May, with reference to the Skipton, Wharfdale, and Leyburn Junction Railway Bill; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do report whether, in their opinion, the proceedings herein disclosed involve any infraction or evasion of the Standing Orders, or of the Act relating to Parliamentary Deposits."—(Mr. Thompson.)
SIR THOMAS WINNINGTONsaid, as a Member of the Committee, he would not offer any objection to the Motion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the reference now proposed to be made differed completely from any of those references which, had hitherto been made upon the subject. He thought the hon. Member's object would have been more properly obtained by having the matter referred to the Standing Orders Division Committee, instead of to the Standing Orders Committee.
MR. THOMPSONsaid, he had no objection to alter his Motion so as to make the reference to the Standing Orders Committee.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHOOL REPORTS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the misstatements contained in the Report of Inspector C. Graham, on the National School of Coote Street, Ireland, published in the Return laid upon the table of this House on 20th June, 1864; and whether he will have any objection to lay upon the table of the House copies of the letter of the Commissioners of National Education to the Rev. James Dunne, withdrawing these misstatements, dated 1st April, 1865, and of the letter of the Rev. James Dunne to the Commissioners, dated 6th April, 1865?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in reply, said, he
  876
  had not yet had an opportunity of communicating with the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland upon the subject; but he was not aware that there were any misstatements in them. However he would inquire into the matter.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay the correspondence on the table?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he should prefer communicating with the authorities in Ireland before giving any pledge.

  UNITED STATES—THE "ALABAMA" CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the Government of the United States any formal and official demand for compensation to American subjects for losses sustained by the Alabama or any other Confederate cruisers alleged to have been equipped in British ports?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, a correspondence has been going on for some time—two years I think—between the Government of the United States and Her Majesty's Government an the subject of the prizes taken by the Alabama and other vessels of a similar character. Within the last few days we have received further communications from Mr. Adams on that subject, to which, of course, as yet there has not been sufficient time to reply. It is right to say that the whole correspondence, though each party has stated their respective views, has been carried on in very friendly and most amicable terms.

NEW MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will, before the House adjourns for the Whitsuntide holydays, lay upon the table of the House the Estimate for the New Museum of Natural History?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not lay upon the table any Estimate upon that subject until he should receive from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works intelligence to the effect that he and the Trustees of the Museum had come to some understanding with respect to the land on which the building was to be erected. The last statement that had reached him from

  877
  his right hon. Friend was that he and the Trustees had not as yet concluded their communications upon the matter.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could state any time after which he would not not bring forward that Estimate?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can only say, in general terms, that the last thing the Government would do would be to submit an Estimate at any period when the House could not give it a full and fair consideration.

ACCIDENTS BY GUNPOWDER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill this Session to make Regulations with a view to prevent Accidents by the Explosion of Gunpowder?
  MR. T. G. BARINGreplied, that such a Bill was in preparation, but as Reports on the subject had been so recently printed, and it was desirable to give the trade an opportunity of making any representations which they might desire to put forward, the Bill would not be introduced till after Whitsuntide.

  THE SLAVE TRADE.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the changed aspect of affairs in America, Her Majesty's Government, either separately or in conjunction with the Government of the United States, will consider the propriety of sending a squadron to the coast of Cuba, for the purpose of preventing the importation of slaves into that island, and thereby effectually putting an end to the African Slave Trade?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, some time ago Her Majesty's Government invited the Government of the United States to co-operate with them on the coast of Africa by sending out a squadron for the purpose of preventing the slave trade from being carried on. The American Government professed their perfect willingness to co-operate, but a difficulty arose in regard to the regulations then subsisting with respect to our neutral position on the one hand, and the admission of belligerent ships of war into our ports on the other. That difficulty could not be well overcome
  878
  at the time. But in the present altered state of things in America Her Majesty's Government have renewed their applications to the United States, and have represented that their cruisers, employed for the purpose to which I have referred, would, of course, be received with every privilege and courtesy which are due to the cruisers of friendly nations. The difficulty which prevented the co-operation of the two countries some time ago is no longer an obstacle. No communication has been received from the United States with respect to a squadron at Cuba; but, if they assent to the arrangement respecting the West coast of Africa, no doubt they will cooperate with us regarding Cuba.

MASTERS OF THE ROYAL NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the proposed scheme for the abolition of the rank of Master, which the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated is to be laid before Parliament previously to its final adoption, will specify what increase it would occasion in the numbers on the Active Lists to which the Officers now in the Line of Masters would be removed; whether, in order to obviate stagnation of promotion from those Lists so increased it will provide for a proportionate increase of the Superior Lists; and whether it will comprise an Estimate of its immediate and prospective effects on the amount of the Vote for Half-pay and Retirement to Officers of the Navy?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied that the proposal of the Admiralty, which would he laid upon the table of the House, would give full information upon all these matters. He would take that opportunity of giving notice that it was his intention to move for leave to introduce three Bills—one for making better provision with respect to the wills of deceased Seamen and Marines; the second, for the better disposal of the effects of deceased Seamen under the control of the Admiralty; and the third, for the regulation of the Pay and Pensions in the Royal Navy.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he wished to ask, when the scheme with respect to the Masters would be laid before the House?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not then state, as the subject was a very difficult one; but he was anxious to produce it at the earliest possible moment.
  In reply to a question from Mr. C. FORSTER,
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that no information had been received at the Admiralty of the loss of Her Majesty's schooner Eclipse, in New Zealand, but they had heard of the destruction of a private schooner of the same name.

AFFAIRS OF NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to a question from Mr. A. MILLS,
  MR. CARD WELLsaid, that the Despatches received from New Zealand by the last mail would be immediately printed and laid before the House. They would show that, in one instance, a friendly native chief had obtained a victory over a rebel native chief; that a rebel chief had been captured in another case. It might be agreeable to the House to learn that the Colonial Government had sent home £500,000 of their debentures, to be delivered to Her Majesty's Treasury on account of their debt to this country.

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

ARMY—CASE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL DAWKINS.—ADDRESS MOVED.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Among other Motions to be made this evening on going into Supply is a Motion by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) with respect to the case of Colonel Dawkins. I think that after the discussions which have already taken place on that case it would be expedient, if possible, to give the hon. Member's Motion precedence of the other Motions on going into Supply. There are, I think, four Notices on the paper which precede that of the hon. Member for Devizes. Among them is one of a Motion relating to the Colonies, a subject which is likely to lead to a long discussion. If it be taken first it will probably throw the discussion on the case of Colonel Dawkins back to a late hour, and that, I think, would not be desirable. I would ask, therefore, the hon. Members who have precedence of the hon. Member for Devizes to postpone their Notices till after his; and I hope that they will still have an op-
880
portunity of moving their Motions at an early hour in the evening.
MR. NEATEsaid, he was the Member who stood first on the paper, and he was prepared to yield to what seemed to be the wish of the House upon the matter.
MR. MARSHsaid, he stood next on the paper with a Motion on the subject of the protection of our Colonies, and he would also give way to what appeared to be the wish of the House; although he believed that the question to which he had to direct their attention was a much more important one than any relating to Lieutenant Colonel Dawkins and although he even thought that the latter subject ought not to be discussed at all in that House, or, that if it were to be discussed at all, it ought not to be discussed at the present time.
Mr. BLAKE and Mr. W. O. STANLEY also agreed to waive their right of precedence.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHrose to move an Address for certain papers relating to the case of Colonel Dawkins. In the first place, he desired to express his obligation to the noble Lord for asking, and to the hon. Members who had consented to waive their precedence on the notice paper in order to afford him the opportunity of at once bringing the case of Lieutenant Colonel Dawkins under the notice of the House. It was a request he should not himself have ventured to make, and he had known nothing about the noble Lord's intention to make that appeal in his favour till the Secretary for the Treasury came and informed him that it was the noble Lord's intention to do so. As to the question which he was about to again bring under the notice of the House, he admitted that, as a general rule, it was not desirable to bring the discipline of the army before the House of Commons as a tribunal. The same might be said in respect of judgments in criminal courts; but extreme cases justified a departure from a general principle, and he contended that as the Imperial Parliament was, in fact, the highest appellate jurisdiction in this country, it was not expedient, where a proper and sufficient occasion arose, that that power should remain unexercised. In discussing the present question he must be allowed to observe that, so far as he knew, there was no precedent for an officer being put on half-pay against his own remonstrance, and against his refusal to make any election between going on half-pay and selling out, without a

881
court martial. There were two well known cases in which measures of that kind had been taken by the authorities, but in both these there bad been a court martial. On those occasions important facts had been brought out which had strongly attracted public attention, and public opinion had pronounced its verdict on the case. In bringing the matter before the House he had not been actuated by personal considerations, but merely by a desire to support a principle of great importance to officers generally, both those now in the service and those who might enter the service in future generations, and he thought such a question was worthy of being settled by the highest tribunal. The highest military authorities had not been exempt from the influence of that House in days past, in proof of which he might refer to what took place in 1809, when a Royal Personage Commander-in-Chief was arraigned before the public opinion of this House—no case could be quoted which would show more distinctly how the highest military authority could be made amenable to the power of that House. He contended that the power of the House of Commons in such cases was predominant. To show what has been the opinion of this House on the subject of the Office of Commander-in-Chief, in the year 1858, when the present Government was in Opposition, a Resolution was moved by Captain Vivian as follows:—
"That although the recent consolidation of the different Departments of Ordnance, Commissariat, and Secretary at War has, to a certain extent, improved the general administration of military affairs, a divided responsibility still exists, and that in order to promote greater efficiency the Departments of the Horse Guards and War Office should be placed under the control of one responsible Minister."—[3 Hansard, cl. 1336.]
That Resolution was carried by a majority of 106 to 104, and it happened that his (Mr. Darby Griffith's) vote turned the scale in favour of the Resolution; for if he had voted the other way the numbers would have been equal, and then the Speaker would have been called upon to give the casting vote, which in a question involving an important change of principle would probably have been in the negative. On that occasion Mr. Sidney Herbert said—
"The Secretary of State was responsible for everything done by the Commander-in-Chief—the Commander-in-Chief was, in fact, his subordinate officer. He (Mr. Sidney Herbert) was not making this assertion without book. When Viscount Hardinge was examined before the Sebastopol Committee, he said 'The Secretary of State's authority is supreme—he overrides me in every
882
respect.' When he (Mr. Sidney Herbert) held an office very inferior in authority to that of the Secretary of State for War, he generally succeeded in carrying his point. In one instance he was obliged to yield, and why? Because Viscount Hardinge brought to bear against him a direct order of the Secretary of State, of which he had not been aware, and he was obliged to succumb."—[Ibid. 1349.]
Mr. Sidney Herbert thus endeavoured to show that indirectly the House exercised control over the military authorities, and that therefore there was no necessity for altering the law upon that point. The noble Lord now at the head of the Government also said—
"Hon. Gentlemen spoke of the Commander-in-Chief as an irresponsible officer. He was irresponsible in so far as he was not represented by any person in that House; but he (Viscount Palmerston) could not constitutionally admit that any person who gave advice to the Crown upon the public service was an irresponsible officer. The truth was that the Cabinet—the Ministry of the day—were the parties who were responsible for everything that was done in any Department of the State; and though they might not and ought not to interfere in the daily and ordinary administration of the office of the Commander-in-Chief, yet, on any material points affecting the interests of the army, there would always be previous communication between the Commander-in-Chief and the responsible advisers of the Crown; and, in case of differences, their opinion, if deliberately, fully, and firmly expressed, was sure to prevail."[Ibid. 1357.]
The language of the noble Lord, therefore, fully bore out the principle that the Commander-in-Chief was to be amenable to some superior authority. It was a singular thing that the present Secretary of War had been one of the Tellers for the majority on that occasion, and he was anxious to know whether his opinion had undergone any change since that period, or whether he still held the doctrine embodied in that Resolution? When, in 1857, his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief condescended to appear before the Commission appointed to inquire into the system of Purchase in the Army, he gave the following answers to the questions put to him by Mr. Sidney Herbert:—
"There has I believe been no instance lately (of the exercise of the veto of promotion)?—No, not in my time. Nor in Lord Hardinge's time?—No, I think not. In the present state of public feeling your Royal Highness thinks that that power could not be exercised?—I think it would be extremely difficult to exercise it now. If the inspection returns were satisfactorily made, there would be no difficulty in your Royal Highnes's knowing whether an officer ought to be stopped in his promotion or not?—I see no difficulty whatever; but, as I said before, it must be backed by public opinion, otherwise, no man, in my opinion, could exercise that power."

883
Was it the fact that the action of the military authorities had been backed up by public opinion on the present occasion? On the contrary, both the public, the daily press, and the House had expressed a strong opinion adverse to the course which had been pursued. He would now turn to the Judge Advocate. When a question in reference to the subject before them was put the other evening in that House to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) who was a Member of the Government, and who was the peculiar organ of the military authorities, got up, and with all the feminine vacillation of a lady's waiting chambermaid, replied, something after such a fashion as this, "Oh, dear! Mr. Corkscrew, I know nothing at all about this subject. There was a row in the servants' hall, but it is as much as my place is worth to say anything about it, and I'm sure I can't give any opinion upon the matter either one way or the other;" and the matter had arrived at this stage without the House knowing what really was the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion as to the law of the case. If such was to be the course of proceedings in the case of a man who was admitted to be an officer and a gentleman, and of whom even one of his accusers, Colonel Stepney, said that he was quite efficient for the duties of command, why should the House go through the solemn farce of passing Mutiny Acts and Acts for the regulation of the army when they were told that the Commander-in-Chief, or any other paramount authority, could by the misuse and perversion of the Royal prerogative —he was going to use a stronger word, but his respect for the Royal function restrained him — set them all aside? The Royal prerogative was at the present day merely a pious fiction, and the persons who were really responsible for its exercise, and who did really exercise that power without control, were the Ministers of the day. Another very remarkable case had recently occurred in the army. During the operations consequent upon the mutiny in India a gallant officer was ordered to maintain a certain most important post while Lord Clyde hurried on to Lucknow, and he was afterwards accused of having failed in his duty by abandoning that post. For many years he had suffered under that imputation; but it now appeared that there was in existence a despatch from Lord Clyde, dated the 29th of October, 1854,
884
which fully vindicated that gallant officer at the expense of another, whose name he would not mention. That despatch had been kept in the recesses of the War Office precisely as the correspondence for which he was now moving, and other documents were kept back, and it was only after years of waiting, disappointment, and trial that this gallant officer, now Sir R. Windham, obtained from the military authorities permission to publish it, and had been thought worthy to receive the rank which had been withheld from him. Was not that military and social tyranny of the severest kind? There was another important point in this case. Until it fell to his lot to divulge the circumstance, it was entirely unknown that there was any want of unanimity on the part of the members of the Court of Inquiry. The other day he received a letter from a gallant officer, who had shown great moral courage in writing it, stating that he only signed the judgment under protest, and now he had obtained negative evidence which he thought justified him in assuming that another member of the Court had acted in a similar manner. It was generally reported that that gallant officer had signed the judgment under protest, and when inquiry was made of him his reply was as follows:—
"I received your note the day before yesterday, and the servant who brought it was distinctly informed that there was no answer to it."
A negative answer like that was, he thought, quite sufficient for his purpose; if he declined to contradict the rumour, the natural presumption was that it was true; and it, therefore, appeared that the case was decided by the casting vote of the Chairman, who was undoubtedly a gallant veteran and an officer of great reputation and honour in bygone days. Of course, the House would understand that it was not his wish to say anything disrespectful of that gallant officer; but, as he received his first commission in 1794, the House would see that he must now be at least eighty-six or eighty-seven years of age, and it was, therefore, not right that the life—if it had been a court martial the life of an officer might have been at stake—fortune, or reputation of an officer should depend upon his casting vote. The charges which were made against this officer, of infirmity of temper and unpopularity, were so vague that it was, of course, quite im-

885
possible to disprove them. If hon. Members depended for their seats upon their popularity in that House, he should like to know how many of them would be returned again? He was convinced that he, for one, should soon create a vacancy. Fortunately, however, he had to refer to a more impartial tribunal, and they would see what would be the result. In order, however, in some way to meet the charges against him, Colonel Dawkins addressed the following brief circular to officers who had served in his regiment:—
"Dear—,—A point which has arisen in the present Court of Inquiry renders it necessary that I should ask you to be so good as to inform me whether I have ever quarrelled with you."
The circular was couched in those terms, because it was thought that the fact whether a quarrel had ever taken place was one which could be definitely ascertained. The number of replies which had been received was fifty-eight; of these fifty-two were favourable to Colonel Dawkins, and only six were unfavourable or questionable. Among others, the noble Lord the Member for Galway (Lord Dunkellin) sent this answer—
"March 26.
Dear Dawkins—Certainly you and I never quarrelled while I was in the Coldstreams, nor did oven an unfriendly word ever pass between us."
There was also a letter from another noble Lord, who said—
"My Dear Dawkins—In reply to your letter of the 24th instant, received by me this morning, I beg leave to state that to the best of my recollection no quarrel occurred between us while I was in the regiment.—Yours truly,
DANGAN."
Those were two out of the fifty-two letters to which he referred. There were others which were much more favourable to Colonel Dawkins, but he would not trouble the House by reading them. He did not like to trespass upon the time of the House, but he wished briefly to call the attention of hon. Members to those letters which were of an unfavourable character. One was from Colonel Freemantle, who alluded to his only cause of quarrel with Colonel Dawkins as having occurred at Rome five years ago, and it was thus worded—"Dear Dawkins—I had a quarrel five years ago with you at Rome." [A laugh.] He was not surprised to find the House laugh at a charge of so old a date. Solvuntur risu tabulœ? and he himself certainly thought it was absurd to rake up a matter which had occurred so long
886
since; but the letter did not impute anything in the slightest degree dishonourable to Colonel Dawkins. The next letter was from an officer who, he supposed, was now a lieutenant-colonel, who said, "I cannot say that we ever quarrelled, because it takes two to make a quarrel, and I was not willing to be one." That was the epigrammatic way in which the matter was explained by that gallant officer; and it was somewhat curious that another officer, the hon. Percy Fielding, availed himself of the same formulary, and replied in precisely the same words; so that it looked as though these two officers had laid their heads together, and agreed what reply they should send, which no doubt appeared to them to be one of a very pointed and pungent character. He would not trouble the House with any further extracts, the charges of which were all of a trivial kind. There were only six letters which could be considered at all unfavourable to Colonel Dawkins, whereas there were fifty-two bearing the highest testimony to his honour, character, and good temper. As to the charge of unpopularity then, it was reduced to little or nothing. Colonel Dawkins had served some time abroad, and had thus been enabled to acquire a good knowledge of languages. It was always considered desirable that officers should make themselves acquainted with foreign languages, and therefore the fact of his having inadvertently not returned in time from abroad on one occasion was a venial offence. As an instance of the advantage of such knowledge he (Mr. Darby Griffith) could refer to the case of a gallant officer now returning from a command in India, Sir Hugh Rose, who owed his elevated position and appointment to attend at the head-quarters of the French army while in the Crimea to his being an accomplished linguist. As to the point relating to the Queen's Ball he (Mr. Darby Griffith) had already explained that matter. In that case the discourtesy was exhibited against him, and not on the part of Colonel Dawkins. In reference to the remaining charge, that Colonel Dawkins bad refused to shake the hand of his superior officer on a certain occasion when the latter had offered it, he (Mr. Darby Griffith) believed that that arose also out of a mistake, But surely it formed no part of the discipline of the army that one officer was bound to shake the hand of another officer, even if proffered. A man's hand ought to be as sacred a portion of his person as a maiden's

887
heart. To require a man to shake hands with another as an act of military duty was totally unknown to military law. Why it might as well he required that a girl should marry the man she did not love. But it was for that quasi-offence Colonel Dawkins was placed under arrest and for the illegal period of eleven days, his demand for a court martial having been refused, and all redress denied to him. He would now leave the subject in the hands of the House, and make the Motion of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Correspondence relating to the first Court of Inquiry on Lieutenant Colonel Dawkins in or about July 1864, including all Communications which have been made on the subject, from the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief to the Major General commanding the Brigade of Guards, during the interval between the first and second Courts of Inquiry which have been held on Lieutenant Colonel Dawkins, and up to the present time,"—(Mr. Darby Griffith,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not know whether it is necessary in the opinion of the House that I should follow the hon. Member who has just sat down through the first part of his speech, in which he attempted to defend the course he has taken in bringing a matter of this nature before the House for discussion; because when upon a former occasion the hon. Gentleman brought the subject forward almost every hon. Member who rose to speak—especially those upon his own side—commenced their speeches by observing that the question was one which, under no circumstances, ought to be introduced for discussion in the House of Commons. ["No, no!"] The arguments, I may add, which the hon. Gentleman employed this evening to justify the course which he has taken appears to be that inasmuch as the Commander-in-Chief is subordinate to the Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State is responsible to this House for the manner in which he administers the affairs of the army, therefore this House has a right to enter, when it pleases, into all the details of military administration. I quite admit the
888
authorities which the hon. Gentleman has cited in support of his proposition that the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of the army, and that the House has a perfect right to hold him responsible and, if necessary, to call him to account. It seems to me, however, that there is the greatest possible difference between the principle of holding a Minister responsible and maintaining the right of the House of Commons to express its confidence or want of confidence in that Minister, and the course now taken in entering into the details of the management and administration of the army. But as the opinion of the hon. Member on this point appears to he shared but by very few of those by whom he is supported, I do not think it necessary to pursue that part of the question any further, and the House will, I trust, allow me to proceed to the main subject at issue. Before doing so I must repeat the protest which I made the other night against what seemed to mo to be the extremely unfair and scarcely courteous manner in which that subject was first brought under our consideration. I do not recollect an occasion on which a question of this kind, involving as it does considerations, not only of public importance, but also the character and reputation of several officers, some of them of high rank and position in the army, has been brought forward, and statements affecting them made, without due notice being given. It is quite true, as I admitted at the time, that the hon. Member gave me notice that he was going to put a Question on the subject; but, knowing as I did that according to the ordinary forms of the House no discussion could take place on the Question, I certainly contented myself—perhaps I ought not to have done so—with answering that part of the Question which it was in my power to answer, adding that I was not prepared to follow him through the details of the case. If the hon. Member considered that it was a question of such urgency as to lead him to take the extremely exceptional course of moving the adjournment of the House, it would have been easy for the hon. Member to inform me that he meant to do so at the same time that he mentioned he was about to put the Question.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: I did not make up my mind till the afternoon of that day.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: But whether the hon. Member gave me

889
notice or not, I should equally have thought it necessary to protest against the introduction of the discussion without the fullest and most public notice, in order that those officers whose names were mentioned might have an opportunity of meeting the allegations. But what was the excuse made by the hon. Member for bringing forward this question in so unusual a manner. It was stated that, owing to the shortness of the notice which the Commander-in-Chief had given to Colonel Dawkins, it was indispensable that the Motion should be brought forward without delay. A very brief reference to dates will show how unfounded that assertion was. On the 26th of April Colonel Dawkins was sent for by the Adjutant General. The opinion of the Court of Inquiry was read to him and likewise the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief on that finding. He was personally informed of the course which it was intended to adopt, and the alternative offered for his acceptance was put before him. On the 4th of May the same information was sent to him in a written form; and Colonel Dawkins then requested that he might have further time allowed to consider the course which he should take. On the 9th of May Colonel Dawkins addressed an appeal to the Secretary of State for War against the decision of the Commander-in-Chief. On the 12th of May another letter was sent from the Horse Guards to Colonel Dawkins, requiring him to come to some conclusion on the matter; and on the 17th of May a letter was sent to him from the War Office stating that Lord De Grey declined to interfere with the decision come to by the Commander-in-Chief. On the 19th of May a final letter was sent to Colonel Dawkins, stating that in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief sufficient time had been allowed for him to make up his mind, and requesting that he would at once intimate which alternative he was prepared to adopt. From the 26th of April to the 19th of May the subject was under the consideration of Colonel Dawkins; I do not think, therefore, that the charge of undue haste or precipitation in these proceedings can be supported. I believe I shall be able to show that all the other assertions of the hon. Gentleman imputing misconduct to the military authorities have as little foundation in fact as the one I have just referred to. I must ask the House to consider what is the nature of the power exercised by the Commander-in-Chief and which, in this instance, has been
890
called in question; and, in doing so, I must ask the House to refer to the Report of the Commission on the system of Army Purchase in 1857, a passage from which has been read by the hon. Member for Devizes. In answer to a question put by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley)—
"May not cases often occur in which a man has some notorious defect; it may be want of temper, or he is notoriously below the average understanding, a man whom it is very undesirable to appoint, and yet a man of whom it cannot be said that there is anything against his character to justify you in putting a stigma upon him and forbidding him to receive the regular promotion which he expected by right of seniority?"
The Commander-in-Chief said—
"Certainly; but I am in hopes that by good inspection the Commander-in-Chief will be informed by the inspecting general, as I think it is his duty to inform him, that a man is from his temperament unsuitable for the command of a regiment; and if such a report came to me as Commander-in-Chief I should have no hesitation in saying, 'There is nothing against your character, but you are unfit from natural defects, and therefore you cannot be promoted.' I see no difficulty in it. At present there is the power, hut it is not exercised."
The Commander-in-Chief, in reply to another question, said—
"I see no difficulty whatever, but as I said before it must be backed by public opinion, otherwise no man, in my opinion, could exercise that power."
I should not have referred to that answer if I did not think that the hon. Member for Devizes—unintentionally, no doubt—had misrepresented the meaning of his Royal Highness. Any one who will take the trouble to read the whole examination will see that what the Commander-in-Chief meant was, that public opinion must back up the ordinary and usual exercise of the power, and not that the Commander-in-Chief should in each particular instance be backed up by public opinion. I am quite sure it never occurred to the Commander-in-Chief, when examined before that Committee, to suggest a proceeding of this nature, one of the most delicate that a Commander-in-Chief can be called on to engage in, should in every instance be submitted to public opinion. I believe that in this case public opinion will back up the Commander-in-Chief in the use which he has made of the power intrusted to him, and I am equally convinced that if public opinion does back him up it will be for the benefit of the public service. The Report not only recognized the existence of the power of veto, but expressed regret

891
that it was not more frequently used; and went even further, for it recommended that a totally different system should be adopted, and that the appointment of lieutenant-colonels of regiments should be matter of selection. This, of course, would be very different from the system now in force. The Government of that day did attempt to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission, but they were not supported by any party in the House to such an extent as would have been necessary to accomplish the suggested alteration. There were only two alternatives before the Commissioners—the one was that appointments should be made by selection, the other that the appointments should be made by seniority and purchase; and in the carrying out the latter system it was deemed necessary that the Commander-in-Chief should have power to exercise a veto in exceptional cases. I believe it has been stated in this House that the power of veto, although undoubtedly possessed, has now been exercised for the first time. But that is not the fact. I quite admit that it has not often been exercised. It is a power which obviously can be exercised only in extreme cases; but it has been exercised to a still greater extent than in the present instance—namely, in the case of officers actually in command of battalions, who have been removed without any court martial or inquiry, simply because, in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, they were unfit for the position. And there have been other instances in which senior officers of regiments have been placed on half-pay to prevent their succeeding to positions of greater responsibility. I am not going to name the instances in which this has occurred. It would, of course, be extremely invidious to point out individuals who were removed, not on account of any misconduct or for having committed any military offence, but simply because of want of qualification. There are two questions before the House—first, whether the House thinks this power ought never to be exercised at all, and that the command of a battalion—one of the most responsible positions in the army—is to go entirely by seniority, without any reference whatever to the qualifications necessary for the proper discharge of the duties; secondly, whether the House is prepared to remove from the Commander-in-Chief the responsibility of placing a veto on the appointment of particular officers, and to take upon itself the responsibility of saying when an officer
892
is and when he is not fit to command a regiment. I believe there are Members who think this House would be quite competent to exercise this responsibility, and that it would be beneficial and for the interests of the House that it should exercise this power. I cannot say that I agree with those hon. Members. Still, if the opinion be entertained to any extent, the proposal ought to be discussed on its general merits, and not with reference to an isolated and particular case. For these reasons I think I should be justified in declining to discuss with the Member for Devizes the question of Colonel Dawkins's fitness or unfitness. But the line taken by the hon. Member and his Friends to prove that an injustice has been committed has been such that it is impossible for me to refrain altogether from entering into particulars. The line of defence appears to be this—that a cabal—
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I never used the word, nor did I suggest it.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not wish to impute to the hon. Member the use of that particular word. But it was certainly alleged that Colonel Dawkins had been very hardly treated by his brother officers. [Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH: I said by the authorities.] The impression left on my mind by the discussion the other night was, that the complaint was that certain officers in his regiment had in the first instance taken a dislike to Colonel Dawkins, that they had persecuted him and made against him a series of trifling charges which were finally investigated by an incompetent tribunal, and that on the report of that incompetent tribunal he had been ejected from the service. That appears, as shortly as I can put it, to be the line of argument taken in defence of Colonel Dawkins. I think that in the interests of truth and justice, and for the reputation of those officers whose conduct has been assailed, it is necessary that I should enter very shortly into the history of this case. It is a great error to suppose, as many Gentlemen seem to suppose, that the Court of Inquiry was appointed to inquire into any charges which might be made against Colonel Dawkins; the fact is that the Court was appointed to inquire into certain allegations made by Colonel Dawkins against his superior officers. The facts of the case are these. For a great many years—in fact these things began in 1859—Colonel Dawkins had had serious misunderstandings,

893
and sometimes disputes, with different officers in his battalion, some of whom were his superior and some his inferior officers. These were generally, as has been stated, of a nature extremely trivial—so trifling, in fact, that they were capable of being disposed of, and generally were disposed of, by the commanding officer of the battalion in the battalion orderly room; and they would have continued to be so disposed of, and nobody would have heard anything of them out of the regiment; but Colonel Dawkins was not willing that these occurrences should be so disposed of, and he himself, ever since 1859 or 1860, has addressed a series of letters to the Adjutant General, recapitulating the history of his differences with his brother officers, and requesting that the facts might be laid before the Commander-in-Chief, that what he considered to be the bad feeling of certain officers against him might be investigated, and that the Commander-in-Chief would give his opinion on the subject. Those complaints were investigated by the Adjutant General from time to time with such information as he could obtain, and Colonel Dawkins was informed of the result of the investigation. Colonel Dawkins never appears to have allowed any complaint he had once made entirely to drop, he might withdraw a letter and for a time appear satisfied with the decision; but as soon as a fresh difference of opinion arose he always brought forward and reiterated the whole of the charges which lie had ever made before against any of the officers. One of the subjects of dispute between Colonel Dawkins and Lord Frederick Paulet at last became the subject of a Court of Inquiry last year, and a great part of the correspondence between Colonel Dawkins and the Adjutant General was laid before that Court of Inquiry for their investigation. They went into the subject, particularly with reference to the dispute which had occurred between him and Lord Frederick Paulet. In the particular instance which Colonel Dawkins had complained of, the Court came to the conclusion that Lord Frederick Paulet had misunderstood an order of the Commander-in-Chief with reference to Colonel Dawkins, and that lie had somewhat exceeded his authority in declining to allow Colonel Dawkins to assume the command of a wing of the battalion at a review in Hyde Park. That opinion of the Court of Inquiry was concurred in by the Commander-in-Chief, and Colonel Dawkins. Lord Frederick
894
Paulet, and the other officers of the battalion, were informed of the opinion of the Court and the concurrence in it of the Commander-in-Chief, and all the notice that could be taken of such an occurrence was taken. But the Court added to its report on this point an expression of opinion, that although they were not prepared to state that Colonel Dawkins was unfit to command a battalion, still the command by him of a battalion of his own regiment would not be beneficial to that regiment. That opinion appeared to the Commander-in-Chief to be extremely vague, and one on which he would not act, and he, therefore, directed Colonel Dawkins to return to his duty, and he addressed him himself, cither personally or through the Adjutant General, stating that he was to return to his duty, and hoping that the disputes between him and his superior and inferior officers would henceforth cease. A few weeks only elapsed before Colonel Dawkins again brought forward complaints of exactly the same nature as the previous ones—reiterating, in fact, the previous charges which had been investigated by the Court of Inquiry. It then became necessary, and it had been necessary for a considerable period, in the opinion of the superior officers of the battalion, concurred in by the Commander-in-Chief, that on account of the peculiarities which he had shown, the command of the battalion should not devolve on Colonel Dawkins, although he was one of the senior mounted officers, oven temporarily. Orders were given that arrangements should be made that, during the temporary absence of the officer in command of the battalion, the temporary command should not devolve on Colonel Dawkins—that he should be on leave, or some other arrangements should be made. This naturally appeared to the Duke of Cambridge to be a state of things which could only be temporary, without seriously prejudicing the regiment; and that Colonel Dawkins must either be released from this position, or more serious steps should be taken against him. His Royal Highness, therefore, sent for Colonel Dawkins, and stated to him that, after the charges he had made against his superior officers from time to time had been investigated by a Court of Inquiry, in his opinion he had failed entirely to make out any charge in the sense in which he had brought it forward, and he hoped, therefore, that Colonel Dawkins would withdraw at once and for ever all those charges, and would

895
let bygones be bygones, and begin anew. His Royal Highness added, that, if he was willing to give such a promise, he would accept it as an earnest that he was more fitted than he had been to command the battalion, that he would withdraw the prohibition against his assuming the temporary command even, and that he would be placed in the position of any other officer of the battalion. It was hoped that Colonel Dawkins would assent to this proposal. He did not assent in words, but it was understood that he did virtually assent. However, soon after a letter was received from him, stating that he wished it to be understood that, with regard to the allegations he had made he withdrew nothing and retracted nothing. The matter had then come to such a point that nothing could be done but to have a full investigation of all these charges. One of the principal points was that Lord Frederick Paulet and several other officers had made false charges against Colonel Dawkins, which tended to his prejudice. Efforts were made to induce Colonel Dawkins to retract the charges he had made, or if he persisted in them to refrain from pressing them in an offensive manner. However, he insisted on placing the most offensive posssible meaning on the charges which he brought against these officers. There was nothing left, therefore, but to have an inquiry into the charges, and if a primâ facie case had been made out against Lord Frederick Paulet and the other officers implicated they would have been brought before a court martial. This is the Court of Inquiry which terminated a few weeks ago. The whole of the correspondence was laid before the Court. Colonel Dawkins was invited to state in what particulars he charged these officers with falsification, he was allowed the fullest opportunity for examining and cross-examining the witnesses, and he was allowed to make a final statement at the close. He himself, at the conclusion of the proceedings, expressed to the President and the Court his thanks for the patient manner in which they had heard him, and the full opportunity which they had given him to bring forward his case. The Court had not only to inquire into the truth of the assertions brought forward by Colonel Dawkins, but they were also directed by the Commander-in-Chief to state whether, in their opinion, his command of a battalion would or would not be beneficial to the service. The Court re-
896
ported that in their opinion Colonel Dawkins had failed to substantiate the truth of the charges brought by him against his superior officers; in some instances that he had entirely failed, and that in every instance he had entirely failed to substantiate the charges of falsification in the sense in which he had made them. The Court also came to the conclusion, that under all the circumstances, the command of the battalion of Guards by Colonel Dawkins would be injurious to the public service. They added, and the Commander-in-Chief was most anxious that full prominence should be given to this addition—that nothing had come before them which was in any manner prejudicial to the character of Colonel Dawkins as an officer and a soldier. They were convinced that he had acted conscientiously and was fully persuaded of the justice of his complaints, and although they deemed them to be without foundation, they yet fully acquitted him of having knowingly brought forward any false charges against his brother officers. I now come to the alleged want of unanimity on the part of the officers conducting this inquiry. The report of the Court, the substance of which I have stated, was signed by the President and by every member of the Court. No written protest whatever was attached to that report, and the first intimation which the Commander-in-Chief or any other person had of any protest whatever was the letter of Colonel de Bathe, which, to their great astonishment, was S read in this House by the hon. Member for Devizes. Of course, after that letter was read, it became necessary for the Commander-in-Chief to inquire under what circumstances this signature under protest was attached by Colonel de Bathe. Sir Alexander Woodford, and the other members of the Court, have been consulted by the Commander-in-Chief, and I have myself had an opportunity of seeing them. It has been said that Colonel de Bathe in every point of the inquiry advanced an opinion opposed to that of the other members of the Court. Now, I am informed that when the time arrived for signing the Report the President pointed out to the members of the Court in what way they could make their protest, if they wished to offer any against the opinion of the majority, and that before signing the Report Sir Alexander Woodford invited any member of the Court to make such protest if he desired to do so. Colonel de Bathe declined to make any protest, and signed

897
the report as agreed upon by the majority without any protest whatever. It is also stated that another member of the Court, although he declined to write a letter to the hon. Member for Devizes on the subject, also signed the report under protest. I have seen three members of the Court, and the Commander-in-Chief has seen the whole of the members of the Court, and the whole of thorn have given the assurance that, with the exception of Colonel de Bathe, there was perfect unanimity on every point of the inquiry. Colonel de Bathe did, on one or two occasions, say "I protest," but these words were not used by any other member of the Court, nor was anything whatever said about a protest, either in regard to the signing or drawing up of the report. The allegation, therefore, as to a want of unanimity in the members of the Court is, it appears to me, utterly unfounded. The Court having thus reported as I stated, and the Commander-in-Chief being of opinion that Colonel Dawkins had failed to substantiate his allegations against his superior officers, was of opinion that there was no ground whatever for bringing those superior officers to a court martial. And, acting on his own knowledge of the transactions in the regiment for so many years, and upon his own knowledge of Colonel Dawkins' character, and being no doubt supported by the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, the Commander-in-Chief did decide that Colonel Dawkins was unfitted to take the command of the regiment, and that it would be prejudicial to the interests of the public service to allow him to remain in the regiment. He therefore decided on giving Colonel Dawkins—as had been done on former occasions—the option cither of retiring on half-pay or by the sale of his commission. The Commander-in-Chief acted in this instance chiefly and mainly on his own responsibility, and his own knowledge of the circumstances, and from the reports he had received from the inspecting and other officers; and he does not wish to shelter himself behind the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, although, no doubt, their Report strengthened and fortified his conviction that Colonel Dawkins was unfit to command the regiment, These are the facts, and I submit that the Commander-in-Chief had the power, and was justified if he thought fit in using the power, of preventing Colonel Dawkins from obtaining the command of the battalion. I have shown that the statements which
898
have been made in defence of Colonel Dawkins are erroneous, inasmuch that he has not been removed from the regiment on account of the trifling occurrences which are said to have occasioned the decision against him, but simply because a long series of correspondence and communications in which Ire has been engaged with his superior officers and with the Horse Guards has proved, to the entire and complete satisfaction of the Commander-in-Chief, that his notions of military discipline and subordination, and the terms on which he has lived with the officers of his own regiment, have been such that it would be highly injurious to the public service that he should he intrusted with the command of his battalion. I will not go into the trivial incidents that have been related, and the only one to which I will shortly refer is one that has been made the subject of attack upon a noble Lord who formerly commanded the Brigade of Guards. It has been said that Lord Rokeby acted illegally in placing Colonel Dawkins under arrest for refusing to take his hand. In the mess tent at Camp Ash, Lord Rokeby, having had occasion two days previously to speak somewhat severely to Colonel Dawkins on some matters of discipline, and wishing to show that he did not entertain any personal feeling towards him, twice held out his hand to Colonel Dawkins, and made some civil observation to him. Colonel Dawkins' attention was called by Colonel Chesney to the fact that Lord Rokeby was speaking to him; but he took no notice, except by rising from his seat and saluting him in a manner which was considered by Lord Rokeby and Colonel Chesney as highly insubordinate and disrespectful. Lord Rokeby did not take immediate action. He considered for half-an-hour or air hour what ought to be done. He consulted some officers, who agreed that the manner of the action was extremely disrespectful, especially considering that it took place before a number of junior officers. Lord Rokeby, as he was bound to do, then placed Colonel Dawkins under arrest. He immediately reported the circumstance to the Commander-in-Chief. [Viscount PALMERSTON here made an observation.] Yes, I ought to state that this arrest only entailed an absence from military duties. [Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH: And from mess.] He was not subjected to confinement. Lord Rokeby reported through the Lieutenant General commanding the camp to the Commander-in-Chief, and the matter was

899
then out of his hands, and he had nothing further to do with it. From some cause which I am unable to explain—the Commander-in-Chief was either out of town or some other reason prevented the matter from receiving his immediate attention—the decision of the Commander-in-Chief was not received for eleven days after the original arrest. Lord Rokeby was not responsible in any manner for the delay, and the Judge Advocate General is, I believe, prepared to state that, under these circumstances, there was no illegality in ordering the arrest. The Commander-in-Chief, after inquiry into the subject, was of opinion that there was not sufficient ground for bringing Colonel Dawkins to a court martial, and ordered his release from arrest. It was purely accidental that the arrest was not taken off sooner. It is not to be imagined that Colonel Dawkins suffered any confinement whatever. On the second day, Lord Rokeby, finding that the decision of the Commander-in-Chief did not come down at once, said it was of no use keeping Colonel Dawkins any longer under arrest, and that until the decision of the Commander-in-Chief was received he had better go to London, where he could have a personal interview with his friends. Colonel Dawkins accordingly spent the eleven days in London, doing as he liked. I believe there was no illegality, and I am certain there was no hardship in the matter. That is the case as regards the story about Lord Rokeby. The explanation of the other circumstances would be quite as trivial—some are more so—and I do not think it necessary to go into them. Under these circumstances, I decline to lay the papers on the table. I do not think this House is a tribunal before which such questions ought to be argued, and except in so far as I have thought it my duty to clear the character of Lord Rokeby from imputation, I decline to enter into the other charges that have been raked up. The House will scarcely be prepared to hear that these circumstances happened five years ago. Seeing that the Commander-in-Chief has acted within his competence, and upon his responsibility, and that no case of injustice has been made out, this House would not be justified in taking the responsibility out of the hands of the Commander-in-Chief. I have now stated the real and true facts, as far as I have been able to learn them. I am not prepared to believe, nor will the House believe, as the hon. Member for Devizes and those who agree with him wish
900
them to believe, the statement of tyranny and hardship towards Colonel Dawkins, or suppose that a number of officers belonging to the Brigade of Guards—men who have served all their lives in the Brigade, who are not only attached to the service generally but especially to that branch of it to which they belong, men against whose character no reflection was ever made—would combine together to make false statements affecting the character and prospects of an officer junior to themselves. Until I hear that such allegations are supported by very different proofs from any that I have yet heard, I prefer to believe that Colonel Dawkins, owing to some peculiarities of temper, has entirely misunderstood the acts of these officers, and that he has taken an entirely erroneous and mistaken view of their character and proceedings. I hope the House will decline to give these papers by such a majority as will prove not only that they do not believe those statements of tyranny and hardship, but also that they do not approve of cases such as this being brought forward for discussion in this House.
GENERAL PEEL: There are two points on which I think the House are almost unanimous, although, at first sight, those points appear perfectly antagonistic to each other. One point on which I think we are unanimous is that it is not proper nor convenient for this House to interfere in questions of discipline or to constitute themselves a court of appeal from the decisions of the military authorities. The other point on which I believe we are equally unanimous is, that if any individual has a grievance to complain of he has a right to come to this House for redress, let the consequences be what they may. Now, how are we to reconcile the action of the House so as not to interfere with the discipline of the army on the one hand, and at the same time not to refuse to hear those who may have a grievance to complain of on the other? The question may appear to be one of some difficulty, and it is to its solution I propose, with the permission of the House, to address myself. Nothing is more delicate or inconvenient than to interfere with the discipline of the army. It is a grave question, trenching on the prerogative of the Crown; because I think it is perfectly incontestible that the Crown has the power to dismiss or dispense with the services of any officer in the service. But you have a Minister responsible for the

901
way in which the prerogative is administered; you have a right to demand from that Minister an account of his conduct; and I do not know how better to explain I the difference between the exercise of the power by a responsible Minister, and the exercise of it by the House itself, than by quoting an authority which none of the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the other side will he disposed to dispute. Here is an opinion of the late Earl Grey delivered in 1812, and quoted in the Report on Military Organization. He says—
"The whole notion of there being anything unconstitutional in bringing the army more under the Ministry of the day, seems to me to arise from a confusion between the powers exercised by responsible Ministers of the Crown, and powers exercised by Parliamentary Committees or some mode of that kind. Undoubtedly it was very unconstitutional in the Long Parliament that all the powers of the State should be assumed by Committees of the House of Commons, but that power over the army should be exercised by a responsible servant of the Crown, appears to me to be an absolutely essential principle of our constitution."
I agree in that opinion. The power of the Commander in-Chief to exercise a veto on the appointment of commanding officers is clearly laid down in the Report of the Royal Commission on Purchase in 1857, and the very case now before us was anticipated in the question of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn which has been read to you by the Under Secretary for War. I have quoted one Earl Grey; I will now quote another. The present Lord Grey, in his answer to question 3,983 by that Commission, said—
"I am bound to say I think in our service hitherto there has been want of sufficient firmness in refusing promotion to those who did not deserve it. Some very remarkable instances of that came under my notice when I held the office of Secretary of War."
In reply to Question 238, Sir Charles Yorke said—
"Not unless he was qualified; an officer would not be allowed to obtain it by purchase who would not be allowed to obtain it without."
Again, Mr. Ellice asked this question—
"If the Commander-in-Chief did not conceive that a major reported ready to purchase was not fit to be intrusted with the command of a battalion, he would not permit him to purchase?
To that question General Browne made this reply—
"Certainly not; he would fail in his duty if he did."
Another question was asked in these terms—
902
"It would be a very strong case, would it not, when a General made a report that an officer having risen to the rank of major, was not fit to purchase the next step on?"
Colonel Stuart replied—
"Very strong, indeed, and I think it is a pity it should be so. I think if those things were more looked into, and less delicacy and indulgence exercised, it would be better for the service."
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) without any notice whatever in the first instance—a proceeding which he has since endeavoured to justify by stating that it was impossible for him to give notice, though I think the noble Marquess has shown that at all events the impossibility did not exist so far as Colonel Dawkins himself was concerned—asks the House that the decision of the Commander-in-Chief may be suspended until there is further inquiry. I ask what further inquiry? The hon. Member says a court martial. I ask you, are you prepared in direct opposition to the Report of the Royal Commission, and in direct opposition to the opinions of the authorities I have quoted, to say that no person is to be prevented from taking the command of a regiment unless he shall have committed a military offence? Are you prepared to hold that unless lie has committed a military crime, for which he ought to have been cashiered, no officer is to he hindered from advancing to the command of a regiment? And if you are prepared to say that, are you still prepared to hold the Commander-in-Chief responsible for the efficiency of the army? It is argued that this is a hard ease, and, therefore, that it justifies your interference. No doubt any officer who was prevented from purchasing the next step would consider the case a hard one, and no doubt he would be able to put forward ex parte grounds to show it was a hard case. But are you prepared to go into those cases, and reverse the decision of the Commander-in-Chief? How is the Commander-in Chief to answer you? By laying on the table of the House the confidential Reports of the Inspecting Officer? If these Reports are to be laid on the table, for how long a time do you think they will continue to be confidential and made with the freedom and fulness without which they are useless? I say that hardship is not sufficient. You must have a grievance, and there is no grievance as long as what has been done is in conformity with the rules of the service and within the

903
authority of the Commander-in-Chief. You must show that the Commander-in-Chief has exceeded or abused his authority—then any Member of the House of Commons has a right to come down to demand justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire asked, the other night, whether what had been done in this case is legal—because if it is you have nothing to do with it—if it is not, let inquiry be made, The way in which I would solve the difficulty is this—I would not inquire into individual cases of hardship; nor would I act on ex parte statements of a real grievance; but if it is shown that there has been a gross violation of the rules of the service, then move a Vote of Censure on the Minister. Votes of Censure ought not to be brought forward on light grounds—they ought to be supported by a strong case; but if you can show that there has been guilty conduct, I for one would be ready to make the Secretary for War responsible, and censure him. With this view of the matter it is not necessary for me to go into the case of Colonel Dawkins. I do not know him. I know other officers who have been referred to, and I may have a feeling against him from what I have heard from them. But this is not the case of Colonel Dawkins; it is the case of the military authorities. The Minister had no difficulty in dealing with it, because the noble Earl the Secretary for War had all the papers submitted to him, and had, therefore, an opportunity of coming to a contray decision to that arrived at by the Commander-in-Chief if he thought fit to do so. I am totally against the Secretary for War interfering with the discipline of the army; but when he is appealed to he has his own military authorities to consult independent of the Horse Guards; he has an opportunity of forming an opinion; and he is responsible for it. And here I would observe that I think this case affords another illustration of the inconvenience arising from the circumstance that the Secretary for War is not in this House. No one can be more ready to do justice to the great ability of the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) than I am; but when the question about this affair was asked the other night, he was obliged to admit that he knew nothing about it; and, in saying he knew nothing about it, he led the House to believe that the noble Earl the Secretary for War knew nothing about it either. If the Se-
904
cretary for War were in this House, he would have been able to tell you that the decision was not a hasty one, but a matured decision of the Commander-in-Chief, approved by the Secretary for War. I believe if that statement had been made, there would have been no division; I think if the Judge Advocate had answered what I think was the simple question put to him, there would have been no division; for the House would have been able to come to the decision to which I hope they will now come, not to interfere in this particular case and to refuse the papers which have been asked for.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he wished to explain that the reason why he did not answer the question put to him the other night was that when he came down to the House on that occasion he had no official knowledge of the case, and though he had heard statements respecting it buzzed about, he had refrained from making inquiries, thinking that it might come before him in his official capacity. On that occasion it was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon (Major Knox) that he had given a legal opinion on the case. Upon that he (Mr. Headlam) stated that there was no foundation whatever for the statement, and that he had given no opinion whatever upon the subject. When the hon. Member asked him whether he would undertake to say that the proceedings before the Court of Inquiry as well as the sentence were strictly legal, he, knowing nothing whatever about the matter, gave no opinion, or perhaps replied in a vague manner. He did not think it would have been right for him to have stated absolutely that the proceedings were regular or irregular when he had received no information on the point.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that having already on the former debate expressed a decided opinion with regard to the treatment of Colonel Dawkins, he now rose only to express his regret that the Government had not interfered to put a stop to the unfortunate cause of dispute between that House and the military authorities, which must be most injurious to the service, and which might eventuate in one of those great military scandals which were so much to be deplored. He perfectly agreed with the observation of the Under Secretary for War as to the inconvenience which would arise were that House to interfere with the authorities at the Horse

905
Guards in reference to the discipline of the army. The army was a Royal, and not a Parliamentary army, and the interference of the House should be limited to the discussion of the annual Vote of Supply in which they had an opportunity of expressing their approval or disapproval of its general administration. In his opinion it was beneficial to the State that the army should be commanded by a Prince of the Blood, who was above party influence, and who by his zeal and ability had proved himself worthy of his position, and by his amiable qualities had endeared himself to every portion of the community. But, while deprecating direct interference with the discipline of the army, he thought the case of Colonel Dawkins was one deserving consideration, and perhaps redress. All he asked was that the military authorities should further consider the question and that the papers asked for should be laid upon the table, so that the country might have an opportunity of forming an opinion upon the subject.
MR. W. O. STANLEYsaid, he should have had no fault to find, had the Commander-in-Chief refused to permit Colonel Dawkins to take command upon private information only; but he felt bound to protest against the tribunal before which that gallant officer had been tried, and against the trumpery charges brought against him. The Commander-in-Chief was bound to make inquiries to satisfy himself that the officers commanding Colonel Dawkins had done their duty.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

PROTECTION OF THE COLONIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MARSH, in rising to call the attention of the House to the protection of our Colonies, and the advantages we derive from them, said, the position he intended to take up was that our colonial system was the best and cheapest method that could be devised for the protection of our enormous commerce, and that without it we should require depots for coal and garrisons all over the world, as, in fact, was now the case in those seas where we had no colonies. It appeared from a blue-book he held in his hand, coming down to the year 1862, that the amount of our import and export trade including the regis-
  906
  tered export and import of gold and silver, amounted altogether to £501,000,000 pet-annum—and at least 20 per cent might be added for the increase since 1862—but hundreds of ships making short voyages to the Continent and back were not included in that Return, and neither were the ships engaged in the vast trade between India, China, and Australia, which could scarcely amount to less than £100,000,000 per annum; thus raising the total value of our commerce to upwards of £600,000,000. Besides the protection of our own commerce, we had taken upon ourselves the police of the seas. Ships only were of no use for these purposes; in these days of steam it was necessary that we should have depots of coal and places where ships could refit, with garrisons to protect them; and what he maintained was that if we had not colonies, we should be forced to have arsenals and garrisons all over the world. In the absence of colonies, we already maintained such military stations as Gibraltar, Malta, Bermuda, and Hong Kong; and a similar policy was adopted by other countries—France, for instance, having the Isle of Bourbon, Pondicherry, the Marquesas, Tahiti, the Isle of Pines, and New Caledonia, in which, he believed, there were more troops than in all our colonies put together. It was not possible to ascertain in all cases what was the cost of protecting our commerce where we had colonies, and what it amounted to where we had none; but in some instances a tolerably accurate idea might be formed of the difference of the cost in the two cases. Our exports to China and Japan were in value £3,237,000, and to protect that commerce we had a garrison of 1,300 men at Hong Kong, a regiment of soldiers in Japan, he supposed some troops at Shanghai or on the mainland of China, eighteen ships, and twenty-three gunboats. Occasionally we had a little war with China, and there was a hill to pay for powder and shot; and we had also had to blow a town about the ears of some Japanese chieftain. Now, on the other hand, the value of our exports to our four great colonies in Australia was something like £9,000,000; the garrison of those colonies did not exceed 500 men, who were partly paid by the colonists themselves, and we had there but three ships, mounting only thirty-nine guns. To the western coast of South America our exports were £2,700,000, and we had there five ships, mounting 105 guns. He gave this as an illustration of the general fact;

  907
  but he might remind the House of another item of saving, because by the possession of our colonies we saved the expense of diplomatic and consular establishments. A great deal had been said about the enormous expense of the military defence of our colonies, but he thought that he could easily convince the House that a good deal of it was nonsense. Malta and Gibraltar had been put down as colonies, but they were really not colonies at all; no more were the stations upon the coast of Africa, and it was precisely because they were not that they were so expensive. As to the Cape of Good Hope, the question was a mixed one. We retained that possession at the end of the great French war, because it afforded a convenient stopping place for our ships; and if it had been a barren rock upon which no colony could be established we should have had to keep up a garrison there. The necessity for our sending troops to garrison the frontier arose from our having, as we supposed, in the interests of virtue and humanity, put an end to the commando system, by which the settlers used formerly to defend themselves against the Kaffirs, and he supposed that now the Kaffir war was at an end part of the troops would be withdrawn. Among the good things done by the present Government he regarded it as not the least important the placing a friendly chief between the Kaffir frontiers and the settlers—a step which he thought likely to prevent future wars. Be that as it might, there had been great exaggeration as to the number of troops at the Cape, which did not exceed 4,73 9 men—much less than the garrisons of Gibraltar and Malta. The Mauritius was retained at the end of the great French war because our commerce had suffered greatly from privateers and cruisers, who had made it their resort, and if it had been a barren rock we must have garrisoned it, as well as provided and paid the civil servants who would have been found necessary. Ceylon was scarcely a colony. Hong Kong was certainly not one, and Western Australia and Van Diemen's Land were removed from the category of ordinary colonies, one by being and the other by having been till very recently a penal settlement. In the four great colonies upon the Australian continent soldiers were, in his opinion, but little needed. The colonists had a good Volunteer force; it was impossible to suppose that any one would invade Australia with a view to overrun it from the landside, and
  908
  its ports could be best defended by means of floating batteries of light draught. He passed over New Zealand, because the question of defence of that colony had been amply discussed in the House a short time ago, and also because New Zealand was in a state of transition, the colonists having made an offer to take the war into their own hands and pay all the expenses. At the Falkland Islands there were very few colonists. As to the West Indies, he would observe that even if there were no colonists at all it would be necessary to keep up there garrisons to prevent them from becoming a nest of privateers and buccaneers as they formerly were. He came in the last place to out great North American Colonies, and their case was somewhat peculiar, in as much as they had on their frontier a great, civilized, and, be was afraid, a warlike nation. He did not, however, share in those fears which appeared to have been so generally entertained, that the United States, wearied after a long contest, would proceed to attack our North American possessions, and he felt sure if they did they would be boldly resisted by men whose origin from the two noblest and bravest races in the world led one to suppose that they would combine with the steady courage of the Englishman the gallant onslaught of the French. He now wished to say a few words on the general advantages of colonies. And first, on the subject of emigration to those and other colonies, he would observe that, without being a Malthusian, he must admit that in any society which was in a healthy state there must be found in the population a tendency to increase. The difficulty which in consequence arose was met in some countries by what was called the prudential check; while in this country it was to a great extent met by emigration, it being calculated by a high authority, Mr. Herman Merivale that one child in six born in this country was provided for by that means. Hitherto the United States of America had been the great field for emigration. Now, if people emigrated at all it was better, he contended, that they should go to some of our own colonies, where they would, in process of time, become our best friends and our best customers, than that they should go to swell the number of some other nation. To show what good customers our colonies were, be might mention that our exports to the West Indies were nearly as great as to the magnificent Empire of Brazil; that our exports

  909
  to India were £15,000,000, whereas to China and Japan, with a much larger polation, they amounted to only £3,237,000; and that to the two gold colonies of Australia they were £8,000,000, whereas to California they amounted to only £430,000. Then, supposing we were in any difficulty with regard to any raw product for machinery, lie would like to know whether we should go to foreign countries or to our own colonies first. Take, for instance, the case of cotton. The world had been ransacked for cotton—a product which grew in perfection in many parts of the globe. Now from the Mediterranean, including Turkey and Egypt, the quantity we bad got was 107,000,000 pounds; from Brazil, 22,000,000 pounds; and from China, 30,000,000 pounds. Whereas from our Indian dependencies we had obtained 434,000,000 pounds. The same general argument would hold good with respect to hemp and wool. There were those who said that inasmuch as our colonies must separate from us at some time or other, the sooner we got rid of them the bettor. He did not endorse that view; and assuming that separation must some time take place, he did not see that there was any reason why we should be in a hurry to throw them off. It was something to have a great Empire, though the idea was one at which the utilitarian might laugh.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, the hon. Member had made a most specious statement, advocating protection for our colonies and countenancing a system of extravagance which he hoped the Government would not be prepared to sanction. He had been trying to show that the colonies were of vital importance to the commercial interests of the country; but he would like to know, in the presence of the fact that, while the world at large took £110,000,000 of our exports, and the colonists only £50,000,000, which were the best customers? He was not, however, on that account prepared to say that we ought to draw from our colonies all reasonable support, but he was opposed to anything like extravagant expenditure in their support. With respect to the cost attending the transactions, it was relatively much greater with the colonies than with the rest of the civilized world. He granted that, to some extent, they did receive a supply of raw materials from the colonies, because merchants here did not send out their goods without expecting to receive some return. What defence did we need for the £8,200,760
  910
  we sent to France, the £13,373,131 we sent to the Hanse Towns, or the £16,704,080 we sent to the United States of America? With regard to emigration, the emigrants, especially from Ireland, preferred to seek an asylum in the United States of America to going to any of our colonies, where great inducements were held out to them to settle. Under the Homestead Bill the American Government offered to a man with a family a gift of 160 acres of land. Where did we find an inducement of 160 acres, 100 acres, or even 50 acres of land, offered to our people to go and settle in one of our colonies? With regard to the cotton supply in 1860, when the American disruption took place, we were receiving 85 per cent of the raw material grown by slave labour in the Southern States; 8 per cent from Egypt and other independent sources, and the paltry supply of 7 per cent from the East and West Indies. He could not understand his hon. Friend being guilty of such a misdirection of his energy and talent as he had been in the case he had endeavoured to make out that evening. He hoped that by the system which would he pursued in future the colonies would be rendered less dependent on British expenditure, that they would be brought to feel their own weight and their own power, and, left to themselves, that they would become as great and important as the States of America had grown since they ceased to be colonies of Great Britain. He thankfully admitted that in the article of sheep-wool we had already received important contributions from Australia, and the woollen trade in this country would have been in a most impoverished state instead of the prosperous condition in which it had existed for many years, had it not been for their supplies. But if the colonies as a whole were thrown on their own resources they would learn new lessons of self-reliance, and would offer inducements to settlers to come out and help them. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) was about to proceed to Australia, and it was to be hoped that he would go out as a missionary from the mother country, and in holding out the right hand of fellowship to the colonists would make them understand that they ought not to exact from us heavy duties, as if we were adverse to their interests. Canada, for instance, had placed extravagant duties on British manufactures, and the same spirit of exaction pervaded the whole of the British colonies. If it were

  911
  known that the Home authorities were determined in future not to show favour to the colonies, but to do them full justice, they would, he believed, become more prosperous than by any other means.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) spoke with authority on Australian subjects, because he spoke with the special knowledge of a personal residence in the colony; but he did not think there was any irreconcilable antagonism between the views of hon. Members who had addressed the House. The hon. Member for Salisbury had not said that there was any claim on the part of the colonists for that assistance from the Imperial Exchequer which the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) so justly deprecated; but, at the same time, he showed the great advantages which, as a colonist, and as a Member of that House, he perceived in the existence of numerous communities scattered over many of the most interesting and fruitful parts of the world, consisting of those who sprang from our loins, carried our learning across the seas, reproduced our institutions, looked to the same fathers of literature, read our press, participated in the advantages of our postal system, and were, in fact, creating and maintaining communities of the same feeling and origin as ourselves in the most distant parts of the world. All must agree that advantages not merely material, but moral and political, were derived from the existence of those colonies, though these advantages could not be measured entirely by statistics. He had not understood the hon. Member for Manchester to discourage in any degree the maintentenance of the most intimate relation with our colonies, the cultivation of friendly feelings with them, or the rendering to them of the many inestimable services which the mother country always had it in her power to afford. But the hon. Member contended that in carrying with them English institutions they also carried with them the independent, honest spirit which was the first characteristic of Englishmen, which was the foundation of the power and glory of the Empire. It had been said that formerly we taxed the colonies, but that now the colonies taxed us and, no doubt, for many years it had been necessary to lay before Parliament Estimates which were really a tax upon the mother country, for the benefit of her colonies; but that principle had been settled long ago in a contrary sense, and he did not
  912
  think any Estimates had more rapidly and continuously declined of late than the civil Estimates for colonial services. It might fairly be said the principle had been established that the colonies ought to be self-supporting, and that if any Vote were now taken for the benefit of the colonies it should be justified on strictly exceptional grounds. During the year 1861 an important Committee sat, under the auspices of an hon. Friend on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Arthur Mills), to consider the question of Colonial Military Expenditure. That Committee passed the colonies in review, distinguishing those of Malta, Gibraltar, Bermuda, and others, which were military strongholds, which the country was compelled to keep up for naval stations, or purposes not strictly those of colonization, from those which might be called colonies proper. The Committee laid down very clearly what was the expenditure on the colonies proper, and pointed out what, in their opinion, were the reforms and improvements of which the system was capable; stating, however, that it must be a matter of discretion with the Government how far those suggestions could be carried into effect. In the following year a discussion took place upon the Report of the Committee, the Chairman of which disclaimed on their part any intention of weakening the tie binding the colonies to the mother country; and a Resolution was agreed to which, though it referred only to colonies having representative institutions, might be taken as showing that the House of Commons approved the Report of the Committee. That Resolution was passed in 1862; and last year the House having occasion to deal with the very unsatisfactory state of things in New Zealand called on the people of that colony to make a substantial contribution towards the outlay upon troops remaining there. The Ministers and Assembly of New Zealand expressed their wish that the whole of the troops might be removed at the earliest possible period, and the defences of the colony intrusted to a colonial force, at the sole expense of the colony; but at the distance of half the globe arrangements required some time to complete, and this new policy was not yet wholly carried into effect, but it had been so far adopted as to show that the Government was not indifferent either to the wishes of the colonists or to the recommendation of the Committee of the House of Commons. The effects of the war in New Zealand had been to drain

  913
  almost completely the neighbouring colony of Australia of Imperial troops; and if they returned there it would be on the understanding that a substantial contribution should be made towards their cost. The Committee also recommended that the number of troops in the West Indies should be diminished. But the force in those Islands was governed by the force on the West Coast of Africa, the unhealthy nature of which station rendered necessary the keeping up of largo reliefs. The forces, however, on the West Coast having been reduced, a corresponding diminution had taken place in the force hitherto maintained in the West Indies to the extent of one of the five West India regiments; and the result would be seen in the Estimates of this year. A Committee was now sitting, and when its Report bad been laid on the table it would be for them to say whether a further reduction might take place in the troops on the West Coast of Africa, and also in the West India regiments. Those who were curious enough to read the papers delivered to Members every morning might have observed that in regard to three Crown Colonies—Hong Kong, Mauritius, and Ceylon—he had already been engaged in requiring from those colonies contributions towards their military protection. So that it would be found that there was scarcely one of the recommendations of the Committee which had not already engaged the attention of the Government, and in regard to which some progress had not been made. At any rate, it was accepted as their principle and guide that the rule laid down by the House in 1862 should be carried into effect by the Imperial Government. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) had alluded to the Act passed in the present Session to enable the colonies to make better provision for their own naval defence; and it so happened that by that day's mail that Act, together with certain regulations which the Admiralty and his own Department had suggested, went out to the Australian Colonies for their adoption. That Act, no doubt, must come gradually into operation, because it established a new principle, and it was to be hoped that it would be the solution of difficulties which had for many years proved insuperable. It was an important fact in the history of this country in connection with its colonies that she was calling upon them, by an Act of the Imperial Legislature, to make provision for their own defence by sea, where dan-
  914
  ger, as his hon. Friend had justly observed, was most likely to threaten them than from any attack by land; and that, while offering these facilities and opportunities for making such preparations, she held them responsible for their own security. All who have joined in or listened to that discussion—those who sympathized with the hon. Member for Salisbury, and those who sympathized with the hon. Member for Manchester—could, he thought, arrive at the unanimous conclusion that they had highly valued the connection between the colonies and the mother country, that they were sensible of the great advantage of having those free, industrious, and enter-prizing communities sharing their own blood, their own language, and their own laws, settled over the whole world; but that they also expected from them that spirit of independence and self-reliance which was the first prerogative as well as the first characteristic of an Englishman; that, as a policy of freedom, affection, and attachment had been substituted for one of coercion and Imperial control, and as Great Britain was ready to render them every aid which could fairly be required from her, so in return she would look to the colonies for energy, self-denial, and self-reliance, and that, helping themselves and doing their duty by the mother country, they might feel confident that she valued them in the highest degree, and would faithfully fulfil all those duties which an affectionate parent owed to her offspring.
  MR. J. B. SMITHbelieved that the colonies were more indebted for their peace and prosperity to the mother country than she was indebted to them; but that to flourish in a healthy and enduring manner communities, like individuals, must be self-reliant. The tide of emigration, however, had set in towards the United States rather than towards our own colonies, because the American Government had passed what was called the Homestead Law, giving land to settlers for nothing. Under those circumstances our enterprizing fellow-subjects would not go to distant colonies, where they had to pay £1 per acre for land.

POOR FISHERMEN (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether that portion of the Act 5th Geo. IV. c. 64 s. 9, which empowers the Lord Lieutenant—

  915
  "To apply a sum not exceeding five hundred pounds in any one year in providing materials for the repairs of boats of poor fishermen at such ports and places where quays and piers are or shall be built."
  Under the provisions of the said Act, is not still in force, and whether he can state when the last grant was made under the Act. It was his (Mr. Blake's) belief that the sum of five hundred pounds per annum was still legally available for the purpose for which it was originally intended, and complained that it was not so applied. He also urged the necessity of placing the Fishery Department in Dublin in a more efficient state.
  MR. PEELsaid, his own opinion, after taking some pains to examine into the question, was that there was no power in the Act to which the hon. Member had referred, or in any other Act, to authorize the payment of a sum of £500 per annum towards the assistance of poor fishermen in Ireland. An Act was passed in the year 1819 which gave the Lord Lieutenant the power of issuing to the Commissioners of Fisheries in Ireland an annual sum of £5,000 for the construction of fishing piers and harbours; but that Act was only to be in force for five years from the end of the next Session of Parliament, and it accordingly expired in the year 1825. It was then renewed until the year 1830; when, under a new arrangement, a body was created, called the "Directors of Inland Navigation." The Lord Lieutenant by the Act of 1830 was authorized to issue to the Directors of Inland Navigation for the completion of piers which had already been commenced a sum of £13,000, which was to be expended in a period extending over five years; and since the expiration of those five years the Lord Lieutenant had no money at his disposal which he could devote to that object.

PIERS AND HARBOURS (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: Sir, I rise for the purpose of asking the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in consequence of the recent great loss of life among the Fishermen while pursuing their trade on the east coast of Scotland, it is the intention of the Lords of the Treasury to give effect to the Report addressed to them by Special Commissioners in February, 1857, recommending that an additional sum be granted for the construction of
  916
  Piers and Harbours under the direction of the Fishery Board of Scotland? The reason which has induced me to ask this question is the fact that enormous loss of life has occurred among the seamen on the east coast of Scotland; and, also the fact that I represent a county on the coast of which there are many villages in which the rate of mortality from this cause has been to my mind most appalling. But I should not have ventured to appeal to the House upon any special, much less upon any local reason, had it not been for the recommendations of the Special Commissioners in 1857. I do not think the public are at all aware of the large amount of loss which is incurred on the north-east coast of Scotland. I am not going to trouble the House with many statistics—in fact, I shall confine myself to my own county, for there I can vouch for the accuracy of the statistics I give, as I know almost every individual case of which I am about to speak. On the night of the 23rd February, 1857, out of three villages, the whole population of which only amounted to 640 persons, no less than 41 fishermen were lost. These men were all lost in one night—being 7 per cent of the entire male population of the parish, and they left 27 widows and 79 children. Between the period to which I have alluded and the present time there have been various casualties, and yet the Government have, in the meantime, paid no attention to the recommendation of the Commissioners. I believe many persons would have contributed towards the erection of a harbour if the Government had acted in the matter; and it is to the non-existence of a harbour of refuge that I attribute the loss of the lives of many of these men. Had a harbour of refuge existed, I firmly believe the lives of many of them would have been saved, and much desolation and misery thus prevented. On the 27th October, there were 27 men drowned in one night; and on the 8th February there were 8 more—making a total of 35 lost out of a population of 500, leaving many widows and children behind them. I do not ask the Government to give any special grant, but I maintain that if they will adopt the recommendation of the Commissioners, and allow a larger sum to be given to the Fishery Board for the construction of piers and harbours, great benefit will thus be conferred upon the people whose claims I am advocating. In the Report of the Commissioners to which I allude, they

  917
  recommend that, in addition to the grant of £3,000 now secured by Act of Parliament, an additional sum of £3,000—making in all £6,000—should be granted for the purpose of constructing piers and harbours—this sum to extend over a period of eight years, by which time the works would be executed. They say it is very important that this additional grant of £3,000 should be secured by special Act of Parliament for eight years, otherwise there will not be any trustworthy basis of operation, and the Board would be seriously impeded in the matter. The Commissioners had made certain other recommendations, amongst which were the reduction of some officers, and the abolition of others employed on the west coast, which would increase the revenue. The additional £3,000 which they recommended, and the existing £3,000 at present secured, together with the other sums to be brought in, will in all make a sum of £9,300 a year. Such a sum as this would, in my opinion, be most beneficially expended under the administration of the Fishery Board of Scotland. It is quite impossible adequately to estimate the benefit to be derived. I admit it is quite impossible for the Government to give money, but I think they might increase the amount given to the Fishery Board; and that is what I ask them to do. The grant to the Fishery Board, I am sorry to say, has been diminished, and they do not get so much now as they did in 1855. There is another reason why I think the Government might increase the grant, and that is, since the establishment of the herring brand in 1859, the Government have realized a large sum of money, and that brand is not only self-supporting, but I believe the Government have derived a large amount of profit from it. Altogether they have received something like £25,000; and I think that is an appropriate fund from which the fishermen may ask to have assistance granted for the construction of these harbours. Another reason which, perhaps, I may be allowed to urge, is the fact that so small a proportion of the revenue, considering the large amount raised from the people of Scotland, is expended in that country in comparison with the amount expended in other parts of the country. It was only in the early part of the present Session, in the course of an Irish debate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer called attention to this fact. He said—
  918
  "What proportion is expended in Scotland in proportion to the sum raised in the shape of taxation? I doubt whether one-fourth of the revenue derived from the country is spent within its borders."
  I am not going to maintain that you are to spend all the money raised in the locality in which it is raised. Such an argument would be quite untenable; but I do think that, when we have £5,500,000 of money taken from Scotland, and only £440,000 spent there, we have some claim upon the consideration of the Government, especially when that claim is backed up by the Report of a Special Commission. It appears to me that the policy of the Government has been to get everything they can out of Scotland, and at the same time to reduce all the expenditure upon the public works. I trust that the Treasury will deal in future in a more liberal manner with these fishermen, who are a class of men who have always been ready to come forward when they are required for the navy, and at the present moment they form no inconsiderable proportion of the Royal Naval Reserve. In conclusion, I can only express a hope that I shall not appeal in vain, but that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will give the matter his careful consideration. I beg to ask the question which I have already read to the House.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he regarded this as a question which deserved the careful consideration of the Government. The fishermen upon the coasts of Scotland were exposed, from the nature of the tempests which occurred there, to great and unusual dangers, from which the fishermen of other parts of the coast of Great Britain were exempt. The storms which constantly arise on the east and north-east coasts of Scotland were of such a character that when the fishermen were engaged in fishing upon banks, perhaps forty miles from land, a sea would arise which threatened to swamp them before, with such boats as they had, they could reach the very imperfect harbours in which they were obliged to take refuge. He believed that Admiral Fitzroy had done a great deal for these men by the introduction of his meteorological system. Many of the prejudices which formerly surrounded this class of men had been overcome, and they now paid more attention to the barometers and to the various scientific apparatus for foretelling storms which were placed in conspicuous positions along the coast. From the coast to which his hon.

  919
  Friend (Mr. W. R. Duff) referred there were drawn upwards of 1,000 men for the Royal Naval Reserve; and he (Sir James Elphinstone) had no hesitation in saying that they were among the finest men to be found in that force. He felt bound to express in the strongest terms his opinion that the grants for harbours upon the coast of Scotland had not been commensurate with the necessities of the case, and he believed there were many points on the coast of Banffshire, Aberdeenshire, and at Wick, in the northern part of the county of Caithness, at which, if the labour of convicts were employed, and if money were raised at a low rate of interest, for the construction of harbours—the loans being repaid by a toll upon the coasters resorting to the harbours—great improvements might be effected, which would result in a considerable annual saving of human life. The loss of human life in some of the gales which occur upon this coast had frequently been very great. Within his recollection as many as 100 men had been lost in one of those storms; and the loss of 100 able-bodied men involved the beggary and destitution of many families. Under all these circumstances he begged most humbly to support the recommendations of his hon. Friend.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHthought that the hon. Member for Banff is entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought this question forward. The question of providing harbours of refuge had occupied the attention of the House for several successive years; and although a division was obtained in 1859 in favour of carrying out the recommendation of the Commissioners, yet in a subsequent year that decision was reversed. If that recommendation had been carried out, there would have been no necessity for urging the matter upon the attention of the House at the present moment; but the question being, as it were, in abeyance, and there being great difficulty in obtaining the construction of harbours of refuge on a larger scale, he thought they would do well to press on the Treasury the necessity of seeing what could be done by means of smaller works for these poor fishermen. Indeed, it is a question of humanity and public policy. The losses sustained by the fishermen were very severe. These poor people lived entirely by the produce of their fishing, and it not unfrequently happened that for three days out of the seven they were prevented from going to the
  920
  fishing grounds because they had no place to run to in the event of a storm coming on. The result of this was that a great amount of human food was entirely lost. He believed that the produce from the fishing grounds might be doubled if those harbours were properly attended to; and he therefore trusted that the Secretary of the Treasury would be able to give us some hope that this subject will not be disregarded.
  MR. PEELsaid, that having already addressed the House upon the Question of going into Committee of Supply, he was precluded from saying more than a few words in answer to the question of his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman was in error in stating that the fee on branding herrings was a fund available for carrying out the object he sought. That fund was raised for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the establishment of the Fishery Board of Scotland; and he could assure his hon. Friend that it did not make the establishment self-supporting or anything like self-supporting. It was quite true that a larger sum had been realized from that source than was anticipated when the fee was first imposed; but all the sums received were paid into the Exchequer, and expended in strict conformity with the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The only sum in Scotland available for the improvement or extension of piers and harbours was a sum of £3,000 a year which forms part of the annual grant to the Fishery Board. That sum, which had now been paid for a long series of years, had been applied with great advantage in the construction of piers and harbours for fishing boats at different points on the coast of Scotland. He had no doubt of the advantage which would arise if the works which were said to be necessary could be carried out on the east and north-east coasts of Scotland, and also in other parts of Scotland both upon the east and west coasts. He was quite aware that in 1857 the Commissioners re-commended that a further grant of £3,000 a year should be allowed for a limited period; but he must confess that, taking into consideration the scale on which these fishery harbours were now being erected, he did not think that a grant of even double that sum would be adequate for the purpose. It was estimated that the harbour in which his hon. Friend (Mr. Duff) felt specially interested would cost £33,000. [Mr. R. W. DUFF: £22,000.]

  921
  It would cost £22,000 if carried out partially, but if carried out to the full extent desirable, it was estimated that it would cost £33,000. Therefore, if the House were to vote double the sum recommended, and it were applied to this single harbour, it would take five or six years before there would be sufficient funds to carry out the work. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman did not claim an unconditional grant of the public money for this purpose. Since the passing of the Harbours Act in 1851, ordinary harbours could only be constructed by public money upon certain terms of repayment, and it would be hardly right or fair with regard to fishery harbours that they should be constructed with public money without repayment. He should be very glad if the thing could be clone, but he must confess that at the present moment he did not see his way towards carrying out the object desired by his hon. Friend.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, there was a distinction to be drawn in the case of the fishing harbours of which the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps not aware—namely, that in consequence of the change which had taken place in the modes of sea fishing all over the coast of Great Britain a larger description of vessel was now used than was formerly found necessary. The truth was, however, that in most of the fishery harbours on the coast of Scotland the fishermen had very little means at their disposal for making improvements, and they were precluded from adopting that improved system of fishing which is found requisite for deep-sea fishing, because they had not the power of leaving the shallow harbours which nature had provided for them. He had no doubt that a great increase in the supply of fish, not only upon this coast alone, but upon the west coast—and, indeed, all over the kingdom—would be the result, if under proper and necessary precautions money could be advanced for the purpose of improving the fishery harbours.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  (1.) £527,985, New Works, &c, Establishments.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he was rejoiced to find that reflection had brought conviction to the Admiralty as to the necessity of extending the accommodation in our dockyards. Three years ago when he proposed an expenditure of £1,500,000 in the Channel Dockyards for works necessary to the accommodation of the modern fleet of this country his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty treated his proposal almost with derision. On that occasion his noble Friend said that he (Mr. Corry) was a great advocate for brick and mortar; that his time at the Admiralty was looked on as the golden age, when he was the Palladio of that establishment; that he used to go down to the Board and propose gigantic works; that in going round the yards, if a person asked who constructed this or that great work, the answer was sure to be "Mr. Corry;" and the noble Lord concluded by asking him to sit down contented and not to alarm the House by statements such as he had made, because on a calm review there was no cause for alarm as to any evil results in time of war from a want of accommodation in the dockyards. But I his moderate proposal was now very much exceeded; for, assuming that the works now proposed were carried out in the most economical way—that was to say, partly by contract, and partly by convict labour—the estimated cost was £4,600,000; and the Estimate would be increased to £6,000,000 if the works were carried out in the manner and with the expedition which he thought ought to be used. He did not taunt his noble Friend with the gigantic character of these works, which threw those that he had suggested completely into the shade—on the contrary, he freely admitted that though the Estimate of his noble Friend was much larger than his (Mr. Corry's), it did not go beyond the necessities of the case. The plans proposed for works at Portsmouth, at Chatham, at Cork, and at Malta seemed on the whole to be good, and he would give them his cordial support. But though he was satisfied on the whole with the designs, he was not equally satisfied with the mode in which it was proposed to provide the means for executing them. In proposing the Navy Estimates the noble Lord said—
  "The last paragraph of their Report is of such great importance that I must particularly refer to it, because it bears strongly upon the proposal that I am about to make. The Committee there state—'The Committee, therefore, having duo regard to economy, no less than to the pressing necessities of the service, are of opinion that the

  923
  completion of the works they recommend should be expedited by whatever means may appear most advisable to the Government and Parliament.'"
  He need hardly tell his noble Friend that he concurred in that recommendation of the Committee, because he was aware that he (Mr. Corry) had drawn it up himself. The noble Lord then went on to state that—
  "If the House will agree to that principle, we can, I believe, by entering into a contract for the construction of the works at a given sum per annum, get the work done at a considerable diminution of cost and within a much shorter period of time."
  But it was difficult to understand how any Bill could provide for the payment of the amount due under contracts at a given sum per annum. There was only one mode of doing this—namely, by borrowing money as was done in the case of the fortifications. An Act of Parliament would be mere waste paper so far as it attempted to bind future Parliaments, especially if there was an economical Chancellor of the Exchequer or an economical House of Commons; and the Bill proposed by his noble Friend, therefore, would give very little security for the punctual payment of fixed sums from year to year towards the expenses incurred under the contracts about to be entered into. The course which would be adopted by future Parliaments would depend to a considerable extent upon the amount asked for from year to year; but the papers laid before Parliament hardly gave a fair representation in this respect. From the letter of the Director of Works it appeared that the whole cost of the works, £4,650,000, would be distributed over fifteen years (which he thought was a great deal too long a time), and that there would be required an annual Vote of £310,000 for the new works during this period. The annual cost of maintenance was estimated at £275,000, so that according to that calculation a total Vote of £585,000 per annum would be necessary. But, in his opinion, this was not a correct view of the case, because the Admiralty did not propose to distribute the expenditure in equal sums over fifteen years. On the contrary, they proposed that the works should he pushed on with expedition during the first three or four years, in order to obtain a certain amount of accommodation as soon as possible. Thus at Chatham it was proposed to spend in the three years next ensuing £665,000, and at Portsmouth during the same period £822,000, making a total of
  924
  £1,487.000, or an average per annum of £495,000 for Chatham and Portsmouth alone. The maintenance of the yards involved, as he had said, an annual cost of £275,000, so that the annual Vote necessary under these three heads would be £770,000. Besides that, other great works were to be provided for. The works at Cork were to cost £150,000, and were to occupy five years; so that this would involve an additional annual outlay of£30,000. A like sum of £150,000 was required for the dock and purchase of land at Malta, and as the works there were to occupy three years another annual sum of £50,000 must be added. Then, as his noble Friend had privately informed him, it was intended to construct a floating dock at Bermuda, and to spend there £250,000 in two years. This would add another £125,000 to the yearly Vote, which would thus amount to £975,000, or nearly a million a year, exclusive of the extensive additions to Key-ham which were a part of the scheme of the Government, but for which no estimate had been made. This was more than double the average expenditure on dockyard works, which had gone on for some years, and he much doubted whether any Act of Parliament would bind a future Chancellor of the Exchequer or a future House of Commons to such an amount from year to year. At all events the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken good care of himself, for the sum taken in the present year for docks and basins and other new works was only £166,000; and it was questionable whether the right hon. Gentleman would approve next year of a Vote of nearly a million. When the Duke of Somerset was examined before the Dockyard Committee, he (Mr. Corry) asked him whether the Admiralty had turned their attention to the expediency of borrowing money upon terminable annuities for the completion of the great works in the dockyards as they had done for the fortifications; but the Duke gave him no reason to suppose that any such plan would be adopted. It would be impossible to find any arguments more applicable to the case of the dockyards than those which were advanced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in favour of a loan for the completion of the fortifications. On the 23rd of July 1860, when proposing that £11,000,000 should be raised upon terminable annuities in order to complete the fortifications as soon as possible, Lord Palmerston said—

  925
  "I hold it to be absolutely necessary for the safety of the country that these recommendations should substantially be carried into effect. Now there are two modes of doing this—you may either vote annually such a portion of the annual income of the country as the country would like to spend on a matter of this kind, and by so doing defer for perhaps eighteen or twenty years the accomplishment of these defences; or you may take that course which it will be my duty to recommend, and endeavour to complete them at the earliest possible period, without, at the same time, laying upon the country a larger annual burden than would be incurred if you prosecuted those works more slowly. I mean you may by raising by terminable annuities to run for thirty years a sum that will be sufficient in the course of three or four years to complete those works, get within a short period the security you require. … My opinion is that if these works are necessary—and I think common sense shows you that they are necessary—if they are necessary they are necessary as soon as we can get them, they are necessary for time present, and it would be folly to postpone for eighteen or twenty years the completion of defences against dangers which I hope may not arise; but dangers which we may contemplate as possible, and which, if possible, may be possible in the course of a comparatively short space of time."—[3 Hansard, clx. 20.]
  But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was indignant the other day when an hon. Gentleman suggested that the expense of the dockyard works should be defrayed in the same manner. He did not know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman objected, for he was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the fortification scheme was proposed, and it must be supposed that it had his entire concurrence. Why should the right hon. Gentleman object in the one case to what he had assented to in the other? In point of fact, it was more important to complete the dockyard works without delay for several reasons. In the first place the fortifications were required only to meet the probably remote contingency of war; but additional docks and basins were urgently required to meet the demands of the service even in time of peace, as the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee went to show. The every day work in the dockyards required that the contemplated extensions should be immediately carried out. It was far more important to keep an enemy out of the country than to foil him when in it, and the best mode of defeating an attempt at invasion would be to have the means of maintaining our fleet in a state of efficiency, for which the present accommodation in the dockyards was wholly inadequate. Besides, the works in the dockyards would endure for all time, while the fortifications might be rendered comparatively useless
  926
  by a change in the art of war. In every respect the urgency of the case was greater than in regard to the fortifications. The dockyards were the jewels, the fortifications only the caskets to protect them; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw no impropriety in sanctioning a large immediate outlay by means of a loan on the caskets, but he would not hear of such an expedient in the case of the jewels themselves. He should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in his place, but it appeared that now the Estimates were not deemed sufficiently important to induce the right hon. Gentleman to attend, even when it was a question of spending five or six millions of money. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider the subject. The works, even if completed before the end of fifteen years, might yet be deferred too long. And here he wished to correct an error, or rather oversight, which occurred in a letter of the Director of Works dated January 23, which appeared in the papers laid before Parliament. It was there stated that the original Estimate for the Works at Keyham, which were commenced so recently as in 1844, was only £400,000, while they had cost upwards of £1,500,000. But the £400,000 was merely the Estimate for the south basin; and it was the practice at that time to specify the amount required in future years for the particular work only for which a Vote was taken in the Navy Estimates. In 1845 the Estimate was increased by £275,000 for two docks, making £675,000. Afterwards £300,000 was added for the north basin, and £250,000 for factory buildings and so on. The plan followed in 1844 was a bad one, and was amended upon the recommendation of the Committee of 1848, over which the Duke of Somerset presided. He wished to give that explanation in justification of a Department with which he had been connected, and especially in vindication of the late Colonel Brandreth, of the Royal Engineers, an officer of great ability, who then held the office of Director of Works, and who was incapable of making any such mistake. In conclusion, he had to express his satisfaction that at length we were about to get decent accommodation for our ships, and he only hoped that the Government would expedite the works by every means at their command.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHthought the Secretary for the Admiralty could

  927
  hardly feel flattered at the interest manifested in this discussion. Though approving of the Votes asked for, he did not think they were adequate for the required purposes. He thought the annual instalments to be of much use, and ought to be much larger. If the Government did not like to ask the House of Commons for a sum sufficient to carry out the works at once, there could be no reasonable objection to the proposal to raise money in the same way as they had done for the fortification scheme. As much money as could be expended ought to be expended at once, and the works ought to be completed in five or six years instead of being spread over twenty. In the way in which the Government were proceeding, the money that was laid out was producing no results. Either the works were not required, or, if they were, they ought to be pushed forward with the greatest vigour. The Channel ports were very badly provided with dock accommodation. One of the most extraordinary things he had ever seen was the charge of £20,000 for lowering floor No. 7. That sum was paid in two instalments, whereas the operation must have been done at once. For Keyham there was a charge of £21,000, and only £30,000 more was required to complete the work. Why not take the whole of it in one year? With regard to barracks, there were certain artillery barracks that might be completed with speed, and for which only £73,000 was necessary; but all the money now asked for was £21,000. If the Government would only ask for large sums for proper objects the money would be granted at once, and he thought that would be a far better course than taking small sums year after year, inasmuch as it would be far more economical in the end to use immediate despatch.
  MR. LAIRDquite agreed with the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) as to the importance of completing works rapidly, but he found on looking into the Estimates that the completion of some of them would require fifteen or twenty years. The Report of the Inspector of Works pointed out the disadvantage of the system which had hitherto been pursued, and snowed that out of an expenditure of £550,000 per annum about £250,000 per annum was virtually thrown away, because it had been expended in alterations which had not proved efficient. He therefore thought
  928
  the Government had done perfectly right in bringing in a comprehensive scheme with respect to Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth. The prompt execution of these works would save a large amount in the annual cost of the navy, for the present dockyard accommodation was quite inadequate to do the work in an economical manner. In private establishments vessels were completed within the yards; but in the national yards vessels had to be fitted partly in the yard, partly in the stream, and partly in the harbour. The Report of the Dockyard Committee of last year recommended the sale of the dockyards at Deptford, Woolwich, and Pembroke, because they did not afford accommodation commensurate with the annual outlay, which was £40,000 per annum. None of them could accommodate ships of the largest class. He trusted the Government intended to make some proposition with respect to the disposal of these yards. They seemed to be under the impression that Pembroke was valuable as a building yard; but he entertained an entirely different opinion, and was fortified in that opinion by the large majority of the Committee which adopted the recommendation. A dockyard which was mainly available for building purposes was not so economical as one which was also available for the general purposes of repairs. The Government were going to expend large sums on alterations and improvements at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth; and he believed they could, by dealing with private dockowners and shipbuilders, obtain better accommodation for the repair of ships than in the Royal Dockyards; and by that means the £40,000 a year spent on Woolwich, Deptford, and Pembroke, would be well saved. Propositions had been made with regard to private docks on foreign stations, that if the owners would deepen them so as to receive ships of war the Government would pay the cost on certain conditions. In this country there were plenty of builders on the Thames, the Mersey, and the Tyne, who could provide suitable accommodation, without any charge to the public, for repairing Her Majesty's ships in case of war. If such a plan were adopted there would be a great saving, not only in respect of outlay for works, and machinery, but also as regarded the expense of the staffs. He was glad to find that the Government proposed to construct a wet basin and

  929
  two large docks at Cork, and thought the people of that district greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) for his long-continued advocacy of that measure. The only objection he entertained to the course proposed by the Government was that they did not ask for money to proceed with sufficient rapidity. The result would be that the works would be stopped, the contractors would have to be compensated, and the country put to a larger expenditure than it would be if they adopted the same plan which they had done with regard to the fortifications, and borrowed money to enable them to complete the works with rapidity.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHremarked, that the attendance of Members on these occasions seemed to be in an inverse ratio to the largeness of the Vote to be proposed. He had the same fault to find with this Estimate as with many others—that a variety of items involving a large expenditure were all lumped together; and then followed a lot of minute sums, as if to show how careful the Department was about trifles. He held that there was economy in executing these great works as speedily as possible when once they had been decided upon; and now that we were in a state of transition as regarded our ships and other defences, the best means of providing against increased Estimates in future was to construct our docks in as scientific a manner as possible, so as to meet any changes that were likely to arise.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he was glad to find his hon. Friend (Sir Frederic Smith) taking an active part in the discussion of the Estimates, for too many of the hon. Members dealt in generalities about keeping down the public expenditure, and afterwards absented themselves from the House when the Estimates were under consideration. So far as the port which he represented was concerned, the officers there were thoroughly satisfied with the plans which had been brought before the House. With regard, however, to the mode in which the works were to be carried out, and the manner in which they were to be paid for, he differed from the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. About three years ago the noble Viscount at the head of the Government brought forward a proposition to expend a large sum of money upon fortifications. Well, those fortifications were intended in a great measure to protect the dockyards. In
  930
  1863 the noble Viscount introduced the Bill which provided that the money for those fortifications should be raised by terminable annuities. Now, when he (Sir James Elphinstone) had the courage to propose that mode for raising money to pay the expenses of the new dockyards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it his duty to read him a lecture upon the heresy of his doctrines on political economy. In making that proposal, which it was his intention to renew on a future occasion, he was only following the example set him by the Government in respect of the fortifications; and certainly he was at a loss to know how, in 1865, the Government could call that black which in 1863 they had declared to be white. He now gave notice of a Resolution he intended to move on the Dockyards Bill, that the whole of those works should be paid for by money raised upon terminable annuities, in the same way as the expenses of the fortifications were met. It was of the greatest importance that those works should be accelerated as much as possible, as the loss suffered by the country by the protraction of them was greater than any one could suppose. For example, it was of the highest importance to Chatham that the ships lying in its neighbourhood should be laid up in docks and basins. The Admiralty, however, were po tering about making shoes, pumps, and so on, instead of expending the money upon the docks, which were so essential to the interests of the country. He was afraid that those docks and basins would not be completed until half the plant of the country would be sacrificed. Having made up our minds to lay out £1,500,000 upon docks there was no difficulty in the way of the immediate completion of them. There were many great preliminary works to be undertaken. For example, the harbour of Portsmouth was encumbered by banks which could be removed and kept under control by a single dredge. At present the want of accommodation for our large ships in that harbour was notorious, and these vessels were often detained at Spit-head, where the difficulty and expense of communication were so great, or sent round to Portland in inclement weather, because the Admiralty would not go to the expense of £20,000 or £30,000 for dredging the banks to which he referred. An expenditure of a comparatively small amount would double the extent of anchorage in Portsmouth harbour. Only about £38,000

  931
  was required for the completion of the Keyham docks, which were of equal importance with Chatham and Portsmouth, and yet those works were unaccountably delayed. He was also glad to notice the Vote for Cork, because a station to the westward of all the English ports would be of very great importance in the event of a naval war. It was satisfactory to find that the Government had determined to do something at Bermuda, but he regretted that they had not also determined to improve the harbour of Halifax, which was even more important than Bermuda, as had been proved in the last war with America.
  MR. MAGUIREcongratulated the Government on having at length realized the promise made to Ireland to expend some of the public money upon the construction of harbours and docks there. He believed that in making the docks at Cork the Government would be really carrying out a work of great national importance and one absolutely necessary for the public service. Six years was the period proposed for the building of a dock at Cork. When the work was absolutely necessary, why should it not be completed in three years instead of six? A ship could enter Cork harbour at any state of the tide—a fact that could not be stated in regard to many of the other docks of the United Kingdom. He knew that the public service had been often sacrificed for the want of proper dock accommodation at Cork. On one occasion a ship full of troops, having met with an accident to her machinery, was obliged to put into Cork harbour. The vessel, however, after landing the troops, was obliged to go to Portsmouth for repairs, by which a delay of several weeks was incurred, and that at a time when the troops were wanted in a great emergency at another place. There was no want of private and individual energy in Cork. The Messrs. Brown had docks and yards of great dimensions. What was wanted was a Government yard. It was of the utmost importance that such dock be obtained, and that at the earliest possible period. Only £150,000 was required for that purpose—a very small sum, when it was considered how much speed, and consequent saving of coals, would arise from the removal of vegetable accretions from the ships' bottoms. There was no reason why all that was wanted should not be constructed in three years, as well as in six. He thanked the Government for having turned over a
  932
  new leaf, and given Ireland a share in the public expenditure.
  MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, before he could concur in the expression of satisfaction at what had been done at Portsmouth, he would like to know whether the plan of Sir William Martin, marked H, was laid before the Admiralty before they came to their decision? His own opinion was that that plan was the best, as it gave a very large wharfage accommodation in the smallest space.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was satisfactory to the Government, and to the professional officers who had given their utmost attention to the subject now before the House, to find that their exertions had met with the general approval of the House. It was natural that in the early part of the Session hon. Gentlemen should criticize the intentions of Government with reference to the dockyards, as at that time no papers explanatory of the course which Government intended to adopt had been laid upon the table. Most of these hon. Members had subsequently expressed their satisfaction; but notwithstanding that every possible information upon the subject had since been given, a few hon. Members on both sides of the House had that evening raised objections of the most opposite character to the propositions of Government, and therefore he proposed to explain the plan which it was intended to carry into execution. In the first place, remarks had been made upon the smallness of the Vote taken for this year for the works at Portsmouth, Chatham, and other places. Now, the papers relating to the proposed extension of basin and dock accommodation in the Royal dockyards laid upon the table on the 27th of April last show distinctly the course which Government propose to pursue. It appeared from the memorandum of the Director of Works that assuming the time required for the execution of the proposed works to be fifteen years under the combined system of civil and convict labour, the annual liability would be about £310,000; but that assuming Parliament should have so approved the scheme in its entirety as to justify the Government in incurring a larger charge in the event of there being a necessity for expediting the execution of the works £500,000 per annum might be expended. In answer to that memorandum the Secretary of the Admiralty sent the following reply:—

  933
  "My Lords having had under their consideration your memorandum of the 28th ultimo, No. 83, in reference to the Report of the Select Committee on Dockyards, desire me to inform you that they approve generally of your submissions; but in bringing forward detailed proposals for the great extensions contemplated, you should, without increasing the aggregate cost, so arrange that the contracts for the more essential portions of the works urgently required for the public service, should be executed as speedily as may be consistent with efficient construction; while the employment of convict labour should be spread over the longer period contemplated, and the less important parts of the works should be executed after the completion of the first contracts."
  The proposal to execute all the important portions of the works as rapidly as was consistent with efficient construction, and to leave the minor portions to he finished at leisure, was a very sound one, and that proposition Government intended to adopt. With regard to the small amount of the Vote taken for the works this year, had the hon. Member for Finsbuiy (Sir Morton Peto) been in his place he should have asked him whether it was usual for rail way contractors and others engaged in the execution of large works to expend a large sum during the first year of their operations. Any Gentleman conversant with the subject would be aware that there was no great expenditure during the first year. The expenditure upon the proposed works would, therefore, be but small during the present financial year, hut it would increase considerably during the next and following years. The works intended to be executed at Chatham were, first, a large fitting-out basin of thirty-three acres; secondly, a factory basin of twenty acres; and thirdly, a repairing basin of twenty one acres in extent. The factory and the repairing basins were to be completed writhing four years by contract, while various subsidiary works were to be carried on simultaneously by convict labour; and thus by the autumn of 1869 those large works would he ready for the use of the navy. It was proposed to take during the present year £70,000, which was the largest amount that could be expended, as, owing to time which would he required to remove the convicts employed there at present, with the plant, the contractor would not be able to commence operations until the beginning of the winter. The sum which would be required next year was £190,000; for the year following, £205,000; and for the fourth year, £255,000. In the fifth year £136,000 would be required to complete this part of
  934
  the work, and eliminating the convict and dredging expenditure, in five financial or four actual years, no less a sum than £610,000 would have been expended by way of contract in the execution of these works. [Mr. CORRY: If you get the money.] He would touch upon that point presently—at present he was only replying to the objection that they were not spending money fast enough. With regard to Portsmouth, so far from Government only intending to ask for a miserable £20,000 for those works, they intended to expend the sum of £842.000 upon them within the next three years. The chief charm of the plan for these works was, that the works would be completed in sections, so that each section as completed would be available for the purposes of the navy without there being any necessity for the whole of the works to be finished before they could be of service. In reply to the inquiry as to Sir William Martin's plan marked H, he begged to state that the plan had been duly submitted to the proper authorities, but they had unanimously selected the one which was before the House marked E, and which he was happy to say had met with general approval. They would spend next year, in round numbers, at Chatham £200,000; at Portsmouth £260,000; in the year following at Chatham, £200.000, and at Portsmouth, £312,000; and in the year following, that at Chatham £250,000, and at Portsmouth, £250,000. Me ventured to say that that was as large an expenditure as the Government would be justified, by the necessities of the navy, in proposing for hydraulic works of this magnitude. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) made two objections. The first was that the Government ought to raise this money by loan, and expend it in larger sums. Now, he put it to the House whether it would be worth while for so limited expenditure on works of this description, the effect of which would be greatly to reduce the expenditure upon constant changes, repairs, and patchwork, to make legislative provision for raising the sum required by means of a loan. If hon. Members would look to the Estimates, they would see that while the Vote for the extension of the dockyards was largely increased this year the expenditure of alterations, revisions, and patchwork was reduced. [Mr. CORRY: The Marine Barracks?] Quite irrespective of the Marine Barracks there

  935
  was such a reduction that the Vote stood at very little more than the amount of last year. The same effect would be produced in future years; so that as these extensions went on pari passu the expenditure for patchwork would be reduced. It would not, therefore, be worth while, for the sake of an extra expenditure of £400,000 or £500.000 upon Vote 11, to resort to a loan which, however well adapted that mode of raising money might be to particular cases, generally ended in financial extravagance. He therefore, hoped that the House, while authorizing the Government to spend this additional £200,000, £300,000 or £400,000 for these great works would resist the temptation to extravagance which was held out to them by the suggestion of a loan. His answers to some detailed objections which had been raised by hon. Members must be similar to that which he had given upon the general question. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) complained of the smallness of the amount which was to be taken for works at Cork, and of the time—six years—which was to be occupied in their completion. It must, however, be borne in mind that in addition to the £150,000 included in Vote 11a considerable sum would be spent annually upon convict labour which was to be employed upon the works. He therefore did not think that the amount was so niggardly as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose; and he believed that if at the end of six years there was created at Cork so efficient an establishment as was contemplated by the Bill the people of Ireland would have no reason to complain. As to the caisson at Sheerness, the order could not be executed until late in the present financial year, and £500 was as much as would be required in that period. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) objected to spreading the lowering of the dock at Portsmouth over two years. The fact was that since the Estimates were prepared arrangements had been made which would enable the work to be completed within the present year, and would lead to a considerable saving of expense. As to the barracks at Eastney, the expenditure which was proposed would meet all the requirements of the marines without overburdening the Estimates with large Votes which were not needed. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith) had complained that in these Estimates all
  936
  sorts of things were mixed up in the same Votes, and had instanced the placing of the charge for gas, which was an item of expenditure, under the head of "permanent works," which belonged to capital. If his hon. Friend referred to a paper which had been laid before the House, he would see that the Admiralty had requested the Committee of Public Accounts to look into this matter and had suggested that all items of this kind should be transferred to the ordinary Votes for the establishment. He believed that he had now replied to most of the objections which had been taken, and he trusted that the House would be satisfied to accept these Votes, taken in connection with the Bill for the contracts upon which they should go into Committee tonight, and which would pledge Parliament to the carrying out of these works, as indicating a policy not of reckless extravagance in the way of the extension of the dockyards, but of fully considered and matured expenditure required by the wants of the navy, spread over a reasonable number of years, and meeting the requirements of different places, both at home and abroad, where dockyard accommodation was needed. He was sorry that after what his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) had said about Bermuda, he was not satisfied with the proposal of the Government. It was difficult to satisfy every one, and that was a question about which something would have to be said hereafter. The plans both for Bermuda and Keyham would, he anticipated, be completed during the present year, and he was sure that they would be received with satisfaction by the House.
  MR. BENTINCKadmitted that there was great difficulty in satisfying everybody; but here the question was about satisfying the country, and he doubled whether even the able statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) would succeed in doing that. The total Estimate for Chatham was £1,250,000, and the gross sum expended in three years was £130,000, or about £43,000 per annum. At Portsmouth the original Estimate was £1,500,000, the amount voted £7,500, and the sum to be taken this year £20,000, leaving a balance of more than £1,400,000. At Haulbowline the Estimate was £150,000, and the amount expended £5,000, leaving a balance of £145,000. Now, one of two things—either these docks and dockyards were indispensably necessary for the good of the country, or the whole proposal of the Go-

  937
  vernment was a piece of wasteful extravagance. If they were essential to the well-being and safety of the country—and he made no question whatever about that—then, as a matter of common sense and economy, they ought to be completed in the least possible time. Do not let them peddle with £7,000 or £20,000 here or there to meet contingencies which, if they were ever to occur, were as likely to occur within the next six months as within the next ten years. He believed that if the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House could follow their own inclinations in this matter, the work would be completed more speedily; but the real obstacle to the efficiency of the public service in this and many other respects was the conduct pursued by one of the most prominent Members of the Treasury Bench. He believed that the real bar to the construction of these docks in the shortest possible time was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not the excuse that had been put forward with reference to efficiency of construction. The excuse from more rapid construction did not arise from efficiency of construction or the impossibility of construction, but from the want of money. And when the hon. Gentleman talked about the course now pursued being sanctioned "by men of business," he (Mr. Bentinck) understood these "men of business" to be embodied in the right hon. individual to whom he had alluded, who would not sanction any larger annual expenditure for the purpose of cutting controversy and meeting the requirements of his Budgets. They ought to understand whether the works could be carried on more rapidly than the Government proposed; but they were cutting their coat according to their cloth. The hon. Gentleman, referring to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), that it would take a million a year to carry on the works in an efficient manner, said the Government were asking as much money as it was possible to ask. But where was the justification on which the hon. Member relied? Was it to be found in engineering difficulties which would render it impossible to carry out the works with greater rapidity, or was it from a disinclination on the part of the Government to advance the sum necessary for the rapid completion of the works? If the latter was the case the principle was a bad one, as they were neglecting to carry out works which were essential to the safety of the
  938
  country for the sake of economy, and thus were penny wise and pound foolish.
  MR. LAIRD, said, he should probably be able to answer the question which the hon. Gentleman had purposed asking the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), if he had been present, as he himself had had occasion to contract for the construction of extensive graving-docks and other works. He had always made it a part of the contract that the works should be completed at the earliest possible moment, because he found that until they were completed he could get no return from them. He believed, too, that such a course would be the proper one for the Government to pursue. The dockyards were essential to the interests of the country, and the money which was required should be raised upon the same principle as that adopted in the case of the fortifications, which could not be compared with our dockyards in point of utility. He felt convinced that the hon. Member for Finsbury, if he were present, would bear him out in saying that it was much better that the works at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Keyham, should be completed in the most rapid manner possible, instead of being subject to the dilatory course proposed by the Government. Looking at the works that were to be carried out, he thought a million a year could be spent with advantage; and, moreover, if they would set about the completion of the works with spirit, they would save the expense of the modifications which succeeding Administrations were sure to suggest. Before sitting down he wished to know from the Government when they intended carrying out their proposed sale of dockyards. The question was an important one, because it involved a large annual saving of £40,000 to the country, and he hoped, therefore, that he should receive a satisfactory answer.
  MR. H. ROBERTSONurged the necessity of hastening on the works as speedily as possible. The Government had undertaken the manufacture and repairs of ships; but until those works were completed they could not be in a position to carry out the repairs. Thus every year of delay brought a loss to the country, and he, therefore, thoroughly concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The plans of the works at Portsmouth were well adapted to the wants of the case; but he would have wished that the Government had taken more advantage of the talent of the country in procuring the plans. With-

  939
  out entering into details he might point out that the plans showed only seventy feet of quay space, and if there were to he laid down three lines of rails they would have little left for other purposes. The estimate would not be sufficient for all the works set out in the plans.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSexpressed a wish to know what determination had been arrived at by the Government in reference to the dockyards at Woolwich and Deptford?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in replying to the observations which had been made in the course of the discussion, said, an idea appeared to prevail among hon. Members, especially on the other side of the House, that the Admiralty would have been glad to have proposed larger estimates had not objections to their doing so been raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The truth, however, was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised no difficulty with regard to the proposed expenditure which had been laid before him, and that the Admiralty Estimates had been submitted to the House in their integrity. Some hon. Members, he might add, seemed to think that the proposed works ought to be carried out at once, and without any reference to cost; and his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) talked of entering into a contract for the purpose, forgetting that the Admiralty had in the first instance to prosecute the work of reclamation of ground from under the sea, which it was necessary to shut out before the masonry could be proceeded with. That tidal work it was, of course, impossible to prosecute continuously, whatever the amount of money voted might be. A large sum, it would be seen, was taken for Portsmouth, while there was a considerable increase for Chatham over the Vote of last year, because the works had arrived at a stage when they could be carried on at all tides. He thought he might reasonably express his satisfaction that Ireland was a participator in the advantages of the proposed schemes. When the preliminary works at Cork were completed by convict labour there was nothing to prevent Government from entering into contracts and proceeding with vigour. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons), he might observe that the Government had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable that Pembroke dockyard should be shut up; while their intention with respect to Woolwich, and he might add Sheerness, was that when ample
  940
  provision was made for building and repairing ships by means of the contemplated extension of the larger dockyards, those two yards should be closed. As to Deptford, the Government were of opinion that although it would be well to give it up as a building yard, it still was desirable to maintain it as a station for landing and shipping stores, and transacting the enormous victualling business of the country. He must not sit down without apologizing to his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Corry) for any remarks which he might have made some years ago, with reference to his great ability in constructing dockyards, and which might have given him offence. His right hon. Friend might, he thought, take great credit to himself rather than otherwise in connection with the matter, and might fairly regard himself as the Palladio of our dockyards.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSthought that considering the large portion of the river at Woolwich occupied by the yard, it would be almost a scandal to have it shut up in the way Deptford Dockyard had been. He should therefore be very much obliged to his noble Friend if he would state what was meant by being "shut up."
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked if these yards were shut up whether claims to the ground would not be put in by the Woods and Forests—the property belonging to the Crown?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, they had not yet gone the length of considering to whom the ground would belong when the Government gave up the yards.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, it was very natural for his constituents to wish to know what was meant by being "shut up." Did the phrase mean disposed of for other purposes, or kept unappropriated?
  MR. COXrecommended that the yard at Woolwich should be handed over to the Woods and Forests, who would be able to dispose of it for a large price, part of which might be applied to the purpose of preserving open spaces for the public.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wanted to know whether the Admiralty was in communication with the War Office, in order to have the ground required at Portsmouth Dockyard squared off, there being at present only 600 feet available from the head of the docks, while there was no room whatever for naval barracks. If the means of military defence bad been condemned by the War Office, a great

  941
  amount of land would be at the disposal of the Government, and if the obsolete fortifications were done away with the Government could recoup themselves for the expense of laying out some portion of that land in such places as it was not required for the public service. He had been a Member of the Committee which recommended that the small dockyards should be done away with; but that was under the impression that the Government could not otherwise he induced to supply the funds necessary for the great works which had been undertaken; but now that the Government had given the money he must say, as, indeed, he stated in Committee, that it would be a great misfortune to abolish those yards. Pembroke was a most useful yard for the construction of ships—it was peculiarly adapted for that purpose, and had the advantage of not being exposed to the fluctuation of the labour market. They could not possibly do away with Deptford, for the victualling of the navy was there carried on, and if the Admiralty killed and cured their own meat the provisions in the navy would be most materially improved. Woolwich was necessary for the repair of the smaller class of vessels, and he regretted few things more than having sanctioned the recommendations of the Committee.
  MR. MURPHYsaw no reason why the works at Cork should not be completed within the space of three years.
  MR. BENTINCKthought if the works undertaken were necessary, the most economic and advisable mode of proceeding would be to complete them as soon as possible. He wanted an explicit answer to this short and simple question—if the Admiralty were not hampered by any financial considerations—if they were free to expend what money they thought necessary on these works would they not take a larger sum than they asked in these Estimates? The noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no difficulty. Surely the noble Lord had addressed the right hon. Gentleman in peculiarly favourable circumstances, for he believed this was the first time when money was to be granted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made any difficulty. His question was this, was it the opinion of the Government that it was not expedient to expend a larger sum for the completion of these works than they now proposed to do, assuming that they had the money at their command?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he
  942
  did not exactly make out what his hon. Friend meant. The Government had taken into their consideration the proposals of the Committee of last year. The Committee referred to certain works which were immediately required, and the Government had taken a sufficient sum to commence their execution. They had not thought it their duty to propose to Parliament a larger sum than was named in the Estimates. Of course, if they had an unlimited sum at their disposal, the Admiralty might have undertaken larger works; but they had asked for money enough to proceed with these works in a satisfactory manner.
  MR. LAIRDthought the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) was rather hard upon the Government. As a Member of the Committee that hon. Member had joined in the recommendation that certain dockyards should be sold, the sale of which would go towards providing the means of executing additional works. But, because the Government were about to engage in those additional works, the hon. Member now turned round and said they should not sell those dockyards.
  MR. H. ROBERTSONcalled attention to the proposed expenditure on the new dock at Malta. There was "an additional Estimate for premium to contractor for earlier completion of works" at the Marsa; but in what time would that secure their completion? Much would depend on their getting possession of the French Creek, all their operations with regard to which appeared to be hampered by their engagements with the authorities at Malta. For the construction of the dock at the French Creek only £8,000 was asked this year, although the total Estimate was stated in the Votes at £120,000. The plan of Captain Clarke, which had been adopted, was far inferior to that of Mr. M'Clean, and it would cost more money and take more time to execute, owing to the rock which had to be excavated. Mr. M'Clean's plan would give them two docks and a large spacious open quay at a cost of £100,000, or double the accommodation to be obtained for a much greater outlay under Captain Clarke's plan. The Government were attempting to gain time and save money when, in fact, the result would be just the opposite. The item of £8,000 ought to be deferred until they had a plan of how the French Creek should be treated as a whole instead of a part.
  MR. CHILDERShoped the Committee would be satisfied with the decision at

  943
  which the Government had arrived on the matter of the French Creek and the Marsa after the fullest consideration. The plan finally determined upon had been concurred in by all the professional opinion, naval and engineering, which could be got at Malta; and the result arrived at was such a solution of a difficult question as was highly creditable to those who proposed it.
  MR. LAIRDthought that after the ample discussion which the subject of the Malta Dock had undergone in that House, it was not desirable that the battle should be fought over again; and he trusted the Committee would not interfere with the course now proposed to be taken by the Government in that matter.
  Vote agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II. SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (2.) £24,148, to complete the sum for Office of Works and Public Buildings.
  MR. BLACKBURNcomplained that he and other hon. Members had been taken by surprise. He was not aware they were going into another class of Estimates at that time of night.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, notice was distinctly given that the Civil Service Estimates would be taken.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHthought the proceeding was somewhat unfair. The First Commissioner of Works was absent when these Estimates were last before the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the real question was, whether the House was disposed to go on with business?
  MR. COWPERsaid, he owed an apology to the Committee for not being present on the former occasion; but he could not understand why his presence now should be a reason for not going on with the Vote.
  MR. BLACKBURNasked for some explanation of the Vote, the aggregate amount of which for the mere inspection of public buildings, parks, &c., seemed to be excessive. There were no less than forty clerks in the Department, costing £11,500 a year.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked, whether Mr. Pennethorne, who received £1,500 yearly as the salaried architect and surveyor of the Board, received a further sum of £800 in another capacity. He also wished to know whether it was
  944
  the same gentleman who had been engaged in the preparation of plans for the transference to South Kensington of those collections which the Government for ten years had been vainly trying to induce the House to send there?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that Mr. Pennethorne received a salary of £1,500 a year for his services as Surveyor, and as adviser of the Office on architectural questions. The arrangement under which the services of Mr. Pennethorne were secured to the public was economical; the professional fees for the work performed by that gentleman would have amounted in some years to a larger sum than his salary. The extensive purchases of land on the site of the new Foreign Office and of the land between Bridge Street and New Palace Yard, had been conducted by that gentleman, upon whom had also devolved a great deal of business connected with Battersea Park and other metropolitan improvements. It was necessary that there should be some professional man permanently connected with the department to whom application could be made for advice, and Mr. Pennethorne was a very able man, of great experience. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) had spoken of the largeness of the total payments; but in reality the office was undermanned, and the persons employed had more business devolved upon them than they ought to have if they were more numerous. What was required of the surveyor of works, was not too highly paid by the £1,000 a year given to him as salary.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked, whether Mr. Pennethorne was paid extra as architect for the Record Office. [Mr. COWPER: Yes.] He then wished to know whether, if the Government nominated Mr. Pennethorne as architect for the new Law Courts, he would have extra pay for furnishing plans for them.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the agreement with Mr. Pennethorne was that he should give his services to the Board as acting surveyor and consulting architect; but when he was employed to furnish designs, or act as an architect in erecting new buildings, then he would receive his 5 per cent like other architects. In former days the Office of Works had three architects, who received a percentage—3 per cent, he believed—for their labours, and the Office was bound to employ those architects in every work which was erected. It was, however, thought that it would be an immense advantage that the Office should

  945
  not be restricted to any particular architect, but should have the selection of the best talent. Mr. Pennethorne had no absolute claim to be employed on any now work; but if the Office should prefer him to any other architect, he then took his ordinary position as an architect, and received his 5 per cent.
  MR. COXsaid, that it appeared that Mr. Pennethorne had his £1,500 a year when he had nothing to do, and when he had something to do he then took his 5 percent.
  MR. COWPERobserved that Mr. Pennethorne received £1,500 for his services as surveyor in valuing and purchasing property required for public and Government purposes, and the other payments were for services as architect in designing and superintending new buildings.
  MR. DOULTONinquired whether Mr. Pennethorne bad anything to do with the Foreign Office.
  MR. COWPERreplied that the building in Downing Street was being erected by Mr. Scott. When important works wore to be executed by Votes of that House, it was thought undesirable that Mr. Pennethorne or any other gentleman should be necessarily employed. It was deemed better to appeal to the profession at large, and, after competition, to select the best man.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHthought that what Mr. Pennethorne did for his £1,500 a year had not been satisfactorily explained. The right hon. Gentleman said that he acted as surveyor; but he perceived by the Estimates that there was a surveyor of works at £1,000 a year, and also an assistant-surveyor at £800 a year. The legal charges connected with the Board of Works amounted to no less than £4,000 a year.
  MR. COWPERexplained that Mr. Pennethorne was the surveyor who surveyed and negotiated the purchase of property that might be required, and Mr. Hunt was consulting surveyor in the office, giving his advice on matters referred to him.
  MR. COXasked what the man did who received £1,000 a year.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the political head of the Department required a professional man like Mr. Hunt to give him his advice on matters coming within his special knowledge and experience.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, be had no objection to the Board giving a good surveyor £1,000 a year, but why was it necessary to spend £5,000 a year in assistants? The Board bad forty-three clerks, which seemed to argue an incredible quantity of writing.
  MR. LYGONasked, whether some arrangement could not be come to by which the legal expenses of the two Departments of Works and Woods should not be swollen by their Parliamentary contests. Hon. Members would remember how the two Departments contended with each other about the Thames Embankment. It was for the responsible Advisers of the Crown to settle the squabbles of these two Departments.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not aware of any opposition between the Offices of Woods and Works that entailed expense. There was a question in regard to the Thames Embankment between the Woods and Forests on the one hand and the tenants of the Crown on the other, and the latter thought it worth their while to fall back upon an opinion given by the Commissioner of Crown Estates. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that there was any conflict in law.
  MR. DOULTONinquired the cause of the delay in laying before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the materials necessary for him to form an opinion in respect to the Estimate required for the new buildings at Kensington designed by Captain Fowke.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that as the building was intended for the Natural History collections of the British Museum, it was thought right to give the officers of the Museum an opportunity of considering the plans. Accordingly, Captain Fowke's plans were sent to the Trustees at the end of last year. They were anxious to give them full consideration, and they had only lately expressed an opinion, which was not however final, as they had referred the plans to a sub-Committee. When the Trustees had made up their minds the Government would resume its action.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that the Commissioner of Woods took one view about the proposed road between Piccadilly and Park Lane, and the Commissioner of Works another.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the Office of Works was concerned in the scheme, because a portion of the Park was proposed to be taken. It was true that there was some difference between the Commissioner of Woods and himself as to the propriety of making the street; but no expense was caused thereby to either Department. The best and most costly plan would be the widening of Park Lane, but the work must be undertaken by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he doubted whether the

  947
  Board would incur the expense of the best plan.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that having served on the Thames Embankment Committee, he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a fierce war was waged between the two Departments. The Commissioner of Woods thought that the Crown property was damaged by the proceedings of the Commissioner of Works. What additional expense was caused by this fierce contest he did not know, but it occupied the Committee for a very considerable period, and he could not but think that disputes of this kind ought to be avoided. The matter had Deen argued by counsel, and considerable expense and loss of time had been incurred. He quite agreed that there should be a thoroughly good legal authority in the office of the Commissioner of Works to consult, and also that there should be a thoroughly competent architect. But for new works why should he not have recourse to the architects and surveyors who were to be found in such abundance in the metropolis? He was confident that if that plan were adopted a saving of expense would be effected in the Department.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was quite as true that the speech just delivered by the hon. Baronet had cost the public a certain sum of money. Every hour of the sitting of that House involved expense in the shape of the labour of officers, wear and tear of furniture, and light; and in that sense only was there any difference in the expense which arose between the Office of Works and the Office of Woods. Then the hon. Baronet laid down the proposition that if the Commissioner of Woods and Works had been the same person, no difference would have arisen. That was undoubtedly true. Twenty years ago that was the case; but Parliament was not satisfied with the state of things, and an Act was passed, the object of which was to give an independent voice to those officers who were placed in the immediate control of the Crown Estates. Occasionally, the Commissioner of Works, viewing a question from one point, formed a different estimate from that of the Commissioner of Woods, who looked at it from another point of view, but the general result had been beneficial. Parliament had a fuller and more perfect bearing of what was to be said upon a question in reference to the several interests involved, and there was no additional expense to the State.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked
  948
  whether it was the intention of the Government to erect upon the piece of ground at Brompton the building designed by Captain Fowke for the reception of the Natural History collections of the British Museum.
  MR. COWPERsaid, it was the intention of the Government to make a proposal, but he thought it better not to go now into the question what that proposal might be. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no stop had been taken which would in the slightest degree prevent full and ample consideration of the subject, and nothing would be brought before the House without ample notice.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHprotested against the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that Parliament in its wisdom had thought proper to do so and so, when the fact was that they had been beguiled into doing so by the Government. Formerly the Offices of Woods and Forests and of Works were one and the same, and represented the interests both of the Crown and the public. But now the Crown lands were no longer considered to be held for the benefit of the public. He should take an opportunity of showing that additional expense had been thrown upon the public by the separation of the Departments.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

DOCKYARD EXTENSIONS BILL.

  [BILL 145.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in 1863 an opinion had been expressed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, when introducing the fortification scheme, which would be perfectly applicable in support of the Motion which he was about to make. That opinion had been already read in the House that night, and he would therefore content himself at that late hour with moving, that in the opinion of this House the expense of the contracts for Dockyard Extensions to be authorized by this Bill would best be defrayed by Terminable Annuities, as in the case of the Fortifications, under the Act 26 &c 27 Vict. c. 80.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the expense of the Contracts for Dockyard Extensions to be authorized by this Bill would best be defrayed by Terminable Annuities, as in the case of the Fortifications under the Act 26 and 27 Vic. cap. 80,"—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the Committee would not consent to such an ignominious expedient for meeting the expenses of the country. He regretted very much that it bad been found possible for individual Members of the House to propose Motions which enabled the House to escape its responsibilities by the expedient of hiding from the public what it was about. If there was one thing which all of them ought to advocate it was plainness and simplicity in their proceedings. In certain instances be did not deny that certain expenses might be met by an addition to the debt of the country. This was done in the case of the abolition of the slave trade; and in 1860, when the country had to provide for some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 of war expenditure, Parliament thought fit after careful consideration to provide for the expenses of the fortifications by an addition to the debt of the country. He remembered well that at that time the hon. and gallant Member proposed that they should take—say £20,000,000, and provide for the expenses of harbours of refuge. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Docks I said.] Such a proposal as this ought to be resisted by every man who adhered to the principle that the annual expenditure ought to be met out of the income of the year. The Motion after all was a futile Motion. If it had the slightest chance of being carried the bench opposite would not have been so empty, or rather it would not have been so thinly occupied. Certainly the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) would have been there to object to it, and by inference the right hon. Member for Bucks would have been there also to support the great financial authority of the other side. Armed, therefore, with this cumulative authority, he appealed to the Committee not to sanction this ill-considered Motion.
  MR. CORRYsaid, the question had
  950
  been fully discussed at an earlier period of the evening before the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Vote which the First Lord of the Treasury proposed was £11,000,000. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: £5,000,000.] When the right hon. Gentleman talked of ignominious expedients, be seemed to have forgotten altogether that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer when this loan of £11,000,000 was proposed, and he certainly must have concurred in it.
  MR. BENTINCKthought that the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman was very singular. If he had attended in the House, instead of spending his time more agreeably elsewhere, he would have beard the argument which had been used. He was glad to bear the right hon. Gentleman express his approval of plainness and simplicity of dealing, but nothing could be more plain and simple, or more calculated to let the public know what they were doing in such matters as these, than asking for a lump sum like this. As the right hon. Gentleman had quoted authorities on the Opposition side of the House on which he seemed to place great weight, perhaps be would refer to the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government in proposing a loan for the fortification scheme, and if he could answer these arguments be might make out a case against this Motion.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he was reluctant to take part in the debate, but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had contradicted his right hon. Friend be would refer him to Hansard, where the noble Lord was distinctly stated to have said that the recommendations of the Commissioners amounted to an outlay of £11,000,000. [Mr. CORRY: Read on.] He found that in the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord a sum of £2,000,000 was taken for the first year, the noble Lord stating that it was as much as could be advantageously laid out within the twelve months, and that the expenditure of the other £9,000,000 would be spread over future years. It would not do, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and shelter himself under the shield of "Parliament in its wisdom," and condemn as "ignominious" a course which the Government of which be was the Finance Minister had themselves taken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was a mistake on the

  951
  part of the hon. Member. It was true that the recommendation of the Commissioners was for the amount stated by the hon. Gentleman, but the application of my noble Friend was limited to a sum of £5,000,000 in all.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETobserved that the circumstances of the case of the fortifications and those of the dockyards were quite different. In the former case a new construction was necessary; in the latter only an extension was required.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power to make Contracts for Works).
  In reply to Mr. CORRY,
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Malta dock was not included in the Bill, because an annual Vote of a comparatively small sum would be sufficient for the works there.
  MR. LYGONasked what guarantee the contractors for the works scheduled in this Bill would have that the Government would propose a Vote in the Estimates to pay them for their contract. The sum for payment for the conveyances of the mails between Dover and Calais under the present arrangement had never been proposed in Committee of Supply.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the last subject to which the hon. Gentleman opposite ought to call attention was the Churchward contract. Surely after the Report of the Committee and the ratification of that Report by the House of Commons, the Government would not have been justified in proposing any Vote for the continuance of that contract.
  MR. LYGON, as one of the Members of the Board of Admiralty who had signed the Churchward contract, declared that he had never seen any reason to regret that step, and he denied that the House of Commons had ever pronounced a condemnation of that contract.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with the decision of the House, he could at any time move a Resolution on the subject, and he was prepared to debate the question with him.
  MR. LYGONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman knew that no person could propose
  952
  a Vote for money except Her Majesty's Ministers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he found he had understated the case, because he was informed that the subject was discussed in Committee of Supply, and afterwards upon the bringing up of the Report the proposition was made to omit certain words which raised the question.
  MR. LYGONagain declared that no Vote was ever proposed. This was the only mode in which the question could be raised, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to raise it by proposing a Vote.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the security for the contractors would be that the engagements had received the sanction of Parliament.
  Clause agreed, to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed, to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BLAKE, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Lunatic Asylums, and to make better provision for the care and treatment of poor persons afflicted with insanity, in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BLAKE and Mr. M'MAHON.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 171.]

  MILITIA BALLOTS SUSPENSION BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to suspend the making of Lists and the Ballots for the Militia of the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°:

  DEFENCE ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Bill to explain "The Defence Act, 1860," ordered to be brought in by The Marquess of HARTINGTON and Viscount PALMERSTON.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 176.]

  MILITIA PAY BILL.
  Bill "to defray the Charge of the Pay, Clothing, and Contingent and other Expenses of the Disembodied Militia in Great Britain and Ireland; to grant Allowances in certain cases to Subaltern Officers, Adjutants, Paymasters, Quartermasters, Surgeons, Assistant Surgeons, and Surgeons' Mates of the Militia; and to authorise the Employment of the Non-commissioned Officers," presented, and read 1°.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On River Shannon (Navigation and Drainage) The Marquess of Lansdowne added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Union Chargeability * (122); Partnership Amendment * (123); General Post Office (Additional Site)* (124); Ecclesiastical Leasing Act (1858) Amendment * (125); Public House Closing Act (1864) Amendment * (126).
Second Reading—Parsonages* (119); Locomotives on Roads (108); Clerical Subscription (111); County Voters Registration* (116); County of Sussex * (114).
Select Committee—On Sewage Utilization * (80), appointed. (List of Committee.)
Referred to Select Committee—Locomotives on Roads (108.)
Report—War Department Tramway (Devon) * (74); Police Superannuation * (95); Pilotage Order Confirmation * (67).
Third Reading—Public Offices (Site and Approaches)* (68); India Office (Site and Approaches) * (69); Pheasants (Ireland) * (109); Tories, Robbers, and Rapparees * (96), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [28 Vict. c. 30]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000) [28 Vict. c. 29]; Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation [28 Vict. c. 26]; Isle of Man Disafforestation (Compensation) [28 Vict. c. 28]; Private Bill Costs [28 Vict. c. 27].

ST. TITUS CHURCH, LIVERPOOL.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY presented a petition from the inhabitants of St. Titus, Liverpool, praying their Lordships to ap-

  861
  point a Committee to examine into the causes wherefore the Church of St. Titus, Liverpool, continues closed, with the view to its immediate opening. The petitioners stated that the parish being a very large one a great want of church accommodation had been felt; and in the year 1863 a gentleman commenced collecting subscriptions, and the church was built, on the understanding that the seats were to be entirely free, and the patronage of the church vested in trustees. Subsequently a difference of opinion had arisen between the Bishop of the diocese and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the latter point, and the church still remained unconsecrated.
  THE BISHOP OF CHESTERbriefly vindicated his share in the matter. It was necessary that the consent of the patrons of the parish should be obtained to the vesting of the patronage of the new church in trustees. He had written to the patrons to procure that consent, but up to the present moment had received no answer, and according to his invariable rule he had declined to act in the matter. He believed that the trustees, however, might have carried out their object through the instrumentality of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were empowered by Act of Parliament to give notice to the patrons, and after a certain time to act. As the petition appeared to convey the impression that the building of new churches in the diocese of Chester did not receive encouragement from the quarter from which it might be expected, he might be permitted to say in justice to himself that since his appointment to the diocese he had consecrated seventy-eight new churches, and ten more were now in preparation for consecration. He mentioned these facts not out of personal vanity, but in justice to the zeal of the diocese over which he had the honour to preside.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERfelt it necessary to add only a very few words with regard to the proceeding of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whom on that occasion he represented. He could say that no unnecessary delay had occurred in the matter. In consequence of the existence of a local Act it had been found necessary to take the opinion of counsel as to the course which should be recommended. The Acts relating to the building of churches were of themselves sufficiently complicated in their provisions; but the difficulties were greatly increased when
  862
  they came in contact with local Acts. It was therefore necessary to proceed with the greatest care and caution. He had every reason to believe that no further avoidable delay would take place.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he was daily receiving letters complaining of the complicated state of the Church Building Acts. The obstructions were, in fact, so great that many persons willing to increase the number of sacred edifices were deterred from doing so by the difficulties thrown in their way by the state of the law. He begged to suggest to the noble Earl who represented the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they should set to work and simplify the Acts relating to this subject.

IMPERIAL GAS BILL—SECOND READING.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Chairman of Committees.)
LORD RAVENSWORTHhoped their Lordships would not consent to the second reading of this Bill. It had excited the greatest consternation in the whole neighbourhood, on which it would inflict both injury and injustice, without being productive of the slightest public convenience. The original capital of the Company was £1,200,000, and it was now sought to increase the capital to £2,100,000, with borrowing powers to the extent of £886,000, and a land acreage of 150 acres. Even with its existing powers, this was one of the largest gas companies in the world. His first objection to the Bill was that the proposed extension of these works would greatly add to the pollution of the atmosphere, and the consequent injury to health, which they already occasioned to a neighbourhood the population of which was rapidly increasing. The right rev. Prelate who presided over that diocese had lately pointed out that the important Training College of St. Marks, on which no less than £50,000 had been expended, was not 100 yards distant from these works, and that the noxious vapours emitted from them were very deleterious to the inmates of that institution. The air was poisoned, and the property—whole streets of houses and garden ground—was much injured. A person passing these works at night might imagine that there was some serious conflagration in the neighbourhood. Another objection which he had to urge to the measure was that

863
it would aggravate the evils of a most gigantic monopoly extending over a vast area, under which, the public had no remedy whatever, however impure and defective the quality of the gas supplied to them might be. Moreover, the works of the Company were situated at a distance of not more than 150 yards in a direct line from the Thames, into which much of their foul refuse found its way. On all these grounds he must protest against granting them the power to double their present works for which they now asked, and he therefore begged to move that the Bill be read the second time that day three months.
Amendment moved to leave out ("now") a and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(The Lord Ravensworth.)
LORD PORTMANsaid, it was a very unusual course to attempt to throw out a Bill of that kind on the second reading, and not allow it to undergo careful consideration in a Select Committee when the promoters might be able to offer an explanation of the charges made against them. The promoters of the measure had sought an interview with the right hon. Prelate (the Bishop of London) in order to clear up some misconceptions under which he appeared to labour in regard to that Bill, and to explain to him certain facts which he had incorrectly stated; but the right rev. Prelate had not complied with their request. In his opinion, however, when a Peer of Parliament made an inaccurate statement affecting a public company in a case like that, he ought not to refuse to hear their explanation. Instead of making a demand for 150 acres, which might have been enough to frighten the right rev. Prelate and all their Lordships, the entire space required by the Company only consisted of three plots of nine acres, fourteen acres, and thirteen acres respectively—in all thirty-six acres, instead of the 150 alleged the other night by the right rev. Prelate. The Company could not now legally discharge their refuse into the Thames, and that Bill would not give them any power to do so—they would still remain liable to the penalties inflicted by the existing law. As to their having a monopoly, not long ago Parliament decided that the metropolis should be divided into separate districts, which should be supplied by certain companies. The number of houses in the particular district assigned to that Company had so greatly increased
864
that they were absolutely compelled to enlarge their works in order to supply its wants. Therefore on public grounds he asked their Lordships not to refuse to read the Bill a second time. In Committee, however, the Bill might be thoroughly sifted and safeguards introduced, if found necessary, to protect private rights. If justice were not done after all, their Lordships, if they thought fit, might reject the Bill on the third reading.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that as the noble Lord seemed to impugn his conduct in not giving a hearing to the gentlemen representing the Company, he begged to state that in answer to their letter he wrote to them to say that he was ready to see them in presence of his legal secretary; and after that, having received another letter, in which they made certain statements similar to those now made by the noble Lord, he referred them a second time to his legal secretary, and he believed that an interview took place. It was difficult to ascertain in what proportions this nuisance was to be divided among the several parishes; but as to his statement of 150 acres he begged to point out to their Lordships that the ground they already occupied or asked to take amounted to fifty acres, and that there was a clause in the Bill which enabled them to acquire 100 additional acres. The parish in which this Company's works were situated in the east of London was an example of what might happen to Fulham or Chelsea if this Bill passed into law. There was a time when Bow Common was a pleasant place, but now there was no place which was more avoided than the Common of Bow by persons of sensitive organs. If Fulham and Chelsea were reduced to the condition of Bow Common, not only all the residents of those parishes, but all the inhabitants of the metropolis would have reason to complain. He was given to understand that there were various ways in which gas might be manufactured, and that one of these was at an increased cost of manufacture, but at a decrease of nuisance to the neighbourhood. It was an important public question whether the Companies should be allowed to manufacture gas in the mode most destructive to the health of the metropolis. They were told that this Company would not use its powers to their full extent, and that the law made it impossible that they could adulterate the Thames; but he had had experience of such

865
impossibilities. They consisted in this—that for a very small penalty the Company could violate the law, and in cases in which it was cheaper to pay the penalty and violate the law, the penalty was paid. He had formerly had the misfortune to live near a railway station, where the engines were required to burn coke instead of coal; he saw the law evaded, and the engines burning coal, and when complaints were made the Company laughed at them. He understood that Fulham and Chelsea would not derive any benefit from this increase in the manufacture of gas. The gas was intended for places at a distance. He admitted that for the public benefit there must be gas companies, but he maintained that the manufacture of it ought to he so regulated as not to become a public nuisance. To show the strength of these powerful gas companies, he had heard that the Thames Embankment had been stopped by one of them in consequence of its demands for compensation. If the noble Lord divided the House, he would vote for the rejection of the Bill.
EARL GRANVILLEthought that the House should, in this case, follow the usual course and refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where all the clauses and details would undergo consideration. If the Select Committee failed to secure sufficient protection for the public—a thing that had not occurred within his experience—the Bill could still be rejected on the third reading.
EARL GREYsaid, that the Bill before the House involved consideration of great public importance which could scarcely be finally or satisfactorily decided upon by a Committee of five Members of their Lordships' House. The proposal came before the House, backed by a powerful company, whereas the opponents were private individuals who had no organization suited to bring their case effectively before the Committee. It was evident that the manufacture of gas in towns was in itself a nuisance, and it ought to be ascertained whether the manufacture of gas could not he carried on at a distance from the towns. In reference to such a Bill as the present, he thought that some public Department ought carefully to consider the whole subject, and place their conclusions before the Select Committee, without imposing on private individuals the burden of conducting a protracted opposition to the scheme of a powerful company. With respect to
866
the works of this kind, he regarded the Select Committees of both Houses as most unsatisfactory tribunals, and yet under the name of Private Bills questions of the greatest public importance were decided by those Committees. What was wanted was some kind of tribunal to decide upon Bills which, under the name of Private Bills, sought to authorize works of a public nature, and by which the public health was likely to be affected. In the case of gas companies and water companies competition was impracticable, and any attempt at competition always ended in some compromise at the expense of the public. It would, therefore, be sound policy to adopt the course followed in certain towns, and leave the supply of gas and water to some public body acting on the part of the inhabitants.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he should be sorry if a different course was pursued in the present case than that which was usual with other Private Bills. The question was a difficult one, hut the case for the Company was that the works which they sought to erect were on a site on which they had carried on the manufacture of gas for thirty-five years. If they went to a new place they would only extend the nuisance to that district. There was no doubt but that improvements were taking place in the manufacture of gas, and others might be made, and that the entire subject could be regulated by a Public Act similar to that carried by Lord Derby for restraining the nuisance of alkali works. The Imperial Gas Company had three other establishments in the metropolis for the manufacture of gas, and the 100 acres sought under the Bill were not likely to be required at Chelsea or Fulham. At Fulham already they had nine acres on which gas was manufactured, and they had power to erect additional works on thirteen acres. As they could not prevent the Company from erecting works on the lands over which they had powers, it would be better if the residents in the district would go before the Committee and have such clauses inserted in the Bill as might be thought advisable for the protection of the district likely to be affected by it.
After some observations from Lord RAVENSWORTH and Lord LYTTELTON,
On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided;—Contents 43; Not-Contents 46: Majority 3:—Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2ª this Day Six Months.

CONTENTS.

Cambridge, D.

Belper, L.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bolton, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Cleveland, D.

Camoys, L.

Somerset, D.

Chelmsford, L.

Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

Ailesbury, M.

Cranworth, L.

Belmore, E.

Ebury, L.

Caithness, E.

Foley, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Chichester, E.

Lyveden, L.

De Grey, E.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Granville, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Grey, E.

Harrowby, E.

Portman, L. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Redesdale, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Rivers, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Spencer, E.

Stanhope, E.

Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

Eversley, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Sydney, V.

Taunton, L. [Teller.]

Aveland, L,

Truro, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Dublin, Archp.

Winchester, Bp.

Westmeath, M.

Castlemaine, L.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Amherst, E.

Bandon, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Cardigan, E.

Denman, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Digby, L.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

Dinevor, L.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Home, E,

Mayo, E.

Dusany, L.

Powis, E.

Feversham, L.

Romney, E,

Houghton, L.

Verulam, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

Hawarden, V.

Polwarth, L.

Lifford, V.

Raglan, L.

Melville, V. [Teller.]

Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]

Strathallan, V.

Rollo, L.

Bangor, Bp.

Sherborne, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Silchester L. (E. Longford.)

Chichester, Bp.

Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanriearde.)

London, Bp.

Wentworth, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Wynford, L.

Ripon, Bp.

LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS BILL—(No. 108.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its object was to amend an Act passed in the 24th and 25th of the present reign for the purpose of restricting and regulating the use of locomotives on highways, by
  868
  striking out certain clauses and inserting fuller provisions. The traction engine was a very powerful machine, capable of drawing a great weight; but, at the same time, it was from its nature the cause of much alarm to horses and other animals. On this consideration the 24 & 25 Vict, gave to the Secretary of State power to prohibit or restrain, on the representation of the local authorities, the use of the engine in any locality where it might be attended with danger. The effect of this provision was that the Secretary of State had been appealed to so frequently to exercise this power that a valuable mode of traction was now almost entirely put a stop to. The present Bill attempted to provide a remedy for that state of things. It proposed, among other things, to repeal the 5th clause of the former Act, which gave to the Secretary of State the power which he had described; then the 9th clause, which provided that two persons should be always present with the locomotive; and the 11th, which enacted that the rate of speed should not be more than ten miles in the country and five miles in the town. By the present Bill it was proposed that, instead of two persons, three should be in charge of the engine, one of whom must always be sixty yards in advance, in order to warn the public, and stop the engine when it should be thought necessary. The driver was not to be permitted to sound his whistle for any purpose whatever, or to blow off his steam when the locomotive was on the road. He was also to take care that there should be plenty of space to enable vehicles to pass and to stop whenever signalled to do so by any person using a horse or carriage on the road. The engine was also to carry two efficient lights in front from sunset to sunrise. It was further enacted that a locomotive should not travel at a greater speed than four miles an hour on any turnpike road, or two miles an hour in any town; that no engine shall exceed 9 feet in width and 14 tons in weight. Instead of being placed under the control of the Secretary of State, those engines were in towns to be put under the charge of the local authorities; in the City of London, under that of the Court of Aldermen; and in the metropolis, under the Board of Works. He thought the magistrates in the country should have a corresponding power. If the Bill passed into law, it was to be read together with the former Act, and both were to constitute one Act.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that his noble Friend had stated very clearly the objects of the Bill, but he had passed over the objections to it. The Act which the present Bill proposed to consolidate and amend was in itself objectionable; but inasmuch as the present Bill proposed to remove some of the most valuable restrictions and safeguards with which the Act was guarded, the legislation proposed seemed of much more questionable expediency. In the original Act it was provided that the Secretary of State should have the power of prohibiting or restricting the use of those engines on common roads wherever they were found to be dangerous or inconvenient. That clause was distinctly proposed to be repealed by the Bill; but the House ought to pause before sanctioning so dangerous a proceeding. When they came to consider the precautions provided by the Bill the case did not seem to be much improved. The first was that three persons should accompany the engine, and that there should be a combination of arrangements by which the man in front should signal with his hand to warn those who were approaching, and also to indicate to the driver that he was to stop. The man was not to be more than sixty yards in front; but, under the terms of the provision, he might be not more than five or ten yards, and therefore quite unable to provide against danger; and if so, what became of the safeguard which was to be provided? There was an absolute diminution of safety. Then it was provided that the engine should give as much space as possible, so as to allow vehicles to pass. But inasmuch as those engines were 9 feet wide, it would be exceedingly difficult in the narrow roads which were to be found in so many parts of the country to find any available space for the passage of vehicles. It was forbidden that the drivers should blow off steam; but it was not necessary that the engines should consume their own smoke, and it was quite as dangerous that one of those monsters should puff its smoke in the face of a spirited horse as that the driver should let off the steam. And then the provision with respect to lights appeared only to augment the elements of danger. The precautions, in short, were too elaborate to be practicable, the penalty of £5 was too small, and it would be exceedingly diffi-
  870
  cult to prove a violation of the law. Under these circumstances, he should strongly recommend his noble Friend to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where it might be considered together with the Act now in force, and a measure might be the result which would be free from the objections which he had pointed out.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, his original inclination was to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months; for, objectionable as the present Act might be, the Bill now before the House, by taking away his powers from the Secretary of State, was still more objectionable. Under all the circumstances, however, he thought it would be wise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, as it appeared that its objects and the nature of the provisions of the present Act were not very well understood by their Lordships. At the same time he was convinced that alterations like those proposed by the Bill were very much required. In the first place, the restriction of the hours of travelling to the hours between twelve o'clock at night and six in the morning rendered it almost impracticable to use these machines for agricultural purposes. For instance, it was exceedingly difficult to get the machines into the fields in the darkness of night. He had two machines of his own; but, as his farms laid five miles apart, if the restriction he had mentioned was enforced he should be obliged to abandon the use of these engines. If the Act regulating the travelling of locomotives was allowed to remain unaltered it was impossible that the farmers should bring them into general use. Therefore, while he approved the suggestion to send the Bill to a Select Committee, he also entertained a decided opinion that such a Bill as this was absolutely necessary.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDpointed out that this Bill was an instance of an evil which he had pointed out in other legislation. Clauses and parts of clauses were repealed without any intimation of their effect—other provisions were inserted referring to the provisions of former Acts; and the several Acts were directed to be read together. For instance, in the 5th clause it was provided that "the wheels of such locomotive be constructed according to the requirements of the said recited Act," so that the new Act could not be understood without reference to the former

  871
  Act, a great part of which was repealed. He could not understand why, in cases of this kind, the existing Acts should not be repealed altogether, and the enactments intended to be continued inserted in the new Bill, so that every Act should be complete in itself.
  THE EARL OF CAITHNESSwished, as one who had had experience in the management of locomotives on common roads, to say a few words. He had himself driven an engine from Inverness to John o'Groat's, a distance of 160 miles, without frightening a single horse. He had no doubt frightened many people; but any horse that had been alarmed had been so by the efforts made to get it out of the way so that it might not see the engine, which was thought to be a very formidable object. When a carter saw the engine coming the first thing he did was to seize hold of his horse's head and give it a tremendous shaking. To say that these engines could travel upon common roads free from the danger of frightening horses would not be correct; but if they were driven with proper care, and with proper regard to what might be met upon the road, he believed that they could pass along with perfect safety. He thought that the provision that there should be a man sixty yards in front of the engine was a good one; but still if the driver would do as he (the Earl of Caithn e) had done when he saw a horse ahead—shut off the steam—that would be all that was required. To show the importance of these engines he would mention that the cost of haulage was as ten to one in favour of engines as compared with horses. He was much more in favour of locomotives travelling by day than by night, for by night he thought that accidents were most likely to occur. He thought that power should be given to some authority to place certain restrictions upon the use of these engines; but still some of the restrictions which now existed tended to prevent farmers from making use of them. Mr. Howard, of Bedford, had informed him that he had driven locomotives on common roads for years without any accident; and any carelessness on the part of drivers could be guarded against by penalties. Another point to consider was, that one of these engines could draw forty tons within the space of the engine, while with horse power they would want a team of thirty or forty horses covering the space of a quarter of a mile. Sometimes railways ran fifty or sixty miles by the side of the
  872
  common road, and he never knew a case in which horses had been frightened by the engines, and surely locomotives travelling on common roads were not so dangerous as railway engines travelling on the railway at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour. He supported the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee; for lie thought that if undue obstructions were thrown on the travelling of these engines on the roads the farmers would be compelled to abandon the use of them.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that in deference to the wishes of their Lordships he would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2ª, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And on Monday, June 12, the Lords following were named of the Committee—

  D. Richmond.

  E. Romney.

  D. Sutherland.

  V. Melville.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Eversley.

  E. Caithness.

  L. Silchester.

  E. Hardwicke.

  L. Rossie.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  And on Tuesday, June 13, L. Harris added in the Place of D. Sutherland, E. De Grey in the Place of L. Stanley of Alderley, and E. Ducie, V. Strathallan, L. Calthorpe, and L. Wenlock added.

CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTION BILL.

  (NO. 111.)—SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in rising to move the second reading of the Bill, said, he would remind their Lordships that in consequence of the frequent discussions that had taken place on the subject of Clerical Subscription, Her Majesty's Government had thought it expedient to issue a Commission to inquire into the subject. The Commission was a very numerous one. It comprised many Members of their Lordships' House, four Archbishops, some other clergymen, and several laymen; and he might, he believed, say that the composition of that Commission inspired general confidence. Great attention was given to the subject, and he was happy to say that the conclusions to which the Commission came were the result of the unanimous opinion of the Members. The present Bill was founded on the recommendations of the Commission, and he hoped that it would meet with that reception at their Lordships' hands to which he believed if was fully entitled. It was the source ot much satisfaction to Her Majesty's Go-

  873
  vernment that the Bill had met with the concurrence of so many members of the Church of England. Although the Government did not think it necessary to consult Convocation upon the subject, he might say that the Convocation of York had addressed a memorial to the Queen, praying that legal measures might be taken for carrying out the recommendations of the Commission.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, agreed to: Bill read 2ª accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, who apparently had not observed that the Question had been put and agreed to, rose to address the House; and His Grace was, by the indulgence of the House, allowed to be heard, and said, that he rose not to make any observations on the Bill, but having been Chairman of that Commission to which his noble Friend had referred, he was anxious to express his great satisfaction that the Government had brought forward a Bill so entirely in concurrence with the Report of that Commission. It certainly was a matter of congratulation, that considering the Commission was composed of persons representing every shade of opinion, political as well as religious, within the pale of the Church of England, their recommendations should have been unanimous. The Commission was appointed to consider and revise the various subscriptions and declarations made by the clergy consistently with the declared agreement made by the clergy in the Church and its formularies. That they had endeavoured by the Report to do. There was, no doubt, a great multiplicity of subscriptions and declarations, and it had been endeavoured to bring them all under one form. He could not imagine that their Lordships would find any difficulty in giving the Bill a second reading.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving that the Second Report from the Select Committee on the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod be considered, desired to direct their Lordships' attention to the present large amount of Public and Private business before Parliament. As yet only twelve Bills had received the Royal
  874
  Assent, and there were a great number of Bills coming up from the other House. The number of Private Bills in their Lordships' House was unusually great, and an extraordinary number would probably be sent up from the other House at the very end of the Session. As their Lordships had determined not to give a second reading to any Private Bill after the 29th of March, it was necessary that they should make some arrangement for the proper despatch of the business. As the gentleman who had been connected with this Department for thirty-two years was not now equal to the great amount of work which would devolve upon him, he hoped their Lordships would consent to his receiving the temporary assistance of some barrister at a remuneration not exceeding 200 guineas.
  Report considered, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.